How much do foreigners really know about China?

As an American university student, I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment. I have studied Chinese history in an overarching manner (a class on classic Chinese philosophy , a class that broadly covered Chinese history from the Qin dynasty to 1960 or so, and right now, a class that only covers the Qing dynasty to present time), and briefly visited Beijing, Shanghai, Hangzhou and Suzhou in January 2008, and while I have learned a great deal, I have more importantly learned how little I know.

• China is a country with a long, complex and proud history, that cannot easily be categorized. Westerners are too enthusiastic to label China as "communist," or still dictated by Maoism. It simply isn't.

• We are too enthusiastic to berate the Chinese for human rights violations, and too hesitant to acknowledge and congratulate them for their incredible achievements since 1949.

• For the world to successfully progress, I think, we must do it through connection and discussion with each other, not through invective and preaching. Through solidarity rather than the adversarial attitude taken by Western protesters ostensibly over Tibet.

Wait, China rise can't be compared to Japan Meiji buildup? That may be right, but the professor's reason - that China has historically built walls and thus is not an aggressive power - is 100% BS. In fact, if that's his reasoning, it's quite the opposite. Before industrializing Japan was also an isolated country with no intentions to expanding past its walls, too - the ocean surrounding the islands (and frankly, I have qualms with the historical China was non-aggressive premise in the first place). If anything, the prof's analogy makes China even more analogous to Japan, not less. Har. While I agree with the point ACB is making by posting this article, the professor strikes me as another talking-head moron.

Job,

Rhetoric is not enough. Show evidence.

@hehe

Read comments more carefully.

If you had done that, you would see that I agree with the basic premise of the quoted article and of ACB. However, I'm faulting the professor's reasoning, which I think is coming to the conclusion I and ACB have come to through a completely wrongheaded and simplistic approach.

I specifically had issues with the professor simplistically claiming that since historically China has been a wall building country, preferring to manage its own confines, the process of industrialization will naturally not result in a militarily aggressively country, as had happened with Japan and Germany. This reasoning is completely idiotic because before Japan industrialized, it, too, was an isolated country walled off by the ocean, and uninterested in expanding beyond its own confines. The process of industrialization and modernization, however, fundamentally altered the way the Japanese viewed themselves in relation to the rest of the world. The result was that a country that previously was quite isolated and literally had to be forced open mutated into a militaristic, expansionist, power. Again, back to the professor's logic - just because historically a country has been inward oriented, doesn't mean it will ALWAYS be inward oriented, and if anything, Japanese history over the past century proves the opposite is quite possible.

Actually, 'hehe', I throw your comment right back at you. Because it doesn't make sense if you actually read what I said. The burden of proof is in your ballpark, bub. Use "evidence" to prove that Japan was actually a power hungry, world-dominating, expansionist military power a la Genghis Era Mongolians before the Meiji era to help support and prove this "professor's" implicit assumption that the way a country has behaved in the past will deterministically set in stone the way the country will behave in the future. That's poppycock. You prove it. You are tacitly supporting a "cultural determinism" version of unfolding history, which is a b.s. theory that needs evidence to be proven. Any point I've made has already been proven by history. Unless you don't believe in World War 2, or pre-Meiji Japanese history.

ACB: I agree made some really terrible gaffs in his whitewashing of Chinese history. I have known Chinese graduate students of history and have come to the conclusion that the teaching of history in China does not go beyond the level at which American students learn about George Washington and the cherry tree.

“China, as a united continental power, has existed for more than 2,000 years.” – While this claim is not nearly as fatuous as the 5000 years sometimes asserted, the fact is that the Qin Dynasty of 2000 years ago controlled only the lower Yellow River and parts of Szechuan. The absorption of non-Han Szechuan gave the soon-to-be First Emperor the economic strength to contend with rival kingdoms in the north. At this time, the watershed between the Yangtze and Yellow Rivers marked the southern reaches of Han influence. This is hardly a “continental power”. As for “united”, witness the fragmentation of China after the Qin, Han, and Tang Dynasties, or the warlords of the early twentieth century.

“Chinese-ruling regimes have not been considered aggressive or expansive; they were famous for building walls.” – Owen Lattimore ( Studies in Frontier History: Collected Papers 1929-58) theorizes that the wall as build as much to keep Han farmers in as well as to keep Yuezhi and Xiungnu nomads out. Nicola Di Cosmo (Ancient China and its Enemies : The Rise of Nomadic Power in East Asian History) is even more devastating to Mr. Wu’s views. According to him, the walls provided protection for agriculture, which furnished economic support for military expansion against the Xiungnu, as well as a line of communication to facilitate the concentration of military force. Thus, they were part of the process of expansion, with each wall (in reality, an earth embankment, rather than the Ming monument we see on post cards) serving as the stepping stone to the next. The decisive factor in the campaign against the Xiungnu, however, was the conquest of the Xinjiang oasis cities, which deprived the nomads of the agricultural support they needed. But at least Mr. Wu got the part about more than one wall.

“Chinese Communist Party could easily be renamed the Chinese Confucian Party” – What an insult to two venerable traditions! Neither ideology is taught in China, beyond what is necessary to reinforce state control, and anyone who publicly espoused Marxism as a liberation movement or the duties of rulers to subjects that is explicit in Confucianism would find himself in the same boat as Hu Jia and Shi Tao. Better to call it the Chinese Conservative Party.

“Tiananmen Square in 1989…was a generation ago, and sea changes have occurred since then.” PRC does not want history to be taught – it wants it forgotten. When Zhao Ziyang died, there wasn’t a word about him in China Daily or Sina.com. Are the people on this list http://www.freechina.net/2004/heroes/00047.htm allowed back in China yet?

There are more Chinese studying in America than Americans studying in China, but these overseas returnees still make up a very small percentage of the population and seem to concentrate in business, rather than government. Moreover, one can live in a foreign country for a number of years, become fluent in the language, and still very much view the country through the filtered lenses of one's own background. This is very evident when communicating in person and participating in online forums with Chinese, Koreans, and other nationalities with living experience in those two countries.

The sea of red flags last weekend in Seoul is an example of how overseas Chinese students fluent in Korean made an error in judgment. Nevermind the few violent clashes, such a blatant display of Chinese nationalism did not impress nationalistic Koreans. One Korean reporter's quote that he couldn't tell if he was in Korea or China has been widely reported in the media of both countries. If the Chinese students had understood Korean nationalism, they would have carried both Chinese and Korean flags, which a few did, and held signs celebrating both countries, instead of contradicting themselves by holding up signs proclaiming "China is one" and "No politics in Olympics."

To really understand another country, I think one has to pull back the curtain of one's own identity and be willing to embrace to a certain extent the identity of the other country in order to see it and experience it from an insider's point of view, in essence become bicultural. Even adults can do this if they are open-minded and immerse themselves socially among locals.

From what I've observed, a lot of Korean and Chinese students tend to socialize amongst themselves and contact with Americans is limited to group projects for classes. Chinese who do open up to Americans and our culture often choose to stay and look for work after graduation, rather than returning home.

I think the good professor may overestimate how deeply overseas Chinese (students and adults on short-term visas, NOT native-born and naturalized ethnic Chinese citizens of foreign countries) understand their host countries, but he certainly doesn't underestimate how ignorant Americans are about China.

