There is a deeply revealing article in the Telegraph written by the Chinese Ambassador to Britain, Fu Ying, called ‘Western media has demonised China‘. It is fascinating because it reveals the same psychopathology on display that I wrote about on Samizdata when many Chinese people reacted badly to a ‘disrespectful’ image of Mao (debatably the most prolific mass murderer in human history) which was used in a Spanish car advertisement. The ambassador pains a picture of wounded feelings over the protests launched against Olympic torch carriers…
My daughter, who loves Western culture, must have used the word “why” dozens of times in our long online chat. Her frustration could be felt between the lines. Many who had romantic views about the West are very disappointed at the media’s attempt to demonise China. We all know demonisation feeds a counter-reaction. I do pray from the bottom of my heart that the younger generation of Chinese will not be totally disillusioned about the West, which remains an important partner in our ongoing reform.
And to Fu Ying, the Chinese state and the Chinese people are simply the same thing (a profoundly fascist attitude I might add), so to her, protesting the Chinese government’s policy of maintaining the colonial occupation of Tibet is the same as protesting against the Chinese people itself. She, and a great many other people alas, cannot truly conceive of the notion that hostility to the Chinese state because of its actions does not imply any insult to or hostility to Chinese people simply because they are Chinese, because to any non-collectivist, the Chinese state is a political construct, not some expression of the Chinese soul, or some such metaphysical drivel.
The western media are not demonising China because China’s demons are generally home grown. The Chinese state has moved from full blown communism to a less mundanely repressive nationalistic fascism, but it is still a state which brooks no rival power centres of any sort, be they the Falan Gong, Dalai Lama or Roman Catholic Church let alone any real political movements. Moreover it demands, with considerable success, an atavistic loyalty based on ethnicity that Chinese people see themselves as extensions of the state. As a result Fu Ying’s claims of widespread insult and incomprehension by Chinese people is almost certainly true enough, but the issue here is not ‘us’ understanding China, it is China understanding the rest of the world. Until a critical mass of Chinese people can think their way past mental collectivisation and realise they are not the Chinese state, the genuine modernisation the Ambassador craves will remain an illusion no matter how many skyscrapers they build.
Really good article, I’m totally agree.
The China ambassador was choose by the fascist regime of China, ¿What we are waiting he can say?
Sorry for my bad english 😉
Pataliebre: indeed, he could hardly say anything less…but I actually believe him, in that I think he really feels the things he writes in his article.
As Ambassador to Britain, Fu Ying is a government man working hard at this moment to merit the favors bestowed upon him by the regime he serves. Having us accept that he speaks for the vast numbers of persons ruled by the regime, rather than the regime itself, is an integral part of his assignment, no doubt.
I don’t know what proportion of the people in China may be at or near this realization, or what number may secretly hold it as self-evident. It may well be nowhere near the critical mass needed to outgrow and cast off the ironclad hold of central authority in favor of individual autonomy.
Perhaps it is just as Fu Ying describes and you accept, but I’m not willing to take his word for it when it’s clear he speaks for the regime and not its subjects.
Amb. Fu Ying inadvertently makes a very good point that should stir the culturally minded libertarians amongst us: Many, many young Chinese, and non-Americans generally, have “romantic” (and otherwise positive) views of Western culture. And the reasons they hold these views come from MTV or Apple, Inc., or YouTube or — we can dream — Mozart, Shakespeare, Picasso. The West right now has a make-it-or-break-it chance to explain to Amb. Fu’s daughter, and all her soulmates worldwide, why freedom generally and the West in particular arose together, and have so often thrived together. And why no such things will ever take in the soils of, say, Communist China. Making the case in terms the YouTube generation will appreciate is arguably our generation’s greatest challenge.
I actually base my view on talking to Chinese people myself and from the extraordinary number of howls that come from ‘ordinary’ people when some icon of the state gets trashed. I had a Chinese person (who is no fan of the government) tell me that she was not sure which was deeper amongst Chinese people, their deference or their cynicism towards the state.
Perhaps when the government stops demonizing the independence of Taiwan I might stop disrepecting mainland China.
As a Chinese-American, I am shocked by the hostility of the Western media harbors towards anything Chinese. Throughout the riots in Tibet, the Western media have colllectively gloss over the violent crimes committed by the Tibetan protestors and single out the Chinese government for restoring basic social order.
