3 main points of this article, tell me if i am wrong:

1) many came to taiwan before chinese came

2) chinese (and others as well) exploited and abused taiwan

3) the living standard and political system in taiwan is better than (mainland) china

conclution of this article:

was or should taiwan be a part of china?

January 18, 2005 @ 6:35 pm | Comment

taiwan secessionism is a bay.

smart people will spend time to figure out a solution that makes both sides feel acceptable.

1) many came to taiwan before chinese came

TODAY, those people living in taiwan don’t speak portuguese, dutch, spanish, french or japanese. they speak CHINESE

2) chinese (and others as well) exploited and abused taiwan

not convincing.

and i doubt those aboriginal tribes will treat taiwan very well.

in your logic, japanese should not live in japan, because japanese government exploited and abused japan so much, actually they let japanese to be the only people in this planet to be nuked.

3) the living standard and political system in taiwan is better than (mainland) china

at the first glancce, make sense. but how about shanghai? is shanghai a part of china? or carlifornia, is it a part of the states?

in short, i feel very uncomfortable with the way this article is developed.

basically there are two types of history writing:

1) first you analyse facts, then you draw conclusion

2) first you have your own conclusion, then find facts to back up your conclusion

i feel very uncomfortable with the second style.

January 18, 2005 @ 7:28 pm | Comment

What Taiwan was is of little relevance and no consequance. What Taiwan is to be will ultimately be decided by the interplay of power, not specious history lessons.

January 18, 2005 @ 7:30 pm | Comment

“The fleeing Ming loyalists came later led by Koxinga (Zheng Ch’eng-gong). After a 9-month siege they forced the Dutch to leave and they planted their flag in 1662. They did not come because they wanted to; they were running from the Manchus who were taking over Ming China. They needed a refuge from which they could hope to retake China. To do that they needed to control and exploit the island. They only controlled a small part.

The Manchu Qing navies under Shi Lang followed the Ming. In a short time they took Penghu and forced the surrender of the Ming on Taiwan. They did not really care for the island; they stayed because they did not want any Ming supporters to return. To do that they needed to control the island, so they planted their flag in 1683 and garrisoned the western side, at times encouraging settlement and at other times discouraging it. Again, these settlers, mostly male, intermarried with aborigines.”

Jerome said it himself, Taiwan has been under the Chinese rule since some 300 years ago. Where was USA in 1683?

You can spin on historic facts, but you can’t change the fact that Taiwan was and is a part of China.

January 18, 2005 @ 8:20 pm | Comment

The matter of this issue is never Taiwan not part of China, but Taiwanese do not want to be ruled by the Communists.

January 18, 2005 @ 8:24 pm | Comment

Jerome,

At least you didn’t use right-out lies like Taiwan means foreigners in the aborigine’s language. OR the Dutch DISCOVERED Taiwan with no Chinese living in it.

January 18, 2005 @ 8:28 pm | Comment

“1) many came to taiwan before chinese came

TODAY, those people living in taiwan don’t speak portuguese, dutch, spanish, french or japanese. they speak CHINESE”

What exactly is your point here? I speak English, but I’m not from the UK. Languages and states are not the same thing.

The point seems to always come down to this: Is “China” a culture, a civilization, or the People’s Republic of China?

If you tell me that China is a culture or a civilization, then I see no problem with several sovereign states being considered “Chinese” or “China”.

You hear a lot about ‘Western culture’ this or ‘Western civilization’ that, but I have news for you: the ‘West’ isn’t one country. If China is a major world civilization, it can definitely exist within different sovereign states.

Just my humble opinion.

January 18, 2005 @ 8:29 pm | Comment

Patrick,

what you said is absolutelly correct.

there are a few independent countries heavily influenced by chinese culture, like japan, korea, vietnam, etc.

but taiwan is quite different, taiwan was and still is a natural part of the chinese nation. the language is just a very small proof how closely taiwan is connected with the chinese nation.

______________

in jerome’s logic, i would ask this question: was soctland a part of britain and should it be a part of britain? you can just apply this into many countries in the world.

it’s just baseless

January 18, 2005 @ 8:41 pm | Comment

Patrick,

Do you know the meaning of Da yi Tong? If you don’t know it, you don’t understand Chinese history. You may know a bunch of historical facts but you don’t understand the history.

January 18, 2005 @ 8:43 pm | Comment

Jerome,

“It doesn’t end there. Now another outsider, the People’s Republic of China (PRC), says it wants to come and control the island. ”

The only people who have the right to say that are the original inhabitants of the island. Am I right? These people complaining about the arrival of KMT are descendents of the earlier Chinese settlers.

January 18, 2005 @ 8:53 pm | Comment

TODAY, those people living in taiwan don’t speak portuguese, dutch, spanish, french or japanese. they speak CHINESE.

What exactly do you mean by that? If you mean Putonghua, or the official Beijing dialect, no they don’t. The majority of people speak Taiwanese, especially the further south you go, and the Chinese spoken here is as different from Beijing hua and Mandarin spoken in Guangdong is.

One thing that such as statement as ‘they speak CHINESE’ is guilty of is dissembling, underlying which is the promulgation of the one-China fantasy.

Places are and remain part of countries because of identity, not because of some egomanical political monomania. Taiwan, irrespective of its past is a soverign nation because it has chosen to be and when China grows up and stops acting like a paranoid high-school bully it might be able to respect this. Until then, the main export of China across Asia is to sow distrust of it in all of its neighbours.

January 18, 2005 @ 8:53 pm | Comment

Frances,

Taiwanese is the same as Min Nan Hua spoken in Fukian province. Do you consider Min Nan Hua or Cantonese a Chinese language?

January 18, 2005 @ 9:01 pm | Comment

One thing that such as statement as ‘they speak CHINESE’ is guilty of is dissembling, underlying which is the promulgation of the one-China fantasy.

One-China is not a fantasy, it is the reality. Da Lu is China, Taiwan is China. There is still only one China but with two different governments.

January 18, 2005 @ 9:07 pm | Comment

JR,

Thanks for avoiding a constructive criticism of my comment by insulting my intelligence.

Somehow, “you don’t understand” has lost its power as a counter-argument, at least in my books.

I know, I know, how could a non-Chinese person ever know ANYTHING about China? Sigh….

January 18, 2005 @ 9:09 pm | Comment

“Taiwan, irrespective of its past is a >> because it has chosen to be …”

Sorry to say that Frances, but this is such an ignorant hyperbole, it does not merit a response.

January 18, 2005 @ 9:11 pm | Comment

Patrick,

Don’t get upset, you just need to do a better research before you give your opinion on the issue. If I don’t understand the full history and background of Israel, I won’t criticize or take side on that issue.

January 18, 2005 @ 9:14 pm | Comment

what taiwanese speak IS chinese, it is called minnan dialect or putonghua (mandarin)

what i speak IS also chinese, it is called shanghai dialect

what my mom speaks IS also chinese, it is called shandong dialect.

don’t confuse non-chinese readers.

and taiwan’s writing system is CHINESE, don’t tell me there is a different writing system there.

January 18, 2005 @ 9:17 pm | Comment

taiwan people speak chinese is just a FACT.

if somebody is trying to lie to yourself in these matters. s/he already dies.

January 18, 2005 @ 9:20 pm | Comment

Patrick,

I mention the words Da Yi Tong, if you want to understand the Chinese-ness of this issue. Knowing those words will help you understand the mentality behind the One China phenomenon.

January 18, 2005 @ 9:25 pm | Comment

“The Taiwanese have their own experience of what Taiwan has always been.” And the beautiful story goes on and on and on….

But, since when did Taiwanese people have Mr. Keating as their representative to voice such a unified opinion of theirs?

To be honest, I almost laughed my rear off, and wondered where did he find all this good stuff. And, I stopped reading this article right there and then.

The most widely accepted opinion…let me think…wouldn’t the Taiwanese history books be the best reference?

So my suggestion is, for those who really, I mean…REALY want to know what Taiwanese people think about this whole issue, go buy one of those and read it.

But…does it really matter what they think? Hmmmm…. don’t know, I just live here.

January 18, 2005 @ 9:31 pm | Comment

Patrick,

Chinese people respect and cherish written words, they like to quote and use idioms and proverbs to define a name, a situation, and a way of life. When they do that, they reach a consensus of how things should be.
For example, What is a daughter to the Chinese people, Chinese refer a daughter to “a thousand pieces of gold.” When you understand these words, you understand Chinese mentality.

January 18, 2005 @ 9:49 pm | Comment

“But, since when did Taiwanese people have Mr. Keating as their representative to voice such a unified opinion of theirs?”

This is so true, we all know what his agenda is though.

January 18, 2005 @ 10:01 pm | Comment

Curious. The treaty of 1905 handed Formosa to Japan as I understand it. Was there any reversion of Formosa to China in the treaty with Japan that ended WWII? If so, it was probably to the Nationalist government of China, not the horrible Communists. Since the Communists have not defeated the controling power on Taiwan its only claim is based on power, not on “legal” rights. This is a proposition, so fire away and tell me why I am wrong.

January 18, 2005 @ 10:12 pm | Comment

Japan annexed Ryu Kyu islands in 1879 and Taiwan in 1895.

I remember reading stories in Taiwan about the Japanese invaders cooked and boiled tens of thousands of Ryu Kyu people to death.

January 18, 2005 @ 10:38 pm | Comment

Richard: I begin to love conspiracy theory now. Every time you need some traffic to your site, simply saying something about China-Taiwan tension never disappoints you 🙂

Ok, back to the confirmation hearing today. I just can’t help loving Sen. Barbara Boxer for her passion when she grilled Condi – sorry. And Joseph Biden made a *rare* comparison:

“China’s human rights record is just as bad as, say Iran’s.”

So the sound bite is back on the hill. Thanks for the lip service, but Condi didn’t echo that.

January 18, 2005 @ 10:39 pm | Comment

Hey JR, instead of telling us to go find out what da yi tong means, why don’t you actually explain it to us? Oh, and characters (or at least tone markers) help. I can think of a couple of possibilities: 大一同 and 大一统. Both would suggest everybody coming together in one big happy family, but none of my dictionaries give a really good English definition. Got one handy?

January 18, 2005 @ 11:00 pm | Comment

Dave,

It is the latter.

Da yi tong is not an abstract idea, but it is a complicated subject. With Confucius and Li shi’s influence, it refers to Chinese history starting from the first emperor. It stresses the importance of a unified Chinese culture, the same ideal cherished and practised by most dynasties in Chinese history.

It is about culture, to unified the Chinese culture under one direction. People should oblige oneself to the common morals for a harmonious society. It is the norm to balance the extremists and settle conflicts.

In politics and policy making, Da yi tong is an ideal and a reality for being one family, one government and one country. It means an unified country, a single centralized government and a standardized system to maintain the law and order of the the country.

January 18, 2005 @ 11:31 pm | Comment

While I sympathize with those in Taiwan who wish to remain independent of Mainland China, I cannot accept at present that Taiwan is not “chinese”. Ignoring the fact that all living languages, cultures, and even races change/evolve, the fact remains that the Taiwanese language, culture, and racial composition remain essentially “chinese”, whatever other strains may lie therein. More importantly, Taiwan still styles itself the “Republic of China”. Outsiders beyond China may sympathize passionately with either side of this argument, but one fact remains. China as a power is ascendent. It is modernizing what was the world’s largest military museum to become an armed force capable of taking its place on the world stage, and of projecting its power across the Straits of Taiwan. Barring an historic upheaval that derails this trend, that event is going to happen. Taiwan will be returned to China by threat, intimidation, or force. And while it is in Taiwan’s interest to put off that day for as long as possible, it will in the end be viewed as a conflict between Chinese.

January 18, 2005 @ 11:58 pm | Comment

P.S.
Da = Grand
Yi = ONE
Tong = Unification

The end is to create one grand unified, harmonious and peaceful country.

January 18, 2005 @ 11:59 pm | Comment

Da Yi Tong sounds exactly like Da Dong Ya Gong Rong Quan (Great East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere), the pretext the Imperial Japan used in WW II to launch aggression towards China and Southeast Asia nations.

Is it now also called Peaceful Rising?

January 19, 2005 @ 1:01 am | Comment

What Taiwan was is of little relevance and no consequance. What Taiwan is to be will ultimately be decided by the interplay of power, not specious history lessons.

(I hope html tags work)

That seems to echo an impression I often get from Chinese on this issue. It doesn’t matter what the Taiwanese think, it only matters who is the strongest.

I’m french. There are some people in Corsica who want to seperate. They were blowing up bombs and suchlike.

I don’t remember anybody in France saying something like “Who cares, France has a big army and we can kick their ass.”

January 19, 2005 @ 1:10 am | Comment

emile,

i always think you are a chinese girl from taiwan, who somewhat has sympathy to taiwan secessionism.

January 19, 2005 @ 1:13 am | Comment

i remember a french historian (and also a professor) wrote a small book on the european idiosyncracy, and “individualism” and “diversity” are among the most remarkables.

the european history provides me a very good frame of reference to reflect on the pros and cons of a unified chinese nation.

in that book, the author cited many great contributions by europeans due to their diversities and balance of powers. but i have noticed that he failed to tell the other side of the story – wars and conflicts between various political, religious, national entities.

i think perhaps many of you have seen the movie HERO directed by Zhang Yimou. in that movie, the emperor qinshi of chinese qin dynasty told the audience that he launched wars to unify china in order to prevent more wars among various chinese states in the future. that explains the true essence of Da Yi Tong.

well, i personally think Da Yi Tong brought more damages than benefits to chinese nation, it destroies the creativities of chinese people and level the diversities among different regions. but no doubt it also represented a lot of good things in chinese history. and most important, that is the tradition, or mode of thinking here in china.

when patrick is trying to apply his concept of “civiliazation” and “nation”, he obviously doesn’t notice the huge difference between the east and west in terms of the relationship between “group” and “individual”.

and what JR did is just pointing out this difference, without this background knowledge, it is somewhat half-baked in understanding taiwan issue, and not mention to develop a way to solve the problem.

taiwan is part of a chinese nation, this is a basic fact. and how to balance the unification and diversity, the interest of china and others affected, most important, how to protect taiwan people and let them enjoy the good things they have now, this is the challenge we face.

but too often people are still arguing on such stupid things like is taiwan a part of china. this is just wasting time. taiwan secessionsim is a blind lane. trying to strike a head into a steel wall will not work. it’s not because mainland china is powerful or not, it is because taiwan is part of a chinese nation, and taiwan will never and never become a foreign country as some people hoped.

