Why "the West" gets China wrong

Status
Not open for further replies.

no_name

Colonel
Stereotypes eventually fools no one but the people who do the stereotyping. Do it long enough and they will eventually believe in their own lies.
 

SampanViking

The Capitalist
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
Everybody applauds real progress right?
Everyone will be pleased to learn that a couple of million of some of the poorest people in the world, who live in one of its harshest environments, have been given modern, warm and sanitary housing and that this would be celebrated around the world, right?

Well wrong........... or so it would seem if the story is from China and the the Tibetan areas in particular.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Strangely if you are the BBC taking an angle from Empire State Building based Human Rights Watch, the fact that two million Tibetans have either been moved out of insanitary feudal slave period slums, or that nomads have been given permanent addresses, bringing them into the Hokou system and able to enjoy the benefits thereof, suddenly becomes the height of sinister intent and abuse.

So it seems that Beijing is now guilty of making Tibetans endure Double Glazing, Central Heating, Running Hot and Cold Water, Gas Cooking and Bathrooms. How I guess the poor souls must pine for their former derelict pig shacks!

But then not so long ago we were being told of other such evils as Tibetans taking to wearing "Chinese style" clothing. I was at the the time eager to see the locals of Lhasa wearing colourful silk gowns, hexagonal hats and pointy embroidered shoes, or indeed wondering if the Que was going to make a comeback. How disappointed I was to learn that the clothes being referred too were just the Lounge Suits, Shirt, Ties, t Shirts, Chino's, Jeans, Leather Shoes and Trainers that all citizens of developed countries wear.

You really could not make this up could you.
 

solarz

Brigadier
Sampan's post on Tibetans reminds me of the curious Western idea that "Chinese" is an ethnic designation. It's interesting because it is true in some contexts, but very very wrong in others.

The Chinese nation is composed of over fifty ethnic groups. While on a whole, the Han ethnicity comprise over 90% of the Chinese population, this is not an equal distribution. The ex-province (now

While there are no lack of people arguing that Tibetans and Uyghurs are not "Chinese", you'd be hard pressed to find any westerner who can tell the difference between Han, Zhuang, Hui, and Miao.

There are also arguably more ethnic mongolians who identify themselves as Chinese than there are people living in the nation of Mongolia. The prefectures of Tongliao and Chifeng are two of the most "sinicized" regions in Inner Mongolia. Together, they have an ethnic mongolian population of over 2.2 million. In comparison, the entire nation of Mongolia has a population of 2.9 million.
 

no_name

Colonel
I think part of that confusion arises because people use China to refer to a country minus the political reference - like using the word America in place of USA.

But they also use China as referring to the Chinese civilization.

Where as in chinese those two have different terms "Zhongguo" and "Zhonghua".

Not to mention China is often used as a geographical term also.
 

solarz

Brigadier
I think part of that confusion arises because people use China to refer to a country minus the political reference - like using the word America in place of USA.

But they also use China as referring to the Chinese civilization.

Where as in chinese those two have different terms "Zhongguo" and "Zhonghua".

Not to mention China is often used as a geographical term also.

Good point.

If I might elaborate on that, the term "China" and "Chinese" is strictly a western/foreign concept if we deal with any historical period before the Republic of China.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


The Chinese term "Zhongguo" has historically been a geographical term, and not a political one. No dynasty in the 5000 year history of feudal China has ever termed itself as "Zhongguo". The political name were Han, Tang, Song, Ming, Qing, etc.

As such, when we talk about Chinese history, we are talking about a succession of dynasties, some co-existing during the same time period. No serious scholar would dispute that Qing, Yuan, Jin, and Liao are part of Chinese history, despite the fact that these dynasties were founded and/or inhabited by non-Han ethnic groups.

This is why the idea that Goguryeo is exclusively a part of Korean history doesn't make sense. The kingdom of Goguryeo encompassed geographical areas that spans modern day Korea, China, and Russia. When it was destroyed, its people migrated to form the ancestors of ethnic Koreans, Manchu, Mongols and even the Hans. In a historical sense, Goguryeo is no different from Qidan (Liao) or Xixia (Tangut).
 

Phead128

Captain
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
Another thing West gets wrong about China: China's willingness to demonstrate aid, protection, assistance to her tributary, allies, and protectorate states (read: North Korea).

More often than not, Western media tends to assume major Chinese concessions in the wake of North Korean collapse and subsequent absorption into a Greater Korean state led by Seoul.

