The following is based mainly on Jared Diamond’s “Guns, Germs, and Steel” (2005):
China through the years:
- -11,000:
- -10,000: domesticated dogs
- -9000:
- -8000: villages, farming, rice, millet, pottery, pigs, chickens
- -7000: alcoholic drinks, paddy fields
- -6000:
- -5000:
- -4000: chiefdoms, water buffalo
- -3000: towns, class structure, plough, tea, silk
- -2000: state power, dynasties, writing, soybeans, bronze
- -1000: chronic unity, cast iron, compass, crossbow, mouldboard plough, Taoism, Confucianism
- +0001: gunpowder, paper, porcelain, mechanical clock, horse collar, civil service exams, Silk Road, Buddhism, Christianity
- +1000: movable type, cannon, bomb, rocket, Mongols, Manchus, diaspora, communism
- +2000: manned spaceflight
China came from two Chinas, north and south:
- Genetically: People in the north are more closely related to Tibetans or the Nepalese than to southerners, who in turn are more closely related to Filipinos or the Vietnamese.
- Politically: China did not become one country till -221.
- Technologically: Iron and rice were mastered in the south first and then spread north. Likewise, bronze, state power and writing were mastered in the north and then spread south.
- Linguistically: Chinese at first was spoken only by northerners. Most southerners spoke languages that were like Vietnamese, Thai or Hmong. Some still do.
Southern farmers:
- Some moved into mainland South East Asia after -4000. In time they became the present-day Vietnamese, Laotians, Hmongs, Cambodians and Thai. Most likely they took the place of hunter-gatherers who looked Black: the Negritos.
- Others remained in South China, becoming culturally Chinese over time, apparently the effect of living under Chinese rule for thousands of years.
How come China does not rule the world? After all, the West’s rise to world power since 1500 was built on Chinese inventions: gunpowder, the compass, paper and movable type, which led to guns, ocean-going ships and the printed page.
It is worse than most people know:
- 1300s: China was working on making water-driven spinning machines, something that could have led to the industrial revolution – but then it stopped.
- 1400s: China was beginning to explore the world. Zheng He got as far as East Africa – but then the government destroyed the shipyards! Later in the 1400s China turned its back on mechanical inventions.
China continues to shoot itself in the foot, like with the Cultural Revolution, which destroyed its schools.
That comes from too much power in too few hands. No other large region of the world has spent most of the past 2,000 years under one-government rule. Jared Diamond calls this “chronic unity”. He is not a fan:
“Europe’s barriers were sufficient to prevent political unification, but insufficient to halt the spread of technology and ideas. There has never been one despot who could turn off the tap for all of Europe, as of China.”
If Columbus had lived in China, for example, the emperor most likely would have told him no and we would have never heard of him. But in Europe when one king or prince told him no, he just went to the next one. And the next one. And the next. And the next. He got five no’s but then he did get a yes and was able to set sail across the Atlantic.
– Abagond, 2016.
See also:
- Welcome to Asian American Heritage Month 2016
- China
- Negritos
- Zheng He
- Columbus
- guns, germs and steel
- technocentric history
539
“The following is based mainly on Jared Diamond’s “Guns, Germs, and Steel” (2005):”
That book is racist crap.
LikeLike
“China continued to shoot itself in the foot”
As opposed to the European’s “success” in using guns and ships in violent colonization of the world? On the contrary, Chinese opting out of that is a sign of moral and civilized values.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Don’t like the generalizations. My gf is Hmong and I can tell you that her language is more closely related to Mandarin than any South Chinese or South East Asian language. Even the genetic relations are trivial at best.
LikeLike
@ gro jo
So how is what he says here racist?
LikeLike
The simplicity of the excerpts make it racist….
LikeLike
To be Honest, I didn’t know what Hmong was until about 12 or 13 years ago. And here Abagond throwing that ethnicity around in his article like he knew about them for quite some time.
LikeLike
@James
As opposed to the European’s “success” in using guns and ships in violent colonization of the world? On the contrary, Chinese opting out of that is a sign of moral and civilized values.
So there isn’t a middle ground? China could have continued to explore and trade, and not go as far as say, the Spanish or British in terms of violence. By turning its back on technological progress and exploration, China fell behind the West, and thus got supplanted as the dominant world power.
LikeLike
” on Fri 10 Jun 2016 at 02:22:32
abagond
@ gro jo
So how is what he says here racist?”
A more interesting question is why you bought his snake oil.
“China continues to shoot itself in the foot, like with the Cultural Revolution, which destroyed its schools.
That comes from too much power in too few hands. No other large region of the world has spent most of the past 2,000 years under one-government rule. Jared Diamond calls this “chronic unity”. He is not a fan:
“Europe’s barriers were sufficient to prevent political unification, but insufficient to halt the spread of technology and ideas. There has never been one despot who could turn off the tap for all of Europe, as of China.”
If Columbus had lived in China, for example, the emperor most likely would have told him no and we would have never heard of him. But in Europe when one king or prince told him no, he just went to the next one. And the next one. And the next. And the next. He got five no’s but then he did get a yes and was able to set sail across the Atlantic.”
This is a joke, right? You are going to make such broad claim based on Diamond? The guy who claimed that Haiti is behind the Dominican Republic because they kicked out the French who tried to re-enslave them after depriving them of citizenship? He came to that conclusion by eliding the fact that Haiti was richer than the DR until both nations were taken over by the USA and reorganized to meet Wall Street’s needs. If I recollect correctly, a picture showing the border between the two nations was used to show the desolation of “Black” Haiti and the lushness of “Whiter” DR. Never mind that one side is on 1/3 of the island with the same population size.
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a002600/a002640/
Enough about Haiti, back to China, you and Diamond need to explain how China’s “chronic unity” managed to keep it ahead of Europe for centuries.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Depends on how important one thinks being temporarily “dominant” is.
LikeLike
@James
Unfortunately, people throughout history have tended to dominate one another. It isn’t about being ‘dominant’, so much as not being dominated. If China had kept advancing, perhaps Europe, the US, and Japan wouldn’t have been able to bully it like they did in the early 20th century.
LikeLike
India didn’t suffer from “chronic unity”, yet, it too fell victim to European predation. Why was there no Indian Columbus going from one principality to the next, until he got a “yes”? It certainly wasn’t wealth or brainpower that was missing.
LikeLike
To “advance” in power as a bully, is this really advancement? One half of a century is a tiny bit of time in any case.
LikeLike
@James
I’m not advocating to become a bully. I am basically saying that if China had kept advancing, it would’ve been too strong to be bullied. If you aren’t physically strong, I would recommend you start lifting weights or learning a martial art. Not so you can go hurt others, but so that if the time comes, and it probably will, you’ll be strong enough to hold your own.
LikeLiked by 1 person
To my point: as the time has come, China has held its own.
LikeLike
I have not read “Guns, Germs, and Steel”, but I do agree with this.
That is happening again now, with the Great Firewall of China and the endless persecution of dissidents (which would largely not be dissidents in other countries – something as simple as publishing something online discussing the problems in governance arising from current system of government).
With Chairman Xi, a new cultural revolution has been launched that looks eerily similar to the one 50 years ago.
LikeLike
@James
Imagine if China had the same attitude today as they had in the 14th and 15th centuries. They would be at the mercy of the West, rather than being able to go toe-to-toe with it. I’m not advocating conquest or anything like that. I’m just saying that stopping industrializing and exploration led to the country being weaker. Clearly they’ve realized that mistake now, because they aren’t halting technological progress or trade.
LikeLike
@jefe
I’m curious, what do you think China is going to be like in 50 years?
LikeLike
@ gro jo
You did not answer my question: How is what he says here racist?
LikeLike
@ TeddyBearDaddy
I have known about them since at least the 1980s, shortly after they came to the US. On this blog I first brought them up in 2008 in the Model Minority stereotype post:
LikeLike
” on Fri 10 Jun 2016 at 12:19:27
abagond
@ gro jo
You did not answer my question: How is what he says here racist? ”
Abagond, where have I claimed that what he said here is racist? I said that his book, where you got this stuff from is racist for the reasons I gave above. I also pointed out the absurdity of his “chronic unity” concept, by pointing out that it did not stop China being more advanced than the west for centuries. I also pointed out that India being more decentralized also fell victim to western expansionism. If you want to discuss that topic, I’ll gladly oblige you. The fact that you, Jefe and Diamond claim that the Cultural Revolution was an unmitigated disaster is wild exaggeration. I said the following on your 2015 Nobel Prize post: ” on Tue 6 Oct 2015 at 15:01:31
gro jo
Abagond, why didn’t you mention that Dr. Tu got her big break from Mao’s policies? Abagond, why didn’t you mention that Dr. Tu got her big break from Mao’s policies? http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/07/world/asia/tu-youyou-chinese-scientist-nobel-prize.html. I recall a lot of nonsense being written a few months ago about how Mao “the ogre” was responsible for murdering 30-40 million Chinese. People left out the fact that he opened higher education to a number of people who would never have made it to college. http://www.rupe-india.org/59/han.html”
The reply to my comment was a bit of nonsense by Lordy Murky and the following from you: ” on Tue 6 Oct 2015 at 15:43:54
abagond
@ gro jo
In a post just on her, I would certainly bring that up. In this post I will have some 10 to 12 winners to cover in 500 words. Even what little I did write about her will probably get cut back.”
