Unified China
This was made possible by tapping into that deepest of institutionalised Chinese psychoses, the one that presents Chinese people as history’s victim, pitching them in a battle against the rest of the world. The dangers of arousing such feelings have been evident in the outpourings of nationalistic fervour that have led to anti-western campaigns against media, businesses, governments, and human rights protesters.
These are unworthy, unjustified, negative, volatile, and ultimately wasteful forms of national unity. They also have the additional disadvantage of invoking widespread antagonism and criticism from the international community.
Last Monday afternoon, at about 2:30, Mother Nature gave humanity another reminder of the fragility of life. There’s nothing good about the suffering inflicted by natural disasters on this scale, but through adversity we witness examples of selfless acts, courage, and a togetherness too often lacking in our disaster-free interludes: the worst side of Mother Earth produces the best side of human nature. Thus, the last four agonising days have witnessed a universal bonding of blood, sweat, and tears to bring relief to the victims of Monday’s earthquake.
These are the worthy, justified, positive, compassionate, and rewarding forms of national unity. They also have the additional merit of invoking unequivocal sympathy and support from the international community.
Media coverage of the quake’s aftermath hasn’t been pulling any punches, drawing global praise for its openness. Widespread admiration has also been expressed for the speed of the official response to the tragedy and the deployment of manpower to the worst affected regions. If only Burma could have (or would) respond with the same urgency and sense of moral responsibility, thousands of lives could have been saved and the suffering of countless others alleviated.
From the towns close to the epicentre have come pictures and videos of seismic destruction and loss of life. Scenes of parents calling for children buried beneath the rubble of collapsed schools are moving beyond words, as are the all too infrequent – and diminishing – survival stories.
In the midst of this maelstrom of emotions, prime minister Wen Jiabao has been a constant source of reassurance. He was in Sichuan Province within hours of the quake, letting survivors know that help was on the way and further enhancing his reputation as a man of the people. His concern has been palpable and utterly sincere, reminding me that he was alongside Zhao Ziyang in I989 appealing to the demonstrators.
On a side note, which is where it belongs, the torch relay has been toned down as the Olympic juggernaut has been put firmly in its place by something of incalculably greater importance.
May 19th, 2008 at 10:52 am
yep,the government do well 4 rescue and search,i hope leaders gonna keep on,i mean,free speech and medias openin.
May 19th, 2008 at 10:56 am
The new Taiwan president Ma Ying-jeou WILL take over from the DPP,President Chen..tomorrow
May 27th, 2008 at 5:54 am
how is it hypocritical when China uses its media bias to shield itself when America uses its media bias as a preface to a genocidal race-war (Iraq)?
May 27th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
someguy – it’s hypocritical because they’re positioning themselves as being more objective on the basis of a couple of examples of sloppy western journalism.
Unlike the past 50 years of oppression in Tibet, voices opposed to the campaign in Iraq have been heard since day one, and the impact of the presence of foreign forces there has received the full and critical attention of the media.
That can never be said of China’s media coverage of Tibetan issues, which is, quite simply, wall-to-wall propaganda.
May 30th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
stuart, let’s do a simple logic exercise.
1, Western media did cover everything about Iraq. (verified)
2, UK + US have democratic system. (verified)
3, Iraq was invaded. Suicide bombs everyday, lots of killed, collapse of a country… (all verified)
1, Chinese wall-to-wall propaganda.(arguably)
2, Dictators in China.(arguably)
3, China controls Tibet. An exile government, millions killed (arguably), cultural distinction (arguably)…
Could you please explain how the combination of (free media + democratic system) is better than the combination (propaganda + dictatorship) ?
Since free media + democratic system must be better than the chinese counterpart, at least one of above is false. Which one do you prefer?
May 30th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Could you please explain how the combination of (free media + democratic system) is better than the combination (propaganda + dictatorship) ?
Yes, it is better in the same way that a temple massage is preferable to a bullet in the head. Put another way, it’s better because a free media encourages debate and thinking; authoritarian propaganda allows for neither.
Btw, good to see you back Linan.
May 30th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
I’m always around here and preparing to give you “western enemy” a deadly strike
Like lots guys, both Chinese and westerners, you keep underestimating the real power of people. People do have their minds, do have their ideas about social events and do having debates. The only difference is if the thinking and debate are printed in paper. In 1989, after Tian’anmen Square event, also everybody around me hated government. Could propaganda really change it? It is changed by years of reflections and other events, including the Olympic Torch circus.
