Defend China with Sensible Patriotism
Aby September 2nd, 2008
Amidst the violent outburst of anti-China sentiments among some of the people in the West, China feels wronged, Chinese people get outraged, followed by an unprecedented explosion of patriotism which later ushered in an irresistible wave of xenophobia among innocent Chinese citizens, and finally giving rise to a pathetic, yet understandable overflow of nationalism. The Torch-Relay Protest in Paris in the run-up to Beijing’s hosting of Olympic is the preface of the story. Unexpected, the sporting event revived with the ideals of promoting peace, harmony and international cultural exchange has eventually been turned to a violent political farce.
Farce it is.
The fact is that most of the people who vehemently protest against China’s “brutal” human rights record are those who have never been to China. For those who have been to China and known something about China, it is, more often than not, a different story. One of my friends studying in France told me, she had seen people being paid up for joining in the torch-relay protest. But when asked “where is Tibet?”, some of those guys had completely no clue, let alone know something about its history.
A term often talked about in China is SEEK TRUTH FROM FACT. I really hope those who are either born hating China, or taught to hate China, or paid up to hate China, or hate China due to its aloofness, whatsoever, pay a visit to China to verify themselves how “brutal” today’s Chinese government is towards its people, and how intensely today’s Chinese people have been “suffering” under the “ruthless” Communist rule.
To those who hate China merely because of its status as a socialist, I have to say, you are not correct yet I may help to correct you. Today’s China is on the road of pursuing, what we term it, Socialism with Chinese Characteristics. “Chinese Characteristics” means we are working on a unique way of administering, which to my understanding, means we are combining the best of the proven good experiences from other countries, including that of the Western countries, with the cream of the time-honored socialism. Today’s China is a great departure from what it was 20 years ago. I do not think it’s wise to always associate what has happened 20 years ago with today’s China or Chinese government. Actually, it seems to me that the mentioning of “Tiananmen Student Movement”, or some of you may call it “massacre”, has become a good fashion among a significant number of people to hide their outdated knowledge about today’s world, and boast of their being democratic. If so, why not talk about the bloody history of American Indians several hundred years ago whenever the topic concerns the United States? Time is progressing, so does China.
To those who hate Chinese people merely because of our status as Chinese, I have to say, you are beyond correction. Your hatred will always be our source of power driving us to excel. Yet, fault or even deficiencies can always be found as to the Chinese government or the Chinese system of governing, which is a fact nobody could deny. However, more inspiring is that the Chinese leadership has been constantly aware of this and always takes immediate actions to correct itself into the right path, which are always proven effective, which can be broadly reflected by Chinese government’s response to the recent earthquake relief, China’s gradual loosing control of media freedom, and more important, Chinese government’s persistent efforts in lifting millions of people out of poverty.
Criticism of all kind to China and its people is really embraced so long as it is based on unbiased perspectives, supported by factual knowledges and intended to help, but not virulent abuses or senseless pretest as mentioned above.
World can not do without China, so does China.
Forest Jheng,
Shanghai University
NB: This article is a guest post and as such, guest posts do not necessarily reflect the popular or personal views of this site owner/authors.- Aby
Possibly Related posts:
- United States vs China - Consequences of a Nuclear War
- China vs United States: Nuclear Arms Race
- India vs China on Military Strength - Conventional and Nuclear
- Can the United States Win a War Against China?
- China’s No First Use Policy
- Mischallenous
- Comments(25)
Loading ...
I’m not against socialism any more than I’m against capitalism. In my opinion, if a system — any system — works, then it’s good. I admire your passion for your country; it is equally likely that your article is also biased because of this fact. But then, I must also confess that as much as I want to visit China, I have never had the opportunity to do so. I appreciate the overall message.
One either likes or dislikes China, and then proceeds to justify one’s likes and dislikes. That is just as well, for we must take some sort of attitude toward China to justify ouselves as intelligent beings. We grope for reasons, and begin to tell one another little anecdotes, triflles of everyday life, escaped or casual words of conversation, things of tremendous importance that make us philosophors and enables us to become, with great equanimity, either China’s implacable critics, allowing nothing good for her, or else her ardent, romantic admirers. Of course, these generalizations are rather silly. But that is how human opinions are formed all over the world and it is unavoidable. Then we set about arguing with one another. Some always come out from the argument supremely satisfied of their rightness, self-assured that they have an opinion of China and of Chinese people. They are happy people who rule the world and import merchandise from one part of it to another, and who are always in the right. Others find themselves beset with doubts and perplexities, with a feeling of awe and bewilderment, perhaps of awe and mystification, and they end where they began. But all of us fell China is there, a great mystical Dasein.