Is China going to stand idly by while US-ROK forces roll over the DMZ and take advantage of North Korea's regime collapse under a pretext of 'securing rogue nuclear materials' and 'providing humanitarian relief'?

That would be tantamount to a challenge to China's sphere of influence in North Korea (China can't provide stability, China can't secure nukes?), and would force China to reaffirm her historical status as the supreme military power in East Asia in response to this 'challenge' by the U.S.

Westerners don't know history if it thinks China won't intervene on North Korea's behalf if US-ROK invades for sham WMD reasons.
 

ABC78

Junior Member
Here's an interesting opinion piece on a rising China I came across written by Murtaza Hussain a Toronto based writer and analyst focused on issues related to Middle Eastern politics.

Why China might be a better superpower

Why China might be a better superpower
Unlike the US, China does not have a substantial history of invading and subjugating the inhabitants of far-flung lands.



"The nationswhich today own the world's resources fear the rise of China and wish to postpone the day of that rise." - Rabindranath Tagore, 1915

Until the mid-20th century, China suffered what has been termed as the "Century of Humiliation" - a period of subjugation and oppression by Western military powers (as well as the Japanese). During this time Western imperialists flooded the country with drugs, raped and murdered its subjects with impunity and - due to both insatiable greed and abject ignorance to concepts such as culture and history - wantonly desecrated the priceless monuments of ancient Chinese civilization.

At the outset of this period - when hordes of English soldiers destroyed Beijing's ancient Summer Palace in an orgy of looting and arson - Major General Charles Gordon said, "You can scarcely imagine the beauty and magnificence of the places we burnt" - which in many ways was emblematic of the entire carnivorous project of Western imperialism in Asia, Africa and Latin America.

Today, however, Rabindranath Tagore's prophecy about China seems to have come to fruition, and the modern heirs to rapacious criminals such as Gordon now openly lament their fear of rising Chinese power.

In the place of the former colonial forces such as England and France, however, today, sits the US, the world's only remaining military superpower. While since the fall of the Soviet Union the US has been widely considered to be the preeminent nation globally, in recent years it has fallen into an observable malaise.

Due to its wars of aggression, institutionalized torture, unaccountable assassination programmes and general contempt for the rule of law, the American government has today sacrificed whatever was once considered admirable about its role in international affairs. Furthermore, it is fast sacrificing what was once most admirable about it domestically, as once-cherished civil liberties are being forfeited and its citizens are being compelled to submit to an opaque and pervasive surveillance state.

While China is far less free domestically, in international affairs the country continues to ascend both economically and in terms of international influence. It is thus worth asking, is this a positive development for the world at large? Could China be a more responsible, less violent and more constructive superpower than the US?

Historical contrasts

Over its history, the US has undoubtedly provided much for the betterment of mankind in the fields of science, arts, good governance and human development. The country continues to produce some of the most exceptional contributors in all these areas, and for all the cruel excesses of the US government the American people are among the most generous, hospitable and high-achieving population in the world. The US is by no means a monolith and its impressive ideological diversity continues to be one of its enduring strengths.

However, while the US was founded on the principle of national self-determination, throughout its history, its foreign policy has been based on denying that same right to others around the globe. From the early 20th century invasions and occupations of the Philippines and Haiti, the CIA coups against democratic governments in Iran and Chile, up to the near genocidal military onslaughts against the Vietnamese and Iraqi people, the US - in a relatively short time frame - has left a trail of destruction around the world which is without parallel in human history.

While couched in the deeply cynical rhetoric of freedom and democracy, the body count left by US militarism and colonial exploitation runs to millions. It has been well-documented that what has motivated these brutally malicious policies (aside from naked greed) is a crude sense of racism and a chauvinistic belief in "Manifest Destiny" - the same ruthlessly imperialistic ideology which helped justify the holocaust committed against the indigenous people of the Americas and which drove the Atlantic slave trade.

China, despite existing as a unified country 4,000 years longer than the US, conspicuously does not have such a history of invading and subjugating the inhabitants of far-flung lands. While it has had its share of localised conflicts, there is nothing in its history - even over the many centuries during which China was as at the peak of its historical power - that is remotely comparable to the industrialised exploitation and mass-murder which has characterised the Western colonial project.

Despite being one of the wealthiest and powerful countries on earth for most of its existence, China's relationship with the outside world has traditionally been characterised more by Sino-centric inertia and peaceable exchange than by armed pillage and the export of violence to foreign lands. As surmised by the famed 19th century scholar of Buddhism, Zhang Taiyin:

"Asian countries… rarely invaded one another and treated each other respectfully with the Confucian virtue of benevolence."