Now I find you quoting Diamond about how all schools were closed! Sounds like propaganda to me.
LikeLike
@abagond
You walk around in any Asian Community in the United States even now and most can’t tell you they’ve ever heard of ‘Hmong’ before. This is all before Chai Vang (former Army Sniper) killed 6 people in a hunting reservation in Northern Wisconsin.
LikeLike
I meant even ‘after’ Vang had killed 6 people in a hunting reservation in claimed self defense.
LikeLike
It may depend on where in the US someone lives. The Hmong are pretty well known in California and Minnesota, where many settled.
Like Abagond, I became aware of the Hmong in the early 1980s, around the time the first large wave of refugees entered the US. I first personally met someone who was Hmong in 1986. He was a refugee who had been adopted by a white American family. As part of my student job, I was assigned to be his tutor in English during his first year of college. I’ve known several other Hmong Americans in the three decades since then.
The Hmong may not be in the US in large numbers, but it’s not all that unusual for non-Hmong to know about them or even know some personally.
LikeLike
I agree with gro j o on some things ad disegree with abagond and jared diamond.
The fact of the matter is that EUROPE never rose, but just a handful of states(Britain Russia,France) from that area were globally relevant and that is only after 1750(not 1500).Even The spaniards and portuguese and dutch were relatively peripheral in the world of 1500-1750 and the major empires were in Turkey India and, yes China. The fact of the matter is that always somebody is on top and before 1750-1800 it wasnt europe and chances are that after ca. 2100 it might not be europe anyway.(Hell I’d Argue that today its much more of a multipolar world in which the west is still ahead but not in Control)
Western dominance wasn’t actually guaranteed until some point in the 18th century. when political decline and descentralization(Not Chronic disunity) of the Major Empires of Eurasia creates power vaccuums that British,French and Russians rush to fill. Western Supremacy was not a given for much of that century that the West would be able to militarily take places such as India. Economically, China was running rings around the West, Indians such as Tippu Sultan presented a credible military challenge to Western nations in India, and the Ottoman Empire was still very strong.
To say that European methods were unquestionably superior from very early on are ridiculous to say the least. Until the 13th century, Europe was unorganized and backwards outside of the Eastern Roman Empire, with cities struggling to break 10,000 inhabitants at a time when many cities in the Islamic world and China broke the 100,000 mark. Gunpowder was widely adopted in India, the Middle East and elsewhere not so long after Europe adopted it. Indeed, it was a big factor in the rise of empires such as the Mughals and the Ottomans.
Europeans largely became dominant in the 19th century due to lucky breaks in the 18th century. The Ottomans spent nearly a century in relative stagnation, with efforts at reform being stomped on by internal forces. In India, British dominance was established almost by chance, and a few key battles could have ensured that the Europeans would not control as much of India as it ended up doing. Unfortunately, I know less about China so I’m not sure what chances they have of avoiding weakness in the 19th century. Then again, without India and other places under their belt, Europeans would have a seriously hard time projecting power there.
Basically, European dominance lasted for shorter than people think, the factors causing it were relatively short term and the roots of its relative decline were sown only a few decades after it became dominant.The west rose because it took advantage of Asias temporary decline in the 18th-19th Centuries.
LikeLike
PD: when i said chronic disunity i meant chronic unity. Which I find its a stupid concept by Diamond.
I believe Diamonds theories are better explaining why eurasian societies were ahead of American and African Societies but they fall flat epically when trying to explain the dynamics between Eurasian Societies and Empires…
LikeLike
This is some sort of a bullshit idea people here are subscribing too! China was never the “dominant world power” or the “dominant civilization”, this is an incredibly stupid and ignorant idea, espoused by people who have absolutely little to no grasp of history! There were all sorts of Ancient civilizations elsewhere that out-shined and out-advanced the Ancient Chinese in many fields and were infact more wealthier then them. So this idea that China was “dominant”, is an ignorant idea, made mostly by history-idiots or sino-centrists; which I am disappointed that many here are espousing or fall into the category of.
The whole concept of “China” is also based on ignorance, because the modern country of China was different from the actual Ancient Chinese civilization dynasties, and stretched a smaller area then the country of China today. The country of China is based on modern geopolitics and not based on ACTUAL ANCIENT CHINESE CIVILIZATIONS!
Also,
Modern Chinese are not racially the same Chinese as the Ancient Shang and Xia dynasty Chinese; modern Chinese are infact some sort of a mulatto yellow Black-White admixed race, like the mulatto’s in the America’s and in the Middle East, as in Black-White admixed people.
I’m not sure if people know this, but the Ancient Chinese civilizations were started by a Black Asiatic Negrito race, like the Khoison Bushmen of Africa today, in Southern China. Various archaeological dig ups and excavations have shown this to be true. These people hated Whites and looked down upon them, at this time period, Whites had not taken over Europe and were in Central Asia and Siberia, whom were called the “Indo-Europeans” or Indo-European peoples.
Whites never created a civilization of their own, never created a basic written script or alphabet, never created a basic numerical system, never discovered basic agriculture and farming, did not develop any high science or philosophy, or sophisticated engineering or art or architecture, did not create any megalithic monuments etc etc when they were in Eurasia. For the vast majority of history during the Ancient time period, Whites were illiterate backward brutish barbaric horse nomads on the Central Asian and Siberian steppes who were an EXACT replica of the Huns and Mongols that would come after them, They had to loot, pillage, take over, attack, and steal all those above things FROM NON-WHITES WHO DID COME TO THOSE THINGS! NO THE ANCIENT GREEKS AND ROMANS WERE NOT A WHITE PEOPLE!
The Chinese have records and testimony of White tribes in Central Asia and on their borders, they were all called different names in different times, like the Zhou, the Jie, the Juan Juans, the Tocharians, the Yeuzhi, the Xianbei, the Xiongnu, the Di, the Wusuns, the Saka, the Asii, the Boulouji, the Xirong, the yi etc etc
http://www.dandebat.dk/eng-dan14.htm
The Chinese civilizations have had extensive contact and dealings with Whites since the BC period and they looked down upon them and as a hostile alien presence and as outsiders and backwards brutish barbarians. They were always an irritating and hostile presence, and Chinese records and tales are full of battles with “red-haired green eyed devils & monkeys”. They even had periods in their history where the Ancient Black Chinese hired White Eurasian mercenary troops and auxiliary forces in inter-dynastic and intra-kingdom warfare (Genghis Khan and the European Huns allegedly hired White Alannic and Sarmatian auxillary troops in their various campaigns).
However eventually, the black Chinese civilizations started declining and they were eventually usurped and defeated by Ancient White barbarian Indo-European tribes from Central Asia and Siberia. What happened was that due to heavy admixture and mixing that happened between Ancient Whites from Eurasia and the original Black Chinese people, whom were a falling and declining demographic force when their civilizations was overthrown by said white barbarians, they mixed and coalesced TO FORM THE MODERN YELLOW LOOKING MONGOLOID CHINESE PEOPLE TODAY! JUST LIKE THE GERMANIC AND GOTHIC BARBARIANS THAT TOOK OVER THE GRECO-ROMAN CIVILIZATIONS DURING THE FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE AND BECAME THE MODERN MIXED ITALIAN AND GREEK POPULATIONS WE SEE THERE TODAY!
So because the modern Chinese are actually racial mutts and mongrels of Whites from Eurasia and Ancient Black Chinese people, they are racially confused and genetically pre-disposed towards favoring whites due to admixture with Ancient Whites running through their blood. You can see the same phenomenon in the Western world too, where various mixed race White-black/Asian/Mestizo etc etc, look up to or want to become White really really badly because they have white admixture and shun their other-side; and this increases to skyrocketing proportions when you go to Latin America and Southern America, where there is a racial-caste system due to European colonialism. The people here are too, heavily mixed with White people, and they too have a pre-disposition towards worshipping and favoring whites due to admixture with recent white Europeans. This is not a social or propoganda thing, this is a genetic scientific thing that even I don’t understand at all.