JOB:

"Before industrializing Japan was also an isolated country with no intentions to expanding past its walls, too"

Sorry, but where did you learn your history? Japan industrialized during the late Edo (Tokugawa shogunate) and early Meiji, but it attempted colonial expansion several times prior to that. Probably most notably during the Azuchi Momoyama period (1592 and 1594, for example). It'd also like to draw your attention to the fact that several places that you know as being part of modern Japan (Japanese-Okinawa and the surrounding islands) were originally independent kingdoms that were conquered by the home islands.

Japan was far more conquest orientated than China.

dave zimmerman:

"What an insult to two venerable traditions"

I think that you may have grasped the wrong end of this particular stick. I don't believe that the author was intending to say that the CCP followed a Confucian doctrine, but rather calling the CCP Communist is just as fatuous as calling it Confucian on the grounds that the CCP neither follows nor applies nor aspires to apply communist doctrines. Beijing is a centralized legalist government, and little else.

"If the Chinese students had understood Korean nationalism, they would have carried both Chinese and Korean flags"

Sorry, it doesn't work like that. For example, I understand American nationalism but I'd never in a million years consider waiving the US flag. In fact I managed to get through all sorts of celebrations with American friends without even touching a US flag, not even during Thanksgiving or the Fourth of July. Doing so would have been completely alien to me.

Asking Chinese nationalists in Korea to waive the Korean flag would be like asking a US neo-con to waive the Chinese flag along side the Stars and Stripes as the Olympic torch passed through San Fransisco.

"From what I've observed, a lot of Korean and Chinese students tend to socialize amongst themselves and contact with Americans is limited to group projects for classes"

This tends to happen where you get large groups from the same background. Given the number of Koreans who studied where I studied this kind of behavior would have lead to most of the standing around by themselves.

ACB:

Woah, this is kind of funny - you're claiming a 16th century invasion of Korea and the eventual Japanese sovereignty of Okinawa is proof that "Japan was far more conquest orientated than China"? I think that's rather ironic since China has had just as colorful a history trying to invade and incorporate Korea into its territories as Japan. If failed, short term invasions count as "evidence" then you can already point to the 16 year conflict between the Sui dynasty and the Gorguryeo kingdom in the 7th century. Barring outright invasions (which occurred multiple times), China spent most of its time trying to force Korea into a subservient tributary role (the Sui invasion resulted from the Korean kingdom's refusal to play the part) - and Korea was shoved into Japan's sphere of influence only around the industrial revolution and military buildup I'm trying to point out as a changing point.

Similarly, if you want to throw a bunch of Pacific islands into the "pot o' evidence," that is, if the Okinawa islands prove Japan was "militarily aggressive" before the Meiji era, then it only stands to logic that Inner Mongolia, Tibet, and Xinjianig prove the same of the Chinese empire-slash-nation-state. In fact, I'd argue that frivolously adding Okinawa as proof of Japan's aggressiveness lowers the bar even more and we can throw the three provinces that constitute Manchuria, the provinces of Southern China, and the provinces in and around the Sichuan Basin, all of which were once culturally and politically distinct like Okinawa, as proof of culturally immutable "Han aggression." Oh, and let's not forget Taiwan, because Taiwan is a part of China, too. Actually, Taiwan is quite analogous to Okinawa - they had their own vibrant indigenous culture and people that has been all but obliterated by the influx of a powerful, more technologically advanced people.

My point still stands. Anything you can accuse Japan of can equally be pointed at China - WITHIN this "theoretical framework," the framework being *A country's military behavior in the past can determine and predict its military behavior in the future." The whole premise is flawed and stupid. That's b.s. Military aggressiveness and cultural imperialism is CONTEXTUAL, not historical. Any nation or people can become militaristic or aggressive depending on whether or not the right circumstances exist. France - a nation we mock as pussies - once was a giant military expanding machine. Mongolia - now a peaceful land of grass and yurts - need I explain Mongolian past? Conversely, the USA was notoriously isolationist during its history as a country, but look at it now. The past influences the future, but does not determine it.

<i>Sorry, it doesn't work like that. For example, I understand American nationalism but I'd never in a million years consider waiving the US flag. In fact I managed to get through all sorts of celebrations with American friends without even touching a US flag, not even during Thanksgiving or the Fourth of July. Doing so would have been completely alien to me. </i>

And did you run around on Independence Day waving a huge flag from a foreign country? I don't think you did. I'm guessing you did not put on public displays of allegiance to a foreign country during your stay in the US. You understand American nationalism. In fact, with your multicultural background, you probably understand nationalism period.

During pro-immigration rallies last year, demonstrators waved large Mexican flags. This did not sit well with many Americans, serving only to inflame their resentment of illegal immigrants. In subsequent organized demonstrations, large American flags were prominently displayed.

If the US were hosting the Olympics and the torch relay were running through Beijing, I would be embarrassed to see huge crowds of Americans boisterously waving large flags and shouting, "Go, USA!" for understandably such an overt display of American nationalism on Chinese soil would not appeal to the Chinese. I am from a nationalistic country, the US, and lived in two nationalistic countries, Korea and China. I understand nationalism.

<i>Asking Chinese nationalists in Korea to waive the Korean flag would be like asking a US neo-con to waive the Chinese flag along side the Stars and Stripes as the Olympic torch passed through San Fransisco. </i>

Read my previous comment. The analogy doesn't fit. Are all or most overseas Chinese students nationalists then? Some Americans in China or the US would wave the Chinese flag. I would wave the Chinese flag in the US or Korea or somewhere else depending on the circumstances. I'm not a fan of the Chinese government; however, a flag represents not a government but a nation. Every August 15, I would hang the Korean flag on my door, and the Korean students living in my building were touched by that.

Job:

I think you're missing the point. Regardless of whether China has ccommitted acts of colonial aggression, and regardless of whether it is doing it now, Japan wasn't the inward looking nation in history you made out that it was.

On occasions when Japan has undergone a period internal stability and unity it has found itself with a large restless warrior class with little to do but to cause trouble domestically. Rather than have these warriors plotting insurrections, extorting tribute from small towns, or simply jumping out from under bridges and telling anybody whom wishes to cross that they must fight them first. In order to prevent this various Japanese leaders have sent them off to fight overseas, instead of ahve them cause trouble at home. Toyotomi Hideyoshi was probably the best example of a ruler who thought this way.

In fact it wasn't until Japanese leaders burdened the Samurai class with so much ritual and duty under Bushido that they didn't have time to cause trouble that Japan became less aggressive. As we all know, this changed with the Meiji period at which point Japanese leaders saw the empires that the Europeans and Americans has built and decided that they wanted in, and Japanese overseas aggression became rue colonial aggression. Put in overly simply terms this became the invasion of Korea, Taiwan (then Formosa) and the occupation on Manchukuo, and eventually the Pacific war which in turn became part of WWII.

Sonagi:

"did you run around on Independence Day waving a huge flag from a foreign country?"

No, but if I'd gone to watch a parade in put on by the local Chinese-American community to celebrate said holiday I would be far more likely to waive the Chinese flag than the American flag. The Olympic procession was a celebration of China having the Olympics, so it would be only natural to waive then Chinese flag. Maybe if Korea was the host nation and the parade was in China, then they wold have waived the Korean flag.

"I'm guessing you did not put on public displays of allegiance to a foreign country during your stay in the US."

It's not in my nature to put on public displays of allegiance, period. It's not how I was raised. However, I will say this, it is in the nature of US students abroad to make overt displays of nationalism, and Chinese students. Indeed most overseas students will do this unless they are very few in number. It's only natural to celebrate your own national identity. Would you shy away from celebrating Independence Day just because you were in China? Most American students wouldn't. Many would even invite their Chinese friends to join in. I've been invited to thanksgiving day banquets by my American friends and none of them were the least bit shy about it.

