It was something I noticed within a few days of starting my first job in Asia, back in Hong Kong. One of my co-workers sent me an email that included a smiley, only it had distinct Chinese characteristics. Instead of the usual (for Westerners) smile of :-), it had the eyes on top and the mouth on the bottom: ^_^. I’ve since seen this countless times throughout Greater China.

My immediate thought was that this was meant to symbolize the shape of local people’s eyes, as opposed to rounder Western eyes. But according to this article, the difference between the two smileys is of much deeper significance, and in fact represents a difference between how Westerners and Asians express their emotions, and how we interpret the emotions of others. The article focuses on Japan, but I would guess the findings would apply to much of Asia.

Research has uncovered that culture is a determining factor when interpreting facial emotions. The study reveals that in cultures where emotional control is the standard, such as Japan, focus is placed on the eyes to interpret emotions. Whereas in cultures where emotion is openly expressed, such as the United States, the focus is on the mouth to interpret emotion.

Across two studies, using computerized icons and human images, the researchers compared how Japanese and American cultures interpreted images, which conveyed a range of emotions.

“These findings go against the popular theory that the facial expressions of basic emotions can be universally recognized,” said University of Alberta researcher Dr. Takahiko Masuda. “A person’s culture plays a very strong role in determining how they will perceive emotions and needs to be considered when interpreting facial expression”

These cultural differences are even noticeable in computer emoticons, which are used to convey a writer’s emotions over email and text messaging. Consistent with the research findings, the Japanese emoticons for happiness and sadness vary in terms of how the eyes are depicted, while American emoticons vary with the direction of the mouth. In the United States the emoticons : ) and : – ) denote a happy face, whereas the emoticons 🙁 or : – ( denote a sad face. However, Japanese tend to use the symbol (^_^) to indicate a happy face, and (;_;) to indicate a sad face.

So we in the West first look to people’s mouths to judge whether they are happy or sad, while the Japanese tend to look at their interlocutors’ eyes. Maybe this is why so many in the West have for centuries described Asians as “inscrutable” – because we can’t tell from their facial expressions how they feel, but only because we aren’t looking at the right part of the face. If we looked more closely at their eyes instead of their mouths, maybe we’d see they aren’t so inscrutable after all. Interesting idea.

Yes, it looks like it’s really here. Google scares me sometimes, but i am always in awe of the things they come up with. (Google Desktop literally changed the way I work. I.e., I don’t lose stuff anymore.)

Read this hard-hitting condemnation of Africa’s repeated lack of action over Robert Mugabe’s reign of terror in Zimbabwe.

Neighbours wring their hands while Zimbabwe burns

There isn’t much I can add to it, though I will highlight the following.

Doffing their race-laced caps to an old revolutionary, African nations have become complicit in the killing of a neighbouring people. Taking action against Mugabe would essentially mean siding with white Western leaders, apparently a sin worse than genocide. This African-style neo-racism means that a black despot goes on killing black people.

The simple fact is that African nations must stop being so blinkered and not protect a man because of something he did years ago, just because of what the newspaper terms “neo-racism”, which in some respects is a very apt description of the motivations of some African states in protecting Mugabe. Zimbabwe is on the verge of collapse – if those who have the power to isolate Mugabe do nothing then the millions that suffer under his regime will point to them, not those who lost their influence over their country decades previously.

It raises interesting questions of priorities.

SHANGHAI, China – Scientists in Shanghai are developing a nuclear-powered lunar rover for the country’s first unmanned mission to the moon in 2012, newspapers reported Monday.

The six-wheeled vehicle has been under development for four years at the Shanghai Aerospace System Engineering Institute, where a laboratory has been outfitted to replicate the lunar surface, the Shanghai Daily reported.

The 5-foot-high, 440-pound rover is designed to transmit video in real time, dig for and analyze soil samples, and produce three dimensional images of the lunar surface, the paper said. In photographs, the rover appeared similar to NASA’s unmanned Spirit and Opportunity Mars explorers that were launched in 2003 and are still operating.