LikeLike
The thing is that Eurasian societies were NOT AHEAD OF AMERICAN OR AFRICAN SOCIETIES! THAT IS A LIE MADE UP BY THE IGNORANT DIAMOND! African had many many numerous advanced civilizations BEFORE Eurasia and Europe, and they INDEPENDENTLY came upon Iron and Bronze and copper metallurgy BEFORE EUROPE AND EURASIANS! They come upon agriculture and independent writing BEFORE EUROPEANS/EURASIANS!
Eurasians just happened to have gotten ahead in CERTAIN FIELDS BY CHANCE, ahead of Africa and Meso-Americans! And the fact that they were able to penetrate and take over those societies was by PURE LUCK AND BLACK SWAN EVENT LIKE CIRCUMSTANCES! When Europeans started making head ways into Africa, MANY OF THE MAJOR AFRICAN KINGDOMS AND NATIONS HAD ALREADY WEAKENED THEMSELVES FIGHTING EACH OTHER, TO THE POINT WHERE THEY WERE VULNERABLE AND EASY TARGETS TO EUROPEAN AGGRESSION!
But EVEN THEN, White Eurasians and Europeans had lots and lots of trouble trying to take over Africa because of the environment, and BECAUSE EVEN THE AFRICAN KINGDOMS WHO DID NOT POSSESS STATE OF THE ART GUNS, WERE ABLE TO GIVE THEM TROUBLE AND PROBLEMS USING LESSER WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY VIA THEIR MILITARY!
The entire “success” of the “West” was not due to some idiotic societal advanced state of civilization, that Diamond implies, that Europe supposedly got into; IT WAS ALL DUE TO PURE LUCK AND BLACK SWAN LIKE EVENT CIRCUMSTANCES, THAT WHITE EUROPEANS RODE THE WAVES OF AND FULLY EXPLOITED!
So Nassim Taleb’s explanation makes more sense then a ignorant liar like Diamond….
LikeLike
The Hmong culture was featured in the Clint Eastwood film Grand Torino.
LikeLike
@GulliverFredrich
Are you the infamous ‘Clyde Winters’?
LikeLike
I do agree with some of the generalized self-hate Gulliver describes. It divides Asians based on our appearances and cultivates a ‘Eurocentric’ standard.
LikeLike
@ TeddyBearDaddy
The first Hmongs I knew about were living in a solidly Black neighbourhood, which made them stick out.
LikeLike
13000 years and England still haven’t got the message yet. Absolute joker card.
LikeLike
This is an example of where I see China shoots itself in the foot.
Indonesia and the South China Sea
Annoyed in Natuna
China turns a would-be peacemaker into yet another rival
(http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21701527-china-turns-would-be-peacemaker-yet-another-rival-annoyed-natuna)
China says it prefers to settle disputes through bilateral negotiations, but the tactics are anything but diplomatic. And it refuses to acknowledge the upcoming ruling from the Hague due at the end of the week. In fact, it has been pushing a strong domestic campaign this week to emphasize why it must disregard the Hague ruling and says the US is behind it all.
Indonesia has kept out of the South China sea disputes, but China seems keen to egg them into it.
China must ready for military conflict in South China Sea – state media
(https://www.hongkongfp.com/2016/07/05/china-must-ready-military-conflict-south-china-sea-state-media/)
My feeling: Chinese leaders still suffer from a huge inferiority complex vis-a-vis the West and the quoted sentence above summarizes it. But “the West” is a convenient target to blame for every “ill” in the country perceived by the country’s leadership. It is always due to “foreign forces” and “foreign media”. They will even bully their neighbours to prove that this is true.
So, while the West pushes Islamaphobia, China is pushing Western Xenophobia.
LikeLike
*** Breaking News ***
The international court of arbitration in the Hague has ruled AGAINST China.
(https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/12/philippines-wins-south-china-sea-case-against-china)
Philippines wins South China Sea case against China
International tribunal’s ruling will increase pressure on China to scale back military expansion in disputed region
But the Hague just ruled that the region in question does not “belong” to China and they have no claims to sovereignty.
We have to watch this space closely.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Jefe
Thank you.
LikeLike
Yawn, was the judgement against the USA for mining Nicaragua’s harbors ever enforced? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States)
LikeLike
Arbitration setback: Beijing could have avoided the humiliation
(http://www.ejinsight.com/20160719-s-the-hague-ruling-beijing-could-have-avoided-the-humiliation/)
This article is the first one I have seen that compares the recent ruling from the International Court of Justice in The Hague (China v. Philippines) to the US v. Nicaragua one during the Reagan administration.
In both cases, the losing party (China and the US, respectively) disregarded the Hague’s ruling.
The same lawyer defended and won for other parties in both cases.
This sums up my general feeling about it:
I have come to learn that an independent judiciary is a cornerstone in society to ensure that a single party does not orchestrate everything solely for its benefit. Given the persistent loss of freedom of speech in HK, persecution of those that dare to defy the government’s stance and the government’s own wanton disregard for the law, the ONLY thing that convinces me that it is still livable is an independent judiciary. If that goes, then I will have to also.
The current rhetoric that is rife in the PRC is that foreigners, led by the USA, are hell bent on diminishing China and humiliating it, like it did in the past. But by disregarding participation at all, and complete disregard for the court, it is the one humiliating itself.
As the lawyer who defended the Philippines (and previously Nicaragua) noted
Hence, another example of China shooting itself in the foot.
In any case, it is possible that this Hague ruling could be a watershed moment. We may either have a situation where China becomes the largest geopolitical world leader, or it might crumble under its own fear of humiliation.
LikeLike
I will not be in New York until later this year.
Will anyone be passing by Times square in the next week? I would like to know their interpretation and impression of this video being broadcast there.
Beijing bombards NY Times Square with video on South China Sea
(http://www.ejinsight.com/20160727-beijing-bombards-ny-times-square-with-video-on-south-china-sea/)
All I can say is, at least China can broadcast anything they want in the USA within eyesight of tens of millions of people.
Can you imagine the USA presenting a video on a 240 sq. meter billboard on Nanjing East Street in Shanghai or in TianAnMen Square in Beijing?
LikeLike
Let me know when. We can hook up for a coffee and perhaps a romantic tryst.
LikeLike
A friend of mine who is visiting NYC sent me some photos of the video airing in Times Square, NYC.
I saw that it featured Catherine West, a British MP who is credited as the “Shadow Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of the British Labour Party”.
I discussed with my friend visiting NY (who is the PR director for a big Mainland china Appliance retailer in Japan) and also discussed with another friend who is a reporter for a mainland media organization. We know that this kind of video will do ZERO to influence American attitudes about the application of the Hague ruling on China. It is more window dressing for the people back HOME, to help legitimize the power and influence that the central government has on the world and that even “western” forces back their standpoint.
Then I saw this article:
British MP says her remarks shown out of context in China video
(http://www.ejinsight.com/20160729-british-mp-says-her-remarks-shown-out-of-context-in-china-video/)
WOW 😮
My PR director friend (who works for a Mainland Chinese company) called the video a PR disaster. But he also said China does not really care about PR – the only method they really understand is hardline propaganda.
This is what I mean about shooting oneself in the foot. Their efforts to gain the sympathy of Americans will end up making more turn against them. I don’t know if they will ever learn how to do this right.
LikeLike
Jefe, you’re a good fact checker, but your facts are irrelevant. What some editorial writer in HK thinks or the gaucheness of PRC propaganda in NYC are sideshows. The real issue is the relative strength of the PLA Navy vs the USN.
Can the boys in Beijing allow the USN to threaten their naval assets and destroy their plans for the survival of China in the 21st century? Will the boys in Washington succeed in maintaining their current naval supremacy? That’s what’s at stake here.
LikeLike
I agree that that is at stake, but also the other countries too.
The PR effort is a factor, especially in the latter. It might be enough to affect the tipping point.
I think China will always survive in some form. I never worry about that. It may not be the same form that the current leaders wish.
LikeLike
“I agree that that is at stake, but also the other countries too. ”
Good. How do other countries come into this struggle except as pawns?
“The PR effort is a factor, especially in the latter. It might be enough to affect the tipping point.”
Your meaning is unclear to me, please tell me what you mean by “…especially in the latter. It might be enough to affect the tipping point.” The latter what? What tipping point are you talking about?