"I would wave the Chinese flag in the US or Korea or somewhere else depending on the circumstances."

Ah, yes, circumstances. I wouldn't waive the Chinese flag during an American holiday or celebration, but I might on a Chinese one. The Olympic parade wasn't a Korean celebration so why waive the Korean flag?

"a flag represents not a government but a nation"

But the government is the face of the nation. How long do you think you'd last if you walked into Central park on the Fourth of July part carrying the Chinese flag? I don't think that you'd go more than a minute or two without attracting the attention of people who don't have your best interests at heart. It's not good to mix symbols of one nation with nationalistic celebrations of another. It tends to attract trouble.

ACB: Concerning two venerable traditiions, somebody obviously missed somebody's point. What's in a name? Maybe the image you want to project. st

As for he issue of flags, would I be allowed to wave an American flag if I were protesting in Beijing. Would I and my compatriots be allowed to swarm the Chinese counter-protesters?

dave zimmerman:

"What's in a name? Maybe the image you want to project"

Well, the CCP once held communist ideals. The party has changed but the name has not. It's all part of the Chinese belief in stability through continuity and the support of past actions. If the CCP were to change its name it would be an admission that a break was needed from the past which in itself would be a tacit admission that there was need to break from the past because there was sometihng flawed with past actions. This isn't how either Chinese thinking, or the thinking of a continuing dictatorship, works

"would I be allowed to wave an American flag if I were protesting in Beijing."

It depends what you were protesting against. If you were protesting against Japan you could waive pretty much any flag you likes, except maybe the Tibetan flag. If you were protesting against Beijing you wouldn't even be allowed to waive a pair of Stars and Stripes underpants above your head.

"Would I and my compatriots be allowed to swarm the Chinese counter-protesters?"

No, but you wouldn't be "allowed" to do that in a Western country either. Peaceful demonstrations, yes. Mob rule, no.

This is a little beside the point, anyway. You're talking about waiving the US flag in an anti-Chinese demonstration in China itself. What we have here is a protest that occurred in a third party country.

<i>The Olympic parade wasn't a Korean celebration so why waive the Korean flag? </i>

The Olympics are an international event. The torch relay is a way of sharing the Olympic spirit. Each leg of the journey is a mutual celebration between China and the host country. The Chinese seem to see the Olympics as China's coming out party more than an international event, so that's probably why they didn't think marching around Seoul with hundreds of huge red flags would be a problem.

<i>How long do you think you'd last if you walked into Central park on the Fourth of July part carrying the Chinese flag? I don't think that you'd go more than a minute or two without attracting the attention of people who don't have your best interests at heart. It's not good to mix symbols of one nation with nationalistic celebrations of another. It tends to attract trouble. </i>

My response above applies to this statement, too.

<i>Would you shy away from celebrating Independence Day just because you were in China? Most American students wouldn't. Many would even invite their Chinese friends to join in. I've been invited to thanksgiving day banquets by my American friends and none of them were the least bit shy about it. </i>

In my backyard, sure, no problem. If my friends and I held a celebration in a public park, we would be more discreet. I don't think we'd display large American flags. ABC, I lived for nine years in Seoul and witnessed many anti-American demonstrations. I breathed tear gas and had to run away from drunken men threatening me because they didn't like Americans. The nobody-doesn't-hate-Canadians used to plaster their clothing and gear with the maple leaf until drug peddling, Korean female student-screwing, police box-trashing Canadian English teachers made national headlines. Then the Canadians began keeping a low profile, too. Two Swiss were mistaken for Americans and nearly beaten by a mob when they stumbled upon an anti-American demonstration back in 2002. I was glad as hell to be in China when the US invaded Iraq. I respect freedom of speech and expression, yet at the same time, I felt MUCH safer in a country where political demonstrations are tightly controlled. Mobs are scary no matter what their nationality.

I cannot speak for all Americans, but I know that not only myself but other American friends are very aware that anti-Americanism can get personal, and we kept a low profile overseas. Young college students and backpacker English teachers may not be as discreet as we were.

I think the Chinese are just discovering that anti-Chinese sentiments aren't limited to Western governments or members of the Dalai Lama clique. There is a lot of latent anti-Chinese sentiment in Korea, and relatively minor incidents like the clashes last weekend can spark a firestorm of national outrage. As the Chinese continue to grow their global presence, I think we will see more conflicts between Chinese expats and locals.

There is still a College of Marxism at Beijing university. I quote from the China Daily web site reporting on President Hu's visit there recently.

"His remark found an echo in many students. "I know that patriotism is not just in words but also in action. What we should do now to love our country is to study hard," said Yang Zhehao, a postgraduate student from the university's College of Marxism." (Xinhua 2008-05-04)

The professor wears rose coloured spectacles, as most academics, bless them, tend to do. Please remember that he is "Assistant Professor of Strategic Media and Public Relations, Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication, Arizona State University," (wow!) and thus not a really fully paid up member of the real world! I would he was the Regis Professor of Chinese at Cambridge University. If he were, his comments would be even more amusing and other worldly.

Philip Baily:

While academics often tend to live on other planets this one is living on a planet where subject knowledge is required in order to get residency. Tell me, which university are you a professor at?

My goodness yes! China is not an imperialist power - just ask any Tibetan! And if you can't get into Tibet at the moment to ask anyone, try Taiwan - you know, the "other China", the one that mainland China passed a law about, that they could declare war if it declared independence? That one.

And China may not be "communist", but they suffer the four devastating flaws of any communist system:

1) The Party is answerable only to itself, and toleratess no criticism;

2) Party loyalty is not merely everything, it's the only thing;

3) Corruption is endemic; and

4) The "Truth" is what they choose it to be this week - and everybody knows better than to remember what the "Truth" was last week.

Jim:

Ah, I see that you've made the age old mistake that foreigners tend to make when they don't understand the Chinese mindset. To most Mainlanders this is completely and utterly different because they believe that Tibet and Taiwan "always have been, and always will be, part of China".

Let me give you an example. In day's gone by Britain had an empire and so did Japan. When a British person went India they thought "We've got an empire and right now I'm in a foreign country, and those funny black men over their are foreigners", a Japanese person would think pretty much the same thing when they went to Korea or Formosa (Now Taiwan). However, when a Chinese person goes to Tibet or Taiwan they think "I'm in another province. Those people over their are ethnic Tibetans/Taiwanese, but at heart they are Chinese just like me. We are all one big happy family". For a Chinese, there is absolutely no comparison between the situation in Tibet and Taiwan and the having of an empire, not even in the slightest sense.

The other mistake that foreigners also make is that they don't distinguish between China's designs on Tibet and Taiwan, and China's feelings towards other countries. Lit: While China will fight tooth and nail over Tibet and Taiwan and Xinjiang (and to a lesser extent some of the land bordering India, Vietnam and North Korea), it has absolutely no interest whatsoever in expanding China's area of direct control over any territory that it does not believe is historically Chinese.

The big issue here is that China doesn't want to rule Korea, Vietnam, or Japan, or any other country for that matter. Indeed most Chinese would be revolted at the idea and would denounce it as being imperialistic and hegamonistic, and something that a Western power might want to do (OK, so maybe some Chinese would like to send troops to Japan, but only to "teach it a lesson" rather than to rule it). They would then go off on a rant about how Western powers did this to China and how this made China better than the Western power, and how foreign imperialism hurt the feelings of the Chinese people.

