Beijing’s Adventures in Wonderland
- http://public-domain.zorger.com/
Those crazies in Beijing are a real inspiration to any budding Lewis Carrolls out there. I’m sure you’ve all heard the latest mad tale: There was a rat, a rabbit, and a lot of mad chaps from Beijing who may or may not have been wearing hats. And they really were mad. Not just mad as in angry, but totally bonkers. Completely off their rockers in fact, and under strict orders from HQ to stay that way. Oh yes, and there was poor Alice, representing sanity and reason, looking reproachfully over at the mad collection for ruining everyone’s fun and breaking up the party. Jackie Chan has also declared himself mad. I couldn’t agree more.
Long may the rat and the rabbit roam the globe freely, until such time as Beijing can represent their position with, well, less madness.
Unrelated to the fiasco surrounding the auction of YSL’s trinkets in Paris, Tibetans recently celebrated their New Year. I saw on TV that this occasion was marked in Sydney by Tibetan exiles and their supporters throwing shoes at a large cardboard effigy of Hu Jintao, prizes being awarded for one in the mouth. What a great way to strike a blow for freedom of speech. Gotta love those Aussie news channels.
Update
Here’s the youtube clip of the shoe-throwing mentioned above (actually called “shoe Jintao”). I mistakenly thought that it took place in Australia because the news report included an interview with a Tibetan now living down under. The shoe throwing took place in Dharamsala, of course.
March 4th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
“under strict orders from HQ to stay that way”
See, stuart? You can’t blame people for not taking you seriously. If you think everyone, including Jacky Chan was simply ordered by Beijing to be “mad”, then you must be going bonkers yourself.
All the talks trying to justify what the british and French bastards did some 150 years ago are pathetic. Let’s call a spade a spade. Wheoever (brits, French or the Chinese) looted them and took them out of China had the chance because those bastards looted Yuanmingyuan.
Your last paragraph again showcased how free China has become. Now you are free to watch an effigy of the Chinese prez getting smashed inside China. Isn’t it amazing?
March 5th, 2009 at 9:08 am
Did that footage get shown inside China? I very much doubt it. I didn’t see it, anyway. Pity.
Maybe it found its way on to YouTube. And that’s why YouTube is currently blocked again.
The amazing – and disturbing – thing about the YSL auction is that almost all the Chinese I’ve spoken to about this do get identically stoked up about it. And they all see the argument for the return of the bronzes in terms of resentment against “what the British and French bastards did some 150 years ago”.
The British and the French no longer bear a grudge against China about the torture and murder of prisoners, which is what prompted the punitive attack on Yuanmingyuan (I’m not saying this response was proportionate or justified; just that the French and the Brits had reason to be pissed off too).
The French aren’t still pissed off at the Germans over 1939 or 1914 or 1870.
The Americans don’t bring up Pearl Harbor with the Japanese any more.
There are arguments to be made in favour of returning the bronzes to China, and I would think that the vast majority of foreigners sympathise with those arguments. Unfortunately, China doesn’t seem to have been making those arguments. China is representing the issue purely in terms of “making amends” for an insult inflicted 5 or 6 generations ago.
It’s not “evil foreigners” holding back China’s development. It’s the culture of victimhood China has created for itself, and refuses to let go of.
Yes, colonialism was bad. But it’s OVER now. Move on.
March 5th, 2009 at 9:59 am
Thanks for the dose of sanity, Froog.
The post was actually a quickie thrown together on the go to keep Pffefer happy. As for the shoes being hurled at the cardboard Hu (that’s the material as opposed to his personality, although I guess it could go either way), I watched it on Aussie tv down under. So not much showcasing of Chinese freedom after all.
I’ll check youtube for a clip.
March 7th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
Froog,
What’s so surprising about the Chinese feeling “identical” about the two artifacts? My experience has been the same, almost everybody believes they should be returned to China. However, there is a great viarity of opinions when it comes to the stunt that Cai Mingchao pulled. Despite what Global Times (I am sure you are smart enough not to take it seriously, just like this guy stuart is not taken seriously) tried to tell you, there are A LOT of people out there who think he is an idiot.
I am all for looking forward and getting rid of the pathetic victim mentality, yes. Let’s forgive but not forget. (Note I said those brits and French bastards “150 years ago”. They were truly bastards. Of course this has nothing to do with the brits and French today. ) However, you effort to justify the burning of Yuanmingyuan only reinforces the victim mentality (also shared by the Jews, by the way). I wonder why those brits were in China in the first place? What was the context? And you can’t blame the Chinese for being a little hostile to the brits given that they were invading China the SECOND time, can you?? Asking the brits to forgive the Chinese for torturing and killing their prisoners is like asking the Germans to forgive the Jews for killing some nasty SS prison guards.
Seriously, let’s call a spade a spade. So far I have not seen any one in the China Blogsphere sincerely saying what the brits and French bastards did 150 years ago was completely wrong, no question about it. One way or another, like you did they were trying to somehow justify it. Half-hearted disclaimers don’t count.
March 9th, 2009 at 3:33 am
Pffefer,
I think your SS analogy here is way off the mark, a piece of hysterical hyperbole. A limited invasion in support of commercial/diplomatic objectives is pretty despicable, but it doesn’t begin to compare to the Holocaust. And the atrocities committed by the Chinese in this war bear no comparison at all with the killing of camp guards at Sobibor.
However, I expressly said that I did not regard that as a justification for the sack of Yuanmingyuan; the disclaimer was not at all “half-hearted”. My point – admittedly a rather facetious one – was simply that, at the time, the French and British were highly emotional too.
The identical response is bothering because – outside of China – you hardly ever find that degree of unanimity about anything. It is surprising to find only a single viewpoint in such a huge nation, even on the basic issue of whether the bronzes should be restored to China; but my point here was not just on the basic view, but on the degree of emotion it arouses, and the justification cited – that the response of Chinese people to this story is identical in every respect. There are lots of more persuasive and pertinent arguments for bringing those bronzes back to China, but they never seem to be mentioned in China; it’s all about anti-colonialist rage.
The contrast with the response to the Cai Mingchao affair is instructive, I think. On that one, people are able to think for themselves, because they haven’t been fed a standard line on it since childhood.
Yuanmingyuan and its contents were not the property of the Chinese state anyway, were they? It was the private estate of the Qing ruling family – who were an oppressive, incompetent, and extremely unpopular regime. Oh yes, and foreigners! At the time, there were probably lots of Han Chinese (and not just the Taipings) who were glad to see their Manchu overlords getting smacked around by the British and French “bastards”.
It’s difficult to see why modern China identifies so strongly with a previous Chinese state that was imperialist, colonialist, and feudalist (and established by outside invaders).
The celebrated response of Victor Hugo to the sack of Yuanmingyuan (much revered in China, I know) is, I feel, a rather patronising sentimentalism – imagining the lost splendours of a pleasure garden he’d only read about in books. Moreover, he was outraged not at the insult to the Chinese nation, but at the insult to Art: the destruction of so much beauty was an injury to the shared cultural heritage of the world.