I thought all these cold-war relics are distant memories. I wish those who criticize China should have a little crash course on Chinese history. Most of these idiots probably can’t locate Tibet or China on a world map. They just join the chorus because China-bashing is the current fad as Japan-bashing was in the 90’s. I am not saying Chinese government is perfect. But it has improved a lot since the economic reform in the later 70’s. If any of you have been to China, you would know that people are enjoying more freedom than before. People are no longer afraid to criticize the government in public, which was still a taboo just a decade ago.
The Western media painted Dalai Lama as a saint, which is kind of ironic. Do people know that Tibet under his rule was a feudal society ruled by the monks? Many Tibetans were slaves subject to brutal treatments by their masters. Isn’t it ironic that Dalai Lama, as a former head of feudal state that condones slavery received Nobel Peace Prize? That is what you call politics. The West is uncomfortable that China is beginning to threaten their economic dominance. They will do whatever is necessary to impede China’s ascendence.
The EU and the US are supposed to be the biggest proponents of free trade. But when they can’t compete, they will use anti-dumping charges to stifle competition; they will blame China for all the toy recalls, even though it was mostly their own design flaws. I have been in the US for more than a quarter century, and I know the Americans better than themselves. Americans are still resting on their past glory. They always think they are the best in the world when in reality most of them can’t do basic arithmatics, let alone Calculus. How can you compete in today’s knowledge-based economy when you don’t have the basic education to upgrade yourself?
It is one thing to have an opinion. But as a journalist, you should keep your objectivity when you report on events like Tibet violence. The Chinese governement has shown considerable restraints in dealing with these violent Tibetans. Why there was not a sinlge condemnation of violence committed against the Chinese civilians in Tibet. Are Chinese lives less valuable than that of Tibetban? Yes, the voice of a few million Tibetans should be heard, but what about the 1.3 billion Chinese people? Before you criticize the Chinese government for distorting the fact, look yourself in your mirror. Shame on you, the Western media.
I would like to thank Daniel for eloquently confirming everything I wrote. The fact he is a Chinese-American makes it even more remarkable.
As I wrote before, to be hostile to the government of China because of its actions (and indeed nature) is seen as being hostile towards ‘anything Chinese’. Far from telling people in the west they need history lessons, here we have a complete lack of comprehension of what a Chinese person is seeing in the western media. Why? Because he writes from a meta-context that simply cannot really see the difference between China (a repressive political entity) and ‘anything Chinese’. How deeply is ingrained the notion that China is the Chinese and the Chinese are China. Das Volk ist der Staat.
Yet strangely, I cannot for the life of me recall having read western journalists making hostile remarks about Chinese culture, food, women, arts, products (well, apart from a few toxic ones), etc. etc.. All I read is hostility to repressive Chinese politics.
Well, yeah. If a person does not think the Chinese state has any business being in Tibet (and that is the prevalent view in the west), what you describe as ‘restoring basic social order’ looks a lot like ‘restoring Chinese rule’, which is a rather less noble thing. Another really great way to ‘restore basic social order’ would have been for China to have removed its troops and gone home.
Having de-colonialised our Empires, why do you think China would get a free ride from other people regarding its Empire? Has China been speaking out against the treatment of whites in Zimbabwe? No, it has not, so why do you think anyone is going to be that sympathetic to Chinese colonists in Tibet? Unlike rather more complex places like Northern Ireland or the Basque regions or Bosnia, by Ambassador Fu Ying’s own account, Tibet is still 92% Tibetan, so what possible justification can there be for China’s occupation?
If Chinese rule is so damn wonderful and actually popular in Tibet amongst Tibetans (a claim I have heard pro-Bejing people make), then allow a free and fair vote in Tibet on who they want to rule them. If Beijing wins a genuine plebiscite on that then I and I suspect a lot of other folks will never say ‘Free Tibet’ ever again. If that not reasonable, Daniel?
“How deeply is ingrained the notion that China is the Chinese and the Chinese are China. Das Volk ist der Staat.”
That is absolutely correct.
Yet it is not only ingrained in the minds of Chinese people, it is also ingrained in the minds of others – there is no shortage of westerners who think like this about China, and perhaps more importantly, there is no shortage of people in Taiwan who think like this.
How could one overestimate the importance of a blog like Samizdata that regularly hits this sort of thing square in the nose?
A profoundly Confucian attitude mostly.
Agreed, Perry. But one point might have been an improvement: Chinese peoples. It is a big old multilingual empire, saggy and a bit loose at the seams. The idea that there is one Chinese people is part of the fascist mythology.
My own talks with the very few mainland Chinese I’ve met have shown – shockingly enough – that different people have different approaches. Some are profoundly infected by the nationalist meme, and evince hurt and anger whenever China is criticised. Others are interested in my point of view on history and (being wise enough not to take me as an epitome) what I think other British people think.
