Why "the West" gets China wrong

solarz said:

I think you're going to be disappointed there. *EVERYBODY* has an agenda, it's only a question of whether you can see it or not.

That's why it's important to be able to read between the lines and cut through the BS.

Click to expand...

Or I will say, depending what agenda yields different results. With different mentality and attitude, you may see your information differently. I see a maple leaf and I think of Canada, while a Thai will think nothing more than it being red.

And while some information may be distractions and irrelevant, reading between the lines can often lead to selective attention and to seek confirming bias information. That said, if neither sides treat presented stories critically and fairly, how can one get a proper picture?

Your argument will inevitably lead to an end-result of both sides sticking to their original grounds and thinking they are right, the other side is wrong, then neither yield compromise, no cooperation, greater mistrust, more rivalry.

This is the unfortunate picture that most people choose. It is easier to think the other person is full of sh!t, because trusting others and offering enough energy to heed their position is tiring. With that said, such a mentality can be very fallacious, and makes the world grimmer and more misunderstood than it was. It also unconsciously raise a double standard where we can hold ourselves with greater tolerance for mistakes and understandings and we have a right cause, while condemnation of others as always having been a sinister person mistakenly reveal their true self: that's the classic fundamental theories.

Consider the basic defensive dilemma in the school of realism. Two parties conduct the arms race because neither trust the other...although technically are just in fear of the others going to threat them with superior weapons one days.

On the other hand, two countries such as Canada and the US share the largest undefended border. All back down to trusts, previous experiences, mentality, and motivation...but generally excessive anxiety is bad for health.

solarz said:

There's also the fact that Yuan was well known as a backstabbing traitor. First, he betrayed the Reformers to Cixi, then he betrayed the Qing Dynasty to the revolutionaries, then he betrayed the revolutionaries to seize power, and finally, as the straw that broke the camel's back, he betrayed the entire nation of China by declaring himself emperor.

Click to expand...

That's why I actually had trouble wrapping my head around the comparisons with Yuan. The only thing I thanked TE for this article was that I learned more things in history, and a suddenly urge to read wiki pages on the subject.

In other words, the argument was WEAK.

solarz said:

There's also the fact that Yuan was well known as a backstabbing traitor. First, he betrayed the Reformers to Cixi, then he betrayed the Qing Dynasty to the revolutionaries, then he betrayed the revolutionaries to seize power, and finally, as the straw that broke the camel's back, he betrayed the entire nation of China by declaring himself emperor.

Click to expand...

Well, that's how CCP history text had pictured Yuan. Of course the real history is a tad more complex.

It's true Yuan had reported the plot of reformers to Cixi. But how much "backstabbing" was that? Yuan was never a reformer or been convinced of their agenda in any way. Reformers came to Yuan because they ran out of options and was deperate. By that time, the cause for reform is hopless and would've lost wether Yuan decide to help them or not. Yuan went the way of a shrewd politician instead of a matyr.

As to betraying Qing Dynasty, that's a even more ludicrous accusation. After Cixi died, the Regancy dismissed Yuan under the excuse of his "hurt leg". The real reason, of course, is the mistrust toward his power. After revolution broke out, Qing government,under desperate circunstances, wanted him to lead BeiYang army to fight revolutionaries. Yuan didn't make an effort, because by then, he didn't see a political future for Qing. Again, He was right. If you wants to talk about betrayal, it was Qing dynasty who betrayed Yuan first.

Lastly, to say Yuan betrayed the Great Revolution and China is just a colorful talk. Yuan never believed in revolution and the republic system. There is no trust between him and Sunzhongshan. There is a tentative agreement under which both sides covertly fought for power. Yuan won out. What Yuan knew back then, just as Mao found out a half century later, was that what chinese really want was another emperor; chinese were not made for democracy. So they both led country as dictators. Even now, China is an authoritarian state with no end in sight. I know very few chinese who believe democracy is right for China and are not at same time naive and ignorant of history. So I don't think we have any right in criticizing Yuan for his empiral ambition and portrait him as a traitor. If anyting, Yuan was someone China deserved at the time.

In any case, the chance are below 0 that those chinese empolyed by Economist took their history lessons seriously to have any clue who the real Yuanshika was. They just want to make a jab at the new leader of CCP and a foreign name such as "Yuan" is as good as any to build a narrative around.

ahadicow said:

Well, that's how CCP history text had pictured Yuan. Of course the real history is a tad more complex.