January 19, 2005 @ 1:56 am | Comment

bingfeng, I’m a girl from taiwan now ? Was that an attempt at humour ? Was it supposed to be an insult ?

January 19, 2005 @ 2:16 am | Comment

Whether or not Taiwan is culturally Chinese seems to me to have very little bearing on whether or not it is “naturally” a part of China the state.

That would make Nei Menggu part of Mongolia and also explains why the French government still controls Quebec.

Oh, hang on…

January 19, 2005 @ 2:22 am | Comment

emile,

no intent to insult. i have visited your site for only once and found you write in chinese too. i didn’t realize that you are from france.

sorry for the misunderstanding.

January 19, 2005 @ 2:22 am | Comment

I notice that everybody is busy arguing about language, culture and calander, but nobody is actually asking people with Taiwanese birth certificates what they think.

What do the majority of people, of all backgrounds, who were actually born on Taiwan think. Do they think that they are part of China? Do they even want to be part of China?

Maybe the world would have been better off if Japan had just been allowed to keep Taiwan. At least it would be obvious who to blame then.

On the other side, shouldn’t the question be, is China part of Taiwan, because as far as many seperatists are concerned the Taiwanese governemnt is the successor of the former Chinese.

January 19, 2005 @ 2:23 am | Comment

most taiwanese don’t want to be a part of a communist country. basically that’s it.

some people want to mislead the world by saying that most taiwanese don’t think they belong to a chinese nation.

yes. some people have a dream, a day dream.

January 19, 2005 @ 2:31 am | Comment

JR

One China is a convenient tool for keeping Beijing happy. Many countries have seperate vias requirements for Mainland China and Taiwan, the arms embargo emposed on China doesn’t cover Taiwan, in fact the US is selling tonnes of military equippment ot Taiwan that it won’t allow companies to sell to China. There are even seperate stock market listings for China and Taiwan. Even China its self only pays lip service to one China. I still need a visa to enter China from Taiwan, explain this.

If China weren’t so big, and if its economy wasn’t so important, there wold be two or maybe even three or four China’s by now.

One China exists becasue Beijing is a world player, but it is a polite fantasy that many world governemnts like to step around when it suits them.

January 19, 2005 @ 2:31 am | Comment

Emile

Don’t worry, Bingfeng still believes that I am Japanese, not wait, I am Japanese, or was that Taiwaness, or am I mainland Chinese. Its a pitty all us Asians look so much alike, no wait, am I Asian? Where is my mirror?

I’ve been called every nationality under the sun by people like Bingfeng. He likes to shoebox people.

January 19, 2005 @ 2:36 am | Comment

“Bingfeng still believes that I am Japanese”

where did you get this impression?

i noticed that some others say you are a japanese.

i never said that you are a japanese.

as for emile, it’s my impression that she writes in her blog in chinese, so i think she is from taiwan. and i didn’t relate that with anything else.

January 19, 2005 @ 2:44 am | Comment

http://blog.bcchinese.net/bingfeng/archive/2005/01/15/7803.aspx

in my blog, i have never mentioned ACB, how can i “insist on believing he is a japanese”?

January 19, 2005 @ 3:04 am | Comment

About as much intelligent discussion here as I’d expect 🙂

I’m interested in what the “Da Yi Tong” group think about (Outer) Mongolia and North Korea – part of the grand unification plan?

January 19, 2005 @ 3:14 am | Comment

Bah. Taiwan is a convenient tool to keep people focused on nationalist nonsense rather than looking at political change. It’s also an insurance policy. There’s no way Beijing will ever invade while things are going well on the mainland; it would risk fucking up the economy whatever happened, and massive loss of face if the invasion failed, and the chance of serious political dissent at home stemming from teh first or second possibilities.

However, if the economy ever seriously stumbles and people’s anger turns against the government – then the invasion of Taiwan will provide a way to unite everyone behind a temporary feeling of national pride. It’s a political insurance policy.

J.

January 19, 2005 @ 3:45 am | Comment

David,

It is very simple, nobody wants Mongolia or North Korea to be part of China. I am surprised you didn’t throw in Singapore as usual.

January 19, 2005 @ 4:17 am | Comment

bingfeng : Heh, I’m a guy, and I’m not even asian 🙂 (You probably noticed that whatever Chinese I wrote was quite poor).

January 19, 2005 @ 4:20 am | Comment

“well, i personally think Da Yi Tong brought more damages than benefits to chinese nation, it destroies the creativities of chinese people and level the diversities among different regions. but no doubt it also represented a lot of good things in chinese history. and most important, that is the tradition, or mode of thinking here in china.”

Was it Mao Zedong or Zhou Enlai idea not to take back Hong Kong in the 1960s, when the Brits offered Hong Kong back to China? I think they had your point in mind then. It is all about timing.

January 19, 2005 @ 4:59 am | Comment

The last post was to Bingfeng

January 19, 2005 @ 5:02 am | Comment

ACB,

Regardless of the US arms sale to Taiwan, the Bush White House still considers there is only one China. The talk about Visa, stock market and all is pretty pointless, the Taiwan situation is the same as in Hong Kong. They have their own Visa and stock market.

January 19, 2005 @ 5:08 am | Comment

JR,

I know was 大一统 is, but thanks for trying to explain it better.

Anyways, the whole Taiwan/China issue has echoes from my own life as I grew in Quebec, in Canada.

But in the end, all this talk about unity and family forgets that states are human constructs. Borders aren’t set in stone: people change, countries change, ideas change…and you can’t tell me that China isn’t changing! 🙂

I need some more context in this instance: why do you find the idea of a separate Taiwan so threatening? I’m not trying to be provocative, but honestly trying to understand various opinions on this issue.

And please refrain from lofty historical claims and murky concepts of unity: in 2005, in this day and age, why is the idea of a separate Taiwan so bad?

Again, not trying to cause a fight, just get some opinions.

January 19, 2005 @ 5:24 am | Comment

JR,

“nobody wants Mongolia or North Korea to be part of China”

Why not? What makes one part of the Qing empire Chinese and not another? As far as I can make out, noone was really interested in Taiwan being part of China until Churchill and Roosevelt decided that it should be given to CKS as spoils of war…

January 19, 2005 @ 5:43 am | Comment

Patrick,

I mentioned my stand on this issue a couple of times before. I don’t support a war between the Chinese people.

You sound like you support the independence of Quebec, I know a lot of Canadians here who think otherwise.

January 19, 2005 @ 5:53 am | Comment

David,

Korea was never part of China. Please check your facts.

“As far as I can make out, noone was really interested in Taiwan being part of China until Churchill and Roosevelt decided that it should be given to CKS as spoils of war…”

This is such a ridiculous claim, now you want to tell me Chiang Kai Sheik didn’t want to take back Taiwan after the war?

January 19, 2005 @ 5:58 am | Comment

The PRC makes similar claims about Tibet (according to Beijing, Tibet was part of China for 700 years).

Is Tibet also part of Da Yi Tong?

January 19, 2005 @ 6:05 am | Comment

Boo,

Yes of course, Tibet was/ is a part of China. Read the map of Qing dynasty.

January 19, 2005 @ 6:10 am | Comment

Actually, I don’t support Quebec separatism. But I would accept a decision by the majority of the population in Quebec to form their own country (my “new” country, I guess), and deal with it.

January 19, 2005 @ 6:15 am | Comment

JR says:

In politics and policy making, Da yi tong is an ideal and a reality for being one family, one government and one country.

Lirelou says:

While I sympathize with those in Taiwan who wish to remain independent of Mainland China, I cannot accept at present that Taiwan is not “chinese”. Ignoring the fact that all living languages, cultures, and even races change/evolve, the fact remains that the Taiwanese language, culture, and racial composition remain essentially “chinese”, whatever other strains may lie therein.

bingfeng says:

taiwan is part of a chinese nation, this is a basic fact.

some people want to mislead the world by saying that most taiwanese don’t think they belong to a chinese nation.

and then there’s this exchange between Boo and JR:

The PRC makes similar claims about Tibet (according to Beijing, Tibet was part of China for 700 years).

Is Tibet also part of Da Yi Tong?

Yes of course, Tibet was/ is a part of China. Read the map of Qing dynasty.

Now I’m not saying you are all saying the same thing, but there’s this common thread that beyond the idea of a single Chinese state, there’s this idea of a single Chinese “nation”, which goes beyond the state and refers to a common people. The Taiwanese are Chinese, as Lirelou says, because “language, culture, and racial composition remain essentially “chinese””. Is this how you define a group of people as one “nation”?

Because if that’s true, while you may be able to link Taiwanese and even Tibetan culture to Chinese culture, I’d ask how Da Yi Tong and this idea of a common nation manage to include the Uighurs out here in Xinjiang. They fail every test so far that I’ve seen of being Chinese – no common language, culture or racial makeup. And if anybody was wondering, none of them like the idea of being “Chinese”. In fact, I haven’t met one Uighur who didn’t find the idea offensive, and while I haven’t met any splittists, personally, if they woke up tomorrow and were magically not part of the PRC, they’d be damn happy.

So if Da Yi Tong is about uniting one family, what are the attitudes of Chinese philosophy and thought to… what should we call them? Neighbors? Roommates? In-laws (Xiangfei et al.)?

Same for the Tibetans, the Hmong, the Mongols… sure, you could make an argument for all these areas of China to be part of the “state”, cite Qing, Tang, Han dynasty territory, whatever. But I don’t see how they make it into the “nation”, much less a big united family. Maybe those last three you can call “cousins”, but the Uighurs seem like the adopted black sheep of the family.

January 19, 2005 @ 7:25 am | Comment

If mainlanders want to unify so badly … why not unite under Taiwan’s government?

Seems like Taiwanese and mainlanders would both gain. Win-win situation!

But many mainlanders don’t like that idea because they don’t want to give up their government.

Yet that is exactly what they are asking of the Taiwanese. 🙁

January 19, 2005 @ 8:24 am | Comment

For those who can read Chinese, there is a critical analysis of Da Yi Tong done by Chinese scholars in 80s:

http://www.easysea.com/zongjiao/jgtlxf-xsywj/index.htm

Much more educational than the ultra-nationalist ‘theory’ inundates here.

January 19, 2005 @ 8:29 am | Comment

bellevue,

‘Da Yi Tong sounds exactly like Da Dong Ya Gong Rong Quan (Great East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere), the pretext the Imperial Japan used in WW II to launch aggression towards China and Southeast Asia nations.”

I don’t expect ivory tusks coming from your mouth. When you have something to say, it is almost always obnoxious and negative towards the Chinese people. It is insulting to compare a 2200 years old Chinese idea to Japanese Fascist imperialism. Da yi tong may not be perfect but it is not ultra nationalism. For the record, Chinese don’t have a history of invading other countries, cutting off people’s nose and ears and cook people alive and boil them into paste.

January 19, 2005 @ 8:48 am | Comment

Yep, one thing I always can’t understand is which definition of “What should be part of China” manages to cover both Xinjiang, Tibet and Taiwan.

January 19, 2005 @ 8:51 am | Comment

JR : When the concept of “Da Yi Tong” appeared neither Taiwan nor Tibet were in any way Chinese. Or does the Da Yi Tong principle also include a “bigger and bigger” clause ?

January 19, 2005 @ 8:54 am | Comment

“If mainlanders want to unify so badly … why not unite under Taiwan’s government?”

I have no problems with that at all.

January 19, 2005 @ 8:57 am | Comment

Shanghai Slim makes a wonderful point. I also want to draw attention to an earlier point made by Frances, whioch I feel hits the nail on the head:

Places are and remain part of countries because of identity, not because of some egomanical political monomania. Taiwan, irrespective of its past is a soverign nation because it has chosen to be and when China grows up and stops acting like a paranoid high-school bully it might be able to respect this. Until then, the main export of China across Asia is to sow distrust of it in all of its neighbours.

Monomania — that says it all.

January 19, 2005 @ 8:58 am | Comment

Emile,

Different ethnic groups formed, expanded, intermingled and assimilated in the past. The Chinese territories and population changed over the last 2000+ years, sometimes smaller sometimes bigger. However the idea of Da yi tong has always been the same.

January 19, 2005 @ 9:05 am | Comment

Richard,

Da yi tong is by no means a monomania. There is a Chinese proverb “Ren xin gui han” concluding the situation. It pretty much represents the sentiments of most Chinese in China, Hong Kong, Taiwan or America.

January 19, 2005 @ 9:18 am | Comment

If I understand correctly, Da Yi Tong is roughly what we are seing in Europe now (Where there is also much debate as what is really European” – Russia ? Turkey ?).

Modern day political innovations (democracy, international law) allow to do peacfully what was once could only be done by the strength of arms. Unification through violence, or the threat of it, is not the only way any more, so it looses it’s justification.

Europe is succeeding where China isn’t. China’s heavy-handed methods are not compatible with it’s aim of being a respected global player.

January 19, 2005 @ 9:22 am | Comment

Richard,

Do you consider zionism a monomania???

January 19, 2005 @ 9:23 am | Comment

If I understand correctly, Da Yi Tong is roughly what we are seing in Europe now (Where there is also much debate as what is really European” – Russia ? Turkey ?).