Why is it important in this context, Guy? All these peoples are currently subjects to the same problematic government.
For sure.
Perry, I am pretty certain from the picture on the Telegraphs’ site that Fu Ying is a woman.
daniel zhao,
Would these be the Tibetan protesters you are talking about?
I had a Chinese person (who is no fan of the government) tell me that she was not sure which was deeper amongst Chinese people, their deference or their cynicism towards the state.
It’s a start.
It should be noted that Mme. Fu Ying is “she” not “he.”
Yes, she serves the autocratic government of her nation, just as the ambassadors of all nations serve some current administration or politically (even militarily) determined control group.
Yes, we should accept that the Chinese “State” is not the Chinese peoples (pl. not sing.), but is that different from even the most “advanced” and free peoples and their governments?
Where shall we find the Government is the people?
With the exception of broader physical areas of cohesion, the structures of Chinese social organization have not changed materially in historical times. As externalities are impacting the “economics” of life, that social organization is entering a period of foment, a condition which all prior ruling coalitions of those peoples have tried to (and generally succeeded in) suppressing.
China remains a “Limited Access” Social Order (See, North, et al. NBER Working Paper #12795). Thus, for example, there is limited access to association and to the formation of associations, thereby containing the areas of foment in order to preserve the traditional manners of establishing and maintaining a rulng coalition.
Still, the impact of the externalities are revealed in the “Why-s” of Mme Fu’s daughter. The fact “Why” rises in the reactions and thinking of a coming member of her class is telling. To examine the why will require comparisons of experiences that have formed social organizations.
Therein lie the possibilities.
I disagree. In the US we consider anti-us-policy protests to be a sign of anti-americanism. This sounds like the same thing to me.
The real issue to consider is that in the US the people have access to different points of view and can decide their moral/ethical preference for or against the US policy. The chinese don’t have access to all points of view. So if a Chinese girl says “Why?” I assume it is truly because she doesn’t understand. I feel sorry for her discomfort but she is just another victim of the Chinese government repression.
Having called her a “government man” in an earlier comment myself, I just want to mention that when I clicked through to the the Fu Ying article and read it last night (East coast America time), her lovely picture wasn’t there.
Yes, the Ambassador is indeed a woman, article duly edited. Thanks for pointing that out.
uhser82qgf215t (great name. From the mother’s side I assume?).
Who’s “we” white man? 😀
“Manifest destiny Republicans” may well take that view but I’ve never had a problem differentiating between people who hate Gee Dubya Bush and people who hate the US of A. If I didn’t vote for ’em, they don’t represent my views and so I really don’t take it personally if people on the receiving end of US policies want to bitch about the US gubbment. I do, why shouldn’t they?
An excellent article, but in my deep cynicism as of late, I myself am losing the ability to differentiate between the ruling CCP and ethnic Chinese around the world.
I am encountering just too much sympathy for the butchers in Beijing among “ordinary” Chinese-Americans and Canadians.
So sad- I spent a month in China 2 years ago and had the time of my life. I genuinely enjoyed interacting with the people there.
I’ve always enjoyed Chinese cinema, poetry, calligraphy, music (classical and modern) and the spoken language (Mandarin & Cantonese).
But what am I to do? I can be proud of my German/Irish heritage while accepting scathing criticism of the National Socialists or the Irish Republican Army . . .
the Chinese state and the Chinese people are simply the same thing (a profoundly fascist attitude I might add)
Yes, but it is also a very human attitude. Per ‘uhser’ and contra Mr Cohen, for just about all of human history there has been effectively no difference between the state and the people from the perspective of ‘the outsider’ Heck, we definitely didn’t differentiate between Nazis and ‘good’ Germans for most of the early 1940’s (please do not read too much into this analogy)
I don’t like this conflation either, esp in modern educated, information saturated times, but it’s going against the grain of history and I believe human nature.
Simply not true. Do not project your modern westphalian state sensibilities on all of history and certainly not on us all as a species.
Tribal loyalties were a social evolutionary trait, not a hardwired fact of nature. Moreover modern nation-states are just that, modern… and loyalty to them, and identification with them, has been far more flexible at many many points in even relatively recent human history.
John McGinnis: Bravo!! What do you have in mind?
Perry: Sorry but as things stand, China IS the Chinese; you just wish it were not so.
1)Mao officially “70% good and 30% bad”:
Mao is the idol under which PRC was created! He’s the Chinese Lincoln. Disrespect to Mao suggests rejection of Mao which suggests a more politically and economically challenging version of USSR-style fragmentation.
