Why "the West" gets China wrong

AssassinsMace said:

I commend you for practicing that but I can safely say not all people in the US think that way. I'm sure you agree that being called an American is an honor and a privilege. And like all things seen as valuable, there will be people who will try to deny that to others to keep it of value. My grandfather served in the US Army during WWII. My father was stationed in South Korea during the height of the Cold War. My mother has lived in the same house, paid in full along with all her taxes for over 45 years, longer than anyone else in the neighborhood. But there's always someone in the neighborhood, usually younger than the years my mother has lived in the same house, that treats her like a foreigner. They don't think my family is American simply because they see race. It's confusing because Americans will say they don't like hyphenated categories but people are always reminding us we're Chinese and not American. I remember when I was in high school and I was discussing some politics and I made a reference to "we" as in Americans. An arch liberal in the group interrupted and said, "What you mean... we?" Even liberals have people who don't consider Chinese as Americans on the basis of race alone. Your experience is not like mine. Has anyone ever not considered you American just by race alone? That's the difference. I have experienced it as far as I can remember. When people say you're not American, they're saying you don't have the same rights. It also means you don't have the same protection. I know my rights as an American but I shouldn't have to be in a position that I have to be concerned about my mother's safety because some people don't see her as an American which makes her vulnerable to being harassed or worse. If every American saw everyone who is legally an American by law as American, I wouldn't have to worry about my mother's safety. But that's not the case.

Click to expand...

airsuperiority said:

I hope I don't portray the feeling of any hard feelings, but I will share my viewpoints here too as well. I appreciate your posts as well Assassins, and I acknowledge our differences in opinion hence why I will also split what I say, without ill intentions.



I certainly don't buy this paragraph because when it comes to regards to wealth, HK people are upset mainland Chinese buyers in properties cooked up the price(paid in cash sometimes) to become an inaccessible price for the HK 99%, but that was only the tip of the iceberg. Towards materialistic wealth it is the snobby attitudes that mainland Chinese tourists brought with them. One news event had it that a mainland Chinese couple attempted to cut in line at an emergency ward with the husband screaming "treat my wife first! I've got the money!" The staffs then refused any rule violation and the couple left angrily.
Clearing the shelves of our supplies of milk formula does anger the local population, but I think it's just regular legitimate functions of supply and demand, when mainland Chinese milk formula are dangerous, and I personally don't buy think there's much to be angry about.
There are plenty of other stories of snobby attitudes from the mainland Chinese tourists insulting HK and even claiming they are the ones "who gives us what we have", while the less wealthy ones would exploit the social welfare and mock the HK system. They would even go on to claim that HK can't survive if not for mainland crops and tax-exemption.
These are all ridiculous, disrespectful, and insulting claims because this disregards, disrespects, and insults our city, culture, people, heritage, ancestors, and pretty much everything that we stand for. It's equivalent to that comment made by an American tv host discrediting the Canadians.

[video=youtube;8X9tBjt0DUk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8X9tBjt0DUk[/video]
All in all, we are upset with mainland China's lack of respect and classless behaviors. If you seriously think that there's a jealousy or sinister hatred by HK for China just because of luxury goods, then I think you have severely grossly mistaken.

I tried to verify your claim from that argument, but I find it weak and not representative or significant enough to cause a widespread mainstream attitude.


Completely disagree. If both HK and Taiwan create their own identities simply to appease or be seen different from the West, then such identity is fake and meaningless, and perhaps such pretentious behavior should be discarded, rendering your point somewhat valid. The truth is however, completely opposite of what you have said.

HK, Taiwan, Singapore, each develop their own culture, values, attitudes, mentality, etc. Each of them are different in their own ways, and surely we won't want to be called a Taiwanese as nor would a Taiwanese want to be called a HKer. It takes significant insecurity to feel great to be called something else one isn't really is, but that isn't what's happening in this case. The matter of fact is, these identities that HK, Singapore, Taiwan developed was original with its own background and development.