In practical terms what this means is that China isn't going to move on its neighbors and it's army is for self defense and happily will sit within China's borders. It might go on the occasional peace keeping mission for the UN, but you won't see the PLA EVER seizing territory in Beijing's name that China does not firmly believe already belongs to it.

"And China may not be "communist", but they suffer the four devastating flaws of any communist system:"

Those aren't communist flaws, they're the basic hallmarks of dictatorship. You will find the exact same flaws in a capitalist dictatorship (China is well on its way to becoming one of these), or a socialist dictatorship, or even a monarchy. Just look at Iran and Saudi Arabia, or Europe when it was ruled by Kings. You just have to replace "Party" with whatever the ruling elite identifies itself as. Were Bill O'Reilly to seize power in a military coupe you'd find all of these flaws appearing in America without the need for it to become the remotest bit communist.

Just add another element about the chinese mindset. While chinese may dislike our government with different degrees of intensity, as soon as there is a foreign interference threatens china's unity, chinese will forgive our government immediately, and rally behind it. It not just serves for the CCP, when Mongolian tribe invaded Song, when Manchu invaded the Ming, when British invaded Qing, etc, etc. Despite whichever the government was, and whatever their sins, as long as they put up a fight, they would have the support of the population regardless the outcome, the surest and fastest way to lose power for any government is to bow over to the foreign force.

Through out the years, the definition of 'foreign' has changed, what was 'foreign' then, has became China now, but the emotion stay the same. Whether this emotion and mindset is rational or not, it is beyond my scope to analyse it. The best way to summarise it as 'china complex' as others so accurately put.

After toured around some english websites for a bit, I found 2 major schools of 'foreigners' views:1) China and chinese are evil, they are rising power, hence they are threats, hence need to boycott, etc. 2)Communist government is evil, chinese are prisoners, need to be saved. Thankfully, I don't need to elaborate here just how they misconstrued facts. It seems to me, only a very few understand or care about what dreams and aspirations we chinese have for our nation. Being a superpower in any forms really is not what we want or what we are capable of. Apart from the economic development to give entire population a better standard of living, we want unification of mainland and taiwan, not by war, but like Hongkong and Macau, like Germany, a peaceful unification. In 20 or 30 years, maybe even longer, but we will wait. Only untill then, chinese can really unshackle ourselves from the past, and feel complete, confident and secure to start a new chapter.

你好Jim: Hello Jim: Bonjour Jim: :)

1) The Party is answerable only to itself, and toleratess no criticism;

Actually, come to China and read some internal news about how the government makes their decision, you will know the key point is not whether they can tolerate criticism, they care who are criticsing and why. They are smart to know how to improve their dominating position or whatever you called. So, tolerance to the criticism is extremely important. If the criticism is reasonable, they are usually glad to accept it.(Not always, it depends on what level the official is. If the top leader in the whole country, they are good, if the fundamental officials, sometimes is OK. But if the mid-level officials, do not do it! You don't know whether they are good. That's a big problem of China and CCP.) What they do not like is strong criticism just contain anger.

2) Party loyalty is not merely everything, it's the only thing;

Haha, that's just part of what they say. And we (students) said all the place that we love our country, not our the ruling party or whatever leader, we criticism our policy, we criticism our failure on some issue. It's OK. I still live to send this comment. LOL :D So what you say have never happened, even 30 years ago before we opened. At that time, yes we were said to must love CCP, and also we must love our family, our parents, our children, our brother, our friends, and of course our wife. If someone had problems with those people, the boss would come to moderate the confilicts and try to make bothsides happy. That was really funny. But not exist now. :(

3) Corruption is endemic; and An amercian CEO who worked in China has a book, names like "how to make bussiness with Chinese". He said that the corruption in China is as common as in west but you call it lobby. In my opinion and feeling, in China, however, CCP's law doesn't allow any CCP officals to accept money besides their salary which just 2000-10000rmb per month, a little more just enough for their ordinary life and don't forget that we do not have a good welfare system so those money sometimes is not enough. So whenever there is a little more money come to them, we call it corruption due to our traditional mind, and we hate it a lot. You call it corruption due to your hate to CCP and your discrimination to Chinese. To corruption, Chinese people hate it heavily and this is still a big problem to CCP. They have mentioned it many times in the conference and media and everywhere. But I don't know...Hope it works. I think the reason lies in no media dare to be a monitor, mainly because the over power of CCP.

4) The "Truth" is what they choose it to be this week - and everybody knows better than to remember what the "Truth" was last week. That's mostly right. So, we usually didn't believe our media like CCTV or whatever cause they used to lie, and we used to read something else from their news, to know what they want to tell juse beneath the news. Recently they sometimes tell the truth which maybe un familiar to us. So we are a little astonishing. LOL :D Who we can believe? CCTV? Of course not. They are not media, they just something else useful to Chinese people. CNN or BBC? Maybe yes may be not. Cause I don't know whether the reporter has bias on us, or if he just want to flatter his boss or his reader.

To those kind of issues. I don't want to change our CCP, I think they do more good things than bad things. Or in other way, if let anyother party to rule China, no one can do so well. But I welcome the criticism from abroad, even they are reasonless, they are discrimination or whatever~ It's a good way to give pressure to CCP and they will always have a mind to improve themselves. So, keep it going~Thanks for your help~But not in your expected way.

Clever comment on the letter C standing for both Communism and Confucianism. However, the difference between Communism and Neo-Confucianism would be? Frankly, precious little. "Neo" being that by the 11th century, Confucianism became a secular set of thoughts, no longer referencing "Tian" as a humanoid god. The character Tian shows a giant "Ren" walking among clouds, a vivid illustration of what the "sky god" was to a confucianist from 500BC; i.e. Confucious' own time. By the Song Dynasty, Confucianism was no longer primarily about religious rites and songs about "Tian" worship (the pursuit of ancient rituals as a formula for governing had been proven catastrophic as illustrated by Wang Mang's religio-socialism, one of the world's first attempt at socialism-communism); it became a set of secular prescription on how individuals should submit to the state, and the wisemen can run the state to the benefit of all: the ultimate goal being "Tian Xia Da Tong." In other words, a Communist Utopia!

Wang An Shi' writings from the Song Dynasty was large the inspiration behind French Socialist-Utopianism of the 17-18th century, which in turn inspired Karl Marx' formal treatise on "Communism," a term he coined to suggest the central idea of individuals submitting to the "community" and let the wisemen run their lives.

Obviously, because power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, such a collectivist system is inevitably corrupt to the core. Those in power or aspire to power will have to constantly look for external enemies to divert public attention and build their own political careers because all the dumbies sheeps are looking for the audacious leader to submit to. Song intellectuals were a very gung-ho bunch despite its military weakness; there were student riots in the 11th century, not anti-war riots like in the US in the 1960's but student riots agitating for war! Eventually the Song government were pressued by the apprentice intellectual class into waging wars that it had no chance of winning on several occasions. Whether such a system is called Communist or Confucianist hardly matters. It's a danger to itself and to the outside world community having to live with it.

BTW, the US is rapidly becoming socialistic and communistic and fitting into this pattern that has plagued China for a thousand years. That however does not prevent the proverbial pot calling the kettle black.