2)“Representational Government with Special Chinese Characteristics”:
The CCP may be able to defend their system against whatever alternative critics might propose. In any case, the facts on the ground are that the government cannot be voted out, and the Party has 70+ million (!) members. The main things the People have going for them, the booming Economy (and a stable polity) and the nation’s growing international significance, seem particularly vulnerable to the side-effects of externally imposed negative policy incentives. With the interests of the Party and People as tightly bound as they are, small wonder policy criticism is taken personally.
3)PRC TBTF:
In a world where even the archetypal evil dictator Kim Jung Il is Too Big To Fall, there may be less need for “a critical mass of Chinese people [to] think their way past mental collectivisation” than for the rest of the globalized world to learn to accept the Peaceful Rise of China. Here’s an interesting article to this effect.
All of the immigrant groups, which make up the USA , have had their moments of cultural pride. The separation of nationality; cultural identity, and currently, religious devotion is always something which finally has to be acknowledged in order to just simply get on with life. The self worshiping love of ethnicity and race is self defeating. Humanity is usually its own worst enemy when it comes to dealing with anything that is not drilled into us by our parents and our love of the person we see in the mirror.
I’m sorry, I am drunk on wine and have a pot of chili waiting for me. If any of the above makes sense, I for one will be amazed.
I think you need to re-read my article. The whole point was yes, it is to a great many people and my view is that China will never actually be ‘modern’ until that is no longer the case.
NSS
Yes that is indeed the Party Line. And as they hold up the Great Murderer as an acceptable icon, that should tell you everything you need to know about the true nature of the Communist Party of China. That they succeed in getting so many of the offspring of Mao’s victims to go along with that shows the social, indeed civilisational dysfunction of the place. People can pretend China is just a normal country but it is simply not true.
And the reason that is wrong is because a repressive (and colonial) China is not in fact a ‘peaceful’ China at all. It is a different sort of problem than the Soviet Union was (no need to contain it militarily, at least as things stand as they seem keen to keep the tyranny in the neighbourhood) but it is nevertheless a problem.
“I do pray from the bottom of my heart”
I’m curious as to which deity a Chinese ambassador might pray to.
Um. The current Chinese government and governing system needs to be booted out of office; true. Communism is a crappy theory and a crappier implementation, no doubt. China would be a major hyperpower if Taiwanese ran the show… well, that’s arguable, but likely true.
That being said, Mr de Havilland, it is also true that where there is a bureaucracy, there is a nation. In the case of the Chinese Empire, which lasted some millennia (well, some few centuries, anyway), there really was a lot of input from the ‘volk’. The imperial examinations meant that anyone could be part of the bureaucracy, and I think that (certainly from a romantic hindsight viewpoint) most people wanted to become Mandarins. Or at least, have one of their children make it.
A lot of overseas Chinese probably think the same way. I do not consider myself to be mainland Chinese, but I’m still Chinese. Nor do I owe any allegiance to either the Communist Party or to that paedophile and mass murderer Mao. Nevertheless, if democracy (or even a restored Imperial Government, with the examination system that served China so well for eons) was to win out in China, the temptation to do an Israel and ‘return’ to the mothership would be very alluring.
Don’t think the idea of the nation-state was a modern invention, cemented by the Treaty of Westphalia. Israel, Egypt, Babylon, China and many other empires managed to survive for fairly long periods of time *and* maintain the loyalty of their people to the idea of a nation-state (with clearly delineated boundaries and all the trappings of countries, including federal, state, provincial and local authorities).
Part of the problem, of course, also lies in the fact that we are very racist beings. Chinese, I mean. I know deep in my bones that other than the Jews (who are our distant cousins), and the Egyptians (the Pharoahic type, I mean, not the Arab hooligans nowadays), we are superior to the rest of the world. It’s very genetic by now. I don’t go about trumpeting it, but that certainty is really very core to how a Chinese feels. Hence, denigrating Chinese ‘history’ is, well, sensitive ground.
I would restate your topic; China is the Chinese, the Chinese is China, but both are NOT the government (because quite frankly, they didn’t choose these buggers to represent them) and vice versa.
Because, after all, what is a nation but the people who inhabit it? It certainly is not just the land – you can abandon the land and come and grab it back later. It most certainly is not the government – shame on any libertarians who would think that.
Having said all that, I probably don’t have a horse in this race. Who cares about Tibet? As far as I’m concerned, they’re welcome to that inhospitable pile of rocks they call a country. Won’t be caught dead anywhere near the place. (no offense to any Tibetans, or mountain(eer) goats. But it’s not my cuppa tea, OK?)