“I think China will always survive in some form. I never worry about that. It may not be the same form that the current leaders wish.”
Ah, yes, the many Chinas fantasy. Many is always better than one. Too bad the Chinese don’t see it that way. Short of war, how are you going to make that wish come true? In your opinion, should the UK have held on to HK, in the name of ‘democracy’ of course? Ain’t it ironic that the UK may end up a thing of the past? Tell me, when was HK ‘democratically governed under the Brits? I read this book that delved into Chinese collaboration with the Japanese during WWII, it argued that under Japanese rule the Chinese got the breaks that allowed them to dominate the economy after WWII!
Why were you afraid to have a conversation with me, so far, we’ve both been civil, without agreeing on most things.
LikeLike
That is not what I said. When I say that China will survive in some form, that does not mean the “many chinas fantasy”. Have no idea how you extrapolated that notion.
I first visited mainland China & Taiwan in 1980 and have lived in HK continuously for over 20 years since the British colonial period. I have witnessed firsthand how something that happens in HK later gets reported (or not reported) in mainland China. I saw what happened during the umbrella protests, then watched how the China media organizations report it and made several trips into mainland china at that time to see how it was presented there.
In early October 2014 they shut down Instagram and cleansed Weibo and then tabloids like Global Times came out with their version of events. I would read Global Times to learn the viewpoint that they are trying to promote (ie, the propaganda), but never to get actual news. They completely misreported so many things I saw firsthand.
Prior to 1980, I had relatives that “escaped” during the cultural revolution in the 1960s-70s, and heard their version of events. Of course it is their version, but my point is that I have been paying attention for some time. Prior to that, my immediate family (Aunts, grandparents) left during the Sino-japanese war and I heard their version of events in the 1930s-40s. My Aunts still harboured strong anti-Japanese sentiment until their old age.
If you are going to give me another “YAWN”, my point is only that I have been paying attention for some time – decades. I also live in Greater china and travel to both mainland china and Taiwan for work (and sometimes for other than work) often, and have some very close friends who work in Chinese media. So, a picture of what is going on has developed over many experiences and from many sources.
To tell the truth, I don’t really want to dwell too much on some “whatif” scenarios to speculate what a different (or not so different) world might be like, or other moot discussions, but examine where we are now and where we go from here.
And most of the signs I see are telling me that China is in trouble and is proceeding with great trepidation, almost desperation. Whether they manage to solve the problems or not is another question. Maybe Tencent will come out with a new technology to take the world by storm and make it dependent on China. Who knows.
LikeLike
@ everyone else except Grojo (who of course requires no edification on any of these topics and I am not requiring or requesting any replies either)
Has anyone noticed the government propaganda videos that are being broadcasted NOW in China that specifically paint a very negative image of the USA and try to fan the flames of Americaphobia?
You can see the video now showing (here is the CNN link – I know that some of what they say might be op-ed, so you can skip all the commentary, I just listed it here as the video has subtitles in English so that you know what is being communicated – and I can attest that the translation is more or less correct).
(http://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/03/asia/china-anti-us-propaganda-hong-kong/index.html?)
China is trying its damnedest to paint a very negative picture of the USA.
Of course, the USA does this kind of thing too, and has managed to paint Muslims as something that are pure evil, but people in the USA also should know that it is not only ISIS and North Korea who vilifies the USA.
China’s new round of blatant unapologetic propaganda which tries to blame the USA on its economy or is unrest in Xinjiang, Tibet, HK or Taiwan looks rather ridiculous. The unrest in Xinjiang and Tibet has been going on since the Cold War and were not caused by the USA nor by ISIS. And I have witnessed how the independence movement started and has grown in HK, and it is folly to put the whole blame on the USA. During the umbrella movement, CY Leung blamed foreigners for it, but to date, there has never been a shred of evidence brought forward from the PRC or HK governments that foreigners caused it or orchestrated it. It is directly traceable to actions that the PRC itself (or their puppeteers in the HK govt) is doing. They try to squeeze the zit and it created several new ones in its place.
The problem is internal, but the government is trying to point the blame for all the country’s ills on foreigners, when the bulk of the issue traces to some problems with the leadership and policy decisions that they make themselves. But somehow, just saying that statement is “interfering in their domestic affairs”.
Of course the USA is playing a role to fan some of the flames. They have been selling weapons to Taiwan for decades and are now selling them to Vietnam and conducting “Freedom of Navigation” exercises in the S. China Sea and joint military drills with the Philippines and Japan. They meet regular with overseas Tibetan and Uyghur leaders and pledge their support to Japan and Taiwan in case of a Chinese invasion. They have now set up the THAAD system in South Korea to intercept missiles.
Some of this can be attributed to Obama’s / Hillary’s “Pivot to Asia”.
But really, if South Korea (or the other countries in Asia) did not want this, the USA would not do it. The US has not set up stuff in North Korea, right? In the 1990s, the USA closed their operation in Subic Bay and Clark Air Force base at the request of the Philippines, right? If Japan boots them out of Okinawa, they would leave.
Blaming everything on foreigners has a limit. So far, we have yet to reach that limit, but at each and every stage, the government is forced to escalate that propaganda. Now they have this video broadcasted to the populace. At one point, it will no longer work.
LikeLike
“If you are going to give me another “YAWN”, my point is only that I have been paying attention for some time – decades.”
So have I. My first memory of HK came from images of HK police beating the crap out of demonstrators. The year was 1967. I was a kid and didn’t understand what I was seeing.
You ignored my questions about the handover of HK to Beijing, why, don’t you have an opinion on that fact? Why are you reticent to sing the virtues of UK democratic rule of HK, is it because it was nonexistent? After squatting on HK for over a hundred years, just before being evicted, the Brits began making noises about ‘democracy’, a rather transparent ploy in my opinion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“@ everyone else except Grojo (who of course requires no edification on any of these topics and I am not requiring or requesting any replies either)”
Sorry jefe but I must correct your, er, omissions, a more malicious spirit might call them lies, but I won’t go there.
“The unrest in Xinjiang and Tibet has been going on since the Cold War and were not caused by the USA nor by ISIS.”
“The problem is internal, but the government is trying to point the blame for all the country’s ills on foreigners, when the bulk of the issue traces to some problems with the leadership and policy decisions that they make themselves.”
“Of course the USA is playing a role to fan some of the flames. They have been selling weapons to Taiwan for decades and are now selling them to Vietnam and conducting “Freedom of Navigation” exercises in the S. China Sea and joint military drills with the Philippines and Japan. They meet regular with overseas Tibetan and Uyghur leaders and pledge their support to Japan and Taiwan in case of a Chinese invasion.”
I don’t doubt that “The problem is internal” and that “Of course the USA is playing a role to fan some of the flames.”
Being a good guy, I want to provide support for your assertions, here goes:
“The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency’s Tibetan program was a covert operation consisting of political plots, propaganda distribution, as well as paramilitary support and intelligence gathering based on U.S. commitments made to the Dalai Lama in 1951 and 1956.[1]
Although it was formally assigned to the CIA alone, it was nevertheless closely coordinated with several other U.S. government agencies such as the Department of State and the Department of Defense.[2]
Previous operations had aimed to strengthen a number of isolated Tibetan resistance groups, which eventually led to the creation of a paramilitary force on the Nepalese border with approximately 2,000 men. By February 1964, the projected annual cost for all CIA Tibetan operations had exceeded US$1.7 million.[2]
The program was gradually discontinued in the late 1960s, and finally ended with President Nixon’s visit to China in 1972.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_Tibetan_program
That’s just the tip of the iceberg, Taiwan would have been part of China since the 1950s if it had not been for the US navy. So, yes, it’s all China’s fault. If they had a fleet as powerful as the US one, a good deal, not all, of their ‘internal’ problems would vanish.
LikeLike
Why are you focusing on whether Britain granted “full democracy” to HK. I know what the situation was and how it progressed. I think you are bringing up straw arguments.
For example, why do you bring this up
So you do not remember the 1960s in the USA where the police were beating the crap out of demonstrators? How did YOU get this memory of HK?
And TODAY, China police repeatedly beat the crap out of people. Do you need to see some videos? I just saw another one today.
And HK police beat the crap of demonstrators during the umbrella movement and in many of the scuffles since then. Yes, they noted it was the worst police violence since the 1967 riots. For nearly 50 years, there had been little overt police violence and brutality. That was something I liked about HK compared to the USA. Now, that has changed.
