Cup of Cha
This is China

38 Responses to: “What Chinese People are Saying about our Blogs”

1. Jeremy responds:
   Posted: December 8th, 2007 at 6:51 pm →

   Hey Josh – Interesting rundown there. If you get the link to the upper level forum (not just the one page) put a link up to it.

   Reading through it now… just signed up so maybe will leave some comments too =). Thanks for this, it makes for interesting reading and reflecting.

2. bing responds:
   Posted: December 9th, 2007 at 3:15 am →

   “5$党” 是对应于网上称呼中国政府的“五毛党” （chinese government agents that post pro-communist government comments on internet), 那么相对应的us government agent 就是“5$党” 嘿嘿，不过我不知道最开始这个“五毛党”是怎么来的。

3. Larry responds:
   Posted: December 9th, 2007 at 4:37 am →

   It is easy to be like by Chinese bloggers. Just don’t say anything negative about China, and put all the blame on US. You will be loved.

4. chriswaugh_bj responds:
   Posted: December 9th, 2007 at 9:34 am →

   Well, can’t say I disagree with their assessment of nanheyangrouchuan.

   It’s funny, though: I think perhaps Chinese people are just as quick to see Western brainwashing as Westerners are to see Chinese brainwashing.

5. Josh responds:
   Posted: December 9th, 2007 at 9:37 am →

   @Chris:

   But are both assessments equally valid?

6. Josh responds:
   Posted: December 9th, 2007 at 9:42 am →

   @Bing
   谢谢！
   你还知道‘Ｍａｒｋ＇是什么意思吗？是不是同意的意思？

7. guchuan responds:
   Posted: December 9th, 2007 at 11:17 am →

   我的理解，记号就是表示他或她已经看过这篇文章了。

8. chriswaugh_bj responds:
   Posted: December 9th, 2007 at 12:29 pm →

   @Josh: Yes. All media is propaganda, and the Western media is no exception. Western perceptions of China are shaped by what is printed and broadcast in the media and taught in schools, just as Chinese perceptions of the West are shaped by what is printed, broadcast and taught here.

9. dezza responds:
   Posted: December 9th, 2007 at 12:57 pm →

   the difference between Chinese media and western media is that the chinese media is tightly controlled by the government for its own agenda (they are unafraid to let people know this) and westerners have access to uncensored internet and other resources (alternative media, books, research) if they should so choose to learn/hear other views. that’s the big difference.

10. The Humanaught responds:
    Posted: December 9th, 2007 at 1:27 pm →

    Great post Josh, I wish I had more windows into the Chinese Internet – language, of course, being a huge barrier.

    @Dez: I largely agree with you, but I think the problem is that assumes the majority of people are unthinking idiots, and though I’m quick to accuse many of this, I don’t think it’s true.

    A media, such as China’s, that you don’t trust and you assume is always manipulating the information and lying to you is never going to give a person with a half a brain the information they desire – however, if you think your media is free, open and telling you the truth, you may never suspect you’re being lied to or manipulated.

    Western media, or certainly US media, isn’t tightly controlled by the government, but by something far worse – corporations – who, incidentally, tightly control the government.

11. beijinger responds:
    Posted: December 10th, 2007 at 10:14 am →

    I agree with Humanaught on the Western media. However, I can’t completely agree with him on the Chinese media. The Chinese media (such as the People’s Daily and CCTV) are run by the Propaganda Department, they tell you up front it’s propaganda (unlike the Western media). They don’t necessarily tell lies, they usually only tell you the good side of a story, because the CCP believes that the media should be used to promote good. So if you want to find out the truth in a story, you need to read both sides (e.g. China Daily and NYT), maybe the truth is in the middle.

    @Josh

    I think “Mark” is the equivalent of “阅”.

    Also, “清新” means “refreshing” rather than “clean.”

12. Josh responds:
    Posted: December 10th, 2007 at 10:59 am →

    Beijinger:
    Yeah, I know, but I took the liberty of making it ‘clean,’ as in ‘clean look.’ Point taken though, and thanks for the ‘Mark’ clarification.

13. The ShangHighRoller responds:
    Posted: December 10th, 2007 at 11:19 am →

    Excellent post, Josh, and a lively debate afterwards.

    I would add that our Western corporations don’t directly control the media by banning certain topics. They just pull or threaten to pull their ads if you show something too “edgy.” This is subtler and harder to deal with.