Remember Queen’s song “one vision”

One man one goal one mission
One heart one soal just one solution
One flash of light yeah one god one vision

One flesh one bone
One true religion
One voice one hope
One real decision
Wowowowo gimme one vision

No wrong no right
I’m gonna tell you there’s no black and no white
No blood no stain
All we need is one world wide vision

I had a dream
When I was young
A dream of sweet illusion
A glimpse of hope and unity
And visions of one sweet union
But a cold wind blows
And a dark rain falls
And in my heart it shows
Look what they’ve done to my dreams

So give me your hands
Give me your hearts
I’m ready
There’s only one direction
One world one nation
Yeah one vision”

January 19, 2005 @ 9:26 am | Comment

PS.
I think people should understand the concept of being ONE. Even John Edwards talked about it in the DNC.

January 19, 2005 @ 9:28 am | Comment

Yeah, come on over to Urumqi and you can explain being ONE to all my Uighur friends. I’m sure they’ll come right around to being happily ONE with China.

Ever hear of the Abolition of Man by C.S. Lewis? Who decides which ONE we’re all suppose to be? And if we’re all ONE, are we still human?

January 19, 2005 @ 10:13 am | Comment

By the way, that Queen song can be interpreted three ways (and I’ve heard they intended it that way, though originally it was about Martin Luther King):

a) we’re all human no matter what or differences

or, what you seem to imply:

b) one vision will dominate and eliminate all others (many have interpreted the song to be a warning against fascism)

or, as Freddie sang in the documentary “The Magic Years” while recording the song:

c) “One clam, one fish, one fried egg sandwich….”

January 19, 2005 @ 10:20 am | Comment

Do you consider zionism a monomania???

Sometimes, yes, I’m afraid I do.

January 19, 2005 @ 10:22 am | Comment

Da yi tong is by no means a monomania.

JR, I never said Da yi tong is monomaniacal; I don’t know enough about it to say that. I was quoting from another commenter, who sees China’s claims to Taiwan as monomaniacal, and that sounds right to me. Her comment was posted before the da ti yong discussion even started.

January 19, 2005 @ 10:25 am | Comment

Yeah, come on over to Urumqi and you can explain being ONE to all my Uighur friends. I’m sure they’ll come right around to being happily ONE with China.

China can learn a lot from the American experiences with the Native people. Love love love…

January 19, 2005 @ 10:29 am | Comment

Richard,

Cool
=)

January 19, 2005 @ 10:30 am | Comment

Was that sarcasm, JR? If you mean China can learn from U.S. (or Australian or South African) mistakes, damn straight.

Haven’t seen that yet though. In the U.S. and pretty much all instances of European colonialism, assimilation (the first, brief step before extermination) was making the locals ONE… usually that meant making them Christian so that they were the same.

On November 26 in the New York Times, there was an article about Mongolian rock music (I won’t bother to link since you can only read it if you pay, though I have the article saved if anybody wants it). Here’s a nice assimilation quote for you:

“We don’t have an Inner Mongolian problem,” a Chinese diplomat in the region said in an interview. “Most of the Inner Mongolian population has been ‘Han-ized.’ They speak Chinese, think like Chinese. Hohhot is like any other Chinese city.”

Nice… I guess that’s what it means to be ONE, huh? Everybody goes Han. Sounds like a conquistador to me.

January 19, 2005 @ 10:47 am | Comment

Dave,

That Han doesn’t mean the Han Chinese, but the Han dynasty. When a country becomes strong and prosperous like in the Han dynasty, the heart of people will return.

January 19, 2005 @ 10:57 am | Comment

JR : I have no problem with unification. Heck, I have no problem with a world government.

The problem I have is with unification by threat of violence. That’s barbaric, and it sucks, sorry. And most people outside China who are even a little bit informed about the situation will think the same thing. Unification through guns sucks, and is not moral.

Most chinese people seem to be protected from this information, and somehow believe that foreigners either agree with the One China Policy, or hate and fear China and want to see it divided and weak.

The advantage of a totalitarian government is that it’s much easier to get everybody real emotional about a subject, and to cynically use that as a strategic advantage (“our people are so angry ! we have no choice !”), as well as a pressure realease valve (“don’t worry about AIDS / inequalities / pollution ! Worry about Taiwan !”).

So I’m sorry to tell you that you will find very few non-chinese who don’t consider unification by threat of violence completely uncool.

January 19, 2005 @ 11:09 am | Comment

Dave,

The inner Mongolia is a different story. Georgraphically, the Gobi desert divides Mongolia into two parts. During the Qing dynasty, like Manchu from the North East, Mongol nomads from south of Gobi migrated southwards below the yellow river and the Mongol ruling princes married to Manchu and Han Chinese and moved to the capital Peking. Before Mongolia was a country, the Inner Mongols were given a chance to unite with the north but they prefered to stay with the Han Chinese.

Many Han Chinese moved to the Manchu proper, Inner Mongolia and Outer Mangolia. Hohhot was a city founded by the Han Chinese in the 19th Century.

January 19, 2005 @ 11:10 am | Comment

JR : do you seriously expect anybody to swallow that Han stuff ?

Are you saying “they speak chinese, they think like chinese” means “Things are as good as they were during the Han dynasty” ?

How stupid do you really think we are ?

January 19, 2005 @ 11:12 am | Comment

Emile,

I don’t think threats or violence will work either. I think CCP is mostly to blame for the current situation.

January 19, 2005 @ 11:13 am | Comment

Are you saying “they speak chinese, they think like chinese” means “Things are as good as they were during the Han dynasty” ?

Where do you get that??? Please scroll back and re-read.

January 19, 2005 @ 11:17 am | Comment

JR, he says “speak Chinese, think like Chinese”. Think like Chinese? What’s wrong with thinking like a Mongol?

I don’t care if it’s Han ethnicity or Han dynasty. The latter is the mythical basis of the former anyway, since the modern Han identity is based on a the legend of the Han dynasty. You say “the heart of the people will return”. Which people? Who says what that “heart” should be? Why can’t there be two hearts?

Same for Taiwan… why can’t they have their own heart? Children leave the nest, yknow – while many overseas Chinese still think in terms of Da Yi Tong, I know tons who find it completely bizarre. Is a person of Chinese descent in the US who considers themselves not Chinese a traitor or deluded? Can they have a separate heart they belong to? If they can, why not the Mongols, the Taiwanese or anybody else?

January 19, 2005 @ 11:24 am | Comment

JR : I was refering to your coment about inner mongolia being han-ized. Or were you refering to something else ?

As for threats and violence, I don’t know if they will succeed – they may (the Chinese seem to be getting ready). But I still consider it wrong (and yes, I think the CCP is the main one to blame for excessive war drums … but then, if they want to stay in power that may be the only way).

January 19, 2005 @ 11:27 am | Comment

Dave, you’re being way too rational.

January 19, 2005 @ 11:33 am | Comment

Dave,

My work is piling up here, to answer your questions briefly.

“The latter is the mythical basis of the former anyway, since the modern Han identity is based on a the legend of the Han dynasty.”

I never heard of this theory, what do you mean the “mythical basis”, “legend” of the Han dynasty??? The Han dynasty is a historical factual period, not a legend.

“You say “the heart of the people will return”. Which people? Who says what that “heart” should be? ”
The Huaren in modern sense.

“Why can’t there be two hearts?”
Because we are Chinese

I know tons who find it completely bizarre. Is a person of Chinese descent in the US who considers themselves not Chinese a traitor or deluded? Can they have a separate heart they belong to?”

Luo Ye Gui Gen

January 19, 2005 @ 11:43 am | Comment

Dave,
BTW I gave you a non-Mainland-Chinese American’s perspective.

January 19, 2005 @ 11:46 am | Comment

The whole notion that the Han are one uniform people is connected to the idea that they are all descendents of the Han emperor… that’s a legend.

And the huaren are who, exactly? Does that include Mongols?

Luo ye gui gen… falling leaves return to their roots.

What if they choose different roots? What if they define “root” differently than you or anyone else does? Are they traitors? In denial? Is their definition of their own identity to be summarily rejected?

And that still doesn’t address minorities outside the pale such as Mongols, Uighurs and the like. Their roots are completely separate… so why should they unite with the rest of China? That argument doesn’t fly for them.

I realize this idea is quite strong outside the mainland. I don’t claim it’s unique to the mainland. But it still doesn’t make any sense to me.

January 19, 2005 @ 12:02 pm | Comment

People are making things needlessly convoluted. The re-unification of Taiwan will benefit the Chinese state. The permanent separation of Taiwan will be even more detrimental. That the government of the Chinese state happens to be at the moment the Communist Party is merely coincidental. More than obscure notions of Chineseness or silly identity games played by Taidu separatists, this is what really matters.

January 19, 2005 @ 2:42 pm | Comment

Yes, the reunification of Taiwan would benifit the Chinese state.

Switzerland entering the European Union would benifit the EU, The Swiss are undeniably European. Does that mean We should force them to come in ? And label those who don’t want to as “dangerous separatists” ?

January 19, 2005 @ 6:21 pm | Comment

Jing,
I don’t believe that anyone would argue that reunification does NOT benefit the Chinese state. The crux of this dispute lies in the fact that many (not all) Taiwanese are convinced that it will be to Taiwan’s detriment. There are successful examples in the world of nations who have divided themselves into separate states, as well as that of peoples from differing nations being united in a single state. Great Britain, Canada, the United States, Australia, and New Zealand are but one example of the former, while Switzerland and Belgium are examples of the latter. This does not appear to be the Chinese ideal. My limited knowledge of Chinese history suggests that China’s historical ideal has been a single, unitary, centrally directed state, even during periods of disunity. Therein lies the opposition to Taiwanese independence. And whereas a practical government might accept that fact, maintaining the principle of “One China” for some distant reunification, governments are not always practical, particularly when under pressure from other fronts, as Mr. Palmer alludes to many posts above. While China lacks the ability to project it power across the Straits, Taiwan will be relatively safe regardless of who is in power. But one that capability is achieved, Taiwan will be reduced to living under the threat that some Chinese “Galtieri” will try to shore up popular support for his failing policies by raising the issue of the “Chinese Malvinas”.

January 19, 2005 @ 6:28 pm | Comment

Before Chinese supremist got us to believe that everything in language is the same between China and Taiwan, let’s do some reality check. I won’t be able to talk about Taiwanese holo language cause I have no knowledge about it; I will compare the official language in Taiwan, Mandarin (they call it guo2 yu3) and Mandarin in China (we call it pu3 tong1 hua4).

First, the writing system difference: simplified vs. classical. This is the most obvious one and guess everyone here knows pretty well. Now Taiwan and Hong Kong keep on the classical system, while Singapore and Malaysia go the Chinese (simplified) way. Ironically, this apparently huge difference poses no great obstacle in communication – every Chinese household may still have some books published in classical way, and many exposure nowadays come from movie and music. So at least they can read and make a guess. Writing is a different story. I now find many Taiwanese write in broken simplified characters – out of laziness!

Second, deferent terms apply to the same object. Laser, silicon, IT, memory, hard drive, PCI bus, space shuttle, kindergarten, rush hour, even Pentagon and taxi, all have different names in China and Taiwan. A headache for documentary department of multinationals, for they have to develop two sets of manuals for their products. Sometimes user still have resort to English original to be sure.

And third, let me warn you, this is the most misleading one: same term, but referring to different objects. This runs a high risk of causing confusion without being noticed. For example, zhao1 dai4 suo3 in China means a cheap hotel operated by a factory or government, while in Taiwan, it means luxury private club run by company. Da4 zhuan1 is an umbrella term for all kinds of higher education in Taiwan, but it only means 3-year college in China, no bachelor degree. This is causing trouble: very often a Taiwanese asks his Chinese friend: where did you attend dai4 zhuan1? His Chinese friends takes it as an insult: why do you assume that I can only attend da4 zhuan1 (3-year college), not a full college (da4 xue2)? If he keeps silent out of courtesy, the misunderstanding will stay. Another fiasco often take place in business environment: jian3 tao3 means a self-criticism statement, an apology from an individual in China, but it Taiwan, it’s just a review, no self-incriminating is necessary. So when a Taiwanese employer said, let’s jian3 tao3 this project, his Chinese employee is more than annoyed: I have done nothing wrong, why should I jian3 tao3? I just wish he does not keep silent this time.

I think the division is deeper and more prevalent than British English vs. American English. Thanks to Internet and the influx of Taiwanese investment in China, the both sides are quick to learn from each other. Now no only government speeches from China side are peppered with Taiwan usage (ren4 tong2 identify, su4 qiu2 appeal), but also Taiwanese PowerPoint slides for business presentation often have a China flavor. As a linguistic purist, I’m just as irritated to see this happening as a Brit sees London underground be called ‘subway’.

January 19, 2005 @ 7:38 pm | Comment

P.S. I think Fujian People’s Publishing house in 90s published a dictionary illustrating those diffrent terms and meanings in China and Taiwan.

January 19, 2005 @ 7:44 pm | Comment

lirelou: I can testify that your interpretation of the ‘One China’ grasps the core of the Chinese psyche. Yes, this is what Chinese collectively want. To be exact the Han Chinese. For your information, Tibetan language is now banned as a teaching language for higher education in Lhasa. Same thing happens to Uyghurs in Xinjiang. Consider yourself lucky, chere Québécois.

January 19, 2005 @ 7:55 pm | Comment

In reply to the standard of living thing, sorry bingfeng, standards of living in Taipei are much better than in Shanghai. I live in Shanghai, and I know.

January 19, 2005 @ 8:45 pm | Comment

but i guess you have never been to taipei, so you wouldn’t know about the standard of living, pretty much just like you don’t much of anything…

January 19, 2005 @ 8:51 pm | Comment

“In reply to the standard of living thing, sorry bingfeng, standards of living in Taipei are much better than in Shanghai. I live in Shanghai, and I know.”

i am not saying living standard in shanghai is higher than in taiwan.

the logic that author employs is higher living standard in one place could translate to “not being part of china”, this sounds a little bit funny.

shanghai’s living standard is higher than other parts of mainland, then shanghai is not part of china?

in his logic, perhaps taipei should be independent from taiwan because it has a higher living standard?

you seems fail to understand this simple analogy, too bad. sorry.

lunch time!