My father makes the point, however, that Tibetans, out of all the four major components that make up China, have never formed an imperial dynasty – he thinks this might have made a difference in the way they see themselves. Well, maybe, maybe not.
My $.05 (have to adjust for inflation, after all). Again, I’m just sittin’ on the sidelines watching this with unholy glee. Blue on blue action, especially in Moonbat Capital, Berkeley. It’s all good. So nobody hash my mellow, right? 🙂
“If Beijing wins a genuine plebiscite on that then I and I suspect a lot of other folks will never say ‘Free Tibet’ ever again. If that not reasonable, Daniel?”
The answer to that will be: will the rest of China’s 1.3 billion people be allowed to vote as well? Thats’ what they always want for Taiwan.
In Taiwan I have not heard anyone complain about the western media’s take on Tibet, and my Taiwanese wife had to ask me where it was, and why it was ruled by the Chinese. (and she’s pro-KMT!)
“we are superior to the rest of the world. It’s very genetic by now.”
I think you should lay off the Kool-Aid. I live in Taiwan which supposedly is full of brilliant people who beat everyone else in the planet in testing, etc., and yet they can’t pave a road correctly and college educated people I asked thought the Panama Canal was located in Canada.
IMHO, overseas Chinese usually represent the smartest among the Chinese and thus they can be blinded by selection bias into thinking that all Chinese must be equally smart.
BTW, scientists testing Taiwanese blood found that most of the population had genes from aboriginals – GASP! – and were not pure Han. Hmmm, maybe its the aboriginal genes that make Taiwanese think themselves superior to Mainlanders?
Um…pardon? If you graphed Chinese development, it would be a 5000 year long, gently inclining line. Considering that the Western world’s development has been somewhere near vertical for the past 400+ years, the Chinese imperial system looks deeply mediocre.
Gregory –
How does your father come to the conclusion that Tibetans never “formed an imperial dynasty?”
Aaron –
If memory serves, there was a majority “quasi-indigenous” population on what had been known as “Formosa” when the residue of the KMT flooded out of the mainland and, being armed, dominated the previous residents.
Dear Aaron;
Awwkkk!!! I hope you ain’t buildin no strawman here. I don’t mean our ‘superiority’ is genetic – that would make me an eugenist of some sort, at least, and that’s not the way I swing. I mean our ‘feeling of superiority’ is genetic. Given suitable adjustments for exaggerative effects, right? And I’m not so sure Taiwanese think they’re superior to mainlanders – their *position*, maybe. Although having a million Red Army (Would be Green Army, though, won’t it) asses mooning you from across the sea might mitigate any superior feelings they have about that
Dear Expat;
YMMV, of course, but newspaper catches fire and burns fast and firewood oh so very much slower. Would you rather have newspaper or firewood as your primary heating source, given an equal quantity of each (and don’t make any smart remarks about using oil column heaters either)? I’m not saying the Western civilisation is burning out, but sometimes slow and steady does win the race. It’s a difference in perspectives, I guess.
Dear RRS;
1. Beats me – I don’t bone up on Chinese history. But my dad figures that we’ve had Han emperors of China (Shih Huang Ti, right?), Manchurean emperors of China, even Mongolian emperors of China. But not Tibetan emperors of China. Like I said, maybe, maybe not, although I cannot recall Tibetans on the throne of China either.
2. Yes, Formosa has aborigines; so does Japan, and treatment of the aborigines in both areas was none too good. I think this is a function of human nature, since whites don’t treat abos all that well either.
As for the Panama Canal, well, how may Americans can tell you where the Manniken Pis is? (okay, not the politest example, let’s try Davos instead) Or, for that matter, what countries the Chao Phraya runs through? (and no fair asking expats in Thailand, Vietnam and Cambodia either) How about the ASEAN countries? Can the average college-educated Berkeley moonbat (okay, widen the field) name all of them?
Ignorance is ignorance anywhere. Overseas Chinese were *lucky* their ancestors decided to haul ass and mine gold or tin or whatever. I know I am, even if my grandpa decided for some unknown reason the White Rajah’s dominion (betcha you wont know what I’m talking about here either) was the best place to go. Not necessarily smart, no.
Gregory – your father is wrong. There absolutely was an imperial dynasty in Tibet, long before the country converted to Buddhism.