    They also subsidize think tanks and unethical rogue scholars to come up with bogus nonsense. (The Laffer curve, anyone? “The jury is still out on global warming?”) They can drown out sound arguments, and amplify stupid ones.

    And to just when you shake the cobwebs out of your head, and everything seems to be getting clearer, they flood the airwaves with the latest Hannah Montana-Michael Jackson-Clinton sex story. But we don’t have the monopoly on 八卦新闻.

14. Shanghaiist : Shanghaiist "not too friendly to China" responds:
    Posted: December 10th, 2007 at 9:43 pm →

    [...] we were pretty heartened to find out from Cup of Cha that at least some Chinese people are reading English-language China blogs. Here’s what one netizen [...]

15. nanheyangrouchuan responds:
    Posted: December 11th, 2007 at 10:58 am →

    Well, you can’t please all of the people all of the time! So I don’t try.

    And while corporations in the US AND Europe represent the dark side of our way of life, they are also making quite a mess of things in China as well. The Chinese gov’t did put alot of effort into knocking down 1 billion to raise up 300 million so that western companies and investors would bring their expertise, money and technology into the country.

    And I would interpret “反华分子” to be “anti-China intellectual” and not just anti-China.

    bad, bad, bad.

16. Dilbert responds:
    Posted: December 11th, 2007 at 12:47 pm →

    Blogging in China is dead, especially the business section. There’s too many people talking about each other all the time. It’s like bar-hopping. You come here and see the same people at ChinaLawBlog and ShanghaiShopGirl. All have posts up about other peoples blogs. There’s no or little original content, and blogging is / has become insidious and self masturbatory written by people with big egos, not enough to do and little else to say. Two Thumbs down.

17. Mark Anthony Jones responds:
    Posted: December 12th, 2007 at 6:58 am →

    I agree with Dilbert, although I consider the China Law Blog to be an exception – the content is often original, and with its collection of posts that relate mostly to developments in Chinese law, it is, I find, a valuable resource. Shenzhen Fieldnotes (run by an American anthropologist living and working in Shenzhen) is also refreshingly original and highly insightful and thought-provoking.

    On the whole though, I find most China-related English language blogs to be dissappointingly ethnocentric, puerile, and, as Dilbert says, “masturbatory” in the way that they fetishise China and the Chinese as subjects of scorn and ridicule.

    Even “specialists” who reside in academia often find it difficult to fit together images and realities when analysing and assessing China, so one can imagine how much more difficult it is for the great majority who make no pretence to knowledge about China and who, if interested, seek guidance in the formulation of their own images. Those who seek such guidance from the plethora of existing English-language China blogs should read them with considerable caution, and should avoid being swept up by the harsh storms of China-bashing vindictiveness that are more often than not brewed in what are essentially little more than teacups, sometimes filled to the brim with bile, poured from the mouths of hate-filled bloggers whose act of spitting venom is cathartic, and whose need to release such aggression signifies, arguably, failures on their part to attain sublimated forms of enjoyment in a foreign country that does not always, depending on where exactly they reside, provide them with the same levels of immediate gratification that they may have been accustomed to in their home countries. Release then, I would argue, for some at least, often takes the form of an unarticulated ethnocentrism.

    Blogging in or about China then, as Dilbert quite rightly says, is dead – well, almost. Both the China Law Blog and Shenzhen Fieldnotes continue to keep the blood flowing, and as long as their hearts continue to beat, one can maintain some hope for a future revival in growth. Or perhaps two good China-related English-language blogs is sufficient enough, is all that is desirable?

18. nanheyangrouchuan responds:
    Posted: December 12th, 2007 at 9:44 am →

    @MAJ;

    Get used to the new reality, people have started rubbing China’s and the CCP’s polish to see how deep it goes and underneath they found pollution and pissed stained commie cinder block.

    China deserves to be bashed, it hides behind its developing world status and yet with such a long cultural and academic history (that people like you love to point out)ought to know better than to keep doing the things it is doing and believing that it is ok because 1. China is developing 2. some other country did it or might have done it in the past 3. China is China and that is reason enough.

    I’m personally glad to see the population of panda-licking soul sellers like you decline and be humiliated.

19. Mark Anthony Jones responds:
    Posted: December 12th, 2007 at 10:50 am →

    Dear Nanheyangrouchuan – harsh words!