Prior to WWII, they would not even have ethnic Chinese in the legislature. They allowed a few Eurasians in to “represent” the Chinese in HK. That changed after the Japanese occupied HK and later after the Communist takeover of the mainland. And when a more full democracy was proposed in HK in the 1970s (by the British, no less), it was the tycoons (and also Beijing) which vigourously opposed it.
I also know about the other things you mentioned.
But in all sincerity, the stuff you mention has been an issue for decades if not centuries before the USA got involved. Some counterintelligence activity by the USA in China in the 1950s-60s does not a revolution make. I still counter that China’s problems are largely internal.
The fall of the Ching dynasty was also partially funded by Chinese-Americans (or rather non-citizen ethnic Chinese in the US). Is that US intervention?
But, have you ever lived in China or spent much time there? Do you read and listen to the stuff that is not translated into English? The points I am making about China are the parts that really don’t have much to do with the USA. Just seeing how the law operates there just makes one shudder. I have come to learn that law there boils down to an administrative procedure where local officials and tinker with / interpret as much as local officials can get away with. And all the factories and external people I talk to pretty much concur on what is going on, not to mention the people I know in the media.
And why do you put so much faith in what they say in “Global Times” or the “50 cent army / party” on Weibo? After seeing what they say about HK, I notice that they simply make stuff up, sort of like what Trump does.
In fact, if I didn’t know any better, I would see you operate almost like the 50 cent army on THIS blog. You argue like they do.
I was so upset after the USA invaded Iraq that I started considering giving up my US citizenship. I had already been upset about so many things that pushed me to leave the country in the first place.
But in the past few years, seeing the justice secretary and Chief executive in HK having no respect for the law and letting mainland China enforce their laws (or at least their legal practice) here and not follow legal procedure here has changed my mind.
I am not saying the US or anything is perfect – we have seen all the police cover-ups exposed recently. In fact, I think it is awful. I am not in a hurry to go back there either.
But, finally, I have concluded that China might be worse. They are certainly worse about the environment. The air, land, and water is poison.
But, unlike you, I do not define “China” as the area under control by the CCP (re: “Taiwan would have been part of China”). And I completely disagree with you that those “internal problems” would vanish without US “intervention”. Most of those internal problems are of their own creation. I agree with the statement in the post that China always finds ways to shoot itself in the foot. They still struggle with the idea that there are some things in this world that you should simply not try to control.
I guess all countries do that to some extent, but China is a big one and the effect of its doing that has a bigger impact.
LikeLike
Abagond, I really think the topic of the 50 cent army (party) in China would make an excellent subject for this blog. Basically they are paid trolls.
And they do invade US websites and blogs.
LikeLike
Jefe, you clever foreign devil you, how did you manage to know that I was ‘really’ Chinese? Its been a secret even to me until now. I kid, I kid.
Jefe, please don’t go all ‘Kiwi’ on me. I enjoyed my clashes with him but I want to take “the high road” with you. Let’s start by not misquoting each other, ok?
“So you do not remember the 1960s in the USA where the police were beating the crap out of demonstrators?” Yes I do. “How did YOU get this memory of HK?” Watching French tv news broadcasts when I lived in that country. I missed witnessing the French May-June 1968 events because I left in 1967.
Glad to see we agree on a number of things about pre-1997 HK. Why won’t you clearly state where you stand vis–à–vis the 1997 return of HK to China?
“But, unlike you, I do not define “China” as the area under control by the CCP (re: “Taiwan would have been part of China”). And I completely disagree with you that those “internal problems” would vanish without US “intervention”. Most of those internal problems are of their own creation.” My dear friend, please quote me accurately. Just to refresh your memory, this is what I wrote: ”
That’s just the tip of the iceberg, Taiwan would have been part of China since the 1950s if it had not been for the US navy. So, yes, it’s all China’s fault. If they had a fleet as powerful as the US one, a good deal, not all, of their ‘internal’ problems would vanish.” Note that I do not deny that the Chinese government’s policies are imperfect, making them like all other known governments, but I do insist that having a foreign fleet threatening you, having a foreign government subsidizing armed ‘dissidents’ as well as ‘peaceful’ one doesn’t help.
Let’s keep this civil and avoid needless vilification. Should you opt not to, I’ll gladly return your calumnies in kind.
LikeLike
““But, unlike you, I do not define “China” as the area under control by the CCP (re: “Taiwan would have been part of China”)”
Your position is an extremist one, most nations, including the USA recognize Beijing as the only legitimate government of China. So do I. Only 22 nations that recognize Taiwan.
LikeLike
^ You have completely misrepresented what I said.
There was no CCP in 1900. But was there a China? Or did it not come into existence only when the CCP took power of most of it?
Please stop doing this kind of misrepresentation.
LikeLike
So you don’t recognize the CCP as the legitimate government of China. Why didn’t you just say so instead of beating around the bush? Please quote my words misrepresenting you, we’ve reached a point where I’m no longer inclined to take your word for anything. “There was no CCP in 1900. But was there a China?” There was a China that western powers wanted to dismantle. plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.
LikeLike
@ Jefe
Regarding this:
“Has anyone noticed the government propaganda videos that are being broadcasted NOW in China that specifically paint a very negative image of the USA and try to fan the flames of Americaphobia?”
I’m curious as to whether this Americaphobia has had any impact on you whenever you travel to mainland China.
I remember from things you’ve written before that people in China don’t always realize you’re American or have trouble figuring out that you’re of Chinese descent. But what I’m wondering here is, when you get beyond that point, when someone definitely knows that you’re an American, is this new round of government Americaphobia having an impact?
Have the ordinary Chinese people that you meet started to treat you any differently? What about their attitudes in general towards Americans? Do the majority seem to be buying into the Americaphobia the way so many here are buying into Islamophobia?
If this is too personal a question, please feel free to disregard it.
LikeLike
@Solitaire
It has been over a month since I have crossed the border, so it was before the Hague ruling and this resurgence of anti-America propaganda. I doubt that it has had that much impact so far on the common people to change their behaviour and attitudes, as this anti-America propaganda has been waxing and waning over decades.
When I travel to the mainland PRC, about the only ones who will see my passport are the immigration checkpoints, the ones selling or verifying transportation tickets, and those at hotel reception counters. The rest may try to guess, but may not be sure where I am coming from and what my nationality might be. They think I am from somewhere else, but they may not be sure what exactly. Besides, I don’t hang around foreigners that much and hardly use English, so I rarely encounter the situation where strangers might challenge me. If any stranger tries to use English, I don’t respond anyhow.
Regarding people I actually talk with, I tell them upfront that I did not really like it in the USA, and left over 20 years ago and settled in HK. Many are quite surprised, because they believe that many Chinese, especially those with means, would LOVE to go to the USA to visit, or even settle or live or invest. (Of course, they do not know about Asian American history.) Those who have visited the USA generally enjoyed their visits.
For example, the manager of the factory I visited last time is originally from Fuzhou, and he has been to the USA several times, including New York and Chicago and other cities and was looking to buy a house in the USA. We talked about the “Little Fuzhou” communities that have popped up in NY in the past 20-30 years and he had been to them. He told me that he was looking to buy a house, but was told not to buy in majority black neighborhoods, although he also visited an upper middle class black neighbourhood near Chicago and told me that he noticed that not all blacks are living in slums. I told him, yes indeed, I grew up in Washington, DC and there are both poor and wealthy black neighbourhoods and everything in between. I talked about a community in Maryland which is about 72% black and 10% Asian and maybe 10% non-Hispanic whites, but which has country clubs, golf courses, marinas, big houses with nice lawns, etc, but most white people do not like to live in that kind of neighbourhood. He asked me why. I tried to explain that most white people do not like to live next to blacks, even if the blacks are well off. It is a history going back centuries.
Anyhow, I think the ones who buy into Americaphobia are those who would never actually go to the USA or meet Americans. It is a technique to stir their attention towards a “force” that they would never actually encounter and to bolster the legitimacy of the CCP.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Jefe
Thanks for the comprehensive reply. It does give me a better idea of the situation.
Are there any other nations (or international entities, for that matter, like the UN, NATO, etc.) that the CCP conducts large propaganda campaigns against, or is the USA pretty much the big enemy in their view?
LikeLike
@Solitaire,
*WARNING* long answer
Whenever something is not in China’s (the PRC in particular) favour, they will usually say that some foreign government was behind it. When the Hague ruling came out last month, both the USA and Japan were vilified (eg, one of the judges in the Hague ruling was Japanese and therefore naturally biased against China). Then other European countries are in cahoots (don’t forget that both Britain and Portugal held control over “Chinese territory” for centuries). If there is a terrorist attack or even some sort of organized resistance from muslim Uyghurs, somehow foreigners (eg, ISIS or other radical foreign islamists) are behind it. It fits neatly into the narrative that foreigners have been trying to tear China apart.