Lin Yutang, one of the greatest writers about China, 1935
It is actually possible to maintain a neutral position. That is, to say that you neither like nor dislike something is entirely possible on the grounds that the subject has insufficient information to make a accurate and appropriate determination. Nationalism often clouds practical judgments and leads to one-sided analyses, by which I mean the sides share an unequal burden (i.e., too much negativity or positivity for one side vis-a-vis the other).
Insufficiant information is more likely to incur prejudice than to a neutral position. Many foreigners jump to rash conclusions about China such as that China is a remote and impoverished country ruled by tyranny or Chinese people are a bunch of thugs and goons, based on their picture of China depicted 2 decates ago or even more ancient. For instance, Tian’anmen Square Incident as mentioned by Forest may blind a number of foreigners of the significant progress the Chinese government has achieved and the blissful prosperity its people have enjoyed since then. The danger of insufficiant information lies in the possibility that it may give rise to a stubborn first impression which refuses to get updated, thus leaving little room for positive turnaround. Therefore, the point of China’s hosting Olympic Games is in a sense to unfold a vivid prospect of China upon those who are innocent of the new China in 21 century either out of reluctance or due to lack of chances.
As to the claim that “Nationalism often clouds practical judgments and leads to one-sided analyses” I agree that unchecked and vehement nationalism definitely will blur an open and just vision, but the well-balanced patriotism on the other hand can generate unfailing drive for a sustained development and help build powerful cohesion as well as rational national pride.
As Lin Yutang (a famous Chinese literati) wisely instructed that from the love of the family there grew a love for the clan, and from the love for the clan there developed an attachment for the land where one was born.
See, nationalism can be simple, mild, of affection instead of harm.
I find it interesting that only residents — or visitors — of China are responding to this post. I also object to your contention that insufficient information leads to prejudice rather than a neutral position. I am not saying that it is not possible, but saying that to argue broadly is tantamount to ignorance — and that is prejudiced. It is clearly obvious that people’s opinions and positions cannot be legislated. Absolutism is unfavorable in this instance because it is a no-win scenario. I will give you an example: I know more than enough about China and still do not know enough to form an educated opinion to take sides; how is that prejudice? As to well-balanced patriotism, I agree on the condition that you define just want “well-defined patriotism” really is. In contrast, I will give you an example for which I am sure to come under fire, but Americans are proud people. America is a proud country and it has reasons to be proud. Americans work very hard to sustain their prosperity — and are often disappointed because the big powers that be often runs in contravention to her legitimate interests. BUT this talk of freedom and democracy is overrated. Cultures vary, as does governance. My point simply is that you are taking a position that cannot be adequately defended under an undefined context. Perhaps rewriting it under a defined scope would give us something better to argue upon without being over-broad to the extent that we have nothing to argue about since we’re both correct. Then again, argumentation is not always a good thing…
I didn’t have time to read your guys’ posts(sorry), but I wanted to put in my 2 cents if I may before I forget about this debate altogether. While I was studying in China, I asked a Chinese student in one of my classes what he thought about the Tibet issue. His only response was “How can people from the West tell us about Tibet and Democracy when you are in Iraq!?!”. My respnse was that I agreed with neither the war in Iraq nor the Chinese governments occupation of Tibet. Infact, I disagree with both his and my own government(or almost any government for that matter) on almost everything. This made me realize that the more important issue than Tibet or Iraq is blind Nationalism for ones country. Neither of us could really give that great an arguement for our position. Now, I have to say that my time in China was wonderful. I truly met the most welcoming and warm-hearted people there that I have ever met. But the Chinese peoples extreme nationalism toward their country and government scared me at times. I have to be fair though, and also mention that Americans’ nationalism(particularly of those in the south) also scares me quite a bit. While I would try to make the point that the only reason China wants control of Tibet is for natural resources and specifically Uranium, most of the (angry) responses I got were about how I “don’t have the authority to tell China what to do when my country is doing such bad things too.” Well, actually… I don’t have the authority to make decisions in either of these cases, but that dosn’t mean I cant disagree/agree with them based on what I think is morally right. So just becuase my government does something wrong, you think your government has a justifiable reason to do something you think is also morally wrong?( I know not all Chinese citizens feel this way, but this is just an example of the views of a couple people I met.) My point is, although my home country is in Iraq doing something that I think is morally wrong and illegal, I choose to disagree with it. For the most part, many of the Chinese I met agreed with their government and gave me no reasoning why when I asked them. I think they probably do have a legitamite and intelligent reasoning behind their backing of Chinas occupation of Tibet, but I have yet to hear it becuase no one has been gracious enough to explain it to me and instead just tells me that my opinion is wrong, The “West” is wrong, and the Chinese government is right. Why can’t we all stop being so antionalistic on both sides and have a civilized debate so we can better understand each others points-of-view? This also goes for all the rediculous western protesters who don’t know where China is, Where Tibet is, who China’s president is,etc.