    Actually, I don’t think I am a “panda-licker” to begin with. I can be quite critical, though I try to be balanced and sober in my assessments. Secondly, I don’t think that cautious optimists like myself are in “decline” – quite the opposite in fact, I think we’re actually growing in numbers, as is evidenced by the number of us who now contribute to the China Law Blog discussions: Dan Harris, myself, Will, Greg Baines, Chis Waugh, Klaus, et.al. You won’t find many of us leaving comments on the majority of China-related English-language blogs, and that’s because when we do, we are personally attacked, dismissed as CCP stooges, or as “panda-lickers”, etc. But the two blogs that I mentioned in my comment above are both professionally managed, which prevents contributors from attacking one another personally. The result is that conversations remain civil, and for the most part, intelligent and therefore productive.

    One of the reasons why China blogging in the English-language is almost “dead” is because the majority of such blogs continually repeat, or recylcle, all the usual topics – topics carefully chosen to excite ant-China passions. They have thus become stale and monotonous. They thrive on generating contributor conflict, but in allowing unbridled insults, they more often than not negate any genuine or meaningful debate. Those with alternative viewpoints are ganged up against, smeared, driven away. The end result is that most China blogs have now become little more than social venues – cyber spaces where a handful of socially alienated misfits can gather together to compare notes on how rotten they think China is, and on how much they loathe those who have anything positive or optimistic to say about the Middle Kingdom’s present day governance and society. They simply aren’t interested in genuine debate – especially if it’s polite.

    My views about China today are reflected by (and are in part reflections of) a growing number of academic China specialists too – some of whom I have cited in my previous comments on the China Law Blog. The perspective that I have developed is hardly in decline – it’s growing, and that reflects the fact that more and more foreign specialists are now able to conduct independent research in China, and so are able to base their assessments on empirically quantitative as well as qualitative evidence. When one examines the weight of such evidence, one can hardly avoid positioning oneself with the optimists – not unless one chooses to ignore the evidence.

20. nanheyangrouchuan responds:
    Posted: December 12th, 2007 at 1:43 pm →

    “Secondly, I don’t think that cautious optimists like myself are in “decline” – quite the opposite in fact, I think we’re actually growing in numbers”

    No, you are declining and the slams on CCTV’s caucasian puppet both in China and abroad by non-Chinese is evidence of that. Your group is more of a vocal minority and has very narrow view, not unlike religious fundamentalists.

    Many of the blogs that you approve of are also conveniently business blogs related to business in China that perform as many acts of advertisement of services as serve as forums for discussion. It is even harder to have a realistic view of China when your livelihood depends on people wanting to do business there and people wanting your services to do business there.

    “One of the reasons why China blogging in the English-language is almost “dead” is because the majority of such blogs continually repeat, or recylcle, all the usual topics”

    You mean the usual topics like “billions of customers”, “dragon rising”, “the next superpower”, “harmoamiousness and co-prosperity”. How many China blogs start out with glazed eyed westerners marveling at shiny buildings and old people doing morning exercises and only giving a slight nod to the boob in the black Audi who almost hit them on the sidewalk while trying to park his car because he is important in his own mind.

    “They thrive on generating contributor conflict, but in allowing unbridled insults, they more often than not negate any genuine or meaningful debate.”

    Do you mean the kind of debate where everyone sits around nodding their heads in agreement about how right they are, how wrong the detractors are (and the Tibetans, Taiwanese, Japanese, Uyghurs, Vietnamese, etc) and how wonderful China is? If only the rest of us could see this wonder through the suffocating smog and blocked internet sites…
    For all of the purported evils of the EU and the US, websites full of harsh domestic criticism, gambling and nudity are pretty easy to come by.

    “The end result is that most China blogs have now become little more than social venues – cyber spaces where a handful of socially alienated misfits can gather together to compare notes on how rotten they think China is,”

    Aren’t blogs and cyberspace supposed to be social venues? To chat, shop, read, meet strangers. And how about the social misfits who have to love being in China because they can’t go home? Or love China because all they’ve ever seen is the glitzy areas when they are on business trips?

    “My views about China today are reflected by (and are in part reflections of) a growing number of academic China specialists ”

    Those same ivory tower academics have always had that view of China and have convinced the western powers to turn their backs on tens of millions of lives in NK, Taiwan and Tibet. And coincidentally that has been good for the major universities that these ivory towers work at and major corporations.