January 19, 2005 @ 8:55 pm | Comment

“but i guess you have never been to taipei, so you wouldn’t know about the standard of living, pretty much just like you don’t much of anything…”

you are smarter than me.

you win.

byb-bye

January 19, 2005 @ 8:57 pm | Comment

Since someone asked about the unification of outer Mongolia with China. Well, I’d say, why not? If Outer Mongolia decided to join the Da Yi Tong, why not?

IMHO, that would really be a win-win situation for both the Chinese and Mongols. One has the resource and living space, and other one has the market, labor, and more advanced technology. Under one umbrella, better flow of resources, and better flow of people, and better living conditions for all. Why the heck not?

Does anyone in here know how much the difference is between the annual incomes of Outer Mongolians and the Inner Mongolians. Do you know how cold it gets in Outer Mongolia during winter time? Do you know how much those Outer Mongolians want to be like the Inner Mongolians so that they would have a chance to change their lives working in the big cities in China?

Oh come on, just since when did someone really start to care about what those poor SOBs feel about their lives if it wasn’t for a joke about the difference between Chinese.

Let me ask you a serious question, has anyone in here ever really cared about how those Mongolians are and what they want? I thought so.

Oh, did yall know that the issue of going back to China was actually brought up in Outer Mongolia a while ago? I thought so.

I was watching some beautiful koi with a friend the other day. He says, “Oh, they are so happy.” To which I replied, “You ain’t fish, how the hell do you know?”

January 19, 2005 @ 9:15 pm | Comment

I notice Quebec mentioned here a couple of times, but it’s a poor analogy.

If Quebec holds a successful independence referendum, the Canadian government has already made ground rules to negotiate a mutually agreeable secession agreement. The main reason Quebec doesn’t separate is because:
1) In reality they are already independent except for banking and foreign policy
2) Lots of $ pour into Quebec from Canada (regular transfer payments).
3) Nostalgia

So if you can imagine an equivalent relationship between China and Taiwan: China would be offering Taiwan the same level of freedom it has now (including maintaining its legislature, legal system and foreign overseas offices like Quebec does), transferring lots of government money from Beijing to Taipei to help them maintain an independent infrastructure, recognizing the distinct nature of Taiwanese society, and letting them hold as many separation referendums as they like.

It’s really a very different world.

January 19, 2005 @ 9:42 pm | Comment

Mongolians want to go back to China? Good god, have you ever been to the country? They hate the Chinese with a passion – the prospect of Chinese invasion is fairly frequently brought up in conversation.

Every time I mention Mongolia to a Chinese friend, too, I get ‘Ah, you know, Mongolia used to be part of China.’ To which the response is ‘Yes, and China used to be part of Mongolia. Want to hand over the keys to Beijing to the descendants of the Khan anytime soon?’

J.

January 19, 2005 @ 10:40 pm | Comment

boo:

I agree it’s a poor analogy. It’s takes a referendum for Quebec to secede from Canada, while it takes a referendum for Taiwan to annex itself to China. As I’m writing now, China does not rule Taiwan, but Ottawa holds the sovereignty of Quebec.

January 19, 2005 @ 10:42 pm | Comment

Why the basis on the Qing dynasty?
A foreign Manchu house hardly seems the greatest foundation for a Chinese nationalism.

But yeah, a Mongolian Dayitong is long overdue. Eastern Poland, China, Samarkand… they’ve been longing to reunite for so long now.

January 19, 2005 @ 11:21 pm | Comment

Speaking of Outer Mongolia and Taiwan, doesn’t the government in Taiwan still officially claims that Outer Mongolia (as well as mainland China)is a part of its territory?

January 20, 2005 @ 12:08 am | Comment

you gotta love the analogies… when you wanna talk about freedom of the press or something like that, all you ever hear in shanghai is “you don’t understand, china is different, you can’t compare it with other countries.” but once you start talking about the reunification of the motherland, analogies fly around everywhere. there was a global times cover story about a year ago called “No countries ever accept being split” or something like that, and it was a gigantic history lesson going all the way back to the civil war in the US. This is used as some type of evidence that Taiwan is part of China, although the situations are in fact very different.
In the end, it is true that Taiwan has nothing to gain. Look at Hong Kong now. The embrace of the motherland seems smothering. So why give anything up for these bullies?

January 20, 2005 @ 12:10 am | Comment

JD,

“Why the basis on the Qing dynasty?
A foreign Manchu house hardly seems the greatest foundation for a Chinese nationalism. ”

Just go ask the Manchus and see if they consider themselves Chinese.

January 20, 2005 @ 4:49 am | Comment

Hui Mao,

“Speaking of Outer Mongolia and Taiwan, doesn’t the government in Taiwan still officially claims that Outer Mongolia (as well as mainland China)is a part of its territory?”

Yes I remember reading about this subject.

January 20, 2005 @ 4:51 am | Comment

Boo,

I remember the votes for Quebec independence almost reached 50%. Many Canadians were angry about it. Do you want your own country being split up if there are enough votes?

January 20, 2005 @ 5:02 am | Comment

Bellevue,

“I will compare the official language in Taiwan, Mandarin (they call it guo2 yu3) and Mandarin in China (we call it pu3 tong1 hua4).”

Guo yu refers to the Chinese national language. pu tong hua just means common Chinese language.

“the writing system difference: simplified vs. classical. This is the most obvious one and guess everyone here knows pretty well. Now Taiwan and Hong Kong keep on the classical system, while Singapore and Malaysia go the Chinese (simplified) way. Ironically, this apparently huge difference poses no great obstacle in communication – every Chinese household may still have some books published in classical way, and many exposure nowadays come from movie and music. So at least they can read and make a guess. Writing is a different story. I now find many Taiwanese write in broken simplified characters – out of laziness!”

The simplified and the traditional are different, but not much different to a point that you can’t understand one from the other. For me and others, We were taught only the traditional but we can learn to write and read the simplified Chinese in a month or less. Many Taiwanese people write the word Wan in simplified form.

“Second, deferent terms apply to the same object. Laser, silicon, IT, memory, hard drive, PCI bus, space shuttle, kindergarten, rush hour, even Pentagon and taxi, all have different names in China and Taiwan.”

The difference is much much worse between Cantonese Hong Kong VS Mandarin China/Taiwan than Taiwan VS Mainland. When English is translated into Cantonese Chinese instead of Mandarin Chinese, most Mandarin speakers don’t understand them.

“where did you attend dai4 zhuan1? His Chinese friends takes it as an insult: why do you assume that I can only attend da4 zhuan1 (3-year college), not a full college (da4 xue2)? ”

This is so silly and trivial, In England, they used the word university instead of college. It takes only 3 years in UK but 4 years for a US college degree. However, there is also an extra A level in the British system.

“I think the division is deeper and more prevalent than British English vs. American English.”

Are you talking about the Mandarin spoken between Taiwan and Mainland VS English spoken in England and America? If so, why do you think that? For me it is very obviously opposite.

January 20, 2005 @ 5:45 am | Comment

JR,
Of course I’d have no problems with it. Countries get split up and regroup all the time. Just like divorce and remarriage.

I happen to have Canadian relatives (who include pro- and anti- separatists). According to them, if it happens it would be a peaceful change.

That’s how civilized countries handle these things.

January 20, 2005 @ 5:48 am | Comment

In reply to the standard of living thing, sorry bingfeng, standards of living in Taipei are much better than in Shanghai. I live in Shanghai, and I know.

Posted by kevin at January 19, 2005 08:45 PM

How about comparing the standard of living among Hong Kong, Shanghai and Taipei??? Or compare that of New York, LA and Houston. What does it mean if LA has a higher standard of living than in New York? I know a lot of New Yorkers who hated living in LA or vice versa.

January 20, 2005 @ 5:57 am | Comment

boo,

Were you born in America? Do you support, for example, the independence of California? I am very curious.

January 20, 2005 @ 6:04 am | Comment

PS.
I know there will be a civil war, if something like that happen in America.

January 20, 2005 @ 6:11 am | Comment

JR, there is no serious independence movement in the US, so the question of California is far too abstract to give a meaningful answer to (too many variables). I know there was a civil war last time, but past performance does not guarantee future results.

In response to your question, I was born in a country that no longer exists, called the USSR, which was run by an ethnic group that has similar pretensions to empire that the Chinese do, and no, I’m not sorry it’s gone, and the breakup was peaceful, despite confident predictions of bloody war.

January 20, 2005 @ 6:38 am | Comment

Boo,

So are you an ethnic Russian? There are still a lot of racial conflicts and violence in today Russia. I felt stunned and sad about the massacre of children in Beslan. What is your view on the fight of independence of Chechnya?

January 20, 2005 @ 6:50 am | Comment

Good Morning Richard

January 20, 2005 @ 7:13 am | Comment

Sorry if I am being honest but James doesn’t get to read his feedback.
=)

January 20, 2005 @ 7:14 am | Comment

JR, rewrite it using nicer language. That was really unacceptable.

January 20, 2005 @ 7:17 am | Comment

And good morning to you, too, JR.

Another commenter reported this blog was blocked yesterday in Guandong and had to be accessed by proxy server. Anyone know if it’s true?

January 20, 2005 @ 7:18 am | Comment

Emile, Lirelou, I believe you are operating under the (mistaken) assumption that I care about what the Taiwanese want. In all honesty, I really don’t to any significant degree. I am fully aware of the fact that the overwhelming majority of people on Taiwan would not desire any sort of forced unification, however the threat of a permanent schism in my opinion warrants such a course of action. Is this selfish? Definetly. Slightly megalomaniacal? probably. Fascistic? If you say so.

Truthfully it suits me, and I suppose the Communist Party, well enough to maintain the status quo and delay for quite some time any discussion over reunification. However, it is of my opinion, that it is Taiwan that is most driven towards changing the status quo and creating a new Taiwan, independent of either the Republic or People’s Republic of China. All the petty comparisons to forceful annexation are incomplete. Unlike the case of Switzerland joining the EU, whether they join or not will be of little relevance. Taiwan seceeding however will have dire impacts on China. Quite frankly I am not prepared to accept this nor I imagine the communist party. Now there is the arguement that the Chinese and the government of the People’s Republic of China can simply live and let live and simply forget about Taiwan. Unfortunately that whole arguement is absurd because it is impossible, not unless you have a way of changing the minds of 1.3 billion people overnight. So while you may pontificate about the “uncivilized” nature of Chinese politics and “evil” Chinese irridentism in general, I really don’t care. My realpolitik neccessity trumps your liberal democratic pieties, its just that simple.

And that is all I have to say on the matter. Now if you’ll excuse me, I require BingFeng’s assistance on how to properly translate gleischaltung into Chinese.

January 20, 2005 @ 7:36 am | Comment

taiwan and china is somehow similar to bayer and deutschland

the southern part of germany has its uniqueness but is an inseparable part of germany

there is a period in swiss history in which different regions fought with each others, and it took the swiss a few hundred years to find a way living together but at the same time to keep their unique qualites of each region

the road for us is simple and clear, just like an old chinese saying points out – he er bu tong (unified but different)

while europeans is approaching the same end from bottom-up, chinese is doing that from top-down

January 20, 2005 @ 8:07 am | Comment

Bingfeng,

I get your point about the German unification under Bismarck in the 1870s. However be careful to compare China to Germany. Many right wingers with bad intentions love to compare China reunification to Nazi Germany looking for forming the Greater Germany in the 1930s. I am expecting bellevue is writing a paper on it.

January 20, 2005 @ 9:02 am | Comment

Despite the dogmatic illusion of ‘inseparatable part’ of China (turn a blind a eye on reality of a over 50 years separation), there are sensible people in China who approach the issue with open mind. For example, Anti (his penname) is arguebly the best journalist under 30 in China, and has visited Taipei amid 2004 election. He has this in his blog (in Chinese):

http://anti.blog-city.com/index.cfm?d=12&m=1&y=2005

Though he emotionally appeals to Taiwanese to remain somewhat associated to China (not PRC) and wait until China has a democracy, he totally respect their desire to be independent. Democratic value, seems to Anti, is above all – certanly above China’s national ambition.

Anti’s voice maybe a lone one, but I’d like to point out the irony, that a home grown voice (Anti’s education was exclusively in China) can still be rational, democratic and Western (count me in), but a US-educated voice like JR’s can be very Eastern and mideaval.

January 20, 2005 @ 6:27 pm | Comment

“…be rational, democratic and Western (count me in)…” – bellevue

_____________________

“I’m sure your shitty Mandarin is no better than your broken English, inland redneck! Hell to you, and your corrupt country!” – bellevue

“Come on, people love ThinkPad. Who is going to buy a ChinkPad? Not in wildest dream! ” – bellevue

“I’m yet to find any Japanese that would degrade himself by pretending to be a Chinese” – bellevue

“it’s a compliment to you by saying you are a prostitute…you think it’s easy to be a prostitute in a highly competitive enviornment like shanghai? you think you could be a prostitute by being shameless as you? f**k…” – translated from bellevue’s original words in chinese

“there are bunch of no-brains like you in shanghai, same in the states and canada… the moderator of bcchinese blog is f**king the same with those in china, like a sh*t eating dog can’t give up eating sh*t”
– translated from bellevue’s original words in chinese

“…you pig-head …” – bellevue

“i don’t understand why your IQ is so low” – bellevue

much much more ….

oh, this world is really amazing …

all original words of bellevue is here:
http://blog.bcchinese.net/bingfeng/archive/2005/01/07/7041.aspx

January 20, 2005 @ 6:51 pm | Comment

Bingfeng, keep it nice or I’ll delete. No more comments like that. Stay on the subject and avoid the attacks — they aren’t necessary and only reduce the dialogue to juvenile name-calling.