In fact, this attitude and opinion is what Taiwanese and HK people have issues with. Mainland Chinese disregards and disrespects our identities and our rights to our own ways, and in the claims of "we are the same", to smudge away who we identify ourselves as. This, in other words, is coercive/forced assimilation, and it only backfires with further separation or marginalization.

For more information, read into the "Assimilation, Integration, Marginalization, Separation" matrix.

And why do HK and Taiwan diverge (psychological term. rough definition in context here: want to be see themselves different, break away from the original) from mainland China? All the reasons that you can list as to why and how these 2 societies are different from China. Political, economic, cultural(religion and writing systems), and many much more. As long as one person or group sees this as enough to view themselves as different and they possess a separate identity, then that's all it matters. And separate identity doesnt mean the group necessarily have to split away from home and venture off; rather it could be like how Vancouverites and Toronto or Inuits see themselves; we are proud to wear our tag, but still consider ourselves Canadians.

Reference
Berger, J., & Heath, C. (2008 ). Who Drives Divergence? Identity Signaling, Outgroup Dissimilarity, and the Abandonment of Cultural Tastes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Vol. 95, No. 3,, 593–607.

Furthermore, the scholars argued that "people diverge to avoid signaling undesired identities."(Berger, 2008)

It doesn't matter if we all started from the same root: we all possess distinctiveness. Same root argument may be good for integration movement, but you and the other mainland Chinese way of discrediting our identity is surefire way to lead to separation.

The trouble that HK right now has would be equivalent to if Inuits starts showing up in Vancouver and started building igloos all over the lower mainland. That would disrupt our society, and then we will begin to dislike them even more. Still not a good thing to be stereotypical, but the Inuits would be the ones who spark off this conflict, by being disrespectful to the original/local indigenous culture.



You do know that The Departed was based on Infernal Affairs right? Kung-fu, Shaolin Soccer is from HK? Hard Boiled is from HK? And Jackie Chan, Chow Yun Fat, Tony Leung, Anthony Wong, Stephen Chow are all HK actors right? Leslie Cheung, Anita Mui, Roman Tam, are from HK? And Teresa Teng is from Taiwan? And while HK film industry (in fact, the entire entertainment biz) is in decline, notable works do enter the Cannes festival, right? Again, you using the Oscars as the standard shows hypocrisy because now you're using a Western standard to evaluate HK's mass media and cultural achievements, and that is probably the worst, most disrespectful, and the last way you would use to define quality or to evaluate artwork and their producers. We all know how Hollywood is racist and steals works and remakes them and does plenty of that stuff, therefore comparing HK by this unfair standards is ridiculous. In fact, IA deserved its own, but Hollywood being Hollywood, they will ensure they do their racist little thing to ensure it's their own produce who gets it in the end. That said, I had given up on Hollywood for a long time ago, and the worst anyone can do is to bring that up in an argument. It's not even worth mentioning, and using this to feed your context of why HK hates China is incoherent because these are separate things. And also let's not forget art is subjective, so it's never quite the best tool to be used for comparing anything unless for people who knows what they're talking about, and neither you nor I are those people.
Attaching a news article and then presenting your argument like this, is very weak.


In other words you are shifting all the blame to HK and Taiwan. Your friend used one experience, and you both made conclusions based on insignificant and single events. And I won't call tourism as just a "few" years old. Isolating tourism as the sole operational definition is also troublesome because as long as one travels beyond, it doesn't matter whether it's for tourism or for other visa reasons; they still do what they do. And in HK and Taiwan there are plenty of stories.
And saying this is not about not having good behavior, once again, is fallacious, because completely irrelevant materials were presented that does not present supporting premises to your main argument.



Don't know how that line of logic stands, and I don't know how obtaining your own identity means appealing to Western racism. It makes no sense, and in fact, that's blaming or speculating that the West develops the institution of thinking called racism, and that's ridiculous. Classism has been around since the days of human, and certainly the identification of different species would exist in other species of the animal kingdom not exclusive to humans.