    “and that reflects the fact that more and more foreign specialists are now able to conduct independent research in China, and so are able to base their assessments on empirically quantitative as well as qualitative evidence.”

    Oh yes, the reliability of official Beijing statistics. Why just this year, these same types of academics declared that China’s economy was both larger than estimated and smaller than estimated. And who can forget seeing stats on each province’s year end GDP and how almost all of them report much higher GDP than Beijing’s official national GDP. How did that work out?

21. Lonnie B Hodge responds:
    Posted: December 12th, 2007 at 9:04 pm →

    Great Find….

    Curious optimist?

22. Mark Anthony Jones responds:
    Posted: December 13th, 2007 at 5:25 am →

    Nanheyangrouchuan – I only referred to two blogs – one was the China Law Blog, which deals mostly with issues of business law, the other though – Shenzhen Fieldnotes – has nothing whatsoever to do with business, but with Chinese society, from a sociological and anthropological perspective. Ireally don’t know why you said the following then: that “Many of the blogs that you approve of are also conveniently business blogs related to business in China…”

    Your assertion that cautious optimists who view China critically in a sober, fair and balanced way, is one that I reject. What is presented on CCTV 9 bares little if any weight on the argument.

23. Mark Anthony Jones responds:
    Posted: December 13th, 2007 at 5:51 am →

    Sorry – in the last paragraph that I wrote in my above comment, I meant to say:

    “Your assertion that the number of cautious optimists who view China critically in a sober, fair and balanced way, is in decline, is one that I reject. What is presented on CCTV 9 bares little if any weight on the argument.”

24. Mark Anthony Jones responds:
    Posted: December 13th, 2007 at 6:26 am →

    Nanheyangrouchuan – sorry, but I’m not going to respond to any of the other points you raised above, which I consider to be little more than rants. For starters, I’m not one of these people who view China through rose-coloured glasses, who sees China as a “rising dragon” etc. I’m a cautious optimist, who simply thinks that China is generally following the East Asia Model along broadly similar lines to that of most other East Asian countries. It’s a country that has managed to improve overall living standards at a pace and to a level that has far exceeded expectations, but it has also paid a heavy price for this development – greater levels of social and economic inequality, and widespread environmental degredation – but these problems can be managed, or alleviated, and the present leadership appear to be aware of the seriousness of these problems, and are taking some measures to address them.

    In my opinion, Nanheyangrouchuan, you seriously lack sound judgement, in that you only ever seem to acknowledge and to emphasise the negatives. You rely on indicators that are mostly qualitative, not quantitative, and you are highly selective when it comes to choosing the qualitative, always selecting only those reports that reflect negatively on China.

    No doubt you will try to direct the same but reverse charge at me, but in my defense I will point out that most of my assessments are based not on qualitative, but on quantitative indicators. When one looks at the existing available empirically-verifiable evidence, one sees a large and complex country with many problems, some of them very serious, but one also sees various patterns of overall development and improvement – some of it very impressive and encouraging.

    I see neither a pitch black nor a pure white, but varying shades of grey, kaleidoscopic, always in constant states of flux. All phenomena in this world is neither totally negative or positive, neither good or bad, but both, simultaneously positive and negative, both good and bad – the balance always shifting. Mine is a dialectical approach, whereas you seem to veiw the world in terms of good verses evil – with China for you representing all that is evil, all that is apocolyptic, if I have read you correctly.

    Perhaps, Nanheyangrouchuan, you should take a lesson from Aristotle, and look for the “golden mean”.

25. Helen responds:
    Posted: December 13th, 2007 at 7:17 am →

    Thanks Mark. Finally, there is someone knows that nothing is either black or white, good or bad.

    Starting with Talk Talk China, I have been following most of the English language blogs foucsing on China matters for almost three years. One thing I learned it that some people view the world simply through their own eyes and then make judgements based on their own experiences with the knowledge they have obtained. They spread their judgements on the blogs they host thinking they have the freedom of speech without realizing their view might be wrong or one-sided.

26. nanheyangrouchuan responds:
    Posted: December 13th, 2007 at 7:41 am →

    “I will point out that most of my assessments are based not on qualitative, but on quantitative indicators. When one looks at the existing available empirically-verifiable evidence,”

    Gee, I didn’t know that Beijing’s and Wall St’s statistics are only qualitative data, regardless of how erroneous they may be. I would certainly be interested in hearing your interpretation of “quantitative data” and “qualitative data” and how yours is more correct than mine.

