Skip to content

Mutant Palm

  • About
  • Historical Chinese Image Collections
  • SchizOlympics: Words Fail Us Bibliography

Free Advice for the Free Tibet Crowd

Posted on April 26, 2007 by davesgonechina

For regularly updated translations of Chinese Twitter comments on the ongoing events in Tibet after March 15th, go here and here)

Image from Students for a Free Tibet flickr page, not currently firewalled

Some of you may already heard of the four members of Students for a Free Tibet (SFT) that have been detained for taking photos of themselves holding a banner at Mt. Everest base camp. The Chinese government is getting another taste of what’s to come as the Olympics drawing near: the wrath of Californians (two were from Sausalito, another from Boulder – which any Coloradan will tell you bitterly is full of Californians). Both the IOC Beijing chair Hans Verbruggen (who wants to not “be involved in any political issues”), and Thomas Laird, a journalist who wrote “The Story of Tibet” (in which one Amazon reviewer quips “Laird exhibits the standard Western devotee’s simplistic amazement at having his mind blown by Tibetan philosophy”), agree on one thing: there’s gonna be a whole lot more of these stunts protests.

And I expect everything to more or less continue in the same asanine way it has for nearly five decades. The photo above, to me, says it all: we don’t care about Chinese people. We don’t care what they think, we don’t care what they’ve suffered, we don’t give a damn about them. Sure, we’ll hastily scribble on some Chinese characters (“Oh shit, you mean in China not everybody reads English signs? Get me a magic marker and a dictionary!”), but the only message we care about is the one we get out to the English speaking world. Never mind the hundreds of millions of reasonably intelligent adult Chinese citizens and their opinion – no, the only opinions that matter about the future of Tibet are those of Westerners. It reeks of the condescension of 19th century missionaries and their need to rescue the “Sick Man of Asia”. The numerous Tibet activist websites, not to mention the government-in-exile, don’t have any Chinese language content on their websites, despite the Dalai Lama’s recent claims that he wants to negotiate anytime, anywhere. Of course they’re all behind the GFW, but should any Chinese netizen be intrepid enough to seek these pages out, they won’t find anything there for them. Apparently engaging the sympathies of the Chinese people just doesn’t matter. The misery of other ethnic groups besides Tibetans? That’s their problem. I find it deeply hypocritical that a movement deeply connected to Mahayana Buddhism, in which nobody gets Nirvana until everybody gets Nirvana, should be so narrowly concerned with only the plight of one ethnic group. Han Chinese people are tortured, imprisoned and oppressed for the same reasons as many Tibetans, and had their traditions and cultures abused and destroyed as well. But that’s not really the concern here, is it? Should Tibet ever become an independent nation, there doesn’t seem to have been any consideration for what negative consequences this might have for the rest of the population of the PRC. It’s not unlike the call for the Iraq War; give them freedom, and it will all work itself out. Not bloody likely.

This happened last summer as well. Tim Johnson of McClatchy newspapers blogged about a banner unfurled above a railway station in Beijing. This too was in English, and Western reporters in Beijing such as Tim were alerted beforehand. As he said at the time,

While the issues touching on Tibet are of interest, what troubled me is that the activists are generally Westerners rather than Tibetans. Their banner was in English, not Chinese or Tibetan, and few people in front of the train station took notice or were able to read the banner. So without complicit Western media to document the event, it would have gone unnoticed.

Of course, the Western media has a hard time ignoring a banner when the people holding it get arrested. It’s not clear what the charges are; it is possible, I suppose, that the protesters entered China without a visa from a Nepalese base camp. Tim Johnson recently crossed from the Chinese base camp to two others, risking a “$200 dollar fine, apparently negotiable down to $50.” That’s when you have a Chinese visa, of course. But the Chinese government plays right into the hands of the protesters by arresting them, getting their names splashed across international media. Otherwise the event would have never moved beyond the SFT webpage and a Youtube video. The Chinese government, besides pursuing thoughtless and brutal approach to Tibet (and the rest of the country), pursues a thoughtless and brutal approach to PR as well. And yet, they don’t get alot of flack for it from the Han majority. No one, however, seems to really consider why – they just assume that Chinese citizens are brainwashed zombies.