The Chinese are wrong about Tibet. Here’s why. Ask any (mainland) Chinese about the Mongolian people – they’ll tell you they’re Chinese. Now, the reason Mao didn’t march into Mongolia at the same time as he did Tibet was only due to the fact that Mongolia was a very close client state of the Soviet Union, however generally the Chinese feel Mongolians are just as “Chinese” as Tibetans. They claim the Khans Genghis and Kublai as great Chinese rulers. Now, under the Mongol Yuan dynasty, Tibet was conquered and became a vassal of the Yuan, which based itself in present-day Beijing. Less than 100 years after conquering China, the Mongols lost control and power reverted back to ethnic Chinese; the Ming dynasty was born. It inherited Tibet from the departing Mongols. However the Ming quickly lost control of the territory, were booted out and Tibet became independent. The Manchu Qing dynasty took it back several hundred years later.
Thing is, the Mongols conquered China AND Tibet, however the Chinese didn’t and don’t accept that Mongols were/are Mongols – apparently they’re Chinese. So the Chinese consider that THEY conquered Tibet in the 13th century and that the Tibetans accepted a Chinese emperor’s mandate, despite the fact (well, according to everyone but the Chinese) it was the Chinese AND the Tibetans that were conquered by the Mongols and both were ruled by Mongolian emperors. Prior to Mao, only the Qing dynasty was able to conquer Tibet, and for a couple of hundred years Tibet was a legitimate dominion of China.
However, NO CHINESE OR MONGOL REGIME annexed Tibet prior to Mao. Tibet was only ever a dominion of China under the Qing and the Yuan, however it was NEVER a part of China before Mao, despite common Chinese claims to the contrary. Chinese imperial records attest to this. The claim that “Tibet is a permanent and inseperable part of China and has been since the 13th century” is a CCP invention. If you hate Mao and oppose the government he created, you should also oppose the occupation of Tibet, as it’s a major plank in the modern regime’s ideological edifice.
That should read:
“Prior to Mao, the Qing dynasty was the only Chinese force to conquer Tibet, and for a couple of hundred years Tibet was a legitimate dominion of China.”
Gregory: Even this dumb gwai-lo could tell you were joking.
However. The key fact in Chinese history is that China was an empire, not a Westphalian state. The Emperor was considered the proper ruler of the entire world. Any other states were supposed to exist only as Chinese vassals. The Peking Expedition of 1860 was needed to force China to accept diplomatic relations as an equal.
The European parallel would be Imperial Rome; but Rome had to acknowledge at least one peer in the Persian Empire. The Chinese Empire dominated everything in reach – an ecumene as large as Europe. The “barbarians” in Japan, or India, or far across the steppes to the west could be ignored.
Within that ecumene, unity and loyalty were expected. The unified Empire meant peace and security. Disunion meant breakdown and war.
Today’s Chinese have transferred that loyalty to China as a Westphalian nation, but they view the traditional boundaries of imperial authority as natural and inviolable, even when those boundaries enclose other nationalities.
A parallel might be made to Germany – the “Holy Roman Empire”, which was effectively Germany for many centuries, included the present Czech republic. When the Czech lands broke away and became a non-German state, a lot of Germans were deeply offended, and that sentiment was exploited, by, Godwin forbid I name him…
Dear Rostrom:
Well, one must try, mustn’t one? 🙂 Although I’m not sure which thing I was joking about, since I primarily argue to strengthen my rhetorical skills. I don’t mean I don’t hold the positions I take, but sometimes these positions are defended just for kicks.
Dear Expat:
That there was an emperor in Tibet I won’t deny (I saw something on the History Channel about that, I think). That this Tibetan Emperor also ruled the Chinese Empire… well, I don’t know anything about that, see? I’m saying that Tibetans never ruled over China, and no doubt this would have an impact – after all, if your people never had a say in the larger political sphere, you won’t feel all that included, would you? But if you had a piece of the pie before, then maybe you’ll continue to have a piece of that pie.
As to whether or not Mongols were or are Chinese… Hard to say, isn’t it? I’ll let you know what my Mongolian colleague thinks, but *Chinese* think they’re Chinese, and that’s what’s important for our discussion. Personally, if you’ve ruled over China, and established a dynasty, and you called yourself Emperor of China, then you’re Chinese. Arguable, of course.
Think about the Hyksos ruling over Egypt. They’re an Egyptian dynasty, aren’t they?
I guess it all boils down to what your definition of Chinese is. If you think Hans are the only Chinese around, then obviously that would inform your principles also. The Chinese definition of Chinese is very inclusive – if we’ve ever conquered you, or ruled over you, or married you, or somehow or other managed to get your cultural idiosyncracies absorbed in our own, or vice versa, then you’re Chinese. You’re right – China was very much an Empire, not quite a Westphalian state. Very octopus-like, at that.