Conclusion:
If each individual has their own identity, then nothing prevents groups from having their own. It's only normal for a dominant for a major group to have subgroups, and within that it is all intergroup relations of how each works with one another. Attempting to discredit and disregard the group's identity is equivalent of saying an individual's identity is not important, and that is certainly disrespectful to the individual. Groups maintain their distinctiveness and have their reasons to defend their identity. Discrediting and ignoring their identity and attempt assimilation shows arrogance, lack of consideration of other groups, authoritative, and can create problems in the future. It is not to say that multiculturalism solves everything. Rather, it will take time for groups to work out their differences before finally achieving "harmony"

multiculturalism or assimilation, groups and their identities should still be respected.

Click to expand...

AssassinsMace said:

Well I'm not in a position to know what's true or not but I'm telling you that's how Western news is reporting it and I've not seen one story coming out of Hong Kong that counters it. They're emphasizing about how the people of Hong Kong are looking to escape being seen as Chinese. There was a story I read last year warning everyone of the Mainland Chinese tourist that's about to invade a city near you and it was using Hong Kong as the example of the dire consequences of what happens when rich Chinese tourists come to spend money. I don't know if this is intentional or not on the part of the people of Hong Kong but that's the message they're sending to the West. The stereotypes of the bad behaving Chinese tourist has been around a long time. Mainland Chinese tourism has not. So it's odd to complain about bad behaving Chinese tourists when the origins of those stereotypes come from the very people complaining about it. So I have to ask what's the motivation behind that hypocrisy? Trying to create a separate identity does fit. Then there's the article about Hong Kong cinema that has the exact same theme about how China is ruining it for Hong Kong. Hong Kong was never known for quality movies. Weren't all those movies you noted all made after the handover and some shown in China? The downfall of Hong Kong cinema was there was a hundred cheap imitations for every successful movie. That has nothing to do with China and China is not preventing Hong Kong from making those movies again. The same situation that existed with Hong Kong's "Golden Age" as the article refers to is the same today. Hong Kong can still make those movies. It's just they won't be shown in China. The same situation as it was back in Hong Kong's Golden Age. So how can it be China's fault? All the others things being complained about. Hong Kong didn't seem to have a problem when the British were doing it or at least they didn't advertise it like they do against the Mainland now.

Click to expand...

Player 0 said:

AMace

Epic reference, and a pretty good idea of what represents Hollywood's traditional policy on how to appeal to mainstream audiences, anything foreign or indie or generally doesn't fit outside their narrow framework gets brutally assimilated until only superficialities remain. They're like the reverse Borg.

AirSuperiority

In the past these kinds of identity group politics served a positive purpose, like in the USSR and later initial attempts at affirmative action, it was meant to make their systems more compassionate and inclusive to oppressed minorities, recognizing that cultural chauvinism does more to damage integration, fermenting nationalist resistance, preventing the adoption of new ideas and people and confirming imperialism.

The problem today is that without working within a greater ethical framework of advancing the national ideals of liberalism or marxism or whatever form of universal human identity and nominal ideas, multiculturalism just ends up separating us more by making every cultural group chauvinistic.

Click to expand...

airsuperiority said:

Actually I took a course on the related issue last sem. If u wanna understand more about this I can present u a scholar journal article so u can learn more about it

Click to expand...

airsuperiority said:

I hope I don't portray the feeling of any hard feelings, but I will share my viewpoints here too as well. I appreciate your posts as well Assassins, and I acknowledge our differences in opinion hence why I will also split what I say, without ill intentions.