It’s not like Chinese citizens don’t notice the tone of cries for minority justice. In Xinjiang, where there’s another ethnic minority facing discrimination and oppression (the Uyghurs – not that the Tibetan exile movement has spent any time in half a century pointing them out), numerous Han Chinese complained bitterly to me about Western attention to minorities in China. “What about what we suffer? Minorities get all sorts of special privileges, like more than one child!”, they’d say. I find it incredibly ironic that they can also complain of Western imperialism and yet not show one iota of empathy for the feelings of Chinese minorities who feel their right to self-determination taken away by a more powerful alien society. Yet tactics like English banners inside the borders of the
PRC, which leave the Chinese population out of the conversation, only serve to more deeply entrench this bitterness. Mind you, there a different ways to try and engage the Chinese public, and I don’t recommend the
phone spam approach of the Falun Gong/Epoch Times. These are not attempts at peaceful reconciliation or understanding, concepts the Dalai Lama has flogged in countless reams of dead trees – the entire problem is that there is no attempt to engage the other side as human beings, by exiles or the Chinese government. At least the Chinese government, however, makes no pretense at being stalwart defenders of universal human rights or deep spiritual empathy for all human beings.

On the right: Dr. John Powers body checks the movement.

For 50 years, the Tibetan exile movement has fought a propaganda battle with the Chinese government, but never successfully brought that battle to China. Why? Because they’re too busy shouting and congratulating one another for it. And facts, for both sides, are only necessary when they support your side. In History as Propaganda: Tibetan Exiles versus the People’s Republic of China, Powers says (courtesy of ESWN):

Much of the discourse resembles a political rally in which competing factions yell slogans at each other from behind barriers that physically separate them. Our Chinese and Tibetan authors utilize a repertoire of historical simulacra — generally divorced from their context and stripped of the ambiguities that accompany them — that have been accepted by their respective communities as being concordant with the party line, and their conclusions follow from them…

In this situation, it seems impossible that either side could conceivably win its argument; on the other hand, neither can lose. So we are left with a stalemate, in which the two sides shout at each other and accuse their opponents of deliberately obfuscating, while overlooking their own obfuscations. As MacIntyre notes, when two polarized sides of protestors shout at each other, their messages are primarily aimed at those who already share their imaginings, and so each faction is essentially talking to itself or shouting slogans that are ignored or rejected by the other. Thus, each group ends up talking to itself and those who already agree with it.

When I first began this study, my background in Tibetan studies mostly consisted of philosophical and doctrinal studies with refugee Tibetan lamas. During my tenure in graduate school and in subsequent research trips to South Asia, I lived in Tibetan communities and developed friendships with a number of Tibetans. In this situation, my exposure to Tibetan history was heavily conditioned by their perspective, and I implicitly assumed that the authors of Chinese versions of Tibetan history particularly those related to the takeover of Tibet in the 1950s, must be aware that they were lying, distorting, and fabricating and that the Tibetan case for independence was so compelling that anyone with even the slightest exposure to the facts would reach that conclusion. The deplorable human rights situation in Tibet added weight to this conclusion. But in recent years, as a result of speaking with many Chinese, both in China and overseas, and reading a wide variety of publications by Chinese authors (both inside and outside the PRC), my inescapable conclusion is that they do sincerely believe the party line . This is true of most overseas Chinese, as well as residents of Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macau. Their commitment to its veracity is as strong as that of the Tibetans to their own paradigm, and any problemization of it is generally viewed as dangerous, the crumbling edge of a slippery slope that leads to the destruction of the certainties that sustain the Chinese worldview and the Chinese state.