January 20, 2005 @ 6:58 pm | Comment

richard,

delete it if you want. but i feel very bad to see someone is lying in front of me.

sorry for that.

January 20, 2005 @ 7:06 pm | Comment

You may not like his language. But what is the lie? (Honest question — what are you referring to?)

January 20, 2005 @ 7:13 pm | Comment

oh, he lies a lot by purposefully presenting only part of the whole pic or twisting the truth.

his mind harbours only hatred towards chinese, nothing else. he is not rational, not democratic, and not western.

i didn’t see anything constructive from him and didn’t see anything that could convince me he was trying to be constructive

January 20, 2005 @ 7:25 pm | Comment

btw, richard, i strongly believe people with a mindset similar to bellevue, no matter they live in taiwan, mainland china or in the states, are the real troubles to us.

remember mr. soog?

January 20, 2005 @ 7:28 pm | Comment

back to the topic.

i have been to inner mongolia two years ago. it is very “chinese” although old people still worship Genghis Khan.

it’s not necessay to make outer mongolia a part of china. this is 21st centruy. there are a lot of better and moral ways to get the same thing without invading other countries.

taiwan is totally different. taiwan is chinese soil and it is not only political, economic or history issue but also a very emotional issue.

ask germans if they would like to give a chance for “bayern independence” or ask japanese if they would consider “independent Hokkaido” an option.

no way!

like Jing said, it is totally furitless to arguing whether taiwan is part of china.

time should not be wasted in this

January 20, 2005 @ 7:42 pm | Comment

if someone is so symapthy to taiwan secessionism, like some japanese right wings,why don’t donate Hokkaido to these taiwan secessionists and help them establish a “republic of taiwan” there?

taiwan is chinese soil and is my soil, unless 13 billion chinese all agree, there is NO WAY to make their day dream become true.

but i won’t against a “republic of taiwan” in Hokkaido or Alaska or somewhere else, provided they don’t launch terrorist attacks in mainland and taiwan.

January 20, 2005 @ 7:50 pm | Comment

I think all of us are actually in debt to JR, for his articulation of what makes a ‘Chinese mind’: the unchallengable monomania (Da Yi Tong), the ethnic-based devotion to China (ye luo gui gen), and so on. At least he is honest, doesn’t even pretend that democracy or humanity is a Chinese value.

Let me tell you my story, maybe a bit off topic.

On that morning of September 11, 2001, a Chinese media delegation invited by the State Department to the States was touring the east coast. With a full schedule they got up early in their hotel. When the first plane struck the North Tower, those Chinese officials and reporters were having their breakfast in the lobby, and were alerted of what’s going on by overhead TV. According to witnesses, all of sudden, a loud cheer came from those Chinese, now standing up on their feet, all applauding.

I don’t know if bingfeng joined their cheer in Shanghai, or if Jung Rhee joined his Chinese compatriots applauding here in American soil over the smoke from ground Zero, but if they did, I wouldn’t be surprised. Later the news came, a burst of joy raged over China’s cyberspace and cubical space as well next morning, turning the day a festival for them. To quote one typical post on Internet, ‘I can’t be happier, and I have not been happy like this for many years.’

Why? Why is that? I leave the question to Thomas Friedmans and Nicolas Kristofs. All I know is if this is the Chinese way, then I’m not a Chinese.

911 is the moment that changed many’s life forever, and touched many other’s. It’s also a defining moment for a person like me thousands of miles away. For the first time, I use ‘we’ and ‘us’ referring to America and Americans, unabashedly, regardless of the legality.

Let’s face it: they hate us. Somehow they believe we get in the way of their great Da Yi Tong cause, and for that, our civilians have to die because what we are. Let’s not hate ourselves so much into believing that diversity means we should tolerate the idea of killing innocent civilians en mass. We can’t change what they think, but we can change ourselves, for the better: be informed, and be vigilant.

January 20, 2005 @ 8:05 pm | Comment

Bellevue, that is incredible. I will believe you — but only after you provide a link documenting this. So please, share your sources. We can’t make judgements based on acecdotal evidence, I’m afraid.

January 20, 2005 @ 8:09 pm | Comment

that “gentleman” is trying to agitate hatred towards chinese people again.

he will never mention that so many chinese cried when watching twin towers collapsed, and will never mention that many young american wee boys just shouted to chinese of “nuking shanghai” in the “spy plane debate”.

i watched the “america under attack” from CNN that morning, and as a chinese, i called my american friends in shanghai to express my sorrow that so many lives lost. actually my family asked me if we should do something for my american friends in shanghai.

come on, you really believe anyone will be happy to see civilians are attacked by terrorist? they just hate those war fans in pentagon. they are just too stupid to mix up those innocent americans with those war fans in pentagon.

the anger and hatred harboured in that guy’s mind could generate the electricity for whole shanghai!

just unbelievable.

January 20, 2005 @ 8:39 pm | Comment

Richard:

I assumed you know that!

Later on the delegation’s itinerate was cut short by State Department, citing technicalities (flights grounded for 4 days). There was also a Chinese outcry for that: America is no longer honorng free expression, just as what China is!

Drawing moral equation is CCP’s favorite game. I don’t get why it’s also a favorite for, well, someone on the same side of the aisle I’m in.

Ok, I’ll try to find English links, but if I can only find Chinese ones, no problem for you?

January 20, 2005 @ 8:46 pm | Comment

“Let’s face it: they hate us. Somehow they believe we get in the way of their great Da Yi Tong cause, and for that, our civilians have to die because what we are” – bellevue

no chinese will ever think that civilians should die.

the God will curse you for saying such an evil lie.

January 20, 2005 @ 8:46 pm | Comment

Remember, I was living in Honk Koing at the time, so I did not know all these details….

January 20, 2005 @ 8:48 pm | Comment

somebody is making his death struggle by attacking chinese after i make clear what his true face is.

LOL.

great show!

January 20, 2005 @ 8:50 pm | Comment

Richard: it’s AFP news on 9/15/2001. Do you have an easy access to back news of AFP?

January 20, 2005 @ 8:55 pm | Comment

to be honest, i begin to feel a little pity for this hatred-harbouring soul.

sorry for saying that. may the God forgive him.

January 20, 2005 @ 9:02 pm | Comment

and i seriously doubt one’s sense of sound judgement who will believe a person calling himself a former “chinese” while calling other chinese “chink”.

January 20, 2005 @ 9:11 pm | Comment

Richard:

I already found a bunch of links, and also China’s rebutal (China insists that they were not expelled, but inconvenienced by traffic so changed plan). The news also says, one HK-based English newspaper (SCMP) ran an editorial on that, and Richard Boucher had to respond on related questions.

I now begin to realize that despite the presence of the Internet, there is still a huge gap between news discourse in English and Chinese. Virtually every Chinese netter are aware of the contraversy surround that China delegate, but few English readers are aware. This should be my mission to try to bridge the gap. Sure it makes someone’s life a bit uneasy. Sorry about that.

For the old ‘who-is-Chinese-and-who-is-not’ topic, do you want to end it by conference phone call? DNA check is not feasible over Internet. 🙂

January 20, 2005 @ 9:25 pm | Comment

If AFP news backs up their archives I’m sure I can check it. But it should also be easy for you to provide a link. It isn’t that I disbelieve you (really), just that I was out of America at this time and I was out of touch with things like this.

January 20, 2005 @ 9:30 pm | Comment

Sure Richard. My problem is that I can’t find the AFP story at the moment. AFP story is the single source of all the others. China’s rebutal is also informative – who they are, what they do, what other people say (Phoenix TV). They also name names.

I’ll post Chinese links first, then back up with English ones.

January 20, 2005 @ 9:39 pm | Comment

Bingfeng, are you sure the Bellevue that posts comments at your blog is the same as this one? They could be two different people with one imitating the other.

In any case, I have to say this discussion has taken a particularly boring turn.

January 20, 2005 @ 9:39 pm | Comment

“Interesting. After I taught them so many lessons in Chinese, they still stick on their own fabrication. ” – bellevue

and that “gentleman” also said that he “kicked bingfeng’s ass in his blog ”

January 20, 2005 @ 9:58 pm | Comment

BBC China:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/chinese/news/newsid_1547000/15471311.stm

It also said Liu Xiaobo and other dissidents condemned the applaud from Chinese delegation and the jubilent mood on China’s cyberspace over 911 attack..

Others will follow.

January 20, 2005 @ 10:48 pm | Comment

The end is to create one grand unified, harmonious and peaceful country.

Who’s end, JR? Yours? It’s only the end the Taiwanese want, if that’s what they decide. Remember…at the moment, they already have ‘one grand, unified, harmonious,peaceful’ democratic and prosperous country. If someone outside makes them an offer that is better, I’m sure they’d be willing to listen…before they make their decision.

taiwan is part of a chinese nation, this is a basic fact…

Says who? You? Both human morality–and international law (e.g., UN Charter; Universal Declaration of Human Rights) mandate self-determination. I don’t know what ‘chinese nation’ you’re talking about…. I think (and I mean this in all sincerity) it exists in your mind, but has never really existed in reality; but you seem willing to cause the deaths of millions to fulfill your dream.

If you’re implying that Taiwan is part of the PRC…you’re simply wrong; it never has been. Just as the PRC has never been part of Taiwan.

…how to balance the unification and diversity, the interest of china and others affected, most important, how to protect taiwan people and let them enjoy the good things they have now, this is the challenge we face.

Er, you’ll forgive me, bingfeng, if I don’t believe you here. The best thing the people of Taiwan have now, is self-determination…democracy…prosperity can be added. You know….the things the PRC doesn’t have, if I’m not mistaken. One would think you’d put a lot more energy into working for democracy in China, rather than try to impose your will on another land.

You are out working for democracy for the 1.3 billion people of China…
aren’t you?

taiwan secessionsim is a blind lane.

Huh? Seceed…..from what? The PRC? Taiwan has never been a part of the PRC…not for a single hour. So whatever you are talking about….is, literally, not real.
taiwan will never and never become a foreign country as some people hoped.

It already is; get over it. Not only that….it is better, as a country, than the PRC is. The people of Taiwan have a lot to be proud of for what they’ve accomplished over the last twenty years– including a government of the people, and fairly wide-spread prosperity. The (non-transparent, non-changeable) PRC government is even more corrupt; and holds power solely by the barrel of the gun. It is an illegitimate government; unlike the one on Taiwan.

However, if the economy ever seriously stumbles and people’s anger turns against the government – then the invasion of Taiwan will provide a way to unite everyone behind a temporary feeling of national pride. It’s a political insurance policy.

Unfortunately, James, your painting of an “Falklands scenario” is all too possible.
the fact remains that the Taiwanese language, culture, and racial composition remain essentially “chinese”, whatever other strains may lie therein.

Yup, the democratic system with the elected President and legislature sure looks chinese doesn’t it?

I would maintain that their is more in concert…including language-wise….between the U.S., Canada, Australia, et al and the UK, than between the PRC and Taiwan; yet s’far as I know, I’m not English. (And if I were, it would be a surprise to my Italian- and German-born grandparents who immigrated to the US). Languages and cultures don’t a country make. The decision of the people there makes a country. And by that definition…. there is no country, still, on what some here refer to as ‘the mainland’.

jp

January 20, 2005 @ 11:34 pm | Comment

“I don’t know what ‘chinese nation’ you’re talking about…. ”

perhaps like you never knew a unified Deutschland would become a reality? but anyway, it’s none of your business. enjoy your day dream elsewhere.

“…before they make their decision. ”

like what? declare taiwan independence? hope you can hear that great news in your life time.

“…but you seem willing to cause the deaths of millions to fulfill your dream.”

i have never said that, it is YOU and people like bellevue who always agitate hatred towards chinese.

“they already have ‘one grand, unified, harmonious,peaceful’ democratic and prosperous country.”

yes, it is called republic of CHINA, in their constitution. read it, will you?

“The decision of the people there makes a country”

finally a good point. what about those people in taiwan that want to reunified with mainland? if they should follow the rule of majority, then shouldn’t those in taiwan follow the rule of majority of whole china?

sorry but you are another know-nothing trying to talk on a very complicated issue like taiwan.

January 20, 2005 @ 11:56 pm | Comment

Richard:

Voila! I found AFP ‘s original story via a Chinese expat site:

****************************************************
WASHINGTON: The United States has expelled a group of visiting Chinese journalists, some of whom reportedly applauded at this week’s terrorist strikes in New York and Washington, a State Department official said.

“On September 14, we curtailed the visit of a group from China under
the International Visitor Programme,” the official said.

“Under the current circumstances, it was decided not to continue the tour.”

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, declined to elaborate on the circumstances of the group’s expulsion, but others confirmed there had been reports that some of the journalists had applauded and cheered when they saw television footage of hijacked planes slamming into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

It was not immediately clear where the alleged incident occurred, but
the group, which was being hosted by the New York-based Institute of
International Education, had been scheduled to visit New York this
week, the official said.

The 14 journalists from China, were on a 28-day study tour funded by
the State Department’s International Visitor Programme, which brings
foreign professionals to the US to meet their American colleagues.
The official said the status of all other similar tours now under way
was being reviewed “on a case-by-case basis”.

The 40-year-old programme has brought more than 186 current and
former heads of state and more than 1,500 senior foreign government
officials to the US since it was founded. -AFP
****************************************************

http://www.xys.org/xys/netters/others/essays/wtc117.txt

You can find Chinese rebuttal on the same page. Analysis of this rebuttla was from Mr. Fang Zhouzi (real name Fang Shimin), a famous Chinese cyber personality notable for his frequent pieces exposing CCP lies. He is San Diego based and can be reached at smfang@yahoo.com.

For the first time of my life my credibility hinged on a few Frenchmen. Merci beaucoup!