Just to be clear, I think the sack and looting of Yuanmingyuan was completely wrong. I think the Opium Wars were wrong. And I think it would be appropriate to return these bronzes to China (but that’s based on a moral and sentimental claim – that, where possible, historic treasures are best displayed in their original setting – not a legal one). I’m disappointed that Chinese opinions on these issues seem to be so narrow and unthinking, so hysterical and abrasive – I think it hinders rather than helps the objective of bringing the bronzes back to Beijing. And I think it is a deficiency of the national psyche, something that holds the country back in so many other ways as well. When discussing issues like this, we don’t need to hear this great collective yelp of pain over a kick in the shins delivered 150 years ago. Especially when it was somebody else’s shins!
And by the way, China’s ‘victim culture’ is entirely self-generated and self-perpetuating. Foreigners “justifying” the attack on Yuanmingyuan etc. should not, does not “reinforce” it; it reinforces itself. I admit that what I try to do is relentlessly take the piss out of the Chinese for this sort of attitude – in the hope that one day they will get the joke and be able to laugh with me. Humour is one of the best ways of reconciling differences, healing grievances…. moving beyond victimhood.
March 9th, 2009 at 9:08 am
“And I think it is a deficiency of the national psyche, something that holds the country back in so many other ways as well.”
Not for the first time, Froog, you have echoed a lot of my own thoughts with that response, but in a more balanced and thoughtful way than I often manage.
March 9th, 2009 at 9:16 pm
“think your SS analogy here is way off the mark, a piece of hysterical hyperbole. A limited invasion in support of commercial/diplomatic objectives is pretty despicable, but it doesn’t begin to compare to the Holocaust. And the atrocities committed by the Chinese in this war bear no comparison at all with the killing of camp guards at Sobibor.”
A limited invasion? Sure the brits did not seek to exterminate all Chinese, but man, a nasty invasion is a nasty invasion. Chinese atrocities? What are you saying? That the Chinese should be NICE to the invading brits and French? Sorry but the Chinese are not THAT nice.
“However, I expressly said that I did not regard that as a justification for the sack of Yuanmingyuan; the disclaimer was not at all “half-hearted”. My point – admittedly a rather facetious one – was simply that, at the time, the French and British were highly emotional too.”
Emotional? I am sure they were. So were the Nazis and the IJA, probably. You (Europeans, Chinese and Koreans etc.) have the balls to resist and kill my fellow (Nazi and IJA) soldiers and comrades??? Damn you, you will be punished! Well, I guess we should kind of excuse the Nazis and the IJA too. We are all emotional after all.
“The identical response is bothering because – outside of China – you hardly ever find that degree of unanimity about anything. It is surprising to find only a single viewpoint in such a huge nation, even on the basic issue of whether the bronzes should be restored to China; but my point here was not just on the basic view, but on the degree of emotion it arouses, and the justification cited – that the response of Chinese people to this story is identical in every respect.”
First, I don’t know how “identical” you meant. Again, what’s wrong with the Chinese feeling identical here? Would you be bothered by people feeling identical about, say, you shall not steal or kill? To me this is as black and white as it can be, that is, the artifacts were looted thanks to the brits and the French (no matter who actually looted them and took them out of the country), they should be returned. Of course there are (I firmly believe) Chinese people out there who don’t feel the same, it is just that you don’t hear them.
” There are lots of more persuasive and pertinent arguments for bringing those bronzes back to China, but they never seem to be mentioned in China; it’s all about anti-colonialist rage. ”
Yes, I admit that this is a sensitive issue because it is tied to colonialism and what China had to endured from the foreign powers. The discussion should not have focused so much on anti-colonialist rage, rather it should focus on HOW to get them back to China.
“Yuanmingyuan and its contents were not the property of the Chinese state anyway, were they? It was the private estate of the Qing ruling family – who were an oppressive, incompetent, and extremely unpopular regime. Oh yes, and foreigners! At the time, there were probably lots of Han Chinese (and not just the Taipings) who were glad to see their Manchu overlords getting smacked around by the British and French “bastards”. It’s difficult to see why modern China identifies so strongly with a previous Chinese state that was imperialist, colonialist, and feudalist (and established by outside invaders).”
Here we go again. What difference does it make, whether they belonged to the Chinese state (nation-state was a western invention) or the Qing court? What difference does it make whether Qing was good or bad? If you have a nasty father, does it make it more OK for me to take his stuff away?
As to the Manchus being foreigners, actually by that time (1860′s) the Manchus had been widely considered “Chinese”, if there was such a thing called “Chinese” then. The Qing ruling family certainly believed they had received the mandate from heaven to rule China. The Han might still have some gripes or grudges against the Manchus, but they were in no way considered “foreigners” like the brits and the French were.
The Danes and the French (Normans) ruled england for a while, didn’t they? Was the england under the Danes and the Normans not england?
” I’m disappointed that Chinese opinions on these issues seem to be so narrow and unthinking, so hysterical and abrasive – I think it hinders rather than helps the objective of bringing the bronzes back to Beijing. And I think it is a deficiency of the national psyche, something that holds the country back in so many other ways as well. When discussing issues like this, we don’t need to hear this great collective yelp of pain over a kick in the shins delivered 150 years ago. Especially when it was somebody else’s shins!”
I modestly agree with my reservations. Somebody else’s? Sure, if Danish and Norman english were not English.
“And by the way, China’s ‘victim culture’ is entirely self-generated and self-perpetuating. Foreigners “justifying” the attack on Yuanmingyuan etc. should not, does not “reinforce” it; it reinforces itself. I admit that what I try to do is relentlessly take the piss out of the Chinese for this sort of attitude – in the hope that one day they will get the joke and be able to laugh with me. Humour is one of the best ways of reconciling differences, healing grievances…. moving beyond victimhood.”
Self-perpetuating, yes. Self-generated, no. Certainly it does not help when you see foreign cynics whitewashing or getting wishy-washy about something that is as black and white as it can get. I don’t believe non-Chinese would react differently if they experienced something like this. For example the Jews.
March 10th, 2009 at 2:57 am
“As to the Manchus being foreigners, actually by that time (1860’s) the Manchus had been widely considered “Chinese”, if there was such a thing called “Chinese” then. The Qing ruling family certainly believed they had received the mandate from heaven to rule China. The Han might still have some gripes or grudges against the Manchus, but they were in no way considered “foreigners” like the brits and the French were.”
I might suggest that many Chinese revolutionaries, not the least Zhang Binglin, Zou Rong, and Hong Xiuquan, certainly did consider the Manchus as being “not us” if not foreign (depends on your definition) and that their use of such rhetoric tapped into powerful currents still swirling at the time.
Furthermore, there has been extensive research done in the Manchu language archives of late which severely problematizes the “assimilation” theory so beloved of past generations of scholars. Whatever the emotional needs of early 20th century Han historians might have been, the archival data strongly suggests that the Manchus saw themselves as a conquest dynasty right up until the very end. For references, I suggest checking out Mark Elliot’s landmark “The Manchu Way,” which makes considerable use of Manchu language sources, as well as similar works by Evelyn Rawski and Pamela Crossley.
March 10th, 2009 at 3:41 am
It’s fascinating to see how a topic can morph into something completely unrelated to its origins. Personally I have no problem with this, especially when the responses are intelligent and informative.
Also, I get to learn a lot of things I had no idea about before, or to shed new light on existing knowledge.
Now I have to to google some info about the Manchus.