The certainty with which most Chinese accept their “regime of truth” with regard to Tibet should give pause even to the most passionate Tibet activist. Chinese people commonly assert that they have a valid perspective that has largely been ignored by a world that is either ignorant of the facts or deliberately misrepresents Chinese actions in Tibet. They claims that trying to present their case to pro-Tibet foreigners is like arguing with a brick wall — exactly the experience their opponents have with them. In this situation, it seems likely that both sides will continue to argue at cross-purposes, and it is difficult to imagine a resolution in light of the incommensurability of their respective premises and sources of evidence.

And so the yelling from both sides continues, and both sides can fire their zingers at one another and pat each other on the back. Powers examines the English literature produced by both sides, I believe, for a clear reason: because the battle is really one fought on Capitol Hill, not in China. Tibetan activists continue portraying the Chinese public as a swarm of indistinguishable drones incapable of independent thought or political power, even depicting them as foot soldiers in a massive campaign to dilute Tibet with faceless hordes, an outdated Cold War notion that suggests that all that CIA funding until the 1970s has left them in a time warp. No, the Free Tibet movement sees only the power of Washington D.C. and American corporations as capable of swaying China, though 50 years of a failed approach apparently isn’t enough to convince them they’re beating a dead yak. Meanwhile, the Chinese government must think of them as an annoying pain in the ass, constantly disrupting their diplomatic visits or causing PR headaches like this most recent stunt. But make no mistake, as long as the exile movement continues to ignore the Chinese people and look abroad for action, the PRC will be overjoyed. Go ahead and unfurl your banners in English at the Olympics, shout your slogans, treat Chinese people as brainwashed morons – they’ll love the Party even more. But hey, at least you can feel good about yourself back in Sausalito.

Asia From Irkutsk: 1952 Map of the Red Menace

Posted on April 23, 2007 by davesgonechina


Strange Maps has uncovered this awesome Time Magazine map from 1952 showing the Communist wave emanating from Irkutsk out into Asia. Interesting to note it uses the old name for Urumqi, Tihwa. It’s interesting to see that the American public was being told that Mongolia was incorporated into China in 1952, even though both countries recognized one another’s legitimacy in 1949. Mongolia was a Soviet satellite, not a Chinese one, but considering the maps perspective declares China one as well, I guess that’s not such a big matter. Just eight years later the Sino-Soviet split, slowly building during the late 50s, would become a public spat, and in 1962 the Soviets would support India against China and Mao would call Khrushchev a wussy for backing down in Cuba. In 1969, the USSR and China would fight border skirmishes while the Cultural Revolution condemned the Soviets.

Meanwhile, “Domino Theory” continued to be popular in successive White House administrations. This map would not have been out of place in 1969 if Time had chosen to rerun it.

Asia From Irkutsk: 1952 Map of the Red Menace

Posted on April 23, 2007 by davesgonechina


Strange Maps has uncovered this awesome Time Magazine map from 1952 showing the Communist wave emanating from Irkutsk out into Asia. Interesting to note it uses the old name for Urumqi, Tihwa. It’s interesting to see that the American public was being told that Mongolia was incorporated into China in 1952, even though both countries recognized one another’s legitimacy in 1949. Mongolia was a Soviet satellite, not a Chinese one, but considering the maps perspective declares China one as well, I guess that’s not such a big matter. Just eight years later the Sino-Soviet split, slowly building during the late 50s, would become a public spat, and in 1962 the Soviets would support India against China and Mao would call Khrushchev a wussy for backing down in Cuba. In 1969, the USSR and China would fight border skirmishes while the Cultural Revolution condemned the Soviets.

Meanwhile, “Domino Theory” continued to be popular in successive White House administrations. This map would not have been out of place in 1969 if Time had chosen to rerun it.

Guangdong Panopticon

Posted on April 18, 2007 by davesgonechina

I always check WeirdAsiaNews for new ideas for stories. Since they rarely link to original Chinese language articles, it usually sends me out searching for the source and I find some other goodies along the way. Take this picture they posted recently of policeman in Chongqing:


Yup, he and one hundred of his comrades are sporting cameras on their heads for “evidence collection”. The article even even makes reference to cameras being used for what is apparently a Chongqing TV version of COPS called 《110在现场》, or 110 on the Scene.