    If you can’t take on a point by point debate, then you really have no credibility at all as you harbor a lack of confidence about your ability to defend your assertions with anything more substantive than a broadly scoped declaration.

    And finding the “golden mean”, you might want to re-read your posts, especially on CLB where you all but declare that the skies are blue and the grass is green.

27. Mark Anthony Jones responds:
    Posted: December 13th, 2007 at 7:55 am →

    Nanheyangrouchuan – at no time have I ever declared China’s skies to be blue and its grass all green. Show me where I have ever said that.

    I am not aware of any instances where you have used statistics from Beijing (whose statistics are you referring to exactly?) or from Wall Street, though you may very well have done so. I don’t have time to read everything you write. Perhaps you can enlighten me? Which statistics are you referring to, and what conclusions did you draw from them?

28. Mark Anthony Jones responds:
    Posted: December 13th, 2007 at 8:06 am →

    Nanheyangrouchuan – also, I would have thought that statistical data would be quantitative in nature, not qualitative – so I really need you to explain yourself a little more clearly before I can comment any further.

    Qualitative indicators deal with individual behaviours, or with individual circumstances, whereas quantitative indicators attempt to quantify experiences, behaviours, economic and or social achievements, etc. so that any patterns or trends can be identified.

29. nanheyangrouchuan responds:
    Posted: December 13th, 2007 at 10:50 am →

    So even by your definition, the statements issued in the press regarding statistics on the state of the Chinese economy represent quantitative data. Either the Chinese economy is larger or smaller than estimated.

    http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200308/14/eng20030814_122308.shtml
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W46-4JWMT6K-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=231d126b4f664ffb2cdaff80a6dbdb7f
    http://cesifo.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/52/2/396

    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/FD01Ad02.html
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W46-41S4XW8-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=04c43e4dc58a509adad666be6b4e6426
    http://books.google.com/books?id=fDwFMZqu_NMC&pg=PA421&lpg=PA421&dq=underestimation+of+china‘s+economy&source=web&ots=vkMi1sPOP0&sig=m7aWn1dtlTQY2E6des6zbWGJnls

    The overall conclusion is that due to a lack of transparency from Beijing to the outside world and from the provincial and local governments to Beijing, reliable and meaningful economic indicators of the types that developed economies are used to seeing rarely exist.

    And as much of this may be due to face saving or face building as attempts to increase foreign investment and off-shoring. I don’t think that Beijing gets the picture that clarity and honesty would help attract more investment and off-shoring, even if China looked poorer because of clarity. But old habits don’t die for the CCP, especially when it sees itself in nearly the same light as Kim Jong Il or Robert Mugabe

    And lets not get started on estimations of environmental damage in China. At this point some speculate it would take at nearly half of China’s forex reserves to really clean up the place and that is assuming that the point of no return has not been reached.

30. Mark Anthony Jones responds:
    Posted: December 13th, 2007 at 12:25 pm →

    Nanheyangrouchuan – I appreciate and acknowledge your point that many of the studies carried out by Chinese academics fail to meet international standards in the way that they are often conducted, and that they often need to be treated with caution, but I have never cited any of the studies you mention here, and to date I have relied mostly on research that is internationally recognised and accepted as valid – these studies tend to be conducted in China, but by independent foreign researchers, and which are published in journals outside of China. Of course not all mainland Chinese research studies are worthless too, I might add.

31. nanheyangrouchuan responds:
    Posted: December 13th, 2007 at 1:30 pm →

    @MAJ:

    “and to date I have relied mostly on research that is internationally recognised and accepted as valid – these studies tend to be conducted in China, but by independent foreign researchers,”

    You do understand that there is no “freedom of information act” in China and that the foreigners are only given information that has been pre-approved by whomever (which is usually not even the same person or group of people). And I’m sure you understand that all of that information is considered “state property” and may be declared “state secrets” at any time.

    Compare this to widely available economic and social indicators in other large economies.

32. tianya responds:
    Posted: December 13th, 2007 at 3:36 pm →

    你们愿意上天涯和网友讨论吗？

33. Peter responds:
    Posted: December 13th, 2007 at 10:22 pm →

    Congrats on your newest troll Josh.