However, unlike the rechargeable lithium ion batteries used by those rovers, the Chinese model will eventually run on a nuclear power source to ensure a constant energy supply, the report said.

This nuclear powered lunar explorer sounds really cool. It may advance the development of new technologies. Is it, however, worth the cost in terms of China’s day to day challenges, and could the money be better spent elsewhere? I’m just asking.

I was appalled when Bush a couple of years ago in his state of the union address – when we were already in the midst of the Iraqi quagmire – made a manned flight to Mars one of the nation’s top priorities. There’s a time and a place for everything.

Sinocidal recently rebutted various complaints made against them, by pointing out some far, far worse things one can find on the internet…..

Such as an official, English-language forum of a Chinese newspaper that likes to think of itself as the “window to China”. All I can say is (having read many other posts there) if that’s China I would prefer to close the window and pull the curtains closed!

Read on…….

Sinocidal – A word from our sponsors

Older members of the blog will also find references to an old “friend” – one is glad to see he has not changed his ways.

UPDATE: A thread on the Chinadaily BBS has many amusing comments you should read, many generally pointing to why Sinocidial is right that it is heavily populated by trolls and complete fools.

The gratuitous and uncensored swearing also supports my belief that the Chinadaily moderators are completely useless and should spend more time in making the forum a fun, safe place to post, rather than delete comments for their political comment.

A commenter in the Haidian thread below leaves a link to a most interesting article in the Economist on why China’s “peaceful rise” hasn’t managed to dampen the angst of its neighbors, or anybody else for that matter. It points out the many concrete successes China has achieved over the past ten years in foreign relations, settling many issues (like its conflicts with India) peacefully and with a great deal of tact. (Which is why I constantly heap praise on Hu for his foreign policy prowess.)

But alas, for all of this goodwill and diplomacy, China’s true friends are few and far between. Almost like America in the Age of Bush.

[I]f you scour the region for China’s firm friends it is hard to find them. Even Russia, where China’s president, Hu Jintao, was this week pressing the flesh, is a fair-weather friend – or rather sees China as a foul-weather insurance policy. India and Japan, China’s other big regional counterparts, both view it with suspicion at best and, at worst, paranoia. That leaves as China’s chums a scanty list of Neanderthal dictatorships such as Myanmar and North Korea. And even their friendship does not amount to much. Far from being a loyal client, Myanmar plays China off against India and its fellow members of ASEAN. And China’s relationship, famously ‘as close as lips and teeth’, with North Korea spawned a mouth ulcer last October when North Korea let off a nuclear weapon. North Korea’s cruel but cunning despot, Kim Jong Il, exploits China’s fear that, if his vile regime collapses, China might have a strong, American-allied democratic Korea on its border.

Why are China’s neighbours not always susceptible to its charms? Of course, any rapidly emerging big power is unsettling. Like America, China can still display a penchant for unilateralism that undermines all its careful diplomacy. As it overtakes America as the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases, its cavalier disregard of the global environment will become an ever-bigger issue in its foreign relations. More traditional fears also unsettle China’s neighbours. This month China’s annual budget called for another big increase (of nearly 18%) in military spending. Most analysts believe the published budget is understated – in which case, why trumpet such a big number? And why, without warning, blow up a satellite in space, as a Chinese missile did in January?

A perception therefore persists that China’s goodwill extends only so far as its interests are not affected. In its dispute with India, for example, it is the status quo power: it is happy with the present arrangements, so what has it to lose by talking for ever? In one crucial respect, however, it is far from a status quo power: its historically dubious and morally untenable claim on Taiwan. This is one big reason, other than merely acting the big-power part, for the military build-up, and could one day bring war with the real superpower.

A much better Taiwan policy is available to China. The ‘one country, two systems’formula promised to Hong Kong in 1997, which mirrored that offered to the Dalai Lama’s Tibet in 1951, was aimed in large measure at the more important goal to China of coaxing Taiwan back into the ‘motherland’. But China has sabotaged its own strategy. Like the long history of repression in Tibet, the farcical ‘re-election’ on March 25th of Hong Kong” British-trained, Chinese-adopted chief executive, Donald Tsang, by a committee dominated by China’s placemen shows how little China cares to lend substance to its promises of autonomy and democracy – even though Mr Tsang would probably have won a real election anyway.