Finding this, though, sent me through a Baidu search that uncovered another article saying that Guangdong PSB and security bureaus have 800,000 security cameras, or electronic eyes, and will have 1,000,000 by next year (imagine how many nationwide, though Guangdong is probably one of the leading provinces considering its wealth). And Guangzhou has this high tech looking 5 million RMB command center:


Another story
says that in neighboring Guangzhou, there’s been some sort of arrangement where private companies install and maintain highway surveillance cameras, and then collect a percentage of traffic fines as a return on investment – and you thought just the department having to make quota was bad, think how many tickets you have to issue to bulk up Li Highway Surveillance Holdings’ bottom line? The Guangdong government has said this ain’t proper.


Meanwhile, in the Shenzhen district of Longgang, a 50,000 camera network nicknamed, apparently with unintended irony, “SkyNet” (天网) has caught jewel thieves and the murderers of a second-hand cell phone salesman.

Guangdong Panopticon

Posted on April 18, 2007 by davesgonechina

I always check WeirdAsiaNews for new ideas for stories. Since they rarely link to original Chinese language articles, it usually sends me out searching for the source and I find some other goodies along the way. Take this picture they posted recently of policeman in Chongqing:


Yup, he and one hundred of his comrades are sporting cameras on their heads for “evidence collection”. The article even even makes reference to cameras being used for what is apparently a Chongqing TV version of COPS called 《110在现场》, or 110 on the Scene.

Finding this, though, sent me through a Baidu search that uncovered another article saying that Guangdong PSB and security bureaus have 800,000 security cameras, or electronic eyes, and will have 1,000,000 by next year (imagine how many nationwide, though Guangdong is probably one of the leading provinces considering its wealth). And Guangzhou has this high tech looking 5 million RMB command center:


Another story
says that in neighboring Guangzhou, there’s been some sort of arrangement where private companies install and maintain highway surveillance cameras, and then collect a percentage of traffic fines as a return on investment – and you thought just the department having to make quota was bad, think how many tickets you have to issue to bulk up Li Highway Surveillance Holdings’ bottom line? The Guangdong government has said this ain’t proper.


Meanwhile, in the Shenzhen district of Longgang, a 50,000 camera network nicknamed, apparently with unintended irony, “SkyNet” (天网) has caught jewel thieves and the murderers of a second-hand cell phone salesman.

Virginia Tech Shooting: Life Imitating Art Imitating Life?

Posted on April 17, 2007 by davesgonechina

(Updated below)

So it’s turned out the shooter in the grisly and appalling Virginia Tech murders was not a Chinese exchange student, though there was some unfounded speculation that the student was Chinese, or Chinese (Taiwanese?) descent VT student Wayne Chiang was the shooter based on his Livejournal musings about “obsessive love, movie downloads, and oh, the futility of life.” Oh, and guns:

“i put the cx4 [semiautomatic carbine] on the market cause i got bored with it,” he writes in one entry, accompanied by this photo. “personally, i don’t find it effective as a efficient manslaughtering tool, which definitely does not fit my needs.”

Sounds like a fun guy (actually, looking at his blog, he does seem like a cool guy, and the above quote seems more and more likely to be dark ironic wit – which I approve of heartily). Turns out the shooter was Korean, as if that makes any difference in the world. Homicidal rage is not determined by ethnicity. That apparently is lost on alot of people, especially some commenters over at fellow Asia blogger The Marmot Hole, and conservative blogger and occasional TV “expert” Debbie Schlussel jumped immediately to the possibility that Asian meant “Jihadist” “Paki”.

Xinhua I guess technically had the scoop that the shooter was not Chinese with its article No Chinese Students Found Among Victims in U.S. Campus Shooting, although one could no doubt hedge on the definition of “victims”. This was reported before the identity of the shooter was known thanks to a board member of the university’s Chinese Association of Students and Scholars, who was basing this simply on the fact that the association members to whom he had spoken didn’t mention any Chinese victims. It seems rather impolite to emphasize that none of your own citizens have died – I realize other nations press do the same, but I don’t remember seeing any headlines like “No Americans Dead in Plane Crash” – though I’m sure somebody did it somewhere before. I think current style dictates (or ought to) you mention your own nationals in the headline if they did die, otherwise you make the headline about those foreigners who did. You don’t lead with a relieved-sounding negative that implies “Relax, It Was Just Some Furriners”. Or at least I wouldn’t.