It's true Yuan had reported the plot of reformers to Cixi. But how much "backstabbing" was that? Yuan was never a reformer or been convinced of their agenda in any way. Reformers came to Yuan because they ran out of options and was deperate. By that time, the cause for reform is hopless and would've lost wether Yuan decide to help them or not. Yuan went the way of a shrewd politician instead of a matyr.

As to betraying Qing Dynasty, that's a even more ludicrous accusation. After Cixi died, the Regancy dismissed Yuan under the excuse of his "hurt leg". The real reason, of course, is the mistrust toward his power. After revolution broke out, Qing government,under desperate circunstances, wanted him to lead BeiYang army to fight revolutionaries. Yuan didn't make an effort, because by then, he didn't see a political future for Qing. Again, He was right. If you wants to talk about betrayal, it was Qing dynasty who betrayed Yuan first.

Lastly, to say Yuan betrayed the Great Revolution and China is just a colorful talk. Yuan never believed in revolution and the republic system. There is no trust between him and Sunzhongshan. There is a tentative agreement under which both sides covertly fought for power. Yuan won out. What Yuan knew back then, just as Mao found out a half century later, was that what chinese really want was another emperor; chinese were not made for democracy. So they both led country as dictators. Even now, China is an authoritarian state with no end in sight. I know very few chinese who believe democracy is right for China and are not at same time naive and ignorant of history. So I don't think we have any right in criticizing Yuan for his empiral ambition and portrait him as a traitor. If anyting, Yuan was someone China deserved at the time.

In any case, the chance are below 0 that those chinese empolyed by Economist took their history lessons seriously to have any clue who the real Yuanshika was. They just want to make a jab at the new leader of CCP and a foreign name such as "Yuan" is as good as any to build a narrative around.

Click to expand...

Those are just rationalizations.

Yuan agreed to help the Reformers, then turned them in to Cixi. No matter how you want to justify it, it's a betrayal.

Yuan was a Qing general. Though the imperial court relieved him of his duties at one point, that in no way amounts to a "betrayal".

Sun Zhongshan promised Yuan the position of president of the republic in order to secure his support. Yuan took advantage of this to purge the parliament of KMT. How is that not a betrayal?

Finally, you are wrong in that China wanted an emperor. They absolutely did *NOT*, which is why Yuan got his ass kicked. There is a *HUGE* difference between Mao and an emperor, between a one-party authoritarianism and a feudal imperial system.

The fact is Yuanshika gave the plot of reformers to Cixi. "Betray" is a colorful talk with the same status as "rationalization".

In all the instances, what you and standard chinese history text highlighted is the corruption and wetchedness of Yuan's person. Essentially, this is a prospective that portray history as a story of heroes and villains. This is often kind of the narrative that a state like to use to justify its own existance. So state like to portrait its founders as heores and enemy of its founders as "traitor". CCP history text portrait Mao as a hero and Jiang as a traitor. Taiwan history text does the opposite. U.S. history text protrait Washinton as a hero, american Loyalists as traitors but, again, it's exactly the opposite from U.K. side. After you collected everyone's prospective, you would find that any historical political figure was called a "traitor" by at least one group of people. So, the label "traitor" is really not helpful because everyone is a "traitor" of some sort. One step further and you would conclude this kind of historical story telling is simply not worth adhereing to because it push away all other meaning in trying to establish the legitmancy of its tellers which is countries government.

A more nutritious way of looking at history is to think history as a discourse between various ideals and forces. Yuan's ideal of China is an empire. The force Yuan represent is conservative, power-centric. He worked for Cixi and himself from the start. It is bizarre idea that just because some oral agreements or agreements that he had clearly demostrated lacking sincerity for, Yuan suddenly became a revolutionary figure and, thus, is able to "betray" revolution. It is a testment to the naivety and fragility of revolution at time that they believed him. We, after a 100 years, should surely know better. It is also a strech to say he was any thing "feudal". Yuan clearly believed in heritary rule, but "feudal" charactarized a economic system. You would think so becuse you buy into narative of history that dictate political system follows economic system. But regardless, if Yuan wanted "feudal" than he represented "feudal". How is that a flaw that you can criticize him for when the 90% of China at that time is "feudal"?

Finally I didn't think "China needed an emperor", that's a logical characterization of what Yuan believed. If you think he was wrong and Mao was wrong and 100 years of Chinese history was also "things gone wrong", that's fine. Not gonna debate you, it's just not history.