March 10th, 2009 at 11:54 am
@Jeremiah
As you introduce serious academic research to make your point, I believe it is also your responsibility to outline the limitations of the citied materials. At least, it would be better to present to readers the research contexts, along with the key arguments. Two common sense questions may be a good start for your further clarification.
* How reliable are these Manchu language archives? As we know, even couple of emperors of Qing dynasty could not read or speak Manchu language (for example, the famous last emperor, and Guangxu, the puppet emperor controlled by Cixi). Assume the ruling family at that time has two ideas on its identity (as any organisation has left and right wing at any time), the writers of the Manchu language archives were very much likely to be on the right wing side. A little bit more contexts: I watched a program few years ago, which claims that Manchu language is dying, not more than 20 speakers world wide. It bought to another point: how could it be if it has not been actively used for a considerable long time?
* In Chinese tradition, official archives are tightly connected with royal families. For example, a widely citied source in Chinese history study is Qijuzhu, the main body of which is about the sayings, behaviours, and even sexual arrangement of emperors. My doubt is obvious: if such royal family archives could represent ideas of common Manchu people. A little bit more contexts: normally Chinese royal families regarded themselves more than human (son of heaven), thus technically not chinese. Emperors of Qing dynasty had a lovely tradition to think they were Buddhas: so that they were superior to Dalai Lamas, who were just Bodhisattvas.
My contention is that it is very dangerous to just repeat the results (or implications) of a research without mention the research contexts.
March 10th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
Jeremiah,
Sure, I am well aware that many ” Chinese” revolutionaries in the late 19th and early 20th century (for example Dr. Sun) saw the Manchus as “Man Yi” or “Da Lu”. No disagreement here. However, I’d argue the majority of Han Chinese already accepted the Qing rule by then (200+ years after Ming was toppled) and saw them as the royal family of China/Zhong Hua, even though they considered the Manchus a different people (from them). What is clear and we can all agree on is, I believe, that the Machus were seen in a much different light from how the brits and French etc. were. Agreed? If the Han Chinese had no attachment to Qing, they would have been happy to see some other foreigners coming over to “liberate” them, right? Why do you think many Han Chinese even fought the brits and the French? Just because their Manchu overlords ordered them to do so?
On your second point, Jeremiah, I agree that the Manchus themselves saw themselves as a different people from the Han Chinese. I don’t doubt that they did. I believe they tried very hard to hold on to their Manchu identity. But in the end, they were, to their dismay, assimilated for the most part.
March 10th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
Pffefer,
I don’t why I’m even doing this (apart from insomnia) – but we’ll see where it goes.
Should the Chinese be “NICE” to invaders? No. Resist with all due force. Follow the generally accepted rules of war. Go apeshit once in a while and disembowel people who are trying to surrender on a battlefield, if you will. But what the Chinese did to prisoners taken in that campaign (some of whom, I think, were non-combatants) was so far out there in terms of wild and disgusting cruelty – wow, even the Japanese 80 years later could have taken lessons on that. That wasn’t about “nice”. It was about having any sense of humanity or civilization. If you are boasting that the Chinese don’t have that kind of “nice”, then I fear for this country.
“Emotional”? Take a breath and try to absorb the point I was originally making (which I flagged up for you was a facetious one anyway). Chinese were pissed off at the time (with good reason, maybe better reason than the Brits or the Frogs); but Brits and Frogs were pissed off too (not that they were in a morally blameless position, FAR from it; but they did have some reason to be pissed off). It’s all such a long time ago, and none of the actors are still living. Why does anybody still care? We’re not still pissed off any more – and probably haven’t been for close to 150 years. Argumentative laowai like me raise this point not to defend what the invading forces did in 1860, but to tease the prevalent Chinese attitude that this is still somehow a live issue. It’s ludicrous – but also rather disturbing – that the Chinese are still being taught to HATE about stuff like this. With grievances in living memory, we can take the ‘truth & reconciliation’ route (and, boy, I’d like to see some of that applied to China’s own recent history), but for stuff like this – 50, 100, 150 years in the past – you’ve just got to let it go.
“Identical response” – well, you seem to be a bit nearer to my view on that. Yes, there probably are some folks in this country who don’t share the view we encounter most of the time on this topic. It’s a shame that they are so few, and that they don’t make themselves heard. In any free, creative, intellectually vibrant society you would find all sorts of people – large numbers of them – saying things like….. well, what I’ve been saying. “It’s all a long time ago, who gives a toss?” “It was the Manchus’ treasure anyway, who cares about them?” “Modern China should not identify itself with Imperial China, which was a horrible state in so many ways.” “We don’t really have any legal claim to this stuff. How else can we persuade people that it is properly part of the Chinese nation’s cultural heritage and should be in a museum here?” And so on.
Relation of the Qing to the present day. You say “father”. Very emotive. Not closely tied to the actual facts as a metaphor. I might say “thief who came and lived in my ancestral home for a number of years”. Pffefer, you are confusing the issues of whether the British and French actions were good (NO) and who the stuff should belong to now (the modern PRC?? why??!!). This was a crime, yes. It was a crime committed not against the Chinese people but against a far-distant-in-time previous Chinese state. Not even, in fact, against the previous Chinese state, but against the rulers of that state, who were unpopular alien interlopers (hence my “kick in somebody else’s shins” joke). As you say – “If you have a nasty father, does it make it more OK for me to take his stuff away?” No. It just makes me CARE less. And if it happened 150 years ago….. and it wasn’t my father, but just some guy squatting in my house…… then, basically, I don’t care at all. Not at all. 150 years ago and some guy who has no connection to me whatsoever and who I don’t even like – are you kidding?? You know what, even if it was my father and he was brutally beaten and mugged only 10 years ago, by now I’ve given that up and forgiven and forgotten; it is no longer relevant to what we are doing today.
Assimilation. Who gives a shit? It’s hard to get into such ancient history. but I believe it took at least a century or two for the Normans (and maybe the Danes likewise) to become thoroughly assimilated with the indigenous English population, and even when they had merged pretty well culturally and linguistically, they were still easily identified – and widely reviled – as an alien ruling elite. I think it was much the same with the Qing. It took a long, long, long time to get over those grievances and awarenesses of cultural difference, even in a tiny island. (Ever read about Robin Hood? That was essentially a Saxon resistance to Norman overlords myth set 150 years after the original invasion.)
But…. how is that really relevant?
Even if the Communist revolution had happened 200 years ago and those treasures had been looted from the early years of the PRC…… give it up. It’s ancient history!
But that’s not the case. Qing China is NOT modern China.
“Black and white as it can get”. No. You like the Holocaust analogy. The Holocaust is, I grant you, about as black and white as it can get. This is nowhere close.
Note again – before you go off on another rampage, Pffefer – that I do not in any way defend the sack of Yuanmingyuan or the Anglo-French invasion. And I do think those artifacts should be in China.
I just feel that the arguments we hear from most Chinese on the point, and from you, are rabid nationalistic garbage.
March 10th, 2009 at 10:17 pm
(1) Generally accepted rules of war? What are those anyway? Were the Chinese aware of them then? And do tell, what was the context of their capture and torture? We need the full picture. What triggered the torture? Are you saying the Chinese, tortured and killed them for no reason whatsoever, completely out of blue?