What struck me was that this comes only four months after the Sundance Festival premiere of Dark Matter, a film by Chinese American Chen Shizheng based on the true story Gang Lu, a physics Ph.D. from China who shot and killed five people, wounding another, at the University of Iowa in 1991. I don’t know what sort of distribution the film has picked up, and after this I wonder if it ever will. Variety seemed to think it wasn’t all that good anyway, despite having Meryl Streep.

Beijing Newspeak, who works for Xinhua, reports that the false report that the shooter was Chinese led to ringing “alarm bells” in the international news department and anxiety over how to describe the gunman. A Chinese CCTV reporter blogged, according to Danwei, that the story was scrapped once they heard the gunman might be Chinese. This sort of evasiveness, of course, feeds into the whole idea that the ethnicity of the killer mattered at all in the first place. Meanwhile, Dark Matter has been widely reported in the Chinese media according to a Baidu search, I guess since 16 years is long enough to avoid being “problematic for propaganda”.

UPDATE: Sadly No has the ultimate round up of reactions to the VT Massacre:

Shorter Everbody on the Internet:

The senseless massacre at Virginia Tech basically confirms everything I’ve been saying all along.

So true.

2nd UPDATE: Blogger-journalist Josie Liu points out some Chinese media did report the rumors that the shooter was Chinese, and has more reactions from the Chinese BBSverse:

Upon receiving such information, people in China started to post comments expressing feelings like “very sad” and “ashamed.” Some even tried to assess the reasons for such “extreme behaviors” of Chinese students in the US, such as pressure to excel and the disparity between their high self-esteem and humble reality.

Virginia Tech Shooting: Life Imitating Art Imitating Life?

Posted on April 17, 2007 by davesgonechina

(Updated below)

So it’s turned out the shooter in the grisly and appalling Virginia Tech murders was not a Chinese exchange student, though there was some unfounded speculation that the student was Chinese, or Chinese (Taiwanese?) descent VT student Wayne Chiang was the shooter based on his Livejournal musings about “obsessive love, movie downloads, and oh, the futility of life.” Oh, and guns:

“i put the cx4 [semiautomatic carbine] on the market cause i got bored with it,” he writes in one entry, accompanied by this photo. “personally, i don’t find it effective as a efficient manslaughtering tool, which definitely does not fit my needs.”

Sounds like a fun guy (actually, looking at his blog, he does seem like a cool guy, and the above quote seems more and more likely to be dark ironic wit – which I approve of heartily). Turns out the shooter was Korean, as if that makes any difference in the world. Homicidal rage is not determined by ethnicity. That apparently is lost on alot of people, especially some commenters over at fellow Asia blogger The Marmot Hole, and conservative blogger and occasional TV “expert” Debbie Schlussel jumped immediately to the possibility that Asian meant “Jihadist” “Paki”.

Xinhua I guess technically had the scoop that the shooter was not Chinese with its article No Chinese Students Found Among Victims in U.S. Campus Shooting, although one could no doubt hedge on the definition of “victims”. This was reported before the identity of the shooter was known thanks to a board member of the university’s Chinese Association of Students and Scholars, who was basing this simply on the fact that the association members to whom he had spoken didn’t mention any Chinese victims. It seems rather impolite to emphasize that none of your own citizens have died – I realize other nations press do the same, but I don’t remember seeing any headlines like “No Americans Dead in Plane Crash” – though I’m sure somebody did it somewhere before. I think current style dictates (or ought to) you mention your own nationals in the headline if they did die, otherwise you make the headline about those foreigners who did. You don’t lead with a relieved-sounding negative that implies “Relax, It Was Just Some Furriners”. Or at least I wouldn’t.