I certainly don't buy this paragraph because when it comes to regards to wealth, HK people are upset mainland Chinese buyers in properties cooked up the price(paid in cash sometimes) to become an inaccessible price for the HK 99%, but that was only the tip of the iceberg. Towards materialistic wealth it is the snobby attitudes that mainland Chinese tourists brought with them. One news event had it that a mainland Chinese couple attempted to cut in line at an emergency ward with the husband screaming "treat my wife first! I've got the money!" The staffs then refused any rule violation and the couple left angrily.
Clearing the shelves of our supplies of milk formula does anger the local population, but I think it's just regular legitimate functions of supply and demand, when mainland Chinese milk formula are dangerous, and I personally don't buy think there's much to be angry about.
There are plenty of other stories of snobby attitudes from the mainland Chinese tourists insulting HK and even claiming they are the ones "who gives us what we have", while the less wealthy ones would exploit the social welfare and mock the HK system. They would even go on to claim that HK can't survive if not for mainland crops and tax-exemption.
These are all ridiculous, disrespectful, and insulting claims because this disregards, disrespects, and insults our city, culture, people, heritage, ancestors, and pretty much everything that we stand for. It's equivalent to that comment made by an American tv host discrediting the Canadians.

[video=youtube;8X9tBjt0DUk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8X9tBjt0DUk[/video]
All in all, we are upset with mainland China's lack of respect and classless behaviors. If you seriously think that there's a jealousy or sinister hatred by HK for China just because of luxury goods, then I think you have severely grossly mistaken.

I tried to verify your claim from that argument, but I find it weak and not representative or significant enough to cause a widespread mainstream attitude.


Completely disagree. If both HK and Taiwan create their own identities simply to appease or be seen different from the West, then such identity is fake and meaningless, and perhaps such pretentious behavior should be discarded, rendering your point somewhat valid. The truth is however, completely opposite of what you have said.

HK, Taiwan, Singapore, each develop their own culture, values, attitudes, mentality, etc. Each of them are different in their own ways, and surely we won't want to be called a Taiwanese as nor would a Taiwanese want to be called a HKer. It takes significant insecurity to feel great to be called something else one isn't really is, but that isn't what's happening in this case. The matter of fact is, these identities that HK, Singapore, Taiwan developed was original with its own background and development.

In fact, this attitude and opinion is what Taiwanese and HK people have issues with. Mainland Chinese disregards and disrespects our identities and our rights to our own ways, and in the claims of "we are the same", to smudge away who we identify ourselves as. This, in other words, is coercive/forced assimilation, and it only backfires with further separation or marginalization.

For more information, read into the "Assimilation, Integration, Marginalization, Separation" matrix.

And why do HK and Taiwan diverge (psychological term. rough definition in context here: want to be see themselves different, break away from the original) from mainland China? All the reasons that you can list as to why and how these 2 societies are different from China. Political, economic, cultural(religion and writing systems), and many much more. As long as one person or group sees this as enough to view themselves as different and they possess a separate identity, then that's all it matters. And separate identity doesnt mean the group necessarily have to split away from home and venture off; rather it could be like how Vancouverites and Toronto or Inuits see themselves; we are proud to wear our tag, but still consider ourselves Canadians.

Reference
Berger, J., & Heath, C. (2008 ). Who Drives Divergence? Identity Signaling, Outgroup Dissimilarity, and the Abandonment of Cultural Tastes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Vol. 95, No. 3,, 593–607.

Furthermore, the scholars argued that "people diverge to avoid signaling undesired identities."(Berger, 2008)

It doesn't matter if we all started from the same root: we all possess distinctiveness. Same root argument may be good for integration movement, but you and the other mainland Chinese way of discrediting our identity is surefire way to lead to separation.

The trouble that HK right now has would be equivalent to if Inuits starts showing up in Vancouver and started building igloos all over the lower mainland. That would disrupt our society, and then we will begin to dislike them even more. Still not a good thing to be stereotypical, but the Inuits would be the ones who spark off this conflict, by being disrespectful to the original/local indigenous culture.