(2) Why should anybody care? Because you have douchebags like Berge with the disgusting smug on his face telling the Chinese “free Tibet and I shall free these”, and people who try pretty hard to put a human face to an atrocity and somehow justify it(I will not name names). Wouldn’t the Jews be upset if someone comes forward today saying the Holocaust was a Jewish fabrication? Again I agree people should focus on the return of the artifacts instead of what happened 150 years ago.
(3) There are probably similar discussions out there. Try Hanjian forum perhaps. I don’t know if you actually believe in any of those that you wrote, well, just for the hell of it: It happened a long time ago, one should forgive but not forget, correct. The Chinese should not harbor any type of ill feelings about the brits and the French (I think most of them don’t) simply because what some of their ancestors did 150 years ago. However, that is not to say the two artifacts should not be returned to China. Manchu China was not China, only a China ruled by the Han people were China that today’s Chinese should care about? Just because imperial China was bad (I must disagree), we should cut all ties with our past? By your logic today’s England should not identify with England before the end of WWI.
(4) We will just have to agree to disagree here. I say forgive but not forget. You say forgive and forget. Sorry I am not a Christian, I am not that nice. How about the Manchurian Chinese today? I guess you are basically saying no Chinese, except for the Manchurian Chinese, should have any grievances for what the foreign powers did to Qing?
(5) The point is these modern states like China and England did not just pop up out of nowhere. Sure Qing China is not modern China (PRC). Sure Norman England is not the UK today. But these countries today all have what we call “history” to go back to. Unless you are saying Chinese history starts from October 1st, 1949 and anything prior to that date either does not exist or has nothing to do with today’s China. IF that is your argument, I have nothing more to say.
(6) Not as black and white as the Holocaust? OK, I guess you are right, after all the whole thing started with the barbaric Chinese torturing and killing the peaceful, faint-hearted british and French civilians for no reason, you know, some nice people who came all the way from Europe to show their respect and love for the Chinese people and their culture, only to be captured and tortured to death by the Chinese. Second thought: Of course it is black and white! The Chinese were the bad guys and the europeans were the good guys!! Just kidding. You see how ridiculous your argument is. These NICE people, after what, merely 20 years after invading China the first time, came over riding gunboats, expected the Chinese to treat them with decency. Upon finding out their comrades were tortured and killed, they got emotional and torched Yuanmingyuan. Yeah, too gray!
(7) Call it nationalistic garbage or whatever all you want, whatever it takes for you to sleep at night.
March 10th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
“By your logic today’s England should not identify with England before the end of WWI.”
It isn’t. Compared with, perhaps.
March 10th, 2009 at 11:16 pm
You know what Froog, let me lay it all out here, for the sake of this discussion:
What the British and the French did 150 years was bad. Agreed.
Today’s British and French have nothing to do with this. Agreed.
The discussion should be about the artifacts themselves, not what the Brits and French did 150 years ago. Agreed.
The artifacts should be returned to China. Agreed.
The only thing you and I don’t agree (other than” forgive and forget”) is whether torching Yuanmingyuan can be justified. I say no. You say yes. I don’t see “nationalistic garbage”, do you?
March 11th, 2009 at 2:28 am
Fantastic, Pffefer. We do agree on everything.
It’s just that you’re such an angry fellow, you want to pick fights all the time, and imagine there are differences where there are none.
No, I don’t think the sack of Yuanmingyuan was justified. I’ve said it as plainly as I can, more than once.
The “nationalistic garbage” I complain of is the identification of modern China with the Qing dynasty, and the use of this as a source of rancour today.
The fact that these artifacts were looted from the Manchus (and that this looting was morally wrong) is no kind of legal or moral argument for “restoring” them to the modern-day PRC.
And it is certainly not a reason for modern-day Chinese to get so fumingly angry.
You said it was like “stealing from my father”. I disagree – not about whether it was stealing, but about who it was stolen from.
You want to run off into a minute historical debate about what happened and why back in the 1800s. I maintain that this is IRRELEVANT.
Oh, and you don’t agree about “forgive and forget”? That’s unfortunate. Yet you agree that what happened in 1860 has nothing to do with today’s British and French. You see, I feel it ought to have nothing to do with today’s Chinese, either. You feel it is somehow helpful – emotionally healthy – to continue to bear enmity against the British and French of 150 years ago?? Maybe you can compartmentalize your emotions like that; most people, unfortunately, can’t; when the public discourse is full of hate for the British and French based on the history of 1860, some of that ill-feeling vents itself against the British and French today. But even if that didn’t happen, even if you were keeping all that hate – hate against people who’ve been dead for more than 100 years – bottled up inside, I don’t think that’s good for you, or for China collectively. And so, at last, we return to the point we were originally trying to make – ‘victim culture’, the perpetual harping on ancient grievances, is a vice of the modern Chinese, something I think they would be better without.
March 11th, 2009 at 2:52 am
The continuity of Chinese history and the identity of the nation-state is perhaps a topic we could turn to another time.
Chinese history is extremely discontinuous: it has suffered numerous revolutions, civil wars, and regime changes; it has had different systems of government and vastly different territorial extent at different times.
England, by contrast, has a remarkably continuous history in the evolution of its political and social institutions and national identity: it is arguably the oldest country in the world. Our constitutional monarchy and many of its most important institutions like parliament and the common law have roots that extend back far beyond the Norman invasion of 1066.
PRC China was created “out of nothing” 60 years ago. Prior to that, there’d been 40 or 50 years of virtual anarchy (ineffectual government, warlordism, civil war); prior to that, 260 years of feudal rule by foreign invaders.
The Chinese nation has cultural roots going back far into history, of course. But as a political entity, there is a complete disconnection between the PRC and the regimes of the imperial past.
March 11th, 2009 at 3:33 am
Pfeffer,
Again, I must disagree. One of the reasons why the ethnic-nationalism espoused by the likes of Sun, Zhang, Zou, or Hong was such a powerful rhetorical device was that it tapped into a current which already existed in the Zeitgeist of the time.* Were the Manchus the 100% exactly no-room-for-nuance the same as the British and French? No. But my own research into the treaty port of Tianjin in the late 19th century suggests that the antagonism between Han and Manchu officials was nearly as deep as that between those officials and their European counterparts. In one particular case, when push came to shove, the Manchu officials found themselves being grouped with the Europeans as common oppressors of “Chinese” interests. Looking through the literature, it would also appear that such a situation was not an isolated case.
Was there assimilation after the 1912 revolution? Here I should defer to Crossley’s masterful work “Orphan Warriors.” Sure there was. But we’re not talking Republican Era, we’re talking the Xianfeng Era. (Though Xianfeng spent most of the invasion in Chengde drinking with his friends and–it turned out–catching pneumonia, leaving the actual settlement of the mess to his brother Yixin.)
*A current that ran as far back as the writings of Lu Liuliang and Wang Fuzhi, the latter being a popular ‘rediscovery’ at about this time.
March 11th, 2009 at 6:57 am
Thanks guys – my cup runneth over.
I’m interested in the notion of assimilation with regard to Chinese ideas of racial ‘purity’.
I mention this because whenever I point out to Chinese friends that their country went on the rampage during the Yuan Dynasty, they all argue that it was the Mongols and not their forefathers laying waste to an entire continent (and beyond). In the context of the present discussion one feels that China really ought to have a bigger beef with Mongolia. I digress.