Hi ACB, my name is Alex Menietti and I'm an italian journalist and blogger. In my blog I often tell about China and Olympic Games and I've a good number of visitors (770 visited pages every day). Reading your blog I'm interested in your opinion. In Italy always we heard journalist voices that tell about China, Tibet and Olympic Games but I can be happy to hear a chinese voice and write about him/her. If you can (and would) answer any questions, write me an e-mail. Thank you very much. Alex

"The party has changed, but the name has not" It's more than just the party that has changed, it is the society. That may a good thing for some people, but not for the people whose jobs were eliminated when state owned factories were closed or whose pensions based on such employment were cancelled. That matches the callousness of the golden age of capitalism. There may be a Department of Marxism in a Beijing University, but you can be sure that it's curriculum is filtered to match whatever the current state agenda might be. There is a website - www.marxism.com - that seems to contain the complete works and records of any branch of Marxism from any country - the failed as well as the successful - Bukharin, Trotsky, Wang Ming, Li Li San - a treasure trove for those with the patience. I can access it any time - except when it is being hacked by unnamed parties (pun intended) - but it is blocked in PRC. If I ever want to see the inside of a Chinese jail, I think all I would have to do is to try to smuggle in a quantity of "Communist Manifesto".

If you look back at Mr. Wu's article, you will see that he really was serious about the Confucian part. He says that the party could change its name without changing its beliefs or its structure, and in the next paragraph, refers to "ruling by virtue" and "harmonious society" specifically calling them "more derived from the Confucian doctrine". But those slogans, like Mr. Wu's article, are pure cant (How I love working with a language that has too many words!).

As for Beijing being, what you call, a "centralized legalist government", you have hit the nail on the head. Shang Yang's Legalist School of Philosophy was adopted by one of the First Emperor's ancestors in ruling the State of Qin. Confucius stressed education; Legalism took the short-cut and stressed punishment. As China evolved, education became the privilege of the rich, and the ticket to a secure furture; punishment was for everybody. (We have the same situation here in California; every year, we spend less on education and more on prisons.) I'll save the irony of a Confucian education in a Legalist society for another essay.

My nomination for what CCP really stands for? Based on the people who benefit from it, I would call it the Crass Consumption Party.

P.S. I stand truly in awe of your gift for handling exchanges like this - it's like Bobby Fisher playing eighteen games at once.

Nanook: Welcome to the club.

It seems that you have delved into the history of Confucianism a lot more deeply than I have. My experience is limited to the reading of an outdated translation over forty years ago. Since then, I have encountered it only tangentially in my readings of oriental history. The difference between your impression and mine confirms my feeling that what a person gets from a religion (or any belief system) is a product of what he brings into it.

My impression of the best of Confucian ethics (there is a worst, but that avoids ethics) is based on recollections of state ministers who would perceive an injustice, write a memorial to the emperor, and then commit suicide to drive home his point (and probably to avoid a lingering execution). There were also the ministers who, after the invasion by the Manchurian dynasty, fled to their home towns to avoid serving the foreign regime, and, when pressed to return to the capital, committed suicide. The point is not that I am fascinated with suicide, but I see in Confucianism a sense of personal responsibility that matches existentialism at its best.

You are slightly off about the influence of Confucian thought on Western. Matteo Ricci’s reports about Confucianism were the basis of J-J Rousseau’s writings. Marx, in my view, owes more to Aristotle’s Republic than to Confucius.

As for socialism in the US, what are you referring to? The US is devolving from a form of socialism that was introduced by FDR’s New Deal. While the Neo-Cons (emphasis on con) claim that it was outright communism, a dyed in the red bolshevik would call it state socialism ( a real insult to a bolshie). While the New Deal nearly meets Marx’s prescription at the end of the Communist Manifesto, in reality, it was exactly the same as Bismark’s reforms in Germany, which were conceived as an antidote to socialism (which is why commies detest it so). My view of where the US is headed would strictly be defined as “state corporatism”.

Why are they so many laowai blogging on China's affair? For the love of the country, nothing better to do or just keen to know China better. However, some of them after reading 2,000 years or more of China's history, assumed that they're an expert when in actual fact, they are still novice. If their interests is wide-varied such as Chinese arts, religion, culture, literature, peoples and so on, then maybe that's still acceptable. But holly no, they read the whole history in a condensed form within a day or two, and then they summarized all the bad news as if all of them happened within a month or so.

Repeating what i highlighted earlier, why are laowai so interested in blogging ('poking') at China's affair instead of India, Pakistan or even Myammar. Sarcastically I guess it's mainly due to skin color - skin discrimination.

Dave,

The apocryphal suicide stories are just tear-jerkers. The real agenda is the teaching of total submission to the state and the complete dehumanization of oneself . . . by the time of Mao, the "modern scientific" expression would be treating oneself as but a iron nut in the machinery of the state (the core lesson of the "Learn from Comrade Lei Feng" movement of the 1960's); the classical Confucian expression, not having seen modern industrial machinary, was treating one's life as "lighter than feather" whereas the affairs of the state "heavier than Mout Tai."

Marx's train of logic was originated from economic, not philosophical or political like Plato's. Marx's intellectual inspiration was primarily French socialist thinkers of the 18th century, including Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Many of those French socialist thinkers of the 18th century, includng Rousseau, derived their own inspiration from writings of Wan An Shi, the Neo-Confucian politician-economist of the 11th century Song China. The central theme being that the state, under the advisement of wisemen, should intervene in the market place, especially to counter cyclical forces. It never works in practice, not in Song China, not for the French socialists in any of their experiments, nor for Marx and his followers. The fundamental problem being that, if the wisemen were truely wise enough to recognize cyclical bubbles and busts, they'd be making a fortune as free market participants to begin with and through their arbitrarge they would have alleviated the cycles without wearing the robes of the state officials; putting on the robes of the state officials only allowed the hopeless conformist trend followers to exacerbate the cycles. We recently had the classic example of top regulator Greenspan praising the "financial engineering" and reducing interest rate (i.e. debasing dollar) to support it at the peak of the bubble . . . as opposed to the Neo-Confucian and socialist intellectual wishful thinking of wise regulators being able to step in front of the run-away freight train and put it to a stop on command. That's for supposedly the most prescient central banker (Maestro) in generations.

Neo-Cons are ex-"Liberals." I put quotation marks around "Liberals" because they are not really liberal at all. Like you correctly identified, the Neo-cons and their ex-comrades "Liberals" are nothing but statist advocating something similar to Bismarck's welfare state. "State Corporatism" is the same old wine in a not even that new bottle (read: Fascism). It's all about using state violence, and the threat thereof, to benefit special friends of the state. Lenin switched back and forth between "War Communism" and "State Capitalism" rather adroitly . . . precisely because there isn't much difference between the two in substance, just substitute one group of thugs in charge for another (sometimes just swtiching hats, not even the thugs). It's all about state intervention to run people's lives. The inevitable result is misery . . . because as Ludwig von Mises and Fredrick Hayek pointed out 3/4 a century ago, the socialist wisemen can't possibly know the prices (i.e. the relative priorities) of anything without a market place; replacing the free market place with a clique of wisemen (regardless whether they call themselves communists, neo-cons or Confucianists) would only lead to massive misallocation of resources.

Janman: At last, something I’m good at - sarcasm Why are they so many 大鼻子 blogging on China's affair? a) For the love of the country b) Just keen to know China better c) nothing better to do d) to try to match all the people blogging about CNN Answer: d

“after reading 2,000 years or more of China's history, assumed that they're an expert” I’m still learning after thirty years. What have you learned this month?