You do know that The Departed was based on Infernal Affairs right? Kung-fu, Shaolin Soccer is from HK? Hard Boiled is from HK? And Jackie Chan, Chow Yun Fat, Tony Leung, Anthony Wong, Stephen Chow are all HK actors right? Leslie Cheung, Anita Mui, Roman Tam, are from HK? And Teresa Teng is from Taiwan? And while HK film industry (in fact, the entire entertainment biz) is in decline, notable works do enter the Cannes festival, right? Again, you using the Oscars as the standard shows hypocrisy because now you're using a Western standard to evaluate HK's mass media and cultural achievements, and that is probably the worst, most disrespectful, and the last way you would use to define quality or to evaluate artwork and their producers. We all know how Hollywood is racist and steals works and remakes them and does plenty of that stuff, therefore comparing HK by this unfair standards is ridiculous. In fact, IA deserved its own, but Hollywood being Hollywood, they will ensure they do their racist little thing to ensure it's their own produce who gets it in the end. That said, I had given up on Hollywood for a long time ago, and the worst anyone can do is to bring that up in an argument. It's not even worth mentioning, and using this to feed your context of why HK hates China is incoherent because these are separate things. And also let's not forget art is subjective, so it's never quite the best tool to be used for comparing anything unless for people who knows what they're talking about, and neither you nor I are those people.
Attaching a news article and then presenting your argument like this, is very weak.


In other words you are shifting all the blame to HK and Taiwan. Your friend used one experience, and you both made conclusions based on insignificant and single events. And I won't call tourism as just a "few" years old. Isolating tourism as the sole operational definition is also troublesome because as long as one travels beyond, it doesn't matter whether it's for tourism or for other visa reasons; they still do what they do. And in HK and Taiwan there are plenty of stories.
And saying this is not about not having good behavior, once again, is fallacious, because completely irrelevant materials were presented that does not present supporting premises to your main argument.



Don't know how that line of logic stands, and I don't know how obtaining your own identity means appealing to Western racism. It makes no sense, and in fact, that's blaming or speculating that the West develops the institution of thinking called racism, and that's ridiculous. Classism has been around since the days of human, and certainly the identification of different species would exist in other species of the animal kingdom not exclusive to humans.

Conclusion:
If each individual has their own identity, then nothing prevents groups from having their own. It's only normal for a dominant for a major group to have subgroups, and within that it is all intergroup relations of how each works with one another. Attempting to discredit and disregard the group's identity is equivalent of saying an individual's identity is not important, and that is certainly disrespectful to the individual. Groups maintain their distinctiveness and have their reasons to defend their identity. Discrediting and ignoring their identity and attempt assimilation shows arrogance, lack of consideration of other groups, authoritative, and can create problems in the future. It is not to say that multiculturalism solves everything. Rather, it will take time for groups to work out their differences before finally achieving "harmony"

multiculturalism or assimilation, groups and their identities should still be respected.

Click to expand...

No, China is not becoming an almighty superpower

The fear of China becoming a global hegemon has permeated public discourse in the west. Journalists have been guilty of small self-indulgences with the truth to fit the narrative. The result is a distorted view of China in the western media.

China is dangerous, a threat to our prosperity and our values – to journalists, it is tempting to report on this new world power from that angle. It is simple and often irresistible to play into our visceral fear of the “Yellow Peril” in its new guise as an economic powerhouse. Because then you will have a “story.” The price of that story is a distorted view of China.

I felt that temptation myself when, in late 2011, I wanted to do an article for the De Volkskrant newspaper about the Chinese buying up the vineyards in France’s Bordeaux region. Reports in American and British papers had alerted me to the story, and to convince De Volkskrant of its importance I said to my superiors, “The Chinese in Bordeaux! The world famous wineries, the very industry that defines France in Chinese hands – what a mortal affront to the French soul! Is that a story or what?” I must have sounded convincing enough, because they told me I could make the trip.

Once I arrived, the reality turned out to be quite different. The winemakers were not at all alarmed by these Chinese investments. They had been used to investors for a long time— the British, the Dutch, the Japanese and the Americans had already settled in, so what harm could a couple of Chinese do? Out of a total of over 11,000 châteaux, the Chinese had purchased no more than six relatively obscure vineyards. In other words, this was a very tiny wine stain on a vast white tablecloth.