Also, alot of people do not know much about China, the Chinese or Chinese culture. Its the “fear of the unknown”. If I may quote the great Master Yoda, “Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate”. Thats probably why so many people show disliking for China, or any other country, person, or ideology for that matter.
I agree that two wrongs don’t make a right, Mike. That’s not argumentation because to argue, two people need to, at the very least, have a shared frame of reference. If you won’t agree with me on anything for any reason, and I won’t agree with you under the same conditions, then we bicker, not argue. I’ve never been to China, so I maintain that I don’t know enough about it to form any sort of rational opinion, thus my stance remains neutral. There exist people indeed who form a very negative opinion of China without any substance to their claims; there are those who defend her using same means. Then, the situation is reversed, and America becomes the target. I do believe, however, and I live in the West that the West has a unique way to selectively define things: for example, when an Arab commits an act of violence, we call it terror; when we do it, we call it (a) counter-terror; (b) in the national security interest; (c) both. The double standards are almost gagging…
Internationalist: When someone commits an act of violence targeting civilians it is considered an act of terrorism. If they are targeting military but also terrorize/kill civilians then the terminology becomes less clear. The Sept/2001 attacks were terrorism. The suicide bombs in Afghanistan that target NATO (including my country) are not; they are asymmetrical warfare because they are not killing civilian bystanders intentionally, just callously. That may or may not be a war crime but it isn’t a terror attack per se. I’m not using the US as an example because opinions on their actions are sharply divided but their targeted killings through Predator drones is closer to the Taliban than to Al Qaeda. I think the Taliban and Al Qaeda provide good examples of guerillas and terrorists, respectively. But I don’t watch much TV, let alone American news programs, so I don’t know how the US media refers to bombings by the Taliban.
Exactly. However, When asking about and trying to understand the Chinese perspective on issues such as Tibet, I was met with the same double standards that we are so famous for here in America. It was very frustrating for me becuase I was not even trying to prove a point or wanting to argue, I was just trying to gather facts that I could build an opinion off of, but I was still given a dull and stupid respone based on blind-pride and on “wanting to come out on top”. I feel like most people in the world do not base their opinions on facts and knowledge, but on blind nationalistic pride and on the passionate focus of being the one who comes away from a discussion or “arguement” on top and a victor(in other words, stupidity from the “heart” and mind).
Well Mike I guess I can elaborate a little on why the Chinese responses to your questions about Tibet seemed a little “hot”. You should understand that there are differences in belief and priorities between Americans and Chinese. Tibet is a hot topic in China because for thousands of years unification has been the number one goal above all others for the Chinese. It may be strange to you why us Chinese take the issue of Tibet, Taiwan, etc so seriously to heart, but the notion of a unified people is deeply engraved in the hearts of Chinese and is an important issue just like how combating Racism/equality issues are top goals for Americans. You see its because of historical events tied with these topics that have defined the nations of China and America. Racism is still an ongoing painful wound for America just the same as instability and fragmentation is for China. We’ve both fought civil wars for them. Hope that gave a little perspective lol.