International entities such as NATO and the UN are somehow “run” by the USA, so the USA is almost always implicated. They even accuse the USA of hijacking ASEAN. The USA is behind setting THAAD in South Korea (well, which they are, but after S. Korea’s request). And China has relentlessly blamed foreigners on the rise of the independence sentiment in HK (when I have been here and watched it unfold, and it was largely the PRC itself which brought this about).
So, I would say that the propaganda is against foreigners in general and against USA in particular.
I don’t know if you read the Wikipedia link on the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Culture in china, but here it is again here:
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party#Range_of_operation)
But, as this post mentioned, I also agree that the issue of “chronic unity” is an issue for China. It is a goal that they obtain for a limited period, and then it falls apart again. It falls back into regionalism, but only temporarily until a new leader unites the whole country. Currently, the country is united under not an emporer, but the CCP. But parts of the country are quite unwilling to be part of that “unity” (eg, non-Han in Xinjiang, Tibet and the rest of the country, Taiwan, and very much increasingly so, Hong Kong).
There are at least 2 things that the CCP must do to ensure its legitimacy, ie,
1. Keep the economy going and people’s living standards up
The CCP failed the country during the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. Tens of millions died. Now 500 million people have been raised out of poverty into the working and middle classes.
2. Keep China “whole”
They got Hong Kong and Macau back. Now they have to get Taiwan back and keep the South China Sea to themselves. The fish/seafood and oil reserves there belong to China, anyhow, and it is in their “national interest and security” to keep that. Xinjiang and Tibet are kept under control. Chinese national education from primary school stresses how foreigners have always tried to pull China apart, and “heroes” are those who resisted and kept it from happening.
If the CCP can keep those things humming along, they can maintain their legitimacy.
However, #1 is under threat. The economic engine has slowed down. The labour force is now shrinking (due to 35 years of the one-child policy). They need oil and natural resources to keep the economy running (hence the shift to Africa and alliances with Russia). Many factories are shutting down and throwing people out of work.
Over the past couple years, HK billionaire tycoon Li Ka-shing has been shifting a lot of his assets out of China. Once praised in China, he is now vilified as being “unpatriotic”.
So, shift the attention to #2. China must show their own citizens that they will not let foreigners tear China apart again. The USA is behind most of it, according to the CCP.
But the focus on #2 has caused China to do a series of actions which shoot themselves in the foot. They will do #2 by “force” if necessary. But each force they exert leads to a new set of resistance, leading to new factors that are at risk in breaking the country apart or at least diminish the legitimacy of the CCP. Sure, foreign countries like the USA are arguably not directly supporting the PRC to quell those factors, so China will quickly point out how the USA is helping to tear them apart. There is some truth to the matter, at least from the Chinese perspective. But most of the “adverse” reaction is in response to actions from Beijing, not foreigners.
The carrot sticks offered by #1 are not enough to control #2. The relaxation of trade and ties with Taiwan and Hong Kong have benefited a very small minority in both the mainland and in the other regions and most of the people in Taiwan and HK have not benefited from any of it (which is the same situation I saw when I visited Xinjiang). China cannot manage to woo Taiwan and HK with those carrot sticks. In HK, they have also moved many mainlanders into the region who would be more sympathetic to the CCP, but even that only works to a limited extent. Many of the HK residents who support independence now were born on the mainland.
Mainlanders with means (economic or political) want to leave the country, or at least set up bases overseas. They send their kids overseas for education and to get residency rights. They want to invest what money they have not in China, but in some foreign country (where they can do something outlandishly unthinkable – own property). The vilified USA is curiously one of those target countries.
I have been in HK for over 21 years and have seen it progress from a British colony to a mess today. Britain handed HK back to China in GREAT shape, a healthy economy, and a very stable civil society (certainly not perfect – there were some problems then for sure). But, starting with the failed passage of National security laws in 2002 and the 2003 SARS bungling, one can only watch the series of policies that have been pushed HK over the brink. Now we have police brutality, leaders that outright lie, break the law and obfuscate the justice system and rule of law. 40% of the population under age 30 wants independence. And I am sorry, I cannot believe that foreigners caused this. If foreigners cannot be blamed directly, then Beijing can blame it on the western style education that is popular in HK.
IF #1 tanks, then it will be increasingly more difficult to maintain #2. I think the next factor looming over the horizon is the pending retirement of workers who were born during the Cultural revolution. How can China cope with a sudden increase of hundreds of millions of retirees supported by a labour force born under the one-child policy? I really want to know that they figured out behind closed doors. Because I have been studying and watching the Social Insurance system, as well as migrant labour and the Hukou system issue and it looks like a train wreck.
I think there is a #3 too. The environment. I first went to the mainland in 1980 and travelled around to several different cities in 1984. The area was breathable. There were lots of trees. The rivers and the ocean had fish. The sky was blue. This is all gone. And in an attempt to extract as much profit from it further, they have defaced the little natural beauty left. Have you seen the new glass walkways built around the mountains in Zhangjiajie in Hunan province? Who would now want to photograph or paint the scenery now? I have seen how they have trashed the coral reefs around Sanya to extract as many tourist dollars from it.
I can envision that China wants to quell any discussion about maintaining the environment. If they were to turn the S. China sea into a large marine life sanctuary (or at least a very well managed sustainable system), I wouldn’t feel so negative about the whole S. China sea thing. But the dredging of the seabed around submerged reefs to form islands (and the country encouraged fishermen to take as many things from it before they did that) has left a trail of destruction that will take centuries to recover from.
But even that still comes up in ways that they cannot hide. When a river turns poison and kills millions of fish and makes the water supply for tens of million in one region too toxic to use, the government has to justify its legitimacy. Now, even HK is awash with so much marine trash that even those beaches that are cleaned daily are a pile of garbage in just 1-2 days.
Sorry for the long answer, but one can point fingers at the USA all they want, yet most of those problems are self-created. I am not sure how long they can keep up the #2 rhetoric to build national unity.
LikeLike
@ jefe
Wow. I did not know it was that bad. I just keep hearing about their shiny new trains.
LikeLike
@ Jefe
No need to apologize for the length. It was very informative. I know a little about the environmental problems, although I’ve been more aware of the air pollution than anything else.
How does the Chinese government balance the anti-U.S. propaganda with the amount of business being done with U.S. companies? Do they make a distinction publicly between the U.S. government and the American corporations? To be clear, I’m wondering how the Chinese government presents this dichotomy to their own people. Because one would think that would be a question in the mind of many average Chinese citizens: if the USA is our nation’s top enemy, why are we doing so much business with them?
I’m also curious about the potential for dissent among the Han themselves, most likely breaking along class lines. Every so often there are news stories here about peasant revolts in the countryside or factory workers trashing their workplaces (their ethnicity isn’t always clear in the news accounts, but it does seem that at least some of these incidents involve Han instead of ethnic minorities). Is there any likelihood of another revolution arising from the masses?
LikeLike
@abagond,
or you could say overbuilt infrastructure.
LikeLike
Just wanted to add that I hold the USA partly responsible for the environmental mess in China. All those U.S. factories that moved overseas would have had to meet much more stringent environmental standards had they remained here. The harm done hasn’t just been the loss of good manufacturing jobs here but environmental damage to the planet. Our goverment should hit these companies with huge fines for evading U.S. environmental regulations, not to mention heavy tariffs on goods manufactured overseas. Instead, the 1% owners are making money hand over fist, their reward for screwing the U.S. blue-collar workers and desecrating the Earth.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Solitaire,
Those are good valid questions that need to be asked.
As I said above, that anti-US rhetoric is largely aimed at that segment of the population which has no direct contact with the USA or Americans. So, that is why when they protest, they target symbols of the US, such as KFC franchises or apple phones or Nike shoes. They do not have the means to target the USA or Americans directly. But channeling their rage towards foreigners keeps it from pointing fingers at the CCP.
The Chinese authorities do crack down on these anti-US (and at other times, anti-Japanese) street protests when they become large, destructive, or otherwise not under control.
Factory owners,and wealthy businessmen still covet the US market and will want to secure contracts and trade deals. They want to own property in regimes that appear to have more respect for private property rights.