What struck me was that this comes only four months after the Sundance Festival premiere of Dark Matter, a film by Chinese American Chen Shizheng based on the true story Gang Lu, a physics Ph.D. from China who shot and killed five people, wounding another, at the University of Iowa in 1991. I don’t know what sort of distribution the film has picked up, and after this I wonder if it ever will. Variety seemed to think it wasn’t all that good anyway, despite having Meryl Streep.

Beijing Newspeak, who works for Xinhua, reports that the false report that the shooter was Chinese led to ringing “alarm bells” in the international news department and anxiety over how to describe the gunman. A Chinese CCTV reporter blogged, according to Danwei, that the story was scrapped once they heard the gunman might be Chinese. This sort of evasiveness, of course, feeds into the whole idea that the ethnicity of the killer mattered at all in the first place. Meanwhile, Dark Matter has been widely reported in the Chinese media according to a Baidu search, I guess since 16 years is long enough to avoid being “problematic for propaganda”.

UPDATE: Sadly No has the ultimate round up of reactions to the VT Massacre:

Shorter Everbody on the Internet:

The senseless massacre at Virginia Tech basically confirms everything I’ve been saying all along.

So true.

2nd UPDATE: Blogger-journalist Josie Liu points out some Chinese media did report the rumors that the shooter was Chinese, and has more reactions from the Chinese BBSverse:

Upon receiving such information, people in China started to post comments expressing feelings like “very sad” and “ashamed.” Some even tried to assess the reasons for such “extreme behaviors” of Chinese students in the US, such as pressure to excel and the disparity between their high self-esteem and humble reality.

Threat to Xiamen in the Shadow of the Nail House

Posted on April 11, 2007 by davesgonechina


While there is much discussion of the Internet campaign surrounding the Nail House and the triumph of individual property rights over the entrenched interests of the state and developers, there has been no coverage in the major media about another Internet campaign underway to protect an entire city from the same writ on a much larger scale. Over the past week I was on holiday as my parents were visiting. Before bringing them to Quanzhou, where I currently live, we spent the weekend in neighboring Xiamen on the island of Gulangyu. A former colonial concession, Gulangyu is a small picturesque island with no cars, motorcycles or scooters, and is relatively unspoiled despite the massive statue of Zheng Chenggong (Koxinga) and the organized tours that arrive en masse promptly at 8 am. There is a large aviary, pleasant beaches and a fair amount of greenery. Little did I know that not 7 km away there is a factory beginning to pump out 800,000 tons of the toxic chemical para-xylene (Chinese name 1,4-二甲苯 ).

As John Kennedy at GVO reports, the plant in Haicang just west of Xiamen Island and Gulangyu was originally to meant to be at least 7 km from the city center, though development in the Haicang district has placed schools and residences much closer. No fewer than 105 national CPPCC members have opposed the plant, led by the former president of the Beijing Aeronautics and Astronautic University, a Xiamen University chemistry professor and others. The State Environmental Protection Administration said their hands are tied as the project is invested by the National Development and Reform Commission. PX, the toxic chemical, is a key component in many industrial processes, not least of which are polyester manufacturing and Xiamen’s Eleventh Five Year Plan. Nearby is the Xiamen Rare Marine Species Wildlife Reserve, which is partly for the endangered Chinese white dolphin.

Southern Metropolitan Daily once again is out in front as columnist Lian Yue posts here and here about the problem. A blog has been started devoted to spreading the word called HaicangPX, and Baidu gives about 80,000 hits to “px 厦门”, while Baidu news returns 924. I, for my part, have passed the word to what few influential people I know in Quanzhou, who are passing the word to others, since Quanzhou is quite close and very economically close to Xiamen. Whether anything will be done is another matter, but from what I can tell the subject has not been brought up on any Fujian news websites, and my usually well-informed friends never heard about this.