I wrote down these sobering figures. One grouchy farmer complained that all of the expertise would go to China, but I also quoted two experts who explained that this was definitely not the case. I ended up writing a balanced and rather positive account about the Chinese involvement in French winemaking, not least because the huge Chinese appetite for claret compensated for diminishing European demand. I had, however, forgotten about De Volkskrant‘s editor: Winemaking Savoir-Faire Goes to China, the headline said. That grouchy farmer was the cue; otherwise there would have been no “story.”

Since my trip to the Bordeaux region, I have often seen the subject come up elsewhere and each time the import of the story is: “The Chinese Are Coming.” The urge to warn viewers and readers of Yellow Peril 2.0 is very alluring. My colleagues at another Dutch daily paper, the NRC Handelsblad, fell into the same pitfall. “The Chinese are popping up everywhere in the Port of Rotterdam,” they reported. To make the danger even more imminent, a second headline warned: “China Gets Grip on Rotterdam Port.” On closer inspection, this was a gross exaggeration. There is indeed an increase of Chinese activity, but the Russians, Americans, Arabs and Europeans still have a large presence there too. Although their story did contain some nuances, the overall tone was that the Port of Rotterdam, part of our national pride, is in danger of falling into Asian hands. Nonsense.

When western journalists discuss China’s role in Africa, they lose sight of nuance even more. The fear of a Chinese economic takeover is heightened by a general dislike of their values. Chinese supervisors bleeding their African laborers dry, disgraceful working conditions – the accusation of “neocolonialism” is never far off. Two books by serious European journalists read like one long indictment. The Spanish co-authors Juan Pablo Cardenal and Heriberto Araújo – whose research into China’s impact in 25 developing countries is a journalistic tour de force – warn about La silenciosa conquista China (China’s Silent Conquest) that will lead to “a new world order dictated by Beijing.” Two French journalists, Philippe Cohen and Luc Richard, sing a similar tune with their Le Vampire du Milieu, a pun on “Empire du Milieu” or “Middle Empire,” as China is sometimes referred to. The pun itself reveals a lot about their stance: “How China imposes its laws on us” is their angle. Both pairs of journalists manipulate the facts in order to shore up their arguments, which are based on fear. What they do not mention is that the Chinese, through their presence and investments, are developing the economies of African countries, involving the continent in globalization through trade, and constructing useful – and sometimes less useful – infrastructure in exchange for raw materials. These positive aspects of the Chinese presence in Africa are passed over.

The champion of this one-sided approach is the British author Martin Jacques, who in 2009 wrote a worldwide bestseller with his When China Rules the World and even ended up on a much-envied spot – Obama’s bedside table. Jacques also claims that the west is in for it, as we will soon be dominated by a people imbued with a “Middle Empire mentality,” the main characteristic of which is a feeling of superiority toward the rest of humanity. The former Marxist gleefully predicts nothing less than “the end of the western world.” The success of this book demonstrates how much this sort of – to my mind very exaggerated – doom mongering is in demand.

I started with the idea of writing a sober-minded book that wasn’t based on fear. This allowed me to recognize the distorted views of China outlined above and the serious misconceptions they lead to. For instance, since the beginning of the 21st century we have been bombarded with stories about the “Asian Century,” especially with regard to China. We have been led to believe that Europe is being bought up by Chinese investors. Every potential acquisition is fearfully presented in the media as the beginning of China’s victory march.
The Chinese are not coming

In reality, based on actual figures, the danger that “The Chinese Are Not Coming” may turn out to pose a bigger threat to Europe than “The Chinese Are Coming.” According to Eurostat, in 2011 and the first half of 2012, Chinese investments in Europe amounted to no more than four billion euros, significantly less than what the US invested in Europe, or what European countries invested in each other. This lack of Chinese dash may be an indication that the world’s second largest economy prefers growth markets such as Africa and Latin America – which bodes ill for Europe, a market that could very much use new investments and the extra activity and jobs that come with them.

Another misconception concerns the size of the Chinese economy, which by now is grossly overrated in the minds of the public. Recent research shows that a majority of Americans think their own economy is smaller than China’s, while in reality it is still twice as large. The same goes for the combined economies of the European Union, which is also roughly twice the size of China’s. My guess is that many Europeans are not aware of this fact either.