Like I said, I couldn’t care less how things go with Tibet. I know I should care – China is behaving rather boorishly – but somehow, it’s just not very high on my list of priorities. I’ll pray for them, sure. Just have to remember.
PS: My Mongolian colleague reacts rather violently to the notion that Mongolians could be considered Chinese. <sigh> Well, there goes our weekend date, I guess. BTW, Mongolians are H-O-T!
Gregory: I’m sure it was an oversight but strangely the picture of Hot Mongolian Chick does not seem to have shown up in your comment…
Apparently the thesis of “the clash of civilizations”, forged by the distinguished American social scientist, Samuel Huntington, has been and continues to be correct. Most Chinese, whether educated in the “Greater China” (including Hong Kong, Singapore, etc) or the West, except for those born in the West, do not embrace the philosophy of “possessive individualism” (in the word of a famous British scholar, C. B. Macpherson) based on the Protestant tradition and the division of State / Civil Society metaphor. The philosophical legacy of Taoism or Confucianism would fundamentally highlight a dynamic harmony and mutually complementation between the Gentlemen (“Junzi” in mandarin, from the Analects, means those who serve the Court) and the commoners. Symbols like dragon in the past or the Olympic Flam of National Flag, “modern items” imposed by the West after its incursion since the Sino-Britain Opium War, are simply mental reflections of the wish to the Harmony. To interpret this mentality not to distinguish the State / the Society as “fascism” is based on a lack of comprehension to “the Oriental”, a misunderstanding understandable.
Conversely, the Chinese indeed have little idea about the West, in which individual “rights” are regarded naturally conferred rather than negotiated between the Heaven and the Human. They know little about the evolution of western democracy created from the confrontation between different social classes and strata.
It takes times for mutual understanding. Raising judgments like fascism or ignorance of the State / Society division is not helpful but only adds to the fierce flame of Chinese nationalism, another product created by the East-West collision since the 18th Century.
I think you misunderstand my position 🙂 I know all about the traditional Chinese view, I just do not give a monkey’s uncle about about it. And I described the attitude as ‘fascist’ because that is what it is. Fascist metaphysical tosh about the Volk and Chinese metaphysical tosh about heaven and earth is gibberish from different traditions that serve the same atavistic collectivist purpose. But tosh is tosh regardless of whether it wears a dirndl or a chong-sam.
Perry,
Exactly the Chinese philosophy is “collectivism” clinging. But it doesn’t happen logically or normatively that whether it is inferior to the Western individualist tradition or not. This is similar to say, we have no ground to argue whether people from the East worshiping tablets of their ancestors (a symbol of the whole clan in collective term) are more in need to be enlightened,or not.
The clear fact is that the mutually misunderstanding is now advancing the antagonist feeling between the two sides, which is more likely to bring about “the clash of civilizations”, not the progress of rights awareness in China. The female Chinese ambassador to London, Mrs Fu Yin, expressed what the common Chinese felt towards the West, perhaps in an inadequate position as she was a communist high-ranking. The West now is on a wrong track losing its previous strength to advance China’s rights awareness. A pity indeed.
But my view is that all anti-individualist traditions of thought are inferior regardless of where they come from (i.e. they are in error and are based on falsified moral theories).
Moreover I do not think better moral theories are advanced by pandering to the delicate Chinese cultural sensitivities any more than I am inclined to pander to Islamic sensitivities.
So it is clear that you do not think there is anything worth considering from “the Oriental” which may also help enrich the individualist philosophy and promote human conditions. If this is the case, I arrive at three pessimistic conclusions:
1. There exist no way for sincere mutually understanding between civilizations. Because some members of them hold a sense (or reasoning, what ever) of “self-manifested” superiority.
2. Based on the above assumption, the conflict between civilizations is inevitable.
3. Universal order is only achievable through forces, by one civilization prevailing over another. Rights advancement can only spread through the same way: crusade or anything belong to the same feather.
Ahh, Perry, like I’m gonna let someone else snap her up 🙂
Seriously, though, I won’t have the slightest idea of how to include a picture in the comment.
But if you are really interested, have a hop through to my PicasaWeb and you’ll see a few photos of Mongolians, my colleague and my other colleagues. It’s PRIVATE, so please don’t somhow track down the people and blab, OK? Anyway, I think she’s hot. You’re free to disagree.
Dear Lukacs,
No need to be so outrageous. You should know by now how libertarians think. It’s exactly the same way Chinese think, in terms of superiority. And no doubt the way *everybody* thinks – I mean, how can you go around thinking your framework of reality is an inferior one?