Assimilation. Given that Khan and company had their way with anything vaguely feminine during a century of empire building, surely all present day ‘Chinese’ have a little Mongolian blood coarsing through their veins. When put to those Chinese who regard themselves as Han, this argument has always been treated as anathema. Why? Manchu syndrome?
Yeah, I know it’s something of a tangent, but then we began with Alice in Wonderland, didn’t we?
March 11th, 2009 at 8:05 am
I think I might have said this before over on Jeremiah’s blog, but you really have to be very careful when bringing up the issue of the ‘purity’ of Han ethnicity.
You remember the scene in True Romance where Dennis Hopper tells Christopher Walken that Sicilians “are descended from niggers”?
The attitude in China seems to be: “We assimilate. We don’t miscegenate.”
March 11th, 2009 at 8:39 am
“You remember the scene in True Romance where Dennis Hopper tells Christopher Walken that Sicilians “are descended from niggers”?”
Great film, remember it well. So, I was lucky not to get shot. close call.
“We assimilate. We don’t miscegenate.”
It seems then that assimilation is ‘multi-culturalism with Chinese characteristics’.
March 11th, 2009 at 9:37 pm
stuart and froog,
I must say your “Chinese friends” are a group of peculiar people (who can actually stand you on a personal basis, who somehow believe in “racial purity”?). Nonsense. “Han” is a cultural term, not a racial term. The Han Chinese are probably more “racially” and genetically diverse than you average caucasian American (what I call “European American”): Their much-prized ancient ancestors such as Huang Di, Yan Di, Yao, Shun and Yu were said to be from different ethnic tribes (Shun was believed to be of Dongyi while Huang Di, Yan Di and Yao were thought to be out of Huaxia). Different Chinese scholars have come up with different theories explaining the origin of the Han people and they all believe that Han Chinese had at least two major sources, Huaxia and Dongyi. And you have “minor” sources such as Baiyue and Jingchu. So you see, the Han people were a mixed people to begin with. The Great Plain of China (Zhong Yuan) saw so many ethnic groups come and go, all most likely left their traces. There is no such thing as “pure Han” or “racial purity”. So what if my ancestors were Xiongnu, Di(3), Xianbei, Khitan, Jurchen or Mongolian? Who cares? The important thing is I am a Han Chinese today and I identify myself with Han. Who cares if your ancestors were Celtic, Anglo-Saxon, Danish, Norwegian or French? You are english, aren’t you?
I am not sure about ” surely all present day ‘Chinese’ have a little Mongolian blood coarsing through their veins” though, I wouldn’t bet on it. Given the fact that the Yuan Dynasty lasted barely a century, and the fact that the conquering Mongols were such a small group of people compared to the Han, I don’t think they did much “damage”, perhaps to your dismay, stuart and froog.
And I see nothing wrong with the Han Chinese saying “it was the Mongols, not us”. After all China was conquered by the Mongols and the Yuan Dynasty was merely part of the much bigger Mongol Empire. Plus you have the Republic of Mongolia alive and well today. Blaming today’s China for the rampage and damaged caused by Genghis Khan and Co. is like blaming the French for bombing London and Coventry.
March 11th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
Jeremiah,
So what are you saying? That the Manchus were almost seen just like the Europeans and the Han Chinese back then had no problems with the European invasions and wars as long as their families and friends were not affected? Is that the conclusion?
I know we are not talking about the Republican era and I wasn’t. Many Manchus were so well versed in the Han language and culture that a lot of them forgot how to speak Manchurian. Culturally, they were no longer the relatively young, fresh horse-riding nomads, they were just like the Han Chinese, tame and corrupt perhaps. I AM talking about pre-1911 here.
March 11th, 2009 at 10:12 pm
Wow, froog, now that you mentioned it, we hardly agree on anything.
I am angry? Haha, for what reason? Calling a spade a spade, calling something BS when I see BS is not being angry, mister.
I don’t know what you mean by “modern China identifying with the Qing dynasty”, I really know what you are talking about. Obviously modern China is not Qing China, however Qing China, like modern China (the PRC), is just a chapter in this country’s history, is it not?
It seems that you are obsessed with the notion of the Manchus not being “Chinese” therefore today’s Chinese shouldn’t feel a thing about what happened to Qing China 150 years ago. OK, I will give this one to you. Would it make a difference if Qing China were established by the Han Chinese, like Ming was? Do you still have a problem with today’s Han Chinese feeling sore about what happened to China 150 years ago, had China been ruled by the Zhu family of Ming? And again, what do you say to those Manchurian Chinese today? That I feel your pain, but not that of the Han Chinese?
“You feel it is somehow helpful – emotionally healthy – to continue to bear enmity against the British and French of 150 years ago??”
Is it me or you have some serious issues with English comprehension? I thought it was your native language. I said I DON’T hold today’s British and French accountable for what the brits and French did 150 ago, you hear me?
“Chinese history is extremely discontinuous: it has suffered numerous revolutions, civil wars, and regime changes; it has had different systems of government and vastly different territorial extent at different times. ”
Isn’t this a no-brainer? Of course you are very likely to have regime changes when you have revolutions and civil wars. So what? What difference does it make, say, you are the emperor as opposed to I am the emperor? What different systems of government? I thought they were all feudal, were they not? Different territorial extent? haha, Britain is on a small island (relatively), as much as your ancestors (to quote the proud stuart, ” have a little Celtic/AS/Danish/Norwegian/French/XXX blood coarsing through their veins”) would have liked to expand, there was only so much space they could expand on (the “home home”, not the colonial empire). Where else could they go? Ireland? Sure, that’s why you have the (northern) Irish problem. Many continental states, including China, the US, Russia, Germany etc. all had “vastly different territorial extent at different times”, so? Are you saying they all have “extremely discontinuous” history?
“England, by contrast, has a remarkably continuous history in the evolution of its political and social institutions and national identity: it is arguably the oldest country in the world. Our constitutional monarchy and many of its most important institutions like parliament and the common law have roots that extend back far beyond the Norman invasion of 1066.”
hahahaha. Once again, whatever it takes you to sleep at night. I guess you are saying today’s england has nothing to do with anything pre-1066. That English history starts with the year 1066. OK lad, jolly fine by me!
March 11th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
Linan Wang,
I think it’s also dangerous to comment on the “limitations” of research which you appear to have not read yourself. Read the books, come back, we’ll talk.
March 11th, 2009 at 10:49 pm
Pfeffer,
No conclusions necessary. Your wrote:
“As to the Manchus being foreigners, actually by that time (1860’s) the Manchus had been widely considered “Chinese””
Then thought the better and qualified that with:
“but they were in no way considered ‘foreigners’ like the brits and the French were.”
As usual, I wasn’t saying you were entirely wrong, only that your initial statement required qualification as the data suggests a more complicated picture than the one you’ve suggested. I think your subsequent statements have shown that you understand that and so I think we’re all good.
March 11th, 2009 at 11:09 pm
Thanks Jeremiah.
The point is to repudiate what froog has been saying, the Manchus had nothing to do with “the Chinese”.
I have asked a lot of our English-speaking “friends” in the China Blogsphere and nobody could tell me who “the Chinese” are and perhaps, were.