Very interesting discourse and varied analyses. Yes, the West has on occassions got China wrong and vice-versa. There have also been bad histories of both the West (that includes USA, UK, France, Italy, Germany et. al.) and the East (China, India, Japan, Korea et. al.) There were some selfish and mean dictators in countries all over the world, besides some good and benevolent ones. The "good & bad" leaders and people exist in every nation on earth. Arguements and counter-arguements will continue and that's only natural. The global social networks bring everything in the open these days. Inasmuch as such information can be useful, there will always be "misreporting" and even "lies". Hopefully, with a better educated and open world, people should be more discerning and not be gullible.

solarz said:

Those are just rationalizations.

Yuan agreed to help the Reformers, then turned them in to Cixi. No matter how you want to justify it, it's a betrayal.

Yuan was a Qing general. Though the imperial court relieved him of his duties at one point, that in no way amounts to a "betrayal".

Sun Zhongshan promised Yuan the position of president of the republic in order to secure his support. Yuan took advantage of this to purge the parliament of KMT. How is that not a betrayal?

Finally, you are wrong in that China wanted an emperor. They absolutely did *NOT*, which is why Yuan got his ass kicked. There is a *HUGE* difference between Mao and an emperor, between a one-party authoritarianism and a feudal imperial system.

Click to expand...

One the ways the west gets China wrong is when they listen to the Chinese or Asian(i.e. from Japan/Tibet/Philippines/etc) guy that bashes China this person ends up reinforcing inaccurate assumptions and adds to western sense of cultural and racial supremacy. The west assumes they're telling the truth when most of those people are trying to shape the views of the western audience to their own political/economic agenda. All for their own gain of having the west do their dirty work in dealing with China and the western stamp of approval in an almost puppet lap dog acceptance, approval and legitimacy to compensate for their own short comings in comparison to China.

For example Gordon G Chang this guy has been predicting China's collapse in his book for over 10yrs and is still trying to prove he's right.(Like the guys who keep saying it's the end of the world Y2K and 2012.)

[video=youtube;YnS0ozs03Ms]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnS0ozs03Ms[/video]

Here is a great debate that also is perfect for this thread and covers a lot of the stuff I would post but the video presentation is more coherent and articulate than me if try to post it all. Particularly on the assumption of the west as being total benign benevolent and not in it for it's own self-interest. The west failure to acknowledged some of the more dire priorities of food and security over democracy and political freedom.

Patrick Harper "freedom to starve is no freedom at all"

[video]http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/309853-2[/video]

[video]http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/298389-1[/video]

No professional/experienced analyst can accurately predict beyond 3 years of any country's economic, political & military/security situations, especially during current global & regional problems. Where Western & Asian leaders are concerned, we can only hope that they are logical and have 'thinking hearts' i.e. use of their heads & hearts to think thru' problems, instead of using either one only. The newly installed US & Chinese Presidents together with a few other country leaders appear to be pragmatic in their approaches to several major issues. The lingering question is always whether national priorities take precedence over regional security cooperation & economic progress? The answer is at times the former, for some countries. But the retort could be such a move might be condemned by the effected countries, and could cause retaliation e.g. current DPKR nuclear threats & warmongering stances.

ABC78 said:

One the ways the west gets China wrong is when they listen to the Chinese or Asian(i.e. from Japan/Tibet/Philippines/etc) guy that bashes China. The west assumes they're telling the truth when most of those people are trying to shape the views of the western audience to their own political/economic agenda. All for their own gain of the western stamp of approval in an almost puppet lap dog acceptance, approval and legitimacy to compensate for their own short comings in comparison to China.

For example Gordon G Chang this guy has been predicting China's collapse in his book for over 10yrs and is still trying to prove he's right.(Like the guys who keep saying it's the end of the world Y2K and 2012.)

[video=youtube;YnS0ozs03Ms]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnS0ozs03Ms[/video]

Click to expand...

I live the San Francisco/Bay Area. The new Bay Bridge is about to be completed in September of this year after the old one was damaged from the 1989 earthquake. A hiccup has occurred as news comes that giant bolts that hold down the new bridge to the anchors were made faulty and third of them have snapped. The bridge made international news because large portions of the bridge were made in China due to rising costs taking so long to build the bridge. The bolts weren't made in China. So I checked out the local news stations on how they reported this. Out of the five local news stations only one mentioned that the bolts were made in the US, three did not mention where the bolts were made, and one mentioned about how the steel of the bridge came from China but did not mention that the bolts were not. I'd say not mentioning the bolts were made in the US is intentional since so much news and controversy was stirred that many parts were made in China. I know some people are going to think that's absurd. Yeah and it's absurd that several years ago the bridge was shut down for a few days because large cracks were discovered on critical beams on the old bridge and was blamed on low quality Chinese steel when those beams were a part of the original construction over 60 years ago.