I will say that I am more or less libertarian leaning; I agree in the rights of the individual. However, I also agree that these ‘intrinsic’ rights were God-given, which is why no power short of God can revoke them. And hence, my free will is my own until I surrender it back to God. And, of course, the same is true of everyone.
My guess is a lot of Samizdatists would lean far, far more libertarian than this. I, of course, believe in moderation in everything – including libertarianism.
Understanding is good. But understanding not the same as acceptance.
Not really. Firstly we have our own dragons to slay as well in the West. But in truth the conflict is not between ‘civilisations’ at all. The point I am trying to make is that the struggle against Confucian bureaucratic collectivism and the struggle against socialism/communism/fascism/regulatory statism is the same struggle. It is the same battle as the Platonic and Aristotelian view of human affairs.
Not at all. Civilisations do not have armies, governments do. Economics and communication are the best weapons to spread the virus of a social individualist world view. What matters here is the politics (i.e. the use of the collective means of coercion) or more to the point trying to get politics out of the way as far as possible so more of life is social rather than political.
Do that and the meta-political ‘civilisation’ can take care of itself. And face it, ‘civilisation’ is a just ‘society’ writ large and societies are just emergent properties of a great many interactions.
I’m not sure why that has any bearing on our conversation. You wrote that your father believed the Tibetans never formed a dynastic empire (which is incorrect), not a Chinese dynastic empire. Anyway…
Not really – the Chinese are demonstrably wrong. Mongolia is a sovereign country and no one, bar the Chinese, consider Mongolians Chinese.
Whether you like it or not, and what a very convenient position for China to take. Interesting how it’s selectively applied, too – why aren’t the Chinese chest-thumping over Mongolia…er, I mean China? Those guys are sitting ducks these days…
And I concur, Mongolian women are ridiculously hot. I got severe neck cramps from passing too many drop dead gorgeous women in the streets of Ulan Baatar. The eye candy alone is a good enough reason to visit the place!
Dear Expat;
Oh, yes, so I did. I can only plead poor wording and/or phrasing – what I meant in the original posting was what I later on said – well, at least I think I said it. I don’t want to misrepresent what my dad said, you see. What I understood from him was that out of the four races that had ever made up China (or Chinese claimed territory, and why the blasted Koreans weren’t considered I will never know, since I believe China did invade Korea once), only Tibet had never sat on the Imperial Throne of China. (There, I think I got it right this time round) His point being, so I gather, that if there ever had been a Tibetan Chinese dynasty (and don’t knock me on my adjective usage, ok?), Tibet would probably not be struggling so hard to be considered independent. Which may or may not be – I seriously don’t know. I wander in a fog of agnosticism in that respect.
Indeed, so I said as much; Outer Mongolians – at least my colleague – would ‘freak out’ (her exact words) if we even hinted they might have anything to do with being Chinese.
Having said that, Inner Mongolians are Chinese. Mongolians admit as much – or at least my colleague does.
Yeah, ain’t it? I believe that David Drake once wrote an SF story based on Gaius Vibulenus, and then he opened his universe up to fellow Baen authors for an anthology, and one of them wrote about China acting in exactly the same way as they are now, only more so.
You know, I wonder the same thing. But then again, China’s… weird. I don’t know how to describe it. This my father also said, so I can’t vouch for it, but…
Apparently, some high mucky-muck Minister in the Philippines visited China on an official trip some time ago. Some Chinese press flack asked him (him? could be her for all I know), seeing as he was ethnically Chinese, whether his allegiance was to the Philippines or to China. I mean, OK, shit, WTF right? On international TV?
But that wasn’t all. Oh no, China then went ahead and flexed its muscles and pretty much threatened the Philippines and by extension every other country in the whole world: Do Not Mess With Chinese In Your Country Because They Are Ours.
So… I dunno. China’s… weird. Really weird. My-classmate’s-uncle-who-tried-to-guess-bra-size-of-every-16-year-old-girl-classmate-of-mine-including-his-own-niece’s-at-her-birthday-party-and-guess-how-he-was-doing-it weird. Creepy weird. I won’t swear to it that those dirty old men in the Chinese Politburo aren’t drooling over Mongolia (and the Mongolian chicks) once they trounce Tibet and get this embarrassment over them, you know?
PS: Koreans are smoking hot too. Even their trannies. This is too much. There really should be laws against trannies being that hot. Then again, Japanese are hot too. Argh. My office is an international fleshpot of distraction. But I’m sure there are no trannies in the office. Reasonably. Back to our scheduled programming.