    Not sure you know about Mark A. Jones, but maybe you should read up on this link:

    http://pekingduck.org/archives/002656.php

34. Mark Anthony Jones responds:
    Posted: December 14th, 2007 at 5:33 am →

    Peter – the link you have provided is to a post I commented on roughly three years ago. I regularly post on the China Law Blog, and am on good terms with Dan, who administers that site. He certainly doesn’t consider me to be a troll. If my comments here offend you, or if they somehow make me a “troll” in your book, then I will quite happily stop posting comments here – so long as you view is also shared by this site’s owner. All Josh need do is to make such a request, and I’ll stop posting here.

35. Peter responds:
    Posted: December 14th, 2007 at 2:16 pm →

    I’m not telling you that you can’t comment here. Josh decide wether you are worthy. Just putting the facts on the table for him to see. What I think/know is another matter.

    The past has proved that discussing with you is worthwhile, so won’t even try. Watch me now: I m one who can actually stop posting when I say so. *closes door*

36. tianya responds:
    Posted: December 14th, 2007 at 2:34 pm →

    guchuan responds:
    我的理解，记号就是表示他或她已经看过这篇文章了。
    =========
    不怎么准确，记号是表示对这篇文章有兴趣，但现在来不及看，或者作者还没有写完。读者在帖子里留言，在天涯帐号里就会有回复记录，以后很快就可以搜索到了。就好像中国人到那里都喜欢写“XXX到次一游”一样。，做个记号先。

37. Angel responds:
    Posted: January 9th, 2008 at 10:16 pm →

    Mark

38. Debra responds:
    Posted: January 22nd, 2008 at 12:14 am →

    Some here wrote:
    however, if you think your media is free, open and telling you the truth, you may never suspect you’re being lied to or manipulated.

    Western media, or certainly US media, isn’t tightly controlled by the government, but by something far worse – corporations – who, incidentally, tightly control the government.

    This has never been more true in the US, especially under this administration. I cannot tell you how many from Academia alone have lost their jobs over a comment or observation. Having lived abroad in mid-south rural China, outer Beijing, Jiangxi and in other countries and being an anthropologist, it’s interesting to learn from persons from more than 60 different countries. For the US citizens, this means reading the International editions of Newsweek and the like. However, many are simply unwilling to do so. In a country that used to be me the most ethnically diverse, it is still the most culturally ignorant.

    In many ways, the media and associative actions based on this worldview are more imposing globally.

    Think about it…… why is a country whose healthcare that ranks 46th in the world and spends the second highest amount for Western medicine telling the rest of the world how it should conduct its affairs? Why is a country that claims Democracy run not by the people for the people? It is run by the upper class and corporatocracy! Why has the standard government line of US defense always been, “We are more of a Republic than a Democracy?”

    If the US wants to be a leader, then it cannot turn a blind eye to its developing nation state during the mid 1800s into the mid twentieth century. Fortunately or unfortunately, it did not have news media to highlight the pollution, the bloody rise of unions, the incredible cost of lives and human rights abuses. Those are facts.
    Yet, it dismisses those and imposes many standards contained within its worldview upon others around the world without considering the inalienable rights of culture and knowledge and inherent value in those. It cannot continue to look at the world through the western dichotomy, through the either/ or or “Us” and “Other” lens, if it is to survive.

    It must learn to look at all people as people, culture as culture and worldviews as lenses with which to view the world and even refine and adjust and/or test theories. For too long, the West has not fully understood China, the Middle East, Africa, South America and the like. The Orient, including China, has been characterized as backward and exotic. In fact, there is no way to use English in a manner that is not overtly derrogatory when we write about China or Asian countries.

    The fact is that China understands the West and can grasp both worlds while still being China. The Chinese grasp different medicines and combine them for more benefit. The Chinese have made sacrifices for the sake of their country and for the world by implementing the one child policy. When we look at this alone, the US’s unwillingness to even cut its emissions or oil dependence seems adolescent. The US needs to grow up and become a better world citizen through tolerance and acceptance of diversity. It must learn to turn that reflexive lens upon itself and its motives and then consider alternatives and solutions. As it stands, China, Japan and most Asian countries have the upper hand simply because they exist within the world of “not only but also.” They can and do accommodate more easily. The rest of the world has lessons to learn and should embrace the opportunities to do so, even welcome them. After all, we are one global family with one world to share! No one owns it. That is an illusion.

    It’s time to stop picking on other peoples and start to look at the world simply as it is. If you stand back, step outside your acculturation and see it as it is, you might be very surprised at what you see and more importantly by what you find. Namaste

Post a Comment