March 11th, 2009 at 11:47 pm
“The important thing is I am a Han Chinese today and I identify myself with Han.”
Which is precisely the attitude I’ve encountered at any suggestion that someone might not be 100% Han, despite your claim that it’s a cultural term.
“And I see nothing wrong with the Han Chinese saying “it was the Mongols, not us”.”
I wonder if they’d say that if there was some great archaeological find from the period.
March 11th, 2009 at 11:58 pm
“I have asked a lot of our English-speaking “friends” in the China Blogsphere and nobody could tell me who “the Chinese” are and perhaps, were.”
That’s because they’ve been doing all that assimilating. Then again, we’re all out of Africa, which loops back nicely to the Dennis Hopper scene in True Romance.
March 12th, 2009 at 12:00 am
“Which is precisely the attitude I’ve encountered at any suggestion that someone might not be 100% Han, despite your claim that it’s a cultural term. ”
What is “100% Han”? Either you or your “Chinese friends” are hopelessly illusional.
“I wonder if they’d say that if there was some great archaeological find from the period.”
Why don’t you try them? That said, I have no faith in your “Chinese friends”. You know the people you hang out with. Some people I have to say. That says a lot about you, doesn’t it?
March 12th, 2009 at 12:07 am
“I wonder if they’d say that if there was some great archaeological find from the period.”
Second thought: It really depends. Who made the discovery? Was it officially sponsored or commissioned by the Yuan court? The great Chinese scientist Guo Shoujing of that era was not Mongolian, but he certainly was a Yuan official.
March 12th, 2009 at 12:43 am
“I have asked a lot of our English-speaking “friends” in the China Blogsphere and nobody could tell me who “the Chinese” are and perhaps, were.”
To be fair, I think most Chinese-speakers would have an equally difficult time answering that question.
First two questions I ask each semester:
1. Define “China”
2. Define “History”
March 12th, 2009 at 1:51 am
“First two questions I ask each semester:
1. Define “China”
2. Define “History””
I’m amazed that you find time for anything else.
March 12th, 2009 at 4:21 am
Wow, you boys were busy last night!
Pffefer, it is you, not I, who occasionally has problems with the comprehension of English. I acknowledged that you said you didn’t bear a grudge against “the British and French today”, but queried if there was any point in still holding a grudge against “the British and French of 150 years ago” (i.e. the ones who actually sacked Yuanmingyuan but are now long dead).
If you re-read my comment more carefully, less angrily, you will see that my main point is quite clearly – it doesn’t matter if you feel you are Han or Manchu, it doesn’t matter if you feel there is a close connection between Qing China and the PRC or not…… modern Chinese should not be still angry about Yuanmingyuan BECAUSE IT WAS 150 YEARS AGO.
The greatest atrocities suffered by the British were those carried out by the Germans and Japanese in WWII. For people of my parents generation, who had lived through that war, it was hard to let go of their enmity over this. But people today realise that it is no longer relevant to the relations between our countries. We “let it go” in less than 70 years, probably in only 30 or 40 years. And, as I’ve said before, I don’t think the sack of Yuanmingyuan even begins to compare with the atrocities of WWII (well, as an act of cultural desecration, yes; but I don’t find that as appalling a crime as institutionalised torture, rape, and murder). Why do the Chinese still harp on this so much 150 years on? What good does it do anyone? Why do you want to present yourselves to the world as a nation of 1.4 billion whiny bitches? Whiny bitches with no sense of proportion or historical perspective??
March 12th, 2009 at 5:03 am
And Pffefer, go read some English history. You might find it interesting.
I did not suggest any start point for “English history”. 1066 is often taken as a significant date because it is the last time there was a major regime change imposed from outside (we went through 50 or 60 years of upheaval in the 17th Century too, but the main organs of government endured through that, and the constitutional monarchy was only briefly displaced). I actually suggested that some of the most important features of English political life – and the national identity – are earlier than 1066. Most of the other European nations have suffered massive social upheaval, foreign invasion, revolution, civil war, or changes in regime and constitution within the last hundred years. Many of them, indeed, were only created within the last 150 years or so anyway.
England thus presents quite a contrast with most of the rest of Europe, as well as with China, in its long continuity as a single political entity. Korea was running it close until 100 years or so ago. I suppose Portugal might be in with a shout too.
There’s a difference between the political identity of a nation state and the wider, more nebulous sense of “national identity” based on cultural legacy. This distinction gets blurred in China – deliberately so, to try to justify the current scope of Chinese territory. Tibet and Xinjiang were not “part of China” when the PRC was formed, but were “reclaimed” by force. Fair enough: if you want to and you can, go ahead. But seeking to legitimize that on the basis of the extent of the Qing Empire is ludicrous and hypocritical. Mongolia was part of the Qing Empire too, but was allowed to “secede” after a referendum (because it was backed by Russia). And weren’t Korea and Vietnam tributary states at some point as well….?
That’s one of the things I find so insidious about the emphasis on Qing history in modern China.
I love it when Chinese students get all excited about Shihuangdi being the first person to “unify all of China”. Great. Qin China was a lot smaller than the PRC.
You encounter the same kind of double standards, the same doublethink on race. ‘Han’ is presented as a single ethnicity when you want to emphasise national unity, but you can acknowledge its mixed nature when you want to celebrate diversity. The Mongols are ‘bad’ when they muder and pillage across two thirds of Eurasia, but ‘good’ when they establish a China-based empire that encompasses Tibet and Xinjiang. They are Chinese when you want them to be, and ‘barbarian’ when you don’t.
March 12th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
I said it numerous times, “forgive but not forget”. Those people committed a horrible crime 150 years ago, what’s wrong with calling a spade a spade? Nobody will bitch about the crime if you don’t have people like you and certain other people trying to justify it.
Sorry man, if you want to talk about the longest running regime or “territorial content”, Japan beats England to it. Korea is not even close compared to Japan as the last dynasty Chosun (Yi) dynasty lasted just some 500 years.
Tibet and Xinjiang were not part of China when the PRC was founded? When the PRC was founded on October 1st, 1949 there were a lot of places in China that were not under the control of the PRC government, for example, much of southern China, which was also taken by face. So what? Both Tibet and Xinjiang were part of the Republic of China(ROC), the PRC doesn’t have to justify its boundary on the basis of the extent of Qing China. Korea and Vietnam (Ryukyu too) were tributary but independent states with a king, Xinjiang and Tibet were not.
Unfortunately you are too smart to realize China, unlike your beloved england, is not confined to a small island whose territorial boundary has not changed that much in the past what, 10000000000000 years? China started small and became big. ” China” of that era simply refers to the 7 kingdoms that are officially affiliated with the Zhou royal family.
‘Han’ is presented as a single ethnicity when you want to emphasize national unity? Today’s Han is a single ethnicity, despite its mixed and diverse background. What’s wrong with that? The Han should be divided into several ethnic groups, is that what you are saying? Actually the Mongols had nothing to do with “establishing a China-based empire that encompasses Tibet and Xinjiang” (who told you that the Mongol Empire was China-based?) , it was Qing.
As I told stuart, if all you do is whining and bitching about China (look who is the whiny bitch), you should pack up and buy yourself an one-way ticket going home.
March 12th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
“Both Tibet and Xinjiang were part of the Republic of China(ROC)”
Again, I would probably qualify that to: “The ROC claimed control over Tibet and Xinjiang.”