While China has in many ways been torn from its traditional culture by traumatic recent encounters with Western imperialist powers and the subsequent upheavals of Mao's Cultural Revolution, the country's traditionally harmonious worldview ("harmony" being a recurring theme in Chinese political culture) is still seen in modern China's global relations.

China's peaceful rise

To achieve its foreign policy goals in Iraq, the US embarked on a decades-long campaign of violence against the Iraqi people which culminated in the brutal invasion and occupation of the country in 2003. While the US succeeded in destroying the lives of millions of innocent Iraqi civilians, it failed to create an outcome which was of benefit to it and ultimately left the country with its influence and prestige greatly eroded.

China, however, has in many ways emerged as the "winner" of the Iraq war, as it is today by far the biggest beneficiary of Iraqi crude oil contracts. In stark contrast to the US primitive and brutal approach to the country, China has used soft-power to great effect and is now the most influential commercial player in the country's oil boom.

Thanks to its efforts China is today recognised as a major investor in the future of Iraq. According to the New York Times, Chinese executives are now even impressing their Iraqi counterparts by speaking with them in flawless, Iraqi-accented Arabic.

The contrast between China's culturally sensitive approach and the contemptuous and violent attitude taken by the US in Iraq cannot be overstated. In fact, these contrasts are in many ways a reflection of the differing worldviews and historical backgrounds of the two countries.

While the US seems committed to exert imperial hegemony over the Middle East using brute military force and punitive economic blockades against civilians, China has publically committed to a policy of "peacefully rising" and has built mutually beneficial and respectful relationships throughout the region.

While Chinese polices are no less self-interested, the country's forthright pragmatism is a refreshing alternative to the blatantly cynical and manipulative moralising rhetoric of Western powers. Shallow accusations of Chinese colonialism in Africa (based on Chinese commercial investments in the region) appear borne more of Western fears of Chinese power than of legitimate concerns about African self-determination.


Inside Story Americas - Have lessons been learnt from the Iraq war?

Evidence suggests that China's influence in Africa has been built on the basis of mutual economic interest and its investments have coincided with historically unprecedented economic growth among the people of the continent. The contrast with the unrelentingly murderous and rapacious history of actual Western colonialism in Africa could not be starker.

A multipolar world

China today is a burgeoning player in global affairs, making forays into the Israel/Palestine conflict, taking material steps to confront environmental issues and pushing its "soft-power" approach to international relations to new lengths. In the face of its rising stature many pundits and political figures have attempted to harp upon the inevitable growing pains of any rising power and cite this as evidence of its immaturity.

While China is by no measure perfect, for years the country and its people have been unjustly demonised by those whose own hands are caked in the blood of untold number of innocents. Allegations of purported Chinese malevolence should be viewed for what they most often are - the hysterical propaganda of those who are fearful and insecure about competition for their own privileged position.

The US however should not fear the rising tide of Chinese influence. Rather, it should warmly welcome it. In a unipolar world, the US government was free to act out its most self-destructive tendencies and was devoid of any pressure to reform in order to compete with a major adversary. Indeed, the US achieved its most admirable feats when it was facing serious competition from Soviet Russia.

While China is not yet a large enough player to individually balance the US on most major issues, its status is rising. When working within the emerging "BRICS" bloc of countries, it is capable of constraining unilateral US actions. This is good for both the American and Chinese people, as the existence of a multipolar world will mean that neither government will be able to delve into unchecked excess and military adventurism.

However, as China's relationship with the US and other major powers develops, there is no doubt that the country has finally come to equal terms with its former oppressors. China's ascendance signifies the fruition of Tagore's prophecy and the long victory of the Chinese people over Western imperialism.

If China continues its remarkably successful policy of "peacefully rising" while pursuing continued self-improvement and reform, it will remain both a welcome player in global affairs and a responsible model for other aspiring world powers.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Player 0

Junior Member
While I agree more or less with this article, i have to laugh a little at the idealism and whitewashing/stereotyping of Asian history, rather than Asians or Chinese being uniquely peaceful, which we most certainly aren't, we are merely just a traditional land empire dynamic like Rome or the Ottomans.

With that said, China is just going to be enjoying a multipolar world largely the result of US hegemony and liberal institutionalism, if the USA loses its leadership it'll be just as much due to its own abuse and excesses of power and economic mismanagement, as the rise of new emerging markets.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top