To see is to believe, and for those who haven’t got the chance to see, at least they should have a decent amount of tolerance and not to go to extremes.
@ Canuck
That seems like a desperate attempt at justification. By your definition — and this would hardly be a stretch — the events of 9/11 would be asymmetrical warfare. The military and financial headquarters had primarily been targeted, which have long been considered fair-use targets in military adventurism. How does carpet bombing a city (take Tripoli for example) not qualify as anything but terrorism, and by the very manner in which it is defined? To me it sounds confusing when you say, “If they are targeting military but also terrorize/kill civilians then the terminology becomes less clear. The Sept/2001 attacks were terrorism.” In fact, it almost sounds like a contradiction when the comment is read further.
Terrorism, by and large, is anything that targets civilians primarily. That is to say, civilians are treated as means to a political end — something that the West has profoundly been engaged in for the last forty or so years.
@ Mike
Double standards are employed throughout the spectrum. Some just stick out more to the right than others.
@ Canuck
George Bush, in his opening statements admitted that the 11th September attacks were an “act of war” (as opposed to terrorism), which was later washed over by the American media to appease the American “victims”. The WTC and Pentagon were financial and military targets, the civilian casualties were, as one would call it - collateral damage. They chose to strike in the only way that was available to them, the only way they could get back on their oppressors. The 3000 civilians got in their way, like the 40000 civilians in Fallujah got in the way of Americans.
The problem with Americans is, they claim to not support what their government does while continuing to vote them to power and reap the material benefits of US imperialism. When they face the consequences, they instantly go into denial, passing-the-buck and vilifying the avenger. You simply can’t go into powerless third world countries, bomb their homes, rape their women, kill their families and rip off their societies while expecting no consequences in return. Just because these people don’t talk, dress or live like Americans do, doesn’t mean that their life is less worthy of living than Americans.
Jacques & Internationalist: I’ve tried responding a few times to your posts but I think I’m being moderated because my retorts are too off-topic for this article (perhaps appropriately so since this is supposed to be about China). Hopefully they will allow this last attempt to reply to your own off-topic comments. All I will say is there has been exactly one rape in Iraq and the perpetrators are going to be executed or imprisoned for life. Although it may seem like nitpicking to complain about the difference between Jacques’s reference to “womEn” and the actual “womAn” (or more appropriately “girl” since she was a child), it is disingenuous to use the plural. I respect your differences of opinion on the semantics behind “terrorism” but the claim about widespread rape is baseless.
To start off, up until the definition of terrorism was openly challenged, I think I disputed the claims in the context of this article. My response here is compelled by your assertion that, and I quote:
“…there has been exactly one rape in Iraq and the perpetrators are going to be executed or imprisoned for life.”
Not only is this claim false — there have been a great deal more than just one, and involving people of a variety of ages — but I think a glance at how the Bush administration and the Pentagon have handled these “perpetrators” can suggest that it’s likely that the sentencing will not match the crimes committed. Although I agree that inappropriately pluralizing the issue is disengenuous, the fact is that I think you’re mistaken in applying this claim in this context.
As to the article itself, I maintain my position with notice that it hasn’t been adequately challenged.
If someone could offer proof (eg news reports, rights’ groups) that US soldiers have committed more rapes than the one publicized case then please post it and I will admit I was wrong. Also, the definition of terrorism that was “openly challenged” was what you called the double standard. I was simply saying that most neutral observers do not in fact categorize every act of Arab asymmetrical warfare as terrorism. Of course “neutral observers” does not include FOX television news programs.
Back to the original topic, the double standards people have regarding China, I agree they do exist. Plenty of people are quick to accuse China of certain motivations and describe the country in certain terms when they’ve never visited and/or know very few Chinese people. I find people do the same about the United States. They watch the lowest-common-denominator Hollywood entertainment on late night television and feel they can stereotype the entire society and culture. I think the people who denigrate China are afraid of China and the people who denigrate America are afraid of America.
@Sun
Thanks. I lived in China for half a year, and I never got an honest and rational response such as your own. It definitely sheds more light on how the Chinese people feel about the situation for me. Much appreciated. Yet I guess it is still a little hard for me to understand your comparisn of the Tibet issue to Racism. I guess it’s a bias I have since of my Western education and upbringing? I am very interested in your opinion though, and would be very appreciative if you could tell me a little more and maybe elaborate. Thanks again.