January 21, 2005 @ 2:34 am | Comment

Although State Department’s decision to ‘curtail’ those happy Chinese’s travel plan is not unreasonable, I wish that they had done the otherwise. Those journalists missed a chance to see in their own eyes the magnificent of a nation, the outpouring of people, and a civil society made up with its responsible citizens much different than the one they came from. If they had eywitnessed all these, they might have a second opinion of America.

Other links to the same story:

http://www.dawn.com/2001/09/16/int3.htm

http://forum.japantoday.com/Is_Jacques_Chirac_the_ANTI_CHRIST%3F/m_258613/tm.htm

http://www.freeserbia.net/Documents/2001/September.html

January 21, 2005 @ 3:53 am | Comment

The Chip on China’s Shoulder

Author: Nicholas D. Kristof
Publication: The New York Times
Date: January 18, 2002

As soon as the two planes hit the World Trade Center, Chinese Internet users logged into online chat rooms to discuss the terror attacks.

“Just one word: cool!” says the first of 6,000 comments on the attacks in a chat room on Sina.com, a leading Chinese-language portal. “Now the day has come for the American dogs.”

“Why not the White House?” asks another a moment later. The gleeful declarations continue in a rush:

“Excellent!!!!!!!! But the hijacked planes didn’t carry a nuclear bomb.”

“Just great. Really fantastic. Serves ’em right.”

“So cool to see America bombed. Guys, let’s use the Internet to wage war on ’em as well. This is the perfect moment for it.”

“I’m waiting for the third plane, the fourth plane, the fifth plane, the sixth plane. Ha, ha!”

Not until the 44th message is there a reproach: “Do you people here have no shame?” someone writes. “Do you have no morality?”

The messages are still sitting there in cyberspace on the Sina.com site. A few days ago, I logged on using a Chinese-language computer here in Beijing and read through these messages. To anyone who deeply loves China, as I do, it is devastating to see how the deaths of thousands of Americans left many people here chortling.

I asked Chinese friends whether these online comments were representative of public opinion. Not entirely, they said, but the stories they told left me pained.

One friend who runs a business financed with American money found on Sept. 12 that the company’s e-mail message system was full of jokes about the attacks. Another recounted how at the Communist Party School (where officials stayed up late to watch satellite television feeds of the destruction and showed unseemly good cheer), a luncheon for more than 80 top officials echoed with positive comments about the terror attacks.

All this has to be put in perspective. Most Chinese I talked to were appalled by the attacks, and the United States Embassy in Beijing was showered with messages of sympathy from ordinary Chinese and with cash donations for the victims. Jiang Zemin and other Chinese leaders drafted an immediate message of condolence that they sent to Washington.

Even in the chat rooms, the initial tone of xing zai le huo (gloating at the pain of others) faded as the death toll grew.

Yet there is something going on here, something more complex — and, to me, far more worrying — than simply schadenfreude at seeing America humbled. It is a rapidly increasing Chinese nationalism.

This nationalism has deep roots in China and results in part from the battering that the country suffered at foreign hands over the last 200 years. But the latest surge in nationalism is the result in particular of “patriotic” campaigns planned by President Jiang since 1990 as a way of knitting together the country, of providing a new “glue” for China to replace the discredited ideology of Communism.

I spent a couple of days at Beijing University talking freely to the nation’s best and brightest. This in itself, along with the relatively free debate in Internet chat rooms, is a sign of real political progress in China.

When I lived here in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, there was no outlet like the Internet to express one’s views, and I could talk to university students only after escaping the goons who routinely tailed me. This time I had no tails to shake.

Yet what I found heartbreaking is that this new openness and political maturity in China is accompanied by a dangerous sign of political immaturity: this booming, aggrieved, chip-on-the-shoulder nationalism among many ordinary people, much more so than even a decade ago.

Why is this a risk? Think of Japan, where nationalism combined with an economic boom to help lead to the Asian half of World War II. Or of Germany, where a similar combination helped cause World War I. Or even — this is an example Americans tend not to recall — the way nationalism and new-found strength in the United States led Washington to provoke the Spanish-American War.

Elsewhere in the world, we were far too late in recognizing the way movements in Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan arose to preach intolerance and hatred. In China it is still early enough to reshape this nationalist tide.

January 21, 2005 @ 5:10 am | Comment

I’ll have to jump in here.

First, on the AFP story. All the links (whether Chinese or English) go back to that one source. There is no corroboration. This is not very convincing. After 9/11, all sorts of trips were cancelled because civil aviation was stopped for a week. So it would be normal to abort any trip. The explanation in the article is oblique and you have to extrapolate on your own what really went on.

In any case, please remember that this is a group of 14 people. They are 14 individuals, and they cannot be said to represent 1.3 billion chinese people. If you think that they are, then the 7 military policemen in cellblock A of the Abu Ghraib prison should represent all Americans. They don’t. This AFP story is conflated far beyond what it admissible in the context of this thread.

What about the thousands of chat room comments? Shall I introduce you to The Corner at the National Review Online or the Little Green Footballs? They are mean, nasty, vitriolic and indifferent to human values, and I can come up with any number of appalling quotes from the comments. But they do not represent America.

It is an easy exercise to take Nicholas Kristoff’s article and completely transpose it into another context with Americans for Chinese, and some other tragedy for 9/11 and it will work wonderfully well. It would be a interesting parody, it will be documented properly but it will also be wrong.

You can also check out Jalan-Jalan for one instance of an American reaction to the Asian Tsunami:
http://beta-blogger.blogspot.com/2005_01_01_beta-blogger_archive.html#110601281166914053
It does not represent America at all, but someone can make a nasty story out of this.

I don’t like passing judgment on a people, because I know that the next person that I will be meet is a unique individual and I had better be prepared to think that way.

January 21, 2005 @ 7:03 am | Comment

eswn:

I agree that theoretically the AFP story could have been treated as an isolated case, given the scanty of coverage, and you probably can’t convince a jury of anything. That said, I make judgement not on the basis of a single event, though a case like this did ring an alarming bell and had greatly impact on my emotion. I have other evidences and experiences supporting my conclusion.

Look at the second link I found. In that analysis, Mr. Fang states, that during his Beijing trip after the WTC attack, most Chinese reporters he met were just happy about 911 – their knee jerk reaction immediately after the attack, and for many the mood stays. In a welcoming banquet held by Beijing intellectuals, Fang recalled, majority were excited over what’s going on in Manhattan and criticised Fang for ‘being on the wrong side’.

(Anyone starting to call Mr. Fang a Japanese?)

This is not a problem of 14 people, or 14,000 Internet cafe dwellers. It’s about a cultrue of hatred, and systematic brainwash by Chinese government, resulting in an ideology against anything America. And they think they can get away with it hiding behind language barrier. They can’t. I know it, and Fang knows it: everyone with China background know the dirty trick involved. By the way, don’t forget it’s China: you really think any internet hate message can survive 10 minutes if the hatred is not towards the ‘right direction’?

January 21, 2005 @ 9:35 am | Comment

Now that we have removed the tangential issues out of the way, let us get to the matter of epistemology: how could you know what you claim that you know?

You cite Mr. Fang and you cite your own experience. How many people do you think you know? Sociologists estimate that a person may known about 200 persons with some depth, and perhaps recognize 1,000 persons by name and face. Beyond that, everything is a blur. Do you think the people that you managed to communicate with represents all 1.3 billion people of China? The answer is emphatically NO!

I love Nicholas Kristoff when he narrates the story of the two Cambodian girls that he ‘purchased’ to spare them a life of prostitution. That story rings true and warm because it represents two individuals. Nicholas Kristoff annoys me when he starts talking about the People of China or the Europeans, because I don’t know how he deduces these universal values from the selective set of people he communicated with.

Let me be very concrete. For the 2004 US Presidential election, I was certain that John Kerry had it won. I live in New York City. I polled the mixed group of people in my office, and I spoke to the mixed group of people in my social club. There was no doubt that it was going to be a landslide win for Kerry. Indeed, Kerry would win 81% of the votes in New York City. Unfortunately, I don’t talk to enough people in mid-America, and I am thoroughly humbled by the eventual outcome.

So can you tell me how you can extrapoloate from Mr. Fang’s conversations with various people and/or your own personal experience to an all-encompassing judgment on the Character of the People of China? If I had said that ‘Every Chinese that I know is not nationalistic in the vulgar sense’, it would not pass your laugh test. So can you offer me a more convincing argument?

January 21, 2005 @ 11:59 am | Comment

“This is not a problem of 14 people, or 14,000 Internet cafe dwellers. It’s about a cultrue of hatred, and systematic brainwash by Chinese government, resulting in an ideology against anything America. And they think they can get away with it hiding behind language barrier. They can’t. I know it, and Fang knows it: everyone with China background know the dirty trick involved.”

I am amused and surprised just how stupid so-called China experts can be.

January 21, 2005 @ 4:11 pm | Comment

Richard:

In elsewhere I found you said:

I have never, ever endorsed his viewpoint on 911.

I’m simply not soliciting your endorsement, but just out of curiosity, what’s the basic flaw in my viewpoint on 911?

You also said it could be not ‘smart’ or not ‘true’ to view Chinese reaction and 911 that way. Well, I think I offered enough links to be duely diligent on that. Everyone can make his own conclusion. BTW, my opponents have yet to back up their point with a single proof.

It’s all too common. You might be right: it’s no smart at all to aggitate those people, but my reader in mind is not them.

January 23, 2005 @ 12:43 am | Comment

Richard:

Sorry again, but talking about fairness, it looks like those defamatory posts claiming that I am Japanese, Taiwanese or any non-Chinese origin have found a safe niche in your site. That’s OK, but you never commented that. Doesn that mean you think it’s ‘smart’, or even ‘true’?

And you never ask them for proof, not even a web link.

January 23, 2005 @ 2:20 am | Comment

Bellevue, I can’t police every comment. I am a blogger, not a judge, and I don’t always have time to be as fair as everyone would like. And I absolutely can’t respond to all the comments I get. I have tried to tell all of you to stop the personal stuff and stick to the topic.

January 23, 2005 @ 8:39 am | Comment

About 911 — I am neutral on this topic. I don’t know enough about it to take sides. I heard what ESWN said and what you said. I’ll let readers decide what to believe.

January 23, 2005 @ 8:41 am | Comment

Perhaps it was not obvious, but I am also neutral on the Chinese reaction on the 9/11 incident. I don’t know what happened. The reason that I jumped in at a very late stage was really an epistemological issue.

I don’t accept that from an uncorroborated AFP article about 14 people that one should infer that was how 1.3 billion Chinese people are.

I don’t accept that from a sample reading of a few thousand internet comments that was how 1.3 million Chinese people are.

I don’t accept that from a sample of one’s social ties that this was how 1.3 billion Chinese people are.

Bu,t by symmetry, I am just as tough on the other side of the argument.

I won’t accept a message of condolence from the Chinese Foreign Ministry as proof that it was how 1.3 billion Chinese people felt.

I won’t accept newspaper paper interviews with sympathetic citizens in the streets as proof that they represent how 1.3 billion Chinese people felt.

I won’t accept a selection of sympathetic internet comments (and I will be able to find them among the millions of comments) that it was how 1.3 billion Chinese people felt.

I won’t accept anyone telling me that all his/her friends felt sorry that this was how 1.3 billion Chinese people felt.

Any of these requires a huge leap of faith that is not supported by the available evidence.

How could we know what the Chinese people really felt? You might think that this can be done with a large representative sample survey. Unfortunately, it won’t work. You can do surveys to figure out the gender distributions and some such. But you can’t ask questions like bigotry, racisim, or patriotism, because you will only get socially desirable answers that mask true feelings. For example, a racist is unlikely to subjectively consider himself/herself as such, even though objectively he behaves in a racist way.

My specific interest here is that I once wrote a journal paper on The Spriral of Silence theory of German socioologist Elizabeth Noelle-Neumann. The idea is that only a small number of people tend to speak up whereas the majority remain silent. After a while, the nutcases (namely, the Nazis in her work) appeared to be the majority because they dominate the share of voice when nothing of the sort is happening.

So I am only asking that people not take the nutcases and trolls who post crap like celebrating 9/11 as being representative of the general Chinese population at large. I should think that there is no disagreement on this point.

January 23, 2005 @ 12:24 pm | Comment

No disagreement at all, but your comment raises several questions, again from an epistemological perspective. How do we ever know what “the American people” or “the Chinese people” are thinking? I don’t have an answer, and yet there are many times when I can safely say I did know how they felt. I believe I know how the Chinese people feel, for example, about Tibet, because every Chinese voice I have heard on the topic, whether within my own social circle or not, has been essentially the same. I have seen it mirrored in state articles, in blogs and in many other places. This is an unscientific process, yet I believe my take on the situation is accurate. Am I deluding myself? (I am no philosopher, so if this sounds like embarrassingly elementary Logic 101, forgive me.)

The depressing part of your comment is that it dooms us all to ignorance. It appears there is no way to ever assess how “the people” feel about anything. And yet, don’t we all know how America felt on 911? By your equation, none of us can say that for a fact. Damn, do any of us know anything??

Thanks, ESWN, for leaving me hopelessly confused. 🙂

January 23, 2005 @ 1:33 pm | Comment

Hmmmm…

Well, that’s the question, isn’t it Richard? The concept of a “people” seems to defy any rational scientific definition yet it seems an idea that none of us can let go of. On the one hand, I can lob criticisms at the idea that Mainland and Taiwan people are “one people” by poking holes in any attempt to rationally define them as one people. Then I can turn around and lambast “Chinese people” for being too nationalistic, or hating the Japanese, etc. On the other hand, someone else can say I must hate Chinese people by laying such down such criticisms and at the same time proclaim the Chinese people to be unified as one.