March 12th, 2009 at 10:16 pm
Pfeffer,
Not to be unkind, but the “China: Love it or leave it” thing sounds a little odd coming from a dedicated Chinese patriot living in Boston, no?
I mean there are plenty of folks (check out the MIT BBS) studying abroad who complain about “US hegemony” and “CNN” and “western liberal democracy being a flawed system,” yet none of these guys are lining up to to turn in their research fellowships and head home to Hebei, right?
I’m just not sure that’s the best point of argument, that’s all.
March 12th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
Pffef (I love it that you give yourself a name that sounds sputtering with rage!),
at least Stuart and I are “whining and bitching” about China TODAY, rather than harping on pointlessly about events in its distant history.
Yes, we are critical about much that we see in China, particularly about its government. We would be critical of any country we lived in. We are deeply critical of our own countries too. It is because the Western tradition cherishes critical thought and sees it as essential to progress and improvement.
We only criticise China because we love it so much. Strange but true. People who won’t criticise China themselves, or won’t accept others’ criticisms of it, are holding back the country’s development – they don’t truly love China.
March 13th, 2009 at 3:04 am
Jeremiah,
Certainly nobody contested the ROC’s sovereignty on Xinjiang and Tibet back then, correct?
If I bitch about the US like stuart and froog bitches about China, and not just about the US government, but the American people, culture, custom, blah blah blah (see the thread about teaching ESL in China) etc., I would definitely put myself out of the misery by getting the hell out of the US. Seriously, my belief has always been, no matter who you are, no matter where you are, if you hate the place you are at that much, get the hell out.
March 13th, 2009 at 3:12 am
Froog,
Sure, I love England (or any XXX country) so much that I feel that I need to “criticize” it everyday and all I see is stuff that I don’t like. So by bitching, ranting and getting very cynical about not just the British government, but the English people , its way of life etc. everyday just shows how much I love England. Yeah right.
Seriously, well-founded, well-argued criticism is fine (even some from stuart). Getting extremely cynical, a sentiment shared by many strange people in the English language China Blogsphere, is what bothers me. Oh well. Whatever.
March 13th, 2009 at 3:39 am
Pffefer, there is actually some intelligent discourse going on here. I think the least we can try and do is not descend into ‘whiny bitch’ calling.
I see Ferin has arrived on the expat thread – that should be fun!
March 13th, 2009 at 3:46 am
“…my belief has always been, no matter who you are, no matter where you are, if you hate the place you are at that much, get the hell out.”
Tibetans try to do just that in their hundreds every year; they get shot in the process. Koreans cross the border in droves to the greener pastures of their caring neighbour; they get sent back.
It’s not always so easy to escape repression.
Besides, none of the commenters here hates China.
March 13th, 2009 at 4:09 am
Sorry, Stuart, I started the “whiny bitch” thing. But I thought it was ‘fair comment’. And, you know, a joke.
I’m not sure if our friend Mr P gets all the layers of humour here.
Pffefer, I agree that cynicism can be overdone. But I also believe that, in moderation, it is an excellent and very useful quality. I hope my own cynicism is leavened with large doses of self-awareness (and self-mockery).
The attitude we foreign bloggers so often encounter from critics like you is: it is an outrageous piece of effrontery and hypocrisy for us to criticize China at all; all we ever seem to do is criticize China; therefore we must hate China.
My previous comment – while still couched in slightly humorous, teasing terms – is one of the most straightforwardly sincere I have made on here. I think people like Stuart and I really do have a very great affection and respect for China and the Chinese people, and we voice our criticisms in the hope that they may help – at least to generate some useful debate, if not actually to initiate any change. We don’t criticize everything about China; there are lots of things about China that we really like. I think guys like you tend to misinterpret or exaggerate the extent of our criticism because you’ve grown up in an environment where you almost never encounter any criticism at all.
March 13th, 2009 at 4:19 am
Oh, another thing, Pffefer….. I don’t like to pre-empt Jeremiah – who is the expert on this sort of thing, after all – but my understanding of the 1911-1949 situation was that there was no “contest” about the supposed Chinese sovereignty over Xinjiang and Tibet because the ROC was too ineffectual to do anything about asserting its claims. Tibet and Xinjiang both declared independence from the ROC (as did Mongolia) and were, at least de facto, self-governing countries throughout that period. But maybe I’m wrong – I didn’t go to high school in China.
March 13th, 2009 at 6:55 am
“Sorry, Stuart, I started the “whiny bitch” thing.”
Really? I missed that. Apologies to Pffefer then – his reputation precedes him.
March 13th, 2009 at 8:31 am
And another thing……
Pffefer,
The “if you don’t like it, why don’t you just leave” advice seems even more apposite to your choice of blog-reading. If we laowai bloggers annoy you so much, why don’t you find something else to do with your time instead of hanging out on these threads for hours every day?
I’m only saying that as a debating point, you understand. We’d all miss you terribly if you did suddenly get a real life.
March 13th, 2009 at 9:31 pm
stuart,
Since 1958, the year the Dalai Lama fled China, tons of Tibetans have crossed into India. How many got shot?
If you believe that China makes every effort to round up all North Korean refugees and send them back to North Korea you are a fool. According to some SK NGO, there are about 300,000 North Korean refugees living in China. How many got sent back?
March 13th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
Froog,
My own cynicism? I am cynical too? About what? Sure, I can get very cynical about those foreign cynics.
If your goal is to generate some “useful debate”, you can forget about it. Sorry, I mean staurt as I have not visited your blog. With a blog like this (“Found in China”) whose sole purpose seems to be mocking, riduculing and bitching about certain aspects of China (not just criticizing the Chinese government), you can forget about any useful debate. Imagine you are in my shoes, would you expect any useful debate on a “Found in the UK” blog started by some cynical Chinese guy who outstayed his welcome in the UK?
March 13th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
Froog,
Thanks, I do have a real life and I don’t spend “hours” on blogs like this one. No, not at all. This blog is a typical what I call “cynical China blogging” blog, you see one, you have seen them all. I only visit about a handful of blogs everyday and I have kept myself away from many blogs that are likely to raise my blood pressure. As much as I don’t like what stuart has been writing, for some reason his blog never did that too me for some reason. So here I am.
March 14th, 2009 at 1:45 am
Pffefer, I never said you were “cynical”, I just said you didn’t seem to be enjoying this blog. If you’re not getting any “useful debate” from this blog, why are you bothering to read it? And if you don’t think there’s any possibility of “useful debate” in the threads, why are you bothering to comment? That doesn’t make a lot of sense to me!
Do you have a link that North Korean refugees stat? I know there are a lot of North Koreans living in China, but I wasn’t aware that any of them are refugees. And it’s definitely the policy of the Chinese border police to attempt to catch and return Koreans coming over the border.
March 14th, 2009 at 2:21 am
“whose sole purpose seems to be mocking, riduculing and bitching ”
You’re absolutely wrong about that. What’s more, I think you sense it:
“As much as I don’t like what stuart has been writing, for some reason his blog never did that (raise your blood pressure) too me ”
I write about China-related issues as I see them (not always in a fully enlightened way, I grant you) and in particular the attitudes and policies that I see as impediments to China’s potential to become a fairer society domestically and a responsible stakeholder internationally.