“If their interests is wide-varied such as Chinese arts, religion, culture, literature, peoples and so on” Actually, it’s just the food.

“why are laowai so interested in blogging ('poking') at China's affair instead of India, Pakistan or even Myammar” Well, the Indians are too dark, the French are too light, but you guys are just right.

Nanook:

Whew! Like I said, you get out it what you bring into it.

P.S. I have at least tripled my portfolio every term Republicans have been in power for the last twenty years. When it's democrats, I only double it. It all depends on whether I'm betting for or against the dollar. And Greenspan was a constant.

Dave,

As you can see, I'm especially pro-Democrat or pro-Republican. Like your own portfolio performance shows, the state monetary and fiscal intervention in the market place only exacerbate the ups and downs in the market place in the interest of short-term gains for the government's narrow constituents. Democrats are owned by bankers, and Republican had a manufacturing-export base but nowadays are also increasingly owned by bankers. I occasionally make some currency trades as part of portfolio balancing. In the long run, currency speculation is a sucker's game, because all paper currencies are destined to die. The paper US dollar (Federal Reserve Notes) has lost 96% of its value since the fiat currency was introduced in 1913. Since we are on the topic of China, Song China actually invented paper fiat currency. Mongol Yuan dynasty adopted it and gave the muscle for enforcing it throughout the "Chinese" world. When Marco Polo reported the use of paper (mulberry bark fiber sheet) currency instead of gold or silver, his Occidental friends were incredulous ("what kind of fools were the Orientals anyway" was their response). Yuan collapsed within 8 decades in a spiral of hyperinflation, despite its all-conquring military. From there on, Chinese economy lived off uncoined silver chunks for 600 years, not because they did not know how to coin money but because the people understood well that any government stamp of approval instead of the substance value of the money itself would only lead to debasement. Both Ming and Qing dynasties had German Stasi-like internal spying networks controllling the Chinese population, but the government was unable to make people accept silver or gold coins at face value into circulation; the merchants only accepted Spanish/Mexican Dollars, just like Americans did the late 18th and early 19th century, because the solid and consistent value of those Spanish/Mexican dollar silver coins.

Wang An Shi understood very well that in order for the government to pretend it had the capacity to intervene in the market place for good, it has to control its own fiat currency, so that it can print unlimited amount of it. French socialists eventually understood what Wang meant. By the time of Karl Marx, "central banking" and "fiat currency" were integral planks in the Communist Manifesto. China eventually re-introduced paper currency in the early 20th century by the ROC government, as a form of "modernisation." Like you said, most people are prone to read out what prejudice they had to begin with. That pretty much summarizes most of the state effort in Chinese modernisation over the past century and half. Due to their Confucianist/Socialist/Statist/Communist inclinations, all the rulers of China, be they Qing, ROC or PROC, all tried to pick and choose bad monopolistic practices to emulate, practices that often had the failed Chinese origin to begin with. The latest being the Zaibafu/Chaebo oligopoly nonsense. Communism is not a foreign idea to China; it's the modern expression of statist philosophies that had its roots in Neo-Confucianism. "Neo" as the secular version of Confucianism practiced since about 11th century. By now, the original religious aspect of Confucianism of Tian-worship is long lost, so what we call "Confuscianism" is Neo-Confucianism.

nanook:

we should continue this privately. my email is easy to find.

"Of course, Chinese communism is not the same as the type of communism made infamous by places like Albania. Rather, it is more of a puu puu platter of political ideologies: a few spare ribs of free-market style capitalism, some cold sesame noodles of socialist propaganda, and a few nuggets of sweet and sour military authoritarianism, topped off with a big egg roll of good, old-fashioned subjugation of freedom."

http://www.dickipedia.org/dick.php?title=China

as long as the truth is there. even a great power has to fall down. your comment on rise of china has everything related with the economic. but you are forgetting that your govt has made a huge gap between rich and poor. i have seens how many houses are destroyed building the olympics stadium. i don't have any hatred with the chinese people. but i am totally against the chinese govt. i am a tibetan. you are telling that we don't know the history. ask your govt about what is the main reason that tibetans are fighting for their tibet. just raise this question to your govt. you says china economic is rising, but just check in your country how much they are paying for their labour, just check how many political prisonors are there in your country, money is not only the solution. does your country have freedom of expression? if yes why they are not allowing the world media? why are they running away from the truth. if your govt feels that they are right. then why are they not letting international media IN TIBET? does your government doesnot know how to talk as a dialouge rather then blaming. common this is 21st century and you have to reason out what is right and wrong. before blaming others, just question your govt first. if you feel that your govt is right in every way. then how come so many chinese people settling in europe, usa and other countries. if your country has the most economic power. then why don't they live and work in your country despite coming to poor countries like usa, europe and others. my conclusion is not to blame you as a person. there is no enemity between chinese people and tibetans. but we do oppose the chinese govt for implementing harsh policy in tibet. if you want to know the history on tibet. you can ask for any books from me. i will be happy to send you if you need. we are leaving in the world of 21st century and we cannot live isolated. every counrty, are interdependent to each other. if your country is rising up. it is also because of other countries they are allowing chinese goods. it is not like only your country can produce the goods. please think again what ever you believe. experiment it, question both the parties and then drive the conclusion. don't go blindly.

nanook602:

My personal take on the whole Communist/Confucian thing was that the point that the author was making was not that the CCP is a Confusion body, but rather that it wasn't a Communist body. Literally: the letter could stand for anything and it would make just about as much sense as Communist. For example, the Chinese Cooking Party.

"There may be a Department of Marxism in a Beijing University, but you can be sure that it's curriculum is filtered to match whatever the current state agenda might be."

Never were truer words spoken. When Mao was alive he was 100% right 100% of the time. When he died it was announced that he'd only been right 70% of the time. But, you will notice, that said 70% isn't necessarily the same 70% as it was back in the day. The contents of the 70% change with time as the priorities of the government change and as the slant that they wish to put on history changed.

To see how things change you only need to look at the Department of Marxism at Shandong University. Until 2001 it was known as the "Department of Marxism-Leninism".

Of course, having a couple of universities with a "Department of Marxism" doesn't necessarily mean very much. Just look at all of the weird and wonderful departments that crop up in US Universities. For example, Princeton University's School of Engineering and Applied Science used to have a department called the "Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research" which was a polite way of saying that it researched all of the stuff that was considered to wacko to be include in the script of Ghost Busters.

dave zimmerman:

Regarding the US and socialism, my primary experience of socialism comes from experience/observation of European countries which have (or had, at the time) socialist systems. Let's just say that I recognize VERY LITTLE of these systems in George Bush's America, and what I do recognize is only there under sufferance.

For example, if a British person with high cholesterol would only have to pay a capped administration fee of about $US12 per month for their drugs (the fee is waived 100% for seniors and low income earners) making their yearly drug bill less than a single months bill might be in the US. Equally, a US college student would need to find a private or foundation based scholarship to get their fees down, but in most of Europe this fee is provided by the state. Sometimes the fee is paid entirely by the state. It can cost Europeans well over $30,000 less in tuition fees than Americans over a 3 year course.

Janman:

"Why are they so many laowai blogging on China's affair?"

Firstly, not everybody here is a laowai (For non-Chinese speakers, this means Foreigner). Secondly, China has a large part to play in the 21st century, so it is only to be expected that foreigners will talk about it. There would have been just as many blogs about the USSR 30 years ago had Blogs existed then.