China, Sicilians and Skull & Bones

Posted on April 11, 2007 by davesgonechina

ESWN points out an article in FEER entitled “Have China Scholars All Been Bought?”. As someone who has actually held the title “independent scholar”, which is another term for unemployed, I can safely say no one has bought me off yet. Carsten A. Holz seems to me a bit fed up, listing numerous grievances about the state of China research. Some of them are issues I feel are not as neglected as Dr. Holz believes. But one part stuck with me about the Communist Party:

Our use of language to conform to the image the Party wishes to project is pervasive. Would the description “a secret society characterized by an attitude of popular hostility to law and government” not properly describe the secrecy of the Party’s operations, its supremacy above the law and its total control of government? In Webster’s New World College Dictionary, this is the definition of “mafia.”

This part reminded me of something a Singaporean Chinese friend of mine once told me in China. He had once been on a flight sitting next to a gentleman who turned out to be Sicilian. Passing the time in conversation, they compared their respective cultures positions on family, elders, honor and business. They found many similarities, my friend said. “The Godfather, mate,” he said, having spent time in Australia, “Watch the Godfather and you’ll know all you need to know to understand China”.

The other thing it reminds me of, curiously enough, is the following exchange in the film The Good Shepherd, between Matt Damon’s Edward Wilson, a Skull & Bones alumni and CIA counter-intelligence chief, and Joe Pesci’s Joseph Palmi, mafia boss, who asks about Damon’s people, referring to WASPs:

Joseph Palmi: Let me ask you something… we Italians, we got our families, and we got the chuch; the Irish they have the homeland, jews their tradition; even the niggas, they got their music. What about you people, Mr. Wilson, what do you have?
Edward Wilson: The United States of America, and the rest of you are just visiting.

Nailhouse Blues II: Fevered American Dreams

Posted on April 11, 2007 by davesgonechina

Wherein I consider Howard French’s opinion piece on the Nail House, entitled “A Couple’s Small Victory a Big Step for China”. This is a follow-up to the previous post on the Nail House case.

I don’t mean to pick on Howard French. OK, maybe I do. But I feel his piece fits many things I wish to discuss about American coverage on China into a neat little package. The nut of his opinion piece, which begins rather breathlessly and then tells us “giddiness should be resisted”, is this:

China is unlikely to be delivered unto a new era by a Gorbachev-like figure. Indeed, since the Soviet meltdown, the leadership has policed itself vigilantly to prevent such a turn and, under President Hu Jintao, has, if anything, grown more conservative.

It seems unlikely to be delivered by China’s intellectuals, either. The country’s scholarly class is for the most part too cowed and too cosseted, too thoroughly co-opted by the system and by the country’s new affluence to make many waves.

Great change won’t come from the country’s peasants, either, even if they have been the locus of mounting effervescence in recent years.

Change, when it comes and whatever form it takes, will be propelled by the fast-rising middle class, by savvy and articulate people who are mindful of their rights, rooted first in property but extending almost seamlessly to questions of speech, of movement and of association.

French believes that Wu Ping and her husband Yang Wu are the harbingers of such change, bold pioneers of a coming new era. I don’t deny that the Nail House tenants were savvy, or that Hu Jintao is not going to be Gorby, or that Chinese scholars nor peasants have not produced some revolutionary movement. There are three assumptions embedded in this article that I’m not so sure about.