Of course there is no journalistic conspiracy at work here, and it would also be jumping to conclusions to hold journalists solely responsible for these misrepresentations. After all, such reports are based on well-informed western sources that are only too happy to supply the press with the necessary ammunition. Non-governmental organizations, for instance, criticize the environmental damage caused by Chinese companies in Africa, and quite rightly so, but that doesn’t tell the whole story about China’s role in Africa.

Authoritative think tanks also feed these common misrepresentations, presumably in the hope of generating media attention. For instance, the pan-European think tank ECFR begins a report on China with the factually incorrect observation, “China is buying up Europe.” Neither does OECD have any qualms about grossly exaggerating the Chinese threat. This think tank for the western industrial world recently warned that China would already outgrow the US by the end of 2016. This prediction turned out to be based on a comparison of buying power, while ignoring the commonly used benchmark of gross domestic product. The underlying reason is political: for years now, the OECD has been trying to make western countries implement far-reaching reforms and it uses the Chinese threat as a handy means of putting the pressure on.

Misrepresentations of reality are not limited to the economy. I found few if any stories in the western media about the increasing freedom for Chinese journalists and scientists. Yet several people I spoke to, both Chinese and Europeans, pointed out to me that this has definitely been the case over the past few decades, in spite of general censorship. This is not a linear process – it’s often a question of two steps forward and one back, or even the other way around – but “increasing freedom” most definitely will not be the impression that the average western citizen has. People in the west will most likely mainly regard China as the heavyweight champion of censorship.

Both assessments are true. Yes, there is a formidable system of censorship, and yes, freedom has increased in spite of this. western media place plenty of focus on the former but hardly any on the latter. Peer pressure is what plays tricks on journalists here. More so than elsewhere, this is a major factor in the reporting on China. It has to do with our dislike of an authoritarian political system that operates with so much less regard for individual rights than we are used to in our part of the world. Our loathing easily finds its way into the reporting. Understandable as it is, this attitude does lure western journalists into adopting a form of tunnel vision, because they are afraid of being identified as sympathizing with an abject regime. A positive story about the increasing scientific and journalistic freedom in China just might be taken the wrong way and become an effective way of blowing your reputation as a critical journalist. A politically correct story about China’s shortcomings in this regard will no doubt meet with much more approval.
The trap of reporting on China

Those who study China are wary of this journalistic tendency to be politically correct. “As soon as you say anything positive about developments in China to a journalist, you run the risk of ending up in a corner that you really don’t want to be in,” says German political scientist Daniela Stockmann, who works at Leiden University in the Netherlands. She does research into the workings of Chinese media. “We want to remain independent. Whether you interpret our data in a negative or positive way depends on your own value system.” In her experience, journalists show a marked preference for a negative interpretation. She notices a tendency amongst her colleagues to therefore stay away from the public debate, and that is not conducive to creating a complete and balanced image of China.

Her fear of ending up in “a corner where she really doesn’t want to be” sounds familiar. With my own critical remarks about western reporting on China, I run the risk of being regarded as the Chinese government’s “useful idiot.” I am, after all, coming close to the sort of criticism of western media that is part of the standard toolkit of Chinese diplomats: “You journalists only focus on the things that go wrong with us, for instance when it comes to human rights and the situation in Tibet,” is a reproach I have often heard. At a European-Chinese meeting, the Chinese ambassador to the European Union denounced “a systematic bias” in “some media” that “persist in making condescending comments and ill-founded criticism.” No one wants to be associated with such representatives of an authoritarian regime that censors its own media in every detail, especially not after the recent stories about the Chinese hacking into the computer systems of prominent western media such as The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. That is such an aggressive act, probably even perpetrated under the auspices of the Chinese army, that one feels tempted to swallow any criticism of western media.