March 14th, 2009 at 7:13 pm
Froog,
In a way I do enjoy stuart’s blog as it provides me with a cheap venue to vent.
North Korean refugees in China:
“Several nongovernmental groups estimate the number of refugees to be between 100,000–300,000″
http://www.cecc.gov/pages/annualRpt/annualRpt05/2005_7_refugees.php
“China has an large number of North Korean refugees, estimated at anywhere between 20,000 and 400,000. “
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koreans_in_China
March 14th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
One more thing, froog,
China is under pressure from both the North Korean government and the international community (especially South Korea) with regard to these North Korean “Talbukja” (escapees from the North). It is my understanding that it is NOT official and routine Chinese policy trying to catch every North Korean refugee and send them back to North Korea. Imagine the cost associated with doing that. The Chinese authrorities have been half-hearted at best in terms of complying with such demands from the North. Usually what happens is when scores of North Korean refugees hit foreign embassies in Beijing, which embarrasses the hell out of Beijing and Pyongyang, they will tighten border security along the North Korean border and elevate the effort to locate North Korean refugees.
March 15th, 2009 at 1:48 am
I’ll ask around some friends on Embassy staffs, but I’ve never heard of “scores” of North Korean refugees making it here. The only major incident I can recall recently where North Koreans were trying to claim asylum was when a bunch of their own Embassy staff defected.
The cost of the border police doing its job is presumably about the same as the cost of the border police not doing its job – and surely much less than the cost of maintaining refugee camps. (So, you don’t have a link to support that “300,000 North Korean refugees in China” claim?) I don’t know what the manpower allocation to the Korean border is, compared to other border areas of China; but, given the fact that there’s a big refugee problem, and that it is a relatively short border, I would imagine it’s fairly high. The border police’s standard instructions, I am told, if they catch any North Koreans, is to return them immediately. You may be right that they’re not always that diligent or efficient about it, except when Beijing is laying special priority on it.
March 15th, 2009 at 2:01 am
Froog,
I saw an interesting documentary a few months ago that I downloaded from onebigtorrent.com (lots of good stuff there). It showed the plight of N Koreans desperate to escape life with the dear leader and risking all by crossing the freezing river in the darkness of winter. Some of course don’t make it, and those that did needed bribes for guards on the other side, or for officials in order to find work.
March 15th, 2009 at 5:05 am
Sorry, Pfeffer, missed your links earlier. Thanks for those. Wikipedia always to be taken with a large pinch of salt, but I’ll look into the other one.
I have been told – by Chinese who grew up in heavily Korean areas – that most of the “North Koreans” living in China moved here at the time of the Korean War, or earlier. I’m not sure that we should still classify them and their descendants as “refugees”; but I suspect that must be a large part of the basis of those very high “refugee” estimates you found. I’m very doubtful whether the Chinese government is knowingly harbouring large numbers of recent refugees.
March 15th, 2009 at 5:13 am
Of course, the huge range of those estimates suggests that they are probably “guesstimates” of the number of refugees who may have been able to make good their escape across the border and blend in to Chinese society undetected. There wouldn’t be such a massive spread for ‘official’ figures for refugees in camps.
March 15th, 2009 at 11:08 pm
Froog,
May I ask who told you that it is official Chinese policy to return every NK refugee caught by the Chinese authorities? You might be confusing ethnic Koreans, aka Chaoxianzu with NK regufees, aka Talbukja. There are like, 2 million (?) ethnic Koreans in China, most of whom were born in China. Sure those figures could well be “guesstimates” since nobody, not even the NK refugees themselves know how many of them are in China. I personally think if the SK government cares so much about these NK talkbukjas as much as they appear to be, they should just work with the Chinese government, routinely round up NK talkbukjas and get them on planes and boats paid by the SK government. Of course SK doesn’t want all of them there in SK.
March 16th, 2009 at 9:48 am
Pffefer,
I know there’s a longstanding ethnic Korean population in parts of Dongbei. What I’ve been told (by Chinese who come from those areas) is that those Korean populations were substantially increased by NK refugees during the early 50s, and maybe in the 1940s too. I was just speculating that these people might be included in your refugee figure – although I would guess that they and their descendants have probably long since obtained Chinese citizenship (so, if they are still classified as “refugees”, maybe that’s inappropriate).
The existence of this large Korean population in China would also, I imagine, make it relatively easy for more recent refugees to “go to ground”, to be absorbed into those communities and escape the attention of the Chinese authorities. (Although I have also heard the suggestion that very large numbers of these Koreans in China – including, possibly, many of the supposed “refugees” – are in fact DPRK agents.)
I wasn’t questioning that a lot of refugees are at large in China, only whether they are remaining here with the knowledge and consent of the Chinese government.
I have been told that returning refugees promptly across the border is the official policy on numerous occasions – for example, by a couple of foreign journalists who’ve reported from the area in the past few years, and by a couple of Chinese I’ve met who grew up close to the border.
I don’t think it’s reasonable to suggest that ROK should pay to ship these refugees to Seoul. That would be quite a significant expense. And the ROK – far more than the PRC! – is under pressure to be tactful and conciliatory in its dealings with the North.
March 16th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
If SK doesn’t pay, who should pick up the tab? China? North Korea? The UN?
March 17th, 2009 at 3:23 am
The question is not so much about who pays, but about whether SK is willing to take them. There are political considerations (not wanting to create a further source of friction in diplomatic relations with NK) as well as concerns about cost and about being able to absorb them into society; and probably there are concerns too about the genuineness of their refugee status (it’s possible that some of them might be subversive, pro-NK agents).
Apart from the effect it may have on relations with NK, for both SK and the PRC there is also a problem that adopting such a liberal approach to refugees would likely increase the scale of the exodus. Dealing with a few thousands or tens of thousands a year might be manageable; but if it becomes hundreds of thousands….?
If the PRC were willing to welcome these refugees (rather than sending them back, or forcing them into hiding) and if the SK were willing to take them off Chinese hands, I think that would be great. Since the refugee situation is a shared problem between the two countries, it would seem reasonable for them to share the expense.
It would be nice to ask Kim Jong-il for a contribution, too.
March 17th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
Therefore the PRC is in a lose-lose situation here no matter what it does.
March 17th, 2009 at 11:50 pm
“Therefore the PRC is in a lose-lose situation here no matter what it does.”
Welcome to the big boys table of international politics.
March 18th, 2009 at 2:39 am
Well, I suppose China could just set up machine-gun posts all along the border and shoot people down as soon as they start to cross the river.
Number of people attempting to escape reduced – NK, SK, and PRC happy about that.
‘Traitors’ being punished – NK happy about that.
Costs much less than running refugee camps or repatriation programmes (whether to SK or NK) – PRC very happy about that.
Chinese government’s international reputation – not much worse than at present.
No, that looks like a win-win to me. I’m sure it’s being discussed in Zhongnanhai.
March 18th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
“Chinese government’s international reputation – not much worse than at present.”
Sure, you folks certainly don’t care about the poor North Korean talbukjas (“commies)as much as the peaceful, mysterious Tibetans. wink~
And perhaps the Chinese should simply develop thicker skin and stop being obsessed with what foreigners say about them.
Seriously, it’s not easy being China.