On the other hand, does free media really provoke thinking and debates, and most importantly, does it provoke changes? I participated the protest in London on Iraq War. I watch the 911 documentary. And I witnessed the process of how general public eventually get used to the suicide bombs reports from a remote country every morning.
Bottom line: maybe free speech and democracy are good things, but it is not rational to be a fundamentalist.
May 31st, 2008 at 12:44 am
Could propaganda really change it?
Yes, absolutely. Couple this with the fear of a violent backlash and the suppression of any discussion of the matter, and a generation later you’re left with the idea that ‘what happened was necessary; just look how successful China is today’ – because that’s the only message people hear.
The mistake is to assume that because the material wealth of a market economy followed the Tiananmen massacre, China’s prosperity is the result of the ‘89 incident.
In the other thread you spoke of Deng’s ‘courage’. Where is the courage in not acknowledging what happened 19 years ago? It’s always going to be a part of Chinese history, whether the CCP deny it or not.
May 31st, 2008 at 11:59 am
…and a generation later you’re left with the idea that ‘what happened was necessary; just look how successful China is today’ – because that’s the only message people hear.
It’s a man made myth. Again you underestimate the power of people. People are not machines. Let me repeat, people are not machines. People certainly know how to obtain unbiased information. (In China there is the world biggest pirate market. you can buy any book, from Mao’s sexual life to the Deep Throat DVD) People have the intelligence to react to anything artificial suppression. (exile, for example ) Just go to any of the Chinese internet forums, you will see how many ways folks have invented to avoid blacklisted words. Any social engineering effort is deemed to fail.
The mistake is to assume that because the material wealth of a market economy followed the Tiananmen massacre, China’s prosperity is the result of the ‘89 incident.
It’s the kind of arguments sound insightful but really not. First of all, I did not make connection between the material wealth and ‘89 incident. The connection I tried to make is ‘89 incident and the Tibet riot and what happened in London and Paris. It’s the point lots of westerners keep avoiding talking about. What’s the role US and UK government played in those historical events? Did they really want a wealthy China, another super power? Secondly, even if I did make the assumption as you suggested, I think it is at least an assumption has some evidence and some logic. I am open to other assumptions, if you can provide. The fact ( your denial of the connection between ‘89 incident and the economy development) actually reflects what I called “democracy fundamentalism”: all progress comes from democracy, dictatorship leads to disaster. You are just playing with logic and avoiding the obvious fact.
June 1st, 2008 at 1:16 am
I think these comments are in the wrong thread
your denial of the connection between ‘89 incident and the economy development
I’m not denying a connection; quite the opposite. Perhaps I should rephrase as follows: it wasn’t necessary to spill so much blood in order to effect change.
This argument manifests itself as the nonsensical mantra “they (CCP) had to do that – they had no choice”
What’s the role US and UK government played in those historical events? Did they really want a wealthy China, another super power?
This taps into another key component of the propaganda-driven collective psyche in China – the idea that the west (or even the rest of the world) is against them and determined to stop China’s rise. It’s a useful unifying strategy that plays to China’s cultivated ‘victim’ complex, but, like anything else fuelled by nationalism, it has the potential to explode.
June 1st, 2008 at 1:03 pm
This taps into another key component of the propaganda-driven collective psyche in China.
What really pissed me off when talking with westerners is whenever I say anything good about Chinese Government, or any logic that is not same as them, the immediate response would be: “It’s Chinese propaganda”, or “You are brainwashed”. If you are really open minded, please don’t use the two terms. The two terms seriously degrade my intelligence, regard me as machine without my own feelings, views and interpretations. I take it as insult.
the idea that the west (or even the rest of the world) is against them and determined to stop China’s rise.
If it’s not true, can we say that it should also be applied to USSR? Then why there is something called Cold War? OK, even if it’s USSR started the Cold War, why the hell after USSR collapsed, Russia got into humble situation, including economic collapse, NATO expanding? There is no need to tell me about the geo-political stories. The truth is, the west won’t stand for another power.
You are brainwashed to believe the west is peaceful, kind, defensive and justify power. The real power of your propaganda is, even the system (US/UK) invaded Iraq (it won’t be the last) and killed thousands, you still believe your system is better!
June 1st, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Mark my words: it’s the real propaganda to make you believe you are living in a better system.