But what you mentioned is a propaganda balancing act. How do you raise just enough rage towards foreigners to maintain national unity and respect for the current CCP regime yet still tolerate, or even promote massive trade and investment relationships with these so-called enemies of the Chinese people? It takes a hundred million man army to do this, from national education to the great firewall of China to the 50 cent party people.
This tightrope act is what may eventually cause China to shoot itself in the foot. For example, foreign media organizations may not operate in China now unless they keep their data servers in China and under CCP control. Foreign NGOs may not stay in China unless they register and report to the security bureau and receive funding only from local China sources. Foreign online media is largely absent in China. For example, I could still get my Google email in China until about 3 years ago. First they blocked the google services, then they blocked it completely. One day it will reach a tipping point, and foreigners will simply conclude that doing business in China is too much trouble. I am trying to figure out what Zuckerberg is thinking, or what balancing act he is working out.
A lot of this has been written about in the western press. What might make or break China is the confidence of the new middle class. I am sure you could google it and find dozens of articles.
Once confidence in the legitimacy of the CCP falters, we could indeed see a breakdown in society and a revolution of the masses. But .. isn’t this just the 5,000 years of history in China simply repeating itself? It leads to decades of turmoil, regional factionalism and civil war until a new unity occurs.
I, personally, think it *might* come when the Cultural revolution baby boomers retire and there is no money and no kids to support them. Or it might come when armed conflict in the South and East China seas escalates. Or it might come when East Turkestan, Tibet, Taiwan and HK declare independence at the same time. Or it might happen when foreigners pull out of doing business in China, or when another powerhouse takes over (India?). Who knows? But something will cause it. And I am not sure I want to be here when it happens.
LikeLike
@Solitaire
I agree.
Actually, not just the USA, but Europe and Japan too.
I actually do freelance work on corporate social responsibility esp. for companies in Sweden and other northern European countries. And I attend a lot of seminars and workshops on the sustainability of human rights and the environment.
I am quite appalled by Sweden. They congratulate themselves on how they maintain a socially and environmentally sustainable society BACK HOMEand turn a blind eye to the destruction they bring to China. Yet they have to keep up appearances that they manage their supply chain well. I am at odds on what to do to make this situation better.
But the US economy is dozens times larger, and their impact is that much greater. The NIMBY attitude is destroying our planet.
LikeLike
@jefe: Do you think the idea of “foreigners” wanting to “tear apart China” is at least 90% false? If that is so, would it be better to just let China tear itself apart as it’s done in the past? Or should the united China be promoted through a different method?
LikeLike
@mike4ty4,
I don’t have an answer to the question about “what’s best”. It’s complicated.
For any country or society, it would be best to maintain cohesion through a sustainable method. It is hard to say about how that works for each place, but when it affects the planet as a whole, we have to work together.
I don’t think that what China is doing is sustainable. But they are certainly not the only ones. I don’t think what the USA or Sweden are doing is exactly sustainable either.
Sovereignty issues should come 2nd place to stuff like global mass extinction or destruction of the planet and its ecosystems (including the one man lives in) or the nuclear arms race.
LikeLike
@ Jefe
“A lot of this has been written about in the western press. What might make or break China is the confidence of the new middle class. I am sure you could google it and find dozens of articles.”
Yeah, that did seem kind of lazy on my part. I have actually read a few articles about it (although not extensively). I was interested in your take on things as someone who has been living in the region and paying attention to mainland China for much longer than some of those journalists. Though it’s true, as you say, no one really knows which of many ways the future could lead.
“And I am not sure I want to be here when it happens.”
I don’t blame you! I wouldn’t want to be any place such an uprising was happening. It’s easy to speculate at a distance but another thing altogether to be caught up in the turmoil. Do you think there’s much chance for peaceful improvements? or even a peaceful change to a more open and less autocratic regime?
“I am quite appalled by Sweden. They congratulate themselves on how they maintain a socially and environmentally sustainable society BACK HOMEand turn a blind eye to the destruction they bring to China.”
Wow! I’m surprised and appalled! This isn’t the image I had of Sweden. I didn’t even know they were involved in overseas manufacturing in China!
“The NIMBY attitude is destroying our planet.”
Right, because what people need to get through their heads is that there’s no such thing as NIMBY when it comes to this level of environmental destruction. It’s all our backyard. It’s the only one we have.
“Sovereignty issues should come 2nd place to stuff like global mass extinction or destruction of the planet and its ecosystems (including the one man lives in) or the nuclear arms race.”
Agree 100%. There are times that I wish we would just go ahead and wipe ourselves out as long as we did so in a way that wouldn’t doom the survival of all other life on Earth. They would get along much better without us. I hope humanity can get our act together, but if we can’t, we shouldn’t take down every other species with us.
LikeLike
@Solitaire,
That was a bit harsh on my part about saying that Sweden turning a blind eye to what is going on in China. If that were indeed 100% true, I would not have been doing the freelance work I have been doing for the past several years.
But I do think 1/2 of it is managing the publicity back home more than it is about what environmental or human rights problems that it contributes to in China.
Regarding China’s middle class, I think it is holding so far as long as they think that China has money or resources. As I said, another phenomenon, eg, the mass retirement of the baby boomers born during the cultural revolution might be enough to spur a society wide class based revolt.
I look at mostly from the prospect of being in HK. And I don’t think we are moving towards peaceful solutions here at all. I foresee another standoff of 100-200,000 people marching on the streets like occupy central, only this time more bloody and deadly. And it won’t be the last one. For each quashing, more and more are drawn into the fray. It is amazing how the issue of HK independence, a complete non-issue 2 years ago, is now at the forefront of civil discourse today. And the arbitrary removal of 5 pro-autonomy supporters (including one that just ran in a by-election 4 months ago with no issues) from running for office in the legislative council (Legco) next month has caused a growing surge of support for the idea. That is what I mean. Removing the “trouble makers” from running in the election just augments the people opposing the government action. There has been a shakedown in the past 1-2 years in the universities, in the govt departments, and in the media.
The court might end up ruling that the Legco election next month is illegitimate due to the arbitrary removal of candidates. I expect large protests – and a large lack of confidence in the legitimacy of the current government.
The mainstream media has started to downplay these issues. They did not even mention the 10,000+ strong rally to support independence yesterday.
It makes me wonder if it is wise to be here.
Regarding peaceful change / reform in China, when has that ever happened? Xi has consolidated his power in the past few years and created myriad enemies. I am expecting an explosion. Will it be next year or in 20 years, it is hard to say.
LikeLike
Yawn, more propaganda bs from Jefe the ‘regime changer’. Meanwhile, even the NYT, mouthpiece of the US establishment, is reporting that things are getting back to normal after China ‘shot itself in the foot’. Ex-president Ramos wants to sing Elvis songs with the boys in Beijing, and the USN is making an official visit, lol: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/08/08/world/asia/ap-as-south-china-sea-watch.html
I’m having trouble seeing what Jefe ‘the regime changer’ is seeing. What’s that saying again about if wishes were horses beggars would ride? Jefe mistakes the perceptions of his crowd for reality. The soigné set he hangs out with may wish to be free of the crudities of life in present day China but they don’t run things and don’t speak for the vast majority of Chinese who probably view their nation the same way the average USA citizen views his.
LikeLike
@ Jefe
Thanks again for the reply.
I got to thinking about the following:
“Regarding peaceful change / reform in China, when has that ever happened?” “But .. isn’t this just the 5,000 years of history in China simply repeating itself? It leads to decades of turmoil, regional factionalism and civil war until a new unity occurs.”
This seems to be the pattern for really old and long-lasting nations or geo-political entities. I think sometimes as an American in such a new country I forget this. For example, in the very long course of its existence, Ancient Egypt went through the same cycle of “decades of turmoil, regional factionalism and civil war until a new unity occurs” multiple times. Which is not to deny China’s own unique character, just saying that it seems no nation or empire lasts for thousands of years without periodically experiencing decades of unrest.
About the peasant revolts that are reported on here in the U.S., have any been related to environmental problems? Are the peasant farmers finding their soil and water affected in ways that reduce crop yield or the amount of arable land? I know they don’t necessarily own the land themselves, but a rural village would still be dependent on the land and water around them for their sustenance whether each family owns an individual plot or they all work it collectively.
About sovereignty and Taiwan, is there any recognition at all by any of the involved parties or the UN that Taiwan belongs (or should rightly belong) to the indigenous Taiwanese?
From what I have read, they seem to be in a similar position to Native Americans here in that they now count for only 2% of the population in their own land. I would imagine the numerical disparity acts much the same way as it does here, having to struggle to have their voices heard and being written off as extinct or nearly so by the invaders of their land.