In his book Angst vor China (Fear of China), the German journalist Frank Sieren tells of a colleague who feels that western journalists should indeed withhold criticism. Sieren, who has been working as a correspondent in China for almost twenty years, relates how he criticized his western colleagues in a dinner speech at a meeting with German and Chinese journalists. His criticism was quite similar to mine. According to Sieren, “western journalists often tend to lend the truth a helping hand in order to make a clearer distinction between right and wrong.” One of his German colleagues lost his appetite over the speech. He found Sieren’s criticism of western colleagues unseemly and feared that it only played into the hands of the regime in China. Western journalists who portray the country as more open and free are simply the victims of clever propaganda, he claimed.

I can’t agree with his logic. Certainly, the western system of freedom of the press is far preferable to the Chinese practice, but that doesn’t imply that we should not be self-critical because it might play into the hands of China. What’s more, self-criticism is essential to our strength. Exclude it and you will have great difficulty correcting your own blind spots, like this temptation to portray China as a threat.

And that would be a pity in an era when our knowledge of China is greater than ever before. As the British China-expert George Walden explained to me a little over-optimistically, “After having projected fears and fantasies for centuries, we are now for the first time beginning to see a realistic picture of China.” He was referring to the generally much increased interest in China, the possibilities of traveling to anywhere in that country and the large number of scientific disciplines focusing on China these days.
Tainted glasses

However, Walden’s realism is facing an uphill battle. Europe is going through a fundamental political and economic crisis, whereas China just keeps on growing. My argument is to first and foremost look at China in a realistic way – away from the adulation shown in the past, for instance by Sartre and Voltaire, but also away from the specters that threaten to dominate our views today.

No, China is not buying up Europe – there are no statistics supporting that claim. And no, China is not becoming an almighty superpower, as Martin Jacques claims. What with its unbelievably huge internal problems, ranging from air and water pollution, corruption and the gap between rich and poor to an ageing population, China has its work cut out for it. When Chinese policymakers point that out, they have every ground to do so. To interpret that as an attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of the western world is in fact doing it for them.

China’s internal problems are as real as its external faults, because in spite of taking part in the global economy, the country is still geopolitically isolated. China has no real allies and knows itself to be surrounded by suspicious neighboring countries such as Japan and Korea who prefer to do business with the US. That image will not change until China has a political system that appeals to sensibilities elsewhere in the world. “Superficial friendships” based on mutual economic benefits are feasible, but they don’t make for true allies like the US has, thanks to its political system.

Then how should we relate to this country that is undeniably becoming increasingly important in the world? The former German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, now 93, was still right on the button last year at a meeting on China in Berlin. We must be careful not to relapse into thinking in terms of Cold War logic, he stated, and we must avoid applying a “clash of civilizations” rhetoric to China. Our economic interest in China is pretty well developed these days, he observed: “All employers concern themselves with China because they understand that their employees can only make a living thanks to that country.” What is still lacking is true interest: “Intellectual interest is seriously lagging behind. We must learn to understand China.”

Click to expand...

Franklin said:

This should be a very interesting read.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

PanAsian said:

I just discovered this thread and all the interesting, honest, and quality posts. Maybe more so than purely discussing military-related affairs, or whatever supposed focus any forum has, I think being able to discuss communication/miscommunication is probably the best kind of communication and serendipity an internet forum can offer. It's good to see it here.

I'm originally from Hong Kong and immigrated to the US while in high school. My observation is that some Hong Kongers and Taiwanese are excessively keen on distancing themselves from being seen as "Chinese", not just in the political sense of PRC "mainland Chinese" but also in a heritage and cultural identification sense.

There is definitely the influence of Cold War as well as colonial politics, but also often unmentioned is mixed in personal/familial historical social status (and its change), the associated personal pride and prejudice, and how it corresponds to bigger picture societal/national/international changes.

I personally think Hong Kongers and Taiwanese should see themselves as Chinese in a heritage and cultural identification standpoint, even if they don't see themselves politically as PRC/"mainland Chinese". They are analogous to New Yorkers and Texans who may be plenty different but still see themselves as Americans, even if some are Republicans, Democrats, libertarians, or whatever else there is.

Click to expand...