"instead of India, Pakistan or even Myammar."

Probably because the above nations are A) In the news less than China B) Are either better understood (India) by foreigners than China or are (Pakistan, BURMA) much more specialist areas than China about which foreigners either don't know or don't care.

"assumed that they're an expert"

I think that was the point that the original author was making. There is so much to China that a lot of foreigners don't know how much they don't know, and don't understand how much they don't understand.

"If their interests is wide-varied such as Chinese arts, religion, culture, literature, peoples and so on, then maybe that's still acceptable"

Most Chinese would struggle with that one, you can't expect a foreigner to grasp everything without spending much more time than most foreigners have immersed in China at both an academic and a personal (Lit: Living there) level.

"they summarized all the bad news as if all of them happened within a month or so."

Mostly, that's only the ones who either have a personal agenda or have personal capital tied up in the particular area that they are reporting on.

For example, most people with human rights based blogs won't report on non-human rights issues.

tom:

If you look closely at each of the famous Communist (or supposedly communist) movements you will find that each of them are different. Some followed urban policies and worked on the principle that the worker needed to be freed from the shackles placed on them by the merchant classes, and that they could then be educated in order to create an egalitarian intellectual society. Other's followed rural policies and worked on the principle that the landlord classes were suppressing the landless peasants and that the peasants needed to be organized into more productive units that could operate on an equal footing and without the landlord classes, other's still worked on democratic principles that wished to base a light capitalist society on a bedrock of socialism. The you had regimes where Communism was used as an interchangeable term for a centralization military dictatorship (Ala North Korea), and where egalitarianism simple meant reducing anybody who wasn't already on the bottom of the heap (Ala many parts of China).

Different regimes went different ways with varying levels of success/bloodshed. In China's case sometimes different cadre in different regions practiced different variations from one another.

Either way, China today isn't Communist or Socialist. It's a legalist state with an aggressive and unforgiving Capitalist market. The fact that there are still big state owned enterprises is beside the point as even they often operate on aggressive capitalist principles.

The sincerity of your posts always impresses me. You seem like a serious person with a good heart, and the way you ask questions shows that you are willing to listen to an answer. I have thought about this post to you for some days, and I hope that you will look up my email so that we can correspond privately.

Reading history has always been a hobby of mine. I don’t expect that reading history will explain current events, but it does give me some insight into what remains the same, and what is different. Mr. Wu’s article assumes that Westerners have no knowledge of Chinese history at all, and I would not have mentioned it if he had not made statements that I know take advantage of that presumed ignorance.

Every nation’s history has episodes that are used against it by outsiders. Being an American I am aware of this, and for everything bad that you can think of about the US, I will tell you the parts that they didn’t teach you in school. All I ask is that you get the facts right. I might try to explain the circumstances, but I won’t make excuses; I might say that what is seen as wrong now was considered right, even necessary, then, but I certainly won’t try to say that what is wrong is right. Most important, if you tell me something that I didn’t know before, I will not deny that it happened.

The way history is taught until university level presupposes a constant good against bad, us against them viewpoint. In ancient Greek history – Athens/democracy/good versus Sparta/militarist/undemocratic/bad. But when you read the writings of an Athenian who sided with Sparta (Xenophon), you get the view from the other side, that Athenian democracy was a mindless crowd manipulated by greedy politicians. In the field of Central American Indians, the Aztecs are militaristic who practiced human sacrifice, and the Mayans are “the Athenians of the New World” who played a sport with rubber balls, in which the winner won the loser’s clothes. After the Mayan script was deciphered, it was discovered that the actual stakes were the loser’s skin. Once you get a chance to consider both sides in history, it isn’t easy to make up your mind.

Concerning the “china complex” and the two types of western websites about China, all I can say is that there are those of us who truly want to understand, and, for myself, as I learn more about Chinese history, I sometimes even change my mind about what I think is true.

• I could go on for a long time about the propaganda involved in Americans’ views of China. American’s truly believe that propaganda is something that only happens in other countries. We are not aware that it happens to us also. It is only after the fact that we realize that we have been lied to. Unlike China, however, there are multiple sources of propaganda. The news that most people get comes from many sources, not just CNN, and they are mostly owned by corporations with their own interests to advertise. Early in the last century, American businesses viewed China as an unlimited market; a best selling book in the 1930’s was subsidized by Standard Oil - Oil for the Lamps of China. The dream was that if every Chinese person bought a dollar’s worth… In the 1970’s, after Nixon relaxed American restrictions against China (the one good thing the lying bastard did), corporations had the same dreams – unlimited sales and jobs for all. I think that the source for a lot of the propaganda is the disappointed American corporations.

I am one with you in my love of my country, though. As critical as I am of my country (to the point that some people consider me a “communist”), it makes me angry when someone says something against it. But if I know it is true, what can I say? That is why I have shared with you just a few of the things that I think are wrong with my country. Here are the links I have found to some of the people who seem to value what they think is the truth above their love of country.

In English http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2008/05/two-mismatched-icons-random-thoughts-o n-the-olympics/ http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2008/04/democracy-is-an-old-tu rtle-thoughts-after-san-francisco-demonstrations/ http://chinadigitaltimes. net/2008/05/chinese-student-interviewing-the-dalai-lama/

In Chinese http://www.douban.com/group/topic/3029683/ http://club.6park.com/bolun/messages/gvk55874.html http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_49e1baf60100936b.html

This is the fourth time that I have written this, and I am still not satisfied with it. I hope you understand.

PS: My previous post was addressed to julndy's post #24.

tenzin silnon:

"how come so many chinese people settling in europe, usa and other countries"

There is a Western phrase that I think comes into play here, "The Grass is Always Greener on the Other Side of the Fence". In this context, it means that people think that the situation for making a go of life is more conducive elsewhere than it is at home. This situation is true the world over. In some ways it is a good thing because it encourages the migration of labor and skills between regions and allows people to experience other cultures and perspectives, but it is also a bad thing in many ways as it can lead to brain drain people smuggling and labor exploitation.

If you look at the world as a whole you will see that the flow of people is not uni-directional. People in every country look overseas for more opportunities. The most obvious example is that of people seeking to travel from the developing world to the developed world (Chinese, etc seeking to live in Europe and the US), but you also get much migration within the developed world, too. For example, now that the internal barriers in Europe have been removed you get many people from France working in Germany and vice versa because their skills are needed more in the other country and thus they can make a better life there.

You also find many people in the West who tire of the internal situations in their home countries and look for a different situation overseas. For example many British doctors travel overseas because working conditions are more satisfying in countries with less beurocracy and where they can get closer to the patients, and any ordinary people liek to move to countries such as Spain to escape the poor British weather , the oppressive government and the high level of social disorder. Then you get people such as the Australians where traveling overseas for several years is practically built into the genetics of the country's youth. Many foreigners also like to come to China for cultural or personal reasons and to expand their minds.

I'm not Mainland by birth but I made an active choice to live in China to be closer to Chinese culture and because of the economic opportunities that it offered me.

tenzin silnon:

"we do oppose the Chinese govt for implementing harsh policy in Tibet"

Would you are to enlighten readers further?

ACB, re. your #47

You might also scan through Confucius for how the founder of the Zhou Dynasty convinced the Han people to desert the Zhang Dynasty.

Flag on the play, ACB - yellow, maybe red.