So it seems like identity (American, Chinese, whatever) becomes something you can’t live with, can’t live without. The question becomes not what do you consider your identity or someone else identity to be, but rather that no matter what you’re going to have those ideas, so you need to learn how to live with them as best you can. That means finding a balance – on the one hand, we can’t say that you can never generalize that a group of people share one common idea, or you risk ignoring a dangerous reality (if I say you can’t say that there’s a sense of anger towards the U.S. across the Arab world, then how can you take steps to protect yourself or try to make them feel better?). On the other hand, you can’t generalize too often because then you risk overreacting (saying all Arabs are terrorists and indiscriminately bombing, detaining, etc.).

What ESWN is saying seems to point to a good reason why you have to be so terribly careful about the whole thing; to take 14 people and multiply it by 100 million is to overreact. On the other hand, so many of us living in China feel that, while 9/11 seems a poor example, there is a well of nationalist feelings that appears unproductive at least and frightening at most. But at the end of the day all we really have is a sense of tension – just like alot of Chinese people must feel when they look at the U.S. and see a threatening world power.

I think maybe a good idea would be to spend less time trying to logically undermine each other and consider that maybe the root of all this is both sides are worried – that’s probably the largest common denominator in all this. Stories about individuals are good in that they speak about the feelings and rationalizations of those individuals without necessarily extrapolating some kind of rule about it. The story about the 14 guys cheering about 9/11 is interesting and important as far as saying “OK, if that’s true – let’s assume it is – why? What are all the possible reasons they might feel that way?” Let’s explore every possible thing we can think of that might be going through the heads of those 14 individuals so that we can have a better idea of what that’s all about. What we shouldn’t do, “we” as readers, is say “they hate us”, or “they’re ignorant” because these comments do two things: first, “they” can be and is used to use those 14 people to describe a larger group – the fallacy ESWN is talking about. But the other thing it does is that when we say “hate” or “ignorant”, we dismiss these 14 people and exclude them, something that we unfortunately can’t afford.

January 23, 2005 @ 9:46 pm | Comment

media brainwashing II – peking duck case

media brainwashing II – peking duck case

January 24, 2005 @ 1:12 am | Comment

media brainwashing II – peking duck case

media brainwashing II – peking duck case

January 24, 2005 @ 1:20 am | Comment

ESWN and Richard:

I would be more than happy to see the idea of ‘Chinese people’ or ‘American people’ be deconstructed to the extent as eswn wished and argued. I can even argue for it: does anyone here believe, that if we had somehow managed to get 3 million more votes and sent Kerry into White House, the ‘American people’ would be an entirely different species? It would be perceived this way, at least in media, but the reality? I don’t see in a nation of 270 million, that changed anything a lot statistically.

eswn is right in humbling us while our ambition leads us to make over-generalizations, but I fear it works as a gag – are we not allowed to talk about any cultrue or nation based claim? Just because no ones social sphere is large enough or survey is good enough? This is quite unnerving!

The 14 Chinese reporters (or a few of them in fact) shocked me. Later on thousands of Internet posts shocked me further. Eswn, it doesn’t take 1.3 billion people to shock you, just like it doesn’t take 120 million votes to get elected. On any scale, the Chinese reaction is shocking, and my point is cerntainly not reading polls and tell you which sides has 300 more votes. The focus on the statistics, in my view, is out of focus. Do you think the 7 folks in Abu Ghraib case is ignorable, since 120 thousand troops didn’t do that outnumbered them? And common sense tells me, Chinese’s problem is more than 14 reporters or 1000 posters.

Back to Mr. Fang’s observation. In any society, the media work is carried out by a small elite group. They shape what we hear and what see on daily basis. To argue that they are a minority in a population of 1.3 billion or 270 million doesn’t lead us to believe that what they believe or their character is of no importance. Or does it?

January 24, 2005 @ 3:41 am | Comment

Dave, thank you for your beautifully enlightening post above. I can’t afford to miss this one. That surely sheds another light on those suspicious ‘imagined communities’ as concepts we accept so readily without much thoughts. And your approach to it seems to me is very balanced. Thanks a lot.

January 24, 2005 @ 3:52 am | Comment

Some very stupid people made a very racist song in the US making fun of Tsunami victims. The sad part is, they thought those victims were Africans and Chinese, how ignorant can people be. Of course this song may only represent the mind of the tiniest minorities in America. However, if it is in bellevue’s simpleton standard, he will view the whole population of Americans as racist bigots and dumb asses.

The lyric of the song is below

“There was a time, when the sun was shining bright
So I went down to the beach to catch me a tan
Then the next thing I knew, a wave 20 feet high
Came and washed your whole country away

And all at once, you can hear the screaming chinks
And no one was saved from the wave
There were Africans drowning, little Chinamen swept away
You can hear God laughing, ‘Swim you bitches swim.’

[Chorus]
So now you’re screwed, it’s the tsunami,
You better run and kiss your ass away, go find your mommy
I just saw her float by, a tree went through her head
And now your children will be sold to child slavery”

January 24, 2005 @ 6:28 pm | Comment

The original was posted in Bingfengs blog

http://blog.bcchinese.net/bingfeng/default.aspx

January 24, 2005 @ 6:30 pm | Comment

Dave,

I just noticed your comment from last week.

“The whole notion that the Han are one uniform people is connected to the idea that they are all descendents of the Han emperor… that’s a legend.”

Dave where do you learn that?? that term should be Hua Xia not Han. Hua means blooming summer flowers meaning different people coming together. Xia is one of the earliest dynasties in China. In the beginning, Chinese people formed from different kinds of people living in the same area.

And the huaren are who, exactly? Does that include Mongols?

Yes it does include all the ethnic groups in China.

“Luo ye gui gen… falling leaves return to their roots.

What if they choose different roots? What if they define “root” differently than you or anyone else does? Are they traitors? In denial? Is their definition of their own identity to be summarily rejected?

I realize this idea is quite strong outside the mainland. I don’t claim it’s unique to the mainland. But it still doesn’t make any sense to me.”

Chinese I met in America call themselves Shanghainese, Cantonese, Taiwanese, Toishanese, Chinese from Hong Kong, Singapore, malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Burma, Vietnam, Cambodia, Central America… but they still considered themselves Chinese. That is Luo ye gui gen.

“What if they choose different roots?”

You can’t choose your root, just like you can’t choose your parents. There is nothing wrong being Chinese American just like there is nothing wrong being Jewish American. Choosing a different root sounds like they are ashame of their own heritage.

“What if they define “root” differently than you or anyone else does? Are they traitors? In denial? Is their definition of their own identity to be summarily rejected?”

What did you mean second root? What is a second root for a Chinese from Hong Kong for example? Do you mean Hong Kong as their second root? There is nothing wrong with Chinese who identified themselves with other Chinese from the same region. They are not considered to be traitors or in denial. Their Hong Kong-ness or Taiwanese-ness are not being rejected. Their second root in here is called regionalism. And there is nothing wrong with that, just like Californians Vs Texans Vs New Yorkers.

January 24, 2005 @ 7:21 pm | Comment

Dave,

“I must hate Chinese people by laying such down such criticisms and at the same time proclaim the Chinese people to be unified as one. ”

I can’t claim you or Richard or even Laowai Larry hate Chinese people. However, I can smell the China-hate inside ACB or Bellevue, even though he said otherwise.

January 24, 2005 @ 7:39 pm | Comment

Richard,

“depressing part of your comment is that it dooms us all to ignorance. It appears there is no way to ever assess how “the people” feel about anything. And yet, don’t we all know how America felt on 911? By your equation, none of us can say that for a fact. Damn, do any of us know anything??”

Most Chinese in mainland China love America, they just hate the right wing mad cowboy in it. Do I answer your question?

January 24, 2005 @ 7:45 pm | Comment

But JR, eswn would ask, how do you KNOW what all Chinese people feel? And he’s right, of course.

January 24, 2005 @ 7:57 pm | Comment

This is a serious question for eswn.

Facing criticism on corruption, CCP usually responded with the following favorite line: “We have over 60 million (now over 80 million) party members. The overwhelmingly majority of our party are not corrupt. Those corruptives are small in number and they can’t represent our Party.”

Reading eswn’s post, I realize that statistics maybe on CCP’s side! Remember, most CCP members are just as powerless as the rest of the nation. They even need to struggle with life, and have no access to corruption.

So we can’t even say that CCP is a corrupt party?

Or, we need to attach a disclaimer to every scandal story: ‘they do not represent CCP as a whole’?

This is annoying at the least.

January 24, 2005 @ 8:07 pm | Comment

However, I can smell the China-hate inside ACB or Bellevue, even though he said otherwise.

I can’t speak for ACB, but where did I said OTHERWISE?

Can I be neutral, neither love nor hate? Do I have to love China to be qualified as a commentater? Can you judge my comment based on its merit, not my alleged emotion?

I can’t believe US education leads you think that one needs to love China/US/huaren before he begins to speak out.

Talking about huaren, you can ask a Tibetan refugee living in Berkeley, California, if he considers himself a Huaren. The idea of huaren is exclusively Han-based.

January 24, 2005 @ 8:15 pm | Comment

But JR, eswn would ask, how do you KNOW what all Chinese people feel? And he’s right, of course.

Exactly Richard, everyone thinks differently, those 14 Chinese don’t represent all Chinese people, especially their attitude towards America. Remember Chinese loved Clinton, I think they still love Clinton now.

January 24, 2005 @ 9:07 pm | Comment

You are right for a change bellevue, you don’t have to love China to post here but it also doesn’t give you the license to lie, mislead, manipulate and exaggerate “facts” to advance your China hate agenda. Don’t say it is an alleged emotion, it is in your every post regarding China or Chinese people.

“The idea of huaren is exclusively Han-based.”

I am not a 100% Han Chinese. I know for a fact the Manchu call themselves Huaren also, down your
“exclusively” theory.

January 24, 2005 @ 9:24 pm | Comment

many non-han chinese call them “huaren”, this is true, but usually they like to indicate that they belong to a minority in china and they are proud of it.

talking about the issue raised by eswn, i am not quite agree with him. basically there are two types of knowledge (or process of learning) in this world, one is given, one is learned. most religional knowledge are not gained by learning, for example, you won’t feel right to kill or to lie, you don’t need somebody to teach you that killing or lying is not right. on the other hand, many practical knowledge is learned, and here, scientific methods must be used to gain and test the knowledge.

to be continued….

January 24, 2005 @ 11:39 pm | Comment

even in the second category, man has an ability to learn without checking the whole or even a big chunk of the “universive” (a statistics slang)

perhaps the God gives this gift to man for his survive, but it’s dangerous and arrogant to misuse this ability.

January 24, 2005 @ 11:59 pm | Comment

I am yet waiting for truth-finding people to clearly indicate, where in my post, in which line, that alleged lie, misleadings, manipulation and exaggeration rest.

The silence is so deafening, I should say. All I hear is name calling, not a single head-on refute of the fact I point out.

I know it’s Chinese way, but after being here for a few years, can one at least acquire some new tricks? I may disagree partially with eswn or others, but their posts are always to the point, not name calling at all. And I always enjoy reading and responding to those posts. I learn things from them. Those huaren posts only remind me of the dark continent I left behind.

January 25, 2005 @ 1:10 am | Comment

Taiwan is NOT part of China! We are own little tiny country! There are lots of countries smaller in size and population than Taiwan! Why can countries like Vatican City and all those tiny countries in Europe form their own country and still exist to this day?
Most of us can also speak Taiwanese, which is unique from Chinese. Also, Chinese includes many different languages including Cantonese. We speak Mandarin Chinese. We also have a different writing system; ours contain the original words, instead of the Chinese abbreviated version that those in China use.
Our government is a democratic government, which is radically different from the Communist government. We can elect our own leaders, have equal rights, and determine our own future. Unlike China, which is suppressed under Hu Jing-Tao. Do you remember Tienanmen? Those people were brutally murdered just because of their ideas. China is a trashy country.
Despite our small size, we are still competitive among many other countries that are larger and more powerful.
Before you start degrading Taiwan, make sure your country is the most perfect in the world. Oh, wait, please make sure you check with the government before you say anything that might get you dragged out of your house at night and beaten, tortured, and hanged. Let’s hope you enjoy your life in China.

January 26, 2005 @ 8:15 pm | Comment

bellevue,

“I am yet waiting for truth-finding people to clearly indicate, where in my post, in which line, that alleged lie, misleadings, manipulation and exaggeration rest.

The silence is so deafening, I should say. All I hear is name calling, not a single head-on refute of the fact I point out.

I know it’s Chinese way, but after being here for a few years, can one at least acquire some new tricks? I may disagree partially with eswn or others, but their posts are always to the point, not name calling at all. And I always enjoy reading and responding to those posts. I learn things from them. Those huaren posts only remind me of the dark continent I left behind.

Posted by bellevue at January 25, 2005 01:10 AM ”

I had easily found at least 32 quotes (just in this month) of you lying, misleading, manipulating and exaggerating facts. To list all of them will take up one long comment page in here, I don’t think Richard will appreciate it.

“I know it’s Chinese way” so is that your way also?

January 27, 2005 @ 6:58 am | Comment

“but their posts are always to the point, not name calling at all.”

What names did I call you? I haven’t called you a liar yet for example, but when you are making wild accusations or inflating facts, I will point them out as usual.

January 27, 2005 @ 7:04 am | Comment

For those who are still interested in this thread, I apologise for being absent due to travel without computer access.

For the epistemological question about how will we ever know anything about how the People of any Nation feels on any issue, I think there are a number of ways we can know (and not know).

Here is an example: Do I think Americans are against humans having sex with dogs? I believe so. I don’t have millions of intrenet postings to support my belief. I don’t have any large-sample population survey of the said issue. But I ‘know’ because I have not seen or heard anyone support that positions anywhere anytime such that the argument had any traction. I cannot imagine too many of the people that I know clapping their hands in support because they would contradict everything else that they have shown me. You may extend this example to many other cases (such as the support for a monarchy in China, or the abolition of private ownership of land in Australia, etc). But I am sorry to say that the chauvinsim/nationalism/patriotism of the Chinese people do not fall under this category. I know I am not, and I know a lot of other people who clearly told me that they are not, or else that the question is meaningless to them.