@Mike
No problem glad I can help. I apologize if I was unclear, I’m not trying to compare the Tibet/Taiwan/Xinjiang issue directly to racism, but rather how they both effect the respective countries they are related to. I know here in Canada and the US unless you are black you can’t say the word “nigger” without consequences, and people get offended if a news report profiles them as “black” instead of “african-american” or asians as “oriental”. I’m sure you are aware how this is a sensative issue in North America and can piss alot of people off. I use this as comparison to issues like Tibet and Taiwan in China where it is just as easily to get people pissed off. The American civil war was over more than a century ago but the era of warlord fragmentation, Japanese invasion, and Chinese civil war are still within living memory for Chinese. On the other hand, since the Chinese people are quite racially homogenous (Not perfectly homogenous, nobody in this world has a “pure” race stock), they won’t see eye to eye with the West on racism. Not to say there isn’t some discrimination but it is far from as big a problem as it is in North America. The same could be said for quite a bit of people in North America that see the Taiwan/Tibet issue from only one side and label mainland China as “aggressive communist thugs”.
Canuck, there is no point arguing with someone who vehemently denies the rapes by American soldiers in Iraq. Your “are going to be” makes it sound that you are still living in 2004. Wake up and smell the world, it is 2009. The trials of Abu Gharib, Mahmoudiya and Haditha rapes are long over and old. There were three seperate incidents and none of the perpretators in any of these cases have been executed. Do a search with the keywords for any of them (I hope you know what Google is). I cannot post the links as my comment gets moderated. If you can’t even bother to read news, go and watch another patriotic movie, political talks are not for you.
If every rape commited by American forces in was videotaped AND leaked to the press like those three, we’d have heard about a lot more of of them. Get out of the bubble kid, this isn’t one of your Superman vs. Lex Luthor movies, where every plot is there for the viewer to see. Regardless of your faith in Americans, they aren’t the ‘good guys’ who has been handed over the epitome of fairness and justice.
I’m not talking about FOX NOISE Network. I’m talking about the CORPORATE media in the United States, as opposed to journalism. The neutrality of FOX is disputed everywhere there are people who are educated, and are not hardcore right wing conservative Republicans. That’s precisely why I use the term “noise” instead of “news,” and Jacques put it well when he talked about the rapes. Google it and you will see many such instances where this occurred. In fact, to put it in perspective, Britain is the strongest European ally to the United States, and even it documented in entirety the serious crimes committed by U.S. forces in as far back as the KOREAN war. I think the pattern simply cannot be ignored.
There is a difference between asymmetrical warfare and terrorism–I agree completely. BUT to what extent this difference is categorically manipulated is another story altogether.
As to the topic, I suppose I do agree that fear is a motivation. My problems here are two fold: (A) it has mostly been defended by the Chinese, who I’m sure feel a sense of patriotism towards China. This does not disqualify them from being credible, but it does give them an inherent bias. I reject the notion that just because a general consensus–and I mean, a very general consensus–speaks of China unfavorably, this applies to all. I know what China has done in the past. I know what China can do in the future, given certain facts. These do not inherently present a bias, but rather an acknowledge of logical extensions to known capabilities. For instance, the successful Chinese space walk, and given their economic wealth, it is logical to suggest that more space missions may follow. That China is too evil to submit to common sense is more so illogical than it is biased. In fact, the statement is frivolous and laughable.
I don’t know sufficiently enough about China to form an opinion of it, which is different from stating known facts about it.
When a person from America sacrifices himself, he becomes a hero. When a person from the middle east does that to prevent his mother from being raped, brother dying, or father losing an arm, he becomes portrayed as a terrorist. For Americans and their sidekicks, life is not worth living if it isn’t done the American way.
Yeah this is a really good article. I could not have put it better myself. Completely gives a good backing of both sides of argument.
@Sun
I completely understand what you are saying now. Makes scence. Thanks again. I really appreciate your analysis.
makes “scence”??!?? I meant makes sense… Remind me not to drink alcohalic beverages before posting on an intellectual blog ; )….