Do you read Kipling? He wrote a poem, "White Man's Burden"; it must be remembered that he was passionately pro-British Empire, to the point that he often seemed incapable of imagining anything bad of it. Others saw the poem differently; Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_White_Man's_Burden has both the Kipling poem and a link to this satire of it - http://www.guhsd.net/mcdowell/history/projects/wmburden/brownman.html.

My point to all this? - the matter that inspired "White Man's Burden" was the U.S. invading and colonising Phillipine Samoa, and thereby becoming an "imperial" power. The U.S. formed in opposition to Britain, and were once virulently anti-empire and anti-imperialist; I don't need to tell you how badly that turned out.

It can happen in China as well - and that is why this laowai is watching. I read a Chinese comment on one blog (don't have a url - sorry) lamenting that China could not achieve its proper place in the world due to all those marauding U.S. carrier battlegroups - a PLA that is content to sit within its borders would have no concerns about U.S. anything, especially now that China holds so much U.S. debt.

And India, which stopped Alexander the Great, is lamenting how little power it holds over "its" ocean. I worry about a Chinese curse - "May you live in interesting times" - coming to bite us all, and I hope you know far more about China than I do in this regard. But that's the danger of the Party being answerable only to itself - anything it thinks is a good idea, by definition is. Remember Argentina invading the Falklands to take its people's mind off their troubles at home? That nasty little act has been a favorite of despots since they were all kings.

Jim:

"Do you read Kipling?"

No, never. My study of Western literature was very limited and primarily encompassed the English classics (Lit: Shakespeare) and 20th century American literature.

"China could not achieve its proper place in the world due to all those marauding U.S. carrier battlegroups"

If you look at the psychology of the Chinese nationalist it is possible to conclude that such a statement actually has many parts to it that and that US CAG is just the way that these parts are expressed.

Firstly the writer is angry at the presence of US military forces so close to China. In the past colonial powers such as Britain (And America, to a lesser extent) used to sail warships down China's rivers and sit them outside population or economic centers, or march platoons of troops up and down. They didn't have to fire a shot, their mere pretense was an act of intimidation. The threat if force, if you will. Like the school bully having a couple of their pet thugs stand next to your locker in the morning. Well, China remembers those days well, and feels that the US military is doing this now. Reminding China that the threat of force is always an option and that China is not able to do anything about it.

Secondly that the writer is noting the fact that fact that the US will always move to counter any military advance that China makes, regardless of its intentions, and will always mark these advances as a threat. Even if they aren't. For example, if China builds a missile shield, America will declare it to be a dangerous advancement move more missiles into the Pacific. Even if the shield is build around a population center such as Shanghai, rather than a military installation. If China dug bomb shelters under middle schools, Washington would invest in more bunker buster. This isn't good for China's image of America.

Lastly, the author is also more than likely noting the fact that the US will always move to counter Chinese influence around the world. Be it political, economic, or military. This brings back the Chinese idea that "foreigners are keeping China down" which is lodged within the Mainland psychology.

"a PLA that is content to sit within its borders would have no concerns about U.S. anything, especially now that China holds so much U.S. debt."

I think that you have forgotten about 2 critical points.

Firstly, that China considers its borders to encompass Taiwan. This makes US power in the Pacific an important factor to the PLA. To many Mainlanders the US Pacific power base is a giant finger flipping it the bird on a daily basis. This really burns many Mainlanders. It's a constant reminder of the days when whites not only ruled the world but also much of China. I don't know how to explain it to you in familiar term without going to extremes, so you will have to excuse this one for being in fantasy land: It's like Osama Bin Laden being granted international immunity by the UN and then broadcasting pictures of himself on every cable network, day in, day out, taunting America for being powerless to do anything.

Secondly, while you may consider the US to be peaceful and its power not being of concern, this is not how many people internationally see the US. As noted above, many people see the international presence of US forces as being a like holstered pistol. It's there and can be used.

Please put yourself in China's shoes. Imagine what it would be like if China had a couple of CAG based in Cuba and was running spy planes down the US coast just like America is doing to China. How would you feel?

"I worry about a Chinese curse - "May you live in interesting times""

While some would dispute that this really was a Chinese curse, I think that I will just settle for saying that I don't remember a time when we weren't "living in interesting times".

"That nasty little act has been a favorite of despots since they were all kings."

I remember a lot more than that. America went into Vietnam and Panama because of political pressures at home rather than any fears over the plight of the local people. The same is true for many other actions. Fortunately, or rather unfortunately, depending on which side you look at it from, Beijing is far more likely to use the PLA to quell internal problems than it is to use them to start a foreign war to distract from them. Remember one key thing about Beijing: Beijing leads the people, it is not lead by the people. Starting a foreign war to detract from a domestic problem is not in its nature.

The one exception to this would of course be Taiwan, but any action against Taiwan would be preceded by an overseas action such as a declaration of independence, rather than by social unrest on the Mainland.

To dave zimmerman, post #44

Thanks for your comments, I have read the articles you mentioned, both in chinese and english, so nothing will be lost in translation. I am not sure that I have fully grasped the point you try convey, so my response might be a bit off the mark.

I understand there are countries founded because the people shared common set of values, may it be equal rights, or religions; there are people first, then the values, last came the state. So for these countries' citizens, their countries stand for their belief, their governments have to represent those values in order to represents their people. The fine examples for these nations will be the USA and republic of France. The love of a citizen for its country is defined as the love for what the country is stand for, for what is ought to be, and naturally the criticism follows whenever a breach occurs.

However, old China is not founded under same circumstances, nor is the 59 year old PRC. So where do the chinese's love and loyalty rest? For me personally, the love for my country lies with the land, the land of 'middle Kingdom', it matters not to me, whatever prefix one adds, may it be PR, or RO, my sentiments stay the same. The land has never done anything bad to anyone, what could I possibly cirticise it for? To me and many other chinese, it is the country ( the Land, NOT the government) comes first, then the people. Without China, then there will not be chinese (not in any meaningful way by chinese standards). That's why in one of the article you've mentioned, the white american woman, said 'Long live the Chinese', while the old chinese man kept saying 'Long live China'.

So dave, when people say bad things about the U.S. you can see whether it is an attack on your values, or an attack on acts which betrayed those values. For those attachk your values, then you can take it personally and stand up defend your country and yourself. if it is the latter, it is actually on your side. But when people say 'China murders, china invades, china suppresses, china lies' there is no such differentiation, that's why to most chinese, it became a very personal accusation and attack. Of course I have no illusions about the dark and bloody history of China nor I deny any misdeeds committed by the current CCP. I too, greatly admire the virtue of being self-critical, and I do think we chinese need to looking hard and deep into our souls to find some answers. Due to lack of personal substance, I am not able to compose anything like that, but I very much hope someone, chinese or foreigner, can really accurately point out the problems, then all the efforts will not be in vain.

I wish I have made myself a bit clearer.

p.s.

This time, the appearance of great support of the CCP may surprise many ordinary 'foreigner', we must be brainwashed, otherwise why would any sane person will support such brutal regime? Because there is no alternative. just like a few weeks ago, I asked similar question regarding dailai lama's suitability as Tibetans representative. ACB answered me with this. I think it is exactly the same situation in China. If CCP collapse, China will be a failed state, it'll either become the USSR of 90s, in shock and chaos, or worse, like Yugoslavia plunge into civil war and ethnic cleansing. While Chinese as whole are not certain about what we want, but we are damn sure we don't want that. That's why we still support the CCP, for what is worth, and hope bit by bit, it will change for the better.