Giving Hong Kongers the freedoms they have demanded, and talking to the Dalai Lama about the future of his homeland, would do more to impress China’s neighbours than a decade’s worth of state visits and free-trade agreements. Yet China will not yield on either front, sternly warning critics against infringing on its internal affairs.

This is one of those article where you want to quote every line and then debate it. So be sure to read it all. And then ask yourself why China’s leaders won’t get some of the more obvious points, like those in the final two paragraphs. No, I take that back – don’t ask yourself. Because you’ll only get a headache. It’s like asking yourself why Bush refuses to see that Karl Rove is bad for the country and bad for himself. It seems so obvious from our vantage point, and one can only wonder why it’s not obvious from theirs.

On a personal note, work reached the point of insanity this week, and I’ve been in the office all weekend. It will get better soon – there will be some new help in a week or so, and then in May I’ll be joined by a former colleague from Taiwan who will help lift a huge load off my shoulders. But until then, posts from me will continue to be rare, squeezed in whenever i can find a moment to myself, usually on the weekend. And when I do post, the writing will be on the slender side. For now.

Sinocidal certainly does.

At 9:20 am on Wednesday, a subway tunnel under construction in Haidian (NW Beijing) collapsed trapping six workers. None are believed to have survived. The accident occurred during construction of the Number 10 subway line linking Haidian with central Beijing. Not surprisingly, the first response of the bosses from the China Railway 12th Bureau Group Co Ltd was to cover up the accident. Rather than call city emergency services, the on-site managers organized an ad-hoc rescue team, locked the gates of the site to prevent anyone from leaving, and then…wait for it…ordered the confiscation of all the workers’ cellphones. Unfortunately for the bosses, one worker managed to keep his and called the police–in his home province of Henan. Henan authorities called the Beijing police and by Wednesday evening, emergency workers were on the scene and the story had broken in the local media. Tragically, it was too late for the six men trapped underground.

What is surprising is the openess with which the state media has been reporting the incident. The People’s Daily English language edition carried the story on Thursday morning and has even included a photospread of the accident scene on its website. This morning, the China Daily ran a story on its website about the botched cover-up attempt by the site managers. The cover-up was also reported in yesterday’s edition of several Beijing Chinese-language newspapers as well. This is all particularly interesting given the recent annoucement of a new government policy to crack-down on “dishonest reporting” of accidents and deal harshly with mine-owners who try to cover up or hide accidents at their sites.

Granted the Haidian collapse has the makings of a PR headache for Beijing. All of the foreign coverage of the story featured the words “subway planned for the 2008 Olympic games in Beijing” as part of the first or second paragraph. Covering it up would would have been 1) nearly impossible and 2) just added fuel to the fire.

Other thoughts?

Kaiser said so, and it’s true – for now, at least. We’ve been through this exercise so many times, playing see-saw, up and down, cat and mouse, a Chinese firedrill. What does it mean, and why do they bother? (Don’t feel obliged to answer. The questions are mainly rhetorical, as there really is no answer.)

No time, but want to make a quick point. I am frustrated as hell that we continue to damage our own cause and make it easy for Michelle and Charles and others to continue their ear-splitting crusade about “the vicious, hateful left.” No, it’s not a fair crusade, as they always cherry-pick, while ignoring the cesspool of hatred permeating every thread over at LGF. But still, why would a prominent lefty blog hand over to the wingnutosphere its own head, gift-wrapped with a pretty red bow on a silver platter?

I’m sorry. No matter how much we dislike Tony Snow, to make any allusions to the idea that “what goes around comes around” as we learn the sad news that his days are (probably) numbered is just plain stupid and self-defeating. No good in any way can come from it. If we harbor such thoughts, that a Bush crony – or anyone at all – deserves to die of cancer, we should keep them to ourselves.

I worry about liberalism’s future when those in the forefront continue to demonstrate such appalling judgment.

(updated 2.45pm beijing time)