June 2nd, 2008 at 9:22 am
What really pissed me off when talking with westerners is whenever I say anything good about Chinese Government, or any logic that is not same as them, the immediate response would be: “It’s Chinese propaganda”, or “You are brainwashed”.
Your annoyance is comparable to the frustration felt by non-Chinese who are faced with the above counter-argument.
I have plenty of good things to say about the country I live and work in too, but most Chinese are blind to these comments the moment I say anything that criticises their country.
All governments use propaganda to a degree. Those regimes with a stranglehold on the media tend to use it more liberally, if not constantly.
During the recent Tibet fiasco CCTV9 cut short every news program to bring us the same ’special report’ from Lhasa day after day. That ‘report’ was, as many others are, pure propaganda. Needless to say, the piece demonised the Dalai Lama as a terrorist and spoke to people who sung the praises of a wonderful and benevolent CCP. It was as far removed from balanced journalism as a DPRK prime time slot portraying Kim Jong Il as the greatest leader in the history of the world.
And I don’t believe I used the term ‘brainwashed’.
Then why there is something called Cold War?
The cold war was a two-way deal, Linan. And there is definitely more than a hint of cold war mentality on both sides of the Pacicfic right now.
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:19 am
I don’t want to start a Dalai Lama debate again. I central points about him are simple: if you admit he is in fact a politician, why not examine him critically? Even if he did promote inter-religion talk, would he be evil free in any topics? Don’t reply me, read the “Shadow of Dalai Lama” first. (Note, the authors were closed to him at the beginning.) As one of my local friends here had said, lots of folks here think he is JC. It’s selective blind to worship any politician.
Let’s talk about the ongoing cold war between China and the west. I don’t want to say nonsenses like China is a friendly power, has no record of invasion. I just check the ability. Do you really think China is capable of starting the war while it is in fact still an infant player in the game? Cold War rule #1, it’s a game for same level powers. Only few years ago, Chinese economic leg was even thinner than UK, which is no bigger than 1/30 of China. Chinese may be attacktive, but not stupid. On the other side, US have enough power, enough technologies, enough slogans and enough allies (UK, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, and now even has military basement in Afghan). It’s obvious who really wants a war.
We have a saying in Chinese “Tu si hu bei” ( The fox feels sorrow when it sees the dead rabbit, because it is in the same situation like the dead rabbit in front of the hunter). There are plenty of rabbits, USSR, eastern European countries, and now Muslim countries. Muslims are now dying (let’s ignore these perfect excuses for a moment). However, not too long ago, Reagan used them fighting against USSR, “People of the Book(Old Testimony) fight against who are not (communists)”. I am sure it is perfectly inspirational to reused it again upon Chinese.
June 3rd, 2008 at 5:32 am
On the other side, US have enough power, enough technologies, enough slogans and enough allies (UK, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, and now even has military basement in Afghan)
So do China, even if they are a few years away from superpower status. Allies would be DPRK, Burma, Venezuela, and half a dozen African nations. Besides, cold war attitudes and paranoia do not require superpower status in order to exist.
The general feeling in China, in my view, is that America represents an enemy to be overcome economically and technologically, and the Chinese are emerging as world leaders in industrial, cyber, and military espionage. Take a look.
June 3rd, 2008 at 5:35 am
Mark my words: it’s the real propaganda to make you believe you are living in a better system.
I’m living in China
Sorry you had problems posting before – a couple of your comments got caught in my spam filter (I have no idea why).
June 3rd, 2008 at 9:55 am
Did China Cause 2003 American Blackout?
No, according to my friend Insumg Kim from South Korea, folks in South Korea credit the North. Guys from Iran insist it’s Arabic computer geeks. In fact I have a better hypothesis: Hollywood. Hollywood even has a documentary on this one, entitled “Die Hard or Live Free” (Die Hard 4).
Talking about espionage, every county does this to others over 100 years. Are you really from UK, the James Bound’s country?
So do China, even if they are a few years away from superpower status
So you believe a quasi-superpower is more dangerous than the real one? The apparently weaker one has to explain to the stronger one again and again: “I really don’t want a fight with you.” The most funny thing is that you believe this situation is not funny.
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:16 am
Sorry you had problems posting before – a couple of your comments got caught in my spam filter (I have no idea why).
BTW, I’m a super programer, just let me know if you need help.