Here is another type of example: Do I think Americans believe that the costs today support the invasion of Iraq? This can be answered by a a large-sample representative population survey in which people were asked a straightforward question in which no word games are employed. The opinion may be different from before, or it may yet change again, but I think that this is a reasonable answer. What you will do with that is another matter.

In like manner, you can ask a large representative sample of Chinese people: Do you think Taiwan should be allowed to become an independent country (assuming that no word games are employed)? This is a straightforward opiinion, but the policy implications (such as the initiation of war) would be extrapolated.

But the survey method does not always work. Try asking the question: Are you a racist, in the United States? If 99.99% of the people said NO, does that mean there is no racism? NO. A racist who is racist by objective behavior does not have to subjectively believe that he/she is ‘racist’.

Along this similar vein, I would challenge you all to think of what a suitable question might be to ask a representative large sample of Chinese people to tap their chauvinistic/nationalistic behavior and attitudes with respect to 9/11. Think hard. I believe that you will easily destroy your own constructs.

Better yet, please imagine yourself being an interviewer and showing up in a peasant village in Henan province. I assert that you will get total incomprehension because your question won’t mean anything in the daily lives of these people, who constitute the majority of the people of China.

For an illustration of what I did, please read my fairly innocuous post about Hong Kong tourists:
http://www.zonaeuropa.com/02241.htm

On one hand, I document a whole bunch of things about this group of people that I spent my time with for six days. But I told you clearly that these 16 people cannot represent all the people of Hong Kong. In fact, I just returned from a trip in Cambodia with 14 other Hong Kong people who were the kindest and erudite people imaginable.

On the other hand, I offered some indirect information that the people of Hong Kong are kind-hearted because they are willing to open their wallets to help others in need. That is my knowledge base. My goal is to ask my readers to think about their social circles and make comparisons. They could be the same, better or worse.

If all my readers have similiar social circle, then it is either because there is a genuine problem, or else these readers are a self-selected group who tend to have similar social circles. Or perhaps the readers have different experiences, which would call for a more complicated analysis that factors in diversity.

In any case, I believe that nobody is disagreeing that extrapolating beyond the supporting evidence is destructive to the argument. It will be up to you to decide how far the evidence will lead you to say. If you want to go beyond it, you ought to be clear that this is speculative.

January 27, 2005 @ 10:54 am | Comment

Bellevue posted a question based upon the standard defense used by the CCP against massive corruption charges. “We have over 60 million (now over 80 million) party members. The overwhelmingly majority of our party are not corrupt. Those corruptives are small in number and they can’t represent our Party.”

Nice question! I had been saving this for a longer post, but let’s do it here.

Recently, the overseas dissidents have issued a document titled The Nine Criticisms. The document lists nine major criticisms of the CCP and then demanded all CCP members with moral conscience to resign from the party immediately. The overseas dissidents claim to have thousands of resignations already.

I am sorry to spoil the party, but this is a major strategic blunder that has just about wiped any influence by the overseas dissidents on the future of China.

But before explaining that I should state that I don’t know if the majority of the CCP members are corrupt or not. I don’t even know what ‘corrupt’ means — Was Deng Xiaopeng corrupt? He did not exactly live the lifestyle of the Queen of England, did he? But his children also happen to do quite well. So was he ‘corrupt’? This is a contentious, but let’s not get hung up with this semantic issue.

My problem with the Nine Criticisms campaign is that is effectively demonizes the entire CCP membership who did not resign on the basis of that document. Since all those with moral conscience have resigned, the only ones left are without moral conscience and therefore cannot be trusted ever again.

Now look at history. Two very successful transitions from Communism to democracy was East Germany re-unifying with West Germany and Poland. What happened there? They could not have done it without the assistance of some members of the Communist Party even as they rejected a very small number as being totally unacceptable and putting them on trial for crimes. I wonder if they could have done it if they had expelled all Communist Party from government positions. I don’t know the answer to that question, but the Germans and Poles clearly thought that they needed those people.

What was the singular most unsuccessful transition in this century? Iraq. The Americans simply decided that they were going to ban all Ba’athist members from the new government. Guess what? They don’t know how to run the government without the administrative expertise while they faced a mounting neverending insurgency.

So I ask you to imagine this. How do you hope to attain a new nation in China someday that will be without the corrupt and totalitarian ways? There are two approaches.

One, you appeal to the existing government and offer them compelling reasons that it is best and inevitable to go in that diredtion. East Germany and Poland both saw the light. Afterwards, you work with them to build a new government, relying on their knowledge and expertise about how to run the country.

Two, you take over the government and you dismiss all CCP members because they are without moral conscience, as you have just proven by the Nine Criticisms. Guess what? You are just a bunch of exiles who lived in Boston, New York City or Washington DC, or else you are Internet dissidents. You don’t know how to operate the government. You don’t know how to make the trains run, you don’t know how to allocate agricultural production, you know nothing. What are you going to do? Bring in the world’s most experienced national rebuilder Paul Bremer or replay Iraq in China?

I can also imagine what happens at the village level. Here is a village of 1,000 persons. The CCP party secretary who used to run the village has just been relieved of all authority. He’s got a clan of 50 people, they have the guns and they will defend their positions. Are the other 950 people going to attack them with pick axes and poles, and either slaughter them or be slaughtered? Is that how it will occur all over China? The may be fine with the overseas exiles and Internet dissidents, but how many Chinese commoners (especially the now well-off Chinese urban dwellers) will agree to join in this revival of the street fights of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution?

So I say: I know some CCP members are corrupt based upon the reported cases, but I don’t know if all, the majority or many of the CCP members are corrupt. But the project should be one where the strategic objective is not to demonize and hence hopelessly antagonistize the entire CCP membership. Rather, it should be about convincing them about the value and inevitability of reform, as well as showing a clear path of transition that represents reconciliation and unity. Yes, we can talk about individual stories of corruption, but the tactical objective would not be to attack the CCP as a whole as being hopelessly corrupt but to state the obvious that this is bad and that a system that allows something this horrible to happen needs to be repaired.

By the way, please note carefully that the word democracy (as in direct elections) does not appear as the magical word in the last paragraph above. But that is another matter altogether.

January 27, 2005 @ 11:48 am | Comment

eswn:

Points well taken. I agree with Richard that it’s thought provocking indeed. And I totally agree that on the more practical, policy level, what “Nine criticisms” backers are doing is nothing but silly.

Personally I can even cite stories to back up your claim. Yet, to say that CCP is not corrupt is, IMHO, still prone to revisionist and moral ambivalance. It fails to point out the the root cause of all those corruption and scandals, which is CCP’s absolute power. Yes, you may not be able to ascribe that to majority of CCP members. After all, let’s not forget that CCP per se is not majority-ruled. But even they (party member with integrity) cannot deny the corruptness.

For this *tricky* question, Chinese on grassroot level have a crispy answer: it’s a party corrupt to beyond any hope. Don’t ask me to name names. Like you know what Americans stand on the issue you exemplified, I know what Chinese answer is. BTW, you have been a frenqueant traveller to neidi, why not ask them? They may not hold a degree on statistics, but their “wrong” answer can lead to a right one to my question.

January 28, 2005 @ 4:59 am | Comment

Yes, I go to neidi (mainland China) and I meet all sorts of people. I can ask questions, but I don’t think I am getting a meaningful answer.

If I am speaking to someone in my circle (i.e. an educated westernized professional), then it is going to be a self-amplifying process. On account of my higher professional status, they are also likely to defer to me or else attempt to discern what my preferences are and then try to please me. Most of the time, I get deflections when I try to probe.

If I am speaking to someone outside my circle (i.e. the taxi driver or the restaurant waitress), what are the chances that they will give an honest and considered opinion to a total stranger? I wouldn’t have.

Here, the analogy would be to Margaret Mead’s Growing Up In Samoa in which she went with some preconceived notions of her adviser and found them completely confirmed in her fieldwork with young girls in Samoa. Decades later, another researcher would find that Mead was being lied to by her subjects, but she had been too self-involved with her theories to notice.

Of course, the fact that nobody wants to speak what is on their minds does say something about the Chinese society today. Not that America is any better these days, as my New York friend just has found it unwise to talk politics in Ohio. And travel rule #1 in Taipei is never mention politics, because you don’t know whether the driver is Blue or Green.

January 28, 2005 @ 8:39 am | Comment

ESWN:

Thank you for your elaborated account. But you failed to convince me that the situation is the same in China, Taiwan and the US.

In the US people avoid political topics, if they do, out of courtesy. (Yet it’s not unsual to see some small skirmish – exchange of ideals in civilized way in daily life. More often than not it ends in humor spirited way.)

In Taipei people avoid political topics to shun trouble – unfriendly waiter, bad service, etc.

In China, people avoid political topics for fear of persecution from the government. Too many cases there and I don’t think you know nothing about it.

Only recently that I begin to realize that there are so many ways to use/abuse socialogy to defend CCP or, any despicable regimes in the world. I surely learned a lesson. But this time, I reject your cynical agnoticism, just because I’m involved enough to know the truth. I didn’t learn history of China only from textbook; I lived them.

January 29, 2005 @ 5:13 am | Comment

I’m Mongolian. We, all of our nation hate Chinese. Is there anyone Chinese, who thinks that Mongolian and Chinese are friends. REMEMBER: CHINGISS KHAN !!!!

February 4, 2005 @ 4:08 am | Comment

What does hate signify? animosity? jealousy?

How come a culture can not be diverse? Should the States be divided into separate nations based on unique cultures or even economic, politics and languages? Then we would see the States falling into pieces -it has the most diversed community in the world!

For me, its perfectly fine to have Mongolian and Tibet as parts of China, just as Spanish in the States and Scots in the UK.

Unification -> Separation -> Unification -> Separation … … that’s the circle of human history, a unified world impoverishes development which would sooner or later leads to separation.

btw, Gerel, do you hate Japanese as well?

February 8, 2005 @ 4:18 pm | Comment

Dear Sir,

We are the United for exhibition located in Amman – Jordan, we have a 30 years of experience in the field of exhibition organization .
We organized many exhibition in the Middle east countries like Jordan , Libya, Algeria , Palestine.
We are pleased to inform you that we are going to organize new exhibition for military and police materials product in Amman – Jordan between17-20 May 2005.
Our visitor will be the purchasing managers of Defense and Police from Jordan and all Middle East countries like Iraq, Palestine , Yemen , Sudan and Gulf.
To participate in this exhibition please contact us on the following :-

Tel :- +96265560074
Fax :- +96265560074

Mobile No. +962795960900 Or . +962796742313

E-mail:- United525@hotmail.com .

Our price will be as follows
1- 300$ per Sq. meter ,not less than 9 Sq. meter including all the section preparation.

2- Our offer does not include Accommodation , but we will help you with reservation .

3- Free special tour in Jordan will be done for all participate.

4- We Would like to inform you, we will invite all the purchases manager in the army & police in the Arabic country’s they will be biggest visitors our exhibition

Your prompt reply will be appreciated by us.

United for Exhibitions .

Mahmoud AL- Jabiri

General Manager .

February 15, 2005 @ 1:06 am | Comment

Fuck them chinese !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

They are still number one enemy all of the mongolian nations !!!!!!!!!!

February 17, 2005 @ 1:01 am | Comment

It is interesting that taiwan of Today claims Mongolia. Qing Dynisty did exist many years ago, but it is faded, and nobody knows about the Dynisty today. The thing is that, there was a time, that Mongolians Ruled the Whole Known World of the time. Yet Mongolians of today are not claiming any piece of land and people of Poland or Russia or China or Hungary. If anyone remembers The Mongol Empire was the Biggest Empire ever founded in Human History. I believe that history repeats, and if it comes the time, then Mongolia may be strong again. It is pity that Taiwan still claims over Mongolia, who has no official recognition from many nations throughout the world, or Organizations. At last I would like to state that Manchus were nomadic tribes just like Mongolians, and in the twist of the history they became strong and had their chance to rule.

April 16, 2005 @ 6:08 pm | Comment

Look,

For those who advocate the break-up of China, no REAL sovereign nation (that would exclude Canada) ever gives up its territory without a good fight. When southern United States wanted to secede from the Union, Americans fought against it. And you know what? So what Uighurs, Mongolians, or whichever ethnic group aren’t ethnically Chinese? So what? In America, we have at least 100 ethnic groups living here that don’t look racially white, don’t speak English, etc. etc, so does that give them a right to secede from the United States should they want to do so one day in the near future? I DON’T THINK SO!!!
So since that’s the case, I don’t see why you busybodies are so intent on breaking up China, HYPOCRITES.

August 26, 2005 @ 2:28 pm | Comment

Taiwanese people speak Mandarin also known as Pu tong Wha is because the KMT came and took Taiwan back in the 50s… and forced the people there to learn Mandarin. That still does not mean that Taiwan is a part of China. My grandmother doesnt even know how to speak mandarin, she speaks Japanese and Taiwanese Dialect- Ming Nan Wha. which is also not 100% the same as fu jianese.. Who ever asked the KMT to fukin take over Taiwan? General Mcaruthor only asked them to use Taiwan as a shelter and not take over. Shiz,we rather be under the Japanese rule. So where does it say that Taiwan is a part of China? no where.. so maybe we should say United States is part of the Great Britain if yall wana go way back into history huh. so the US is part of the UK and Mexico is part of Spain. ahaha

October 21, 2005 @ 2:39 am | Comment

u kno wut…wut about taiwan give up chinese and all of chinese ways and then I’ll support them in becoming independent.

October 27, 2005 @ 3:24 pm | Comment

btw wen taiwan was under japanese rule, they were rank as ‘second’ highest class under japanese who were first. o wow. they treated u nice didn’t they.

October 27, 2005 @ 3:29 pm | Comment