  1. That this was a confrontation between “the people” and “the state”. As French puts it, on the surface this appears to be “two simple citizens against a mighty and murky alliance of an authoritarian state and big development money”. He then says in reality “in a society where people have been effectively atomized … they also figured out how to glue millions of discrete individuals together in sympathy for a cause not directed from above.” So then we are to understand this was a popular movement against the state, not two lone individuals. But was it really against the state? Certainly the Chongqing officials/developers were cast as the opposition here, but Wu Ping and Yang Wu invoked the nation and the law as their protection. The national government was not the target here, but the local. And the national government is not, as many Americans believe, monolithic. CCTV interviewed Wu Ping just before the March 22nd deadline. Even the local government was not simply set against the tenants – after all, negotiations dragged out for three years before the story exploded in the media. While the developer no doubt played dirty tricks, some elements of the Chongqing government must have functioned to some degree in protecting the tenants, otherwise the house would have been long since demolished. But instead of portraying this as a tangled web of interests both within and without the local community, government, media and national goverment, French tells us a simplified David and Goliath tale, to the readers loss.
  2. That there is a new era on the horizon. James Mann, in his book The China Fantasy, suggests that American perspectives on China have long been dominated by two competing visions of the future: The Soothing Scenario, a democratized China brought about by trade and globalization, and The Upheaval Scenario, in which China collapses due to any number of internal problems. Mann then posits a third scenario, in which China does neither, and more or less continues doing what it already does, namely be authoritarian, only richer. Mann is not the first to suggest this. French’s article seems to imply a bit of both of the first two scenarios, suggesting that trade and economic reform has created a middle class that will generate upheaval, forcing the government to adapt and perhaps even democratize or face a collapse. He ends his piece quoting Zhao Ziyang, who vanished from the leadership after supporting the students at Tiananmen, saying that the works of Mao would have to be relegated to a museum. But the underlying assumption is that there will be a “new era” at all.
  3. That the new era, or two or three, didn’t already arrive long ago. The middle class in China, for several years now, have been “mindful of their rights” as French puts it. Freedom of speech, movement and association has grown tremendously particularly for those with money. Rather than perceiving this as a trend that started long ago, and with at least some awareness by the government of what they were inviting, if they are at all as smart as French says they are, French sees it as being on the horizon. There’s no consideration that these events actually exist along a continuum of gradual changes ever since Deng Xiaoping’s southern tour. Or that there are more recent antecedents to the Nail House story: The Huananxincheng Story a year earlier had much of the same criteria: local middle class man seeks to defend his rights, is beaten by local provincial authorities, and then CCTV makes it national, forcing the provincial authorities to address it. But sometimes I feel like many in America have “Tiananmen Fever” – as if the democratic revolution they saw on TV was put on pause, and they are waiting for someone to pick up the remote and press play again.

I wonder at the fact that I find points to agree with Lu Gaofeng’s China Youth Daily editorial, Media Overexcited in Nail House Coverage – I haven’t decided if Sina.com’s cash prizes for photos was a good idea or not – and Chinese blogger Xiaowu’s commentary, in which he says:

So I have argued that what really happened is not the same as the audience watched or read from the media. It is not about a tough resident fighting against government’s violence and power. It is not an incident of human rights or protecting civil rights. It is definitely not an evidence to show that “wind may come in, rain may come in, but the king may not… …” is true in China. There is a logic widely known operating. The local government did not take away this house immediately because some stronger forces working behind. From the TV news report, the woman of the office of demolition was not as arrogant and aggressive as the victim. There are some reasons for it. Imagining the victim as a heroine of human rights is only a wishful thinking of ordinary people. … …

UPDATE: Philip Bowring in the Asia Sentinel has a relevant article entitled “China’s Middle Class: Not What You Think It Is”, in which he points to the work of UBS economist Jonathan Anderson who crunches the number and believes that the number of Chinese citizens that could arguably be urban middle class, that is those who can afford “a mortgaged apartment, a car, a computer, the occasional karaoke visit”, comes out to 70 million. If that’s the case, it seems difficult to believe they will be at the forefront of radical change, and as James Mann suggests, they may actually be the most likely to be for the status quo.

Posts navigation

Older posts
Newer posts

Recent Posts

  • Survey Says… “Oops”
  • Happy China Internet Maintenance Day!
  • CIRC 2009
  • Chinese Al Jazeera? No Chance.
  • Teacup Feet

Recent Comments

  • frenchie chihuahua mix on Historical Chinese Image Collections
  • frenchie boston terrier mix on Historical Chinese Image Collections
  • floodle puppies for sale on Historical Chinese Image Collections
  • Fildena 100mg drug on Historical Chinese Image Collections
  • frenchie chihuahua mix on Historical Chinese Image Collections

Archives

  • May 2013
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007

Categories

  • China
  • Uncategorized

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org
Proudly powered by WordPress | Theme: MiniZen by Martin Stehle.