They also seem to have a lot of other similarities with Native Americans as far as the social problems they deal with as a result of occupation and prejudice, languages that are endangered, etc.
LikeLike
@Solitaire
Well, the USA has already had its civil war. If it manages to continue in some form for another century or two, we might see another period of widespread turmoil or a period of factionalism.
In China, even when there was no regime change, there were still large scale unrests and rebellion. The Taiping rebellion in the mid-19th century was a civil war that helped in part to fuel the coolie trade.
I think they could be related to just about anything. It could be about poorly constructed schools, toxic waste in the river, or land grabs by the state. If they can contain it, then it probably won’t even make the news. If it is big enough to make the news, they might go as far as arresting and sentencing the leaders of said protest for subverting state power. (This is akin to what is happening in HK now, but when it happens, it causes the fervor to grow, especially among the young. It is hardly under control.)
Don’t forget that we now have many factory revolts too. As many peasants left the land to work in factories, this also happens. A slowing economy throws those people at those jobs out of work.
I am no expert on that, but I do have some friends who worked with international organizations about the rights of the indigenous peoples around the world. It is this sort of event that links Native Americans to Aboriginal Taiwanese, for example. But the notion that Taiwan belongs to its aboriginal tribes is akin to saying the US belongs to its indigenous tribes. A notion that many may espouse, but one that will not go anywhere.
For her part, President Tsai Ying-wen publicly proclaimed last month an apology about the treatment of Taiwan’s treatment of its aborigines (2% of the population) for the past 400 years when both Europeans and Han Chinese from the Mainland started to “settle” there. She promised to work out some more equitable reparation scheme but I am not sure where that would lead.
I found it interesting that the period of time relating to the Taiwanese indigenous peoples corresponds roughly to the time period related to US indigenous peoples as well as the percentage of the population. Also, they have been removed from the plains (where the cities and key agricultural land is found) and pushed up into the hills, although there is one tribe on Orchid Island in the pacific. Most non-indigenous Taiwanese may rarely ever encounter the indigenous peoples, and those they meet in the city are usually quite assimilated to the Han Taiwanese culture. I remember meeting a few in the cities before. When I went to Taiwan during my university years, I remember getting to know one who grew up not speaking any Mandarin and he had to learn it later to go to university.
I have been once to Xinjiang, and the Uyghur – Han relationship there feels much more volatile, like a powder keg. But it is the region of China I am keen to go back and visit.
LikeLike
@ Jefe
“Well, the USA has already had its civil war.”
That’s true, but didn’t some of the interregnum (don’t know if that’s the right word) periods in China last for 50 to 100 years? What’s referred to in Egyptology as the intermediate periods were much longer than the American Civil War, even if we toss in the tense years immediately before and after. We definitely have had periods of internal conflict, the Civil War being the bloodiest, but we haven’t really gone through a period of government instability, unrest, and revolt that lasts half a century, I don’t think? Or maybe I’m too close to it historically to tell…
“In China, even when there was no regime change, there were still large scale unrests and rebellion. The Taiping rebellion in the mid-19th century was a civil war that helped in part to fuel the coolie trade.”
Good point.
“If they can contain it, then it probably won’t even make the news.”
Right. There’s a widespread lack of awareness in the U.S. of these revolts in the countryside and the factories, which is partly due to our own press not giving them much attention. But as you point out, another factor is some are contained so well that no media anywhere picks up on them.
I remember a few years ago (2009? 2010?) seeing photos of factory revolts that did make it to the West. The workers were smashing everything in the building they could lay their hands on.
“But the notion that Taiwan belongs to its aboriginal tribes is akin to saying the US belongs to its indigenous tribes. A notion that many may espouse, but one that will not go anywhere.”
Sadly true. At best there may be reparations, if the president and her government follow through. It strikes me as ironic that in all the fuss over whether Taiwan belongs to the PRC or not, no one bothers to consult the people who were there first. But it’s exactly the same irony of the American colonists fighting with Britain over the ownership of the U.S., which really didn’t belong to either. This irony doesn’t even get pointed out in how we teach the Revolutionary War (or the War of 1812).
“I found it interesting that the period of time relating to the Taiwanese indigenous peoples corresponds roughly to the time period related to US indigenous peoples as well as the percentage of the population.”
I noticed that, too, but not the next quote below until you pointed it out.
“Also, they have been removed from the plains (where the cities and key agricultural land is found) and pushed up into the hills, although there is one tribe on Orchid Island in the pacific. Most non-indigenous Taiwanese may rarely ever encounter the indigenous peoples, and those they meet in the city are usually quite assimilated to the Han Taiwanese culture.”
That really is astonishingly similar.
“I have been once to Xinjiang, and the Uyghur – Han relationship there feels much more volatile, like a powder keg. But it is the region of China I am keen to go back and visit.”
Have you been to Tibet?
LikeLike
@solitaire
Even if a local media picks it up, it will get scrubbed clean by the Ministry of Culture. The ones that are not completely scrubbed clean are the ones picked up by non-mainland PRC media. In those cases, the Ministry of Culture will make sure that they are in full control of the narrative, at least within the PRC.
The few factory revolts you hear about are probably ones picked up by foreign NGO’s, (eg, China Labor Watch).
Could you envision how a dialogue between the CCP and Taiwanese aborigines would play out?
likewise when either Taiwanese or Mainland Chinese learn Chinese history. Mainland Chinese in particular probably teach their students that Taiwan has been an integral part of China since some dynasty thousands of years ago and have a carefully designed narrative to back it up.
No, I haven’t.
LikeLike
@ Jefe
“Could you envision how a dialogue between the CCP and Taiwanese aborigines would play out?”
Not sure if this question was rhetorical or serious! Either way the answer is no, I can’t even begin to guess how that would sound, except that I doubt it would go well for the Taiwanese aborigines. But again, I don’t mean to single out the CCP because that’s not really different than how things are between the U.S. government and the Native Americans.
The more I read about the history of Taiwan and the plight of the indigenous people, the more it seems to parallel the Native American experience. There’s the same high rates of alcoholism, unemployment, suicide, etc.
One interesting thing is that in the case of Taiwan, technically it can’t be called racism because both groups are Asian, the Taiwanese aboriginals being more Southeast Asian if I understand correctly. Maybe it would even be accurate to say they are the earliest Malay-Polynesian group, since researchers currently believe the Austronesian languages all originate from the starting point of Taiwan.
Yet still we see the same pattern that has happened in other lands where the indigenous group and the invading group were of two different races. Granted, the Han and the aboriginal Taiwanese are two very different ethnicities as opposed to being closely related.
“I have been once to Xinjiang”
What was that like?
LikeLike
@Solitaire
well both.
My point was that, no matter how oppressive the situation of the Taiwanese aborigines is now, at least the current president is willing to start some dialogue and work towards on improving the situation. It is not ideal, but it is at least a start.
But, the CCP has never taken on that mindset. Any expression of cultural or ethnic identity is branded as separatism or a threat to sovereignty.
Of course there is a racist aspect to it. Just because two groups originated in 2 different parts of Asia doesn’t mean that they do not perceive themselves as different races.
In Malaysia and Singapore, the Chinese, Indians and Malays are all native to different parts of Asia, yet they perceive themselves as different races. The Han in Xinjiang specifically perceive themselves as different races from the Uyghur and the Kazakhs. Yet, phenotypically, the Uyghurs are about as diverse as they come. Some look more Chinese, or Mongolian, or Indian or Pakistani, or Arab/ Middle eastern or Turkish or eastern European, and most look like some kind of combination. There is no single look which describes a Uyghur (and none for Han Chinese either), but somehow, each are part of the same ethnic group and different from the other. And they call it a “racial” difference.
When Han, Europeans and Austronesian Aborigines encountered each other in Taiwan in the 1600s, they surely perceived each other as different. not sure if they used “race” per se, but a different peoples for sure.
There is some Aboriginal ancestry and even some European (Dutch/Portuguese/Spanish) as well as Japanese mixed into modern day Han Taiwanese as well as some Chinese and European ancestry mixed into the aboriginals. Some Han Taiwanese look part aboriginal and some Aborigines look part Chinese or could even “pass” as the other.
So the racial divide between them is now blurred. It is less about race per se and more about a social, ethnic, cultural and political legacy / ideology.
It is really not that much difference with Native Americans in the USA. Can we use race per se? All the native Americans I have seen native to the mid-Atlantic / SE USA are racially mixed with both black and white. Very few of them are obviously native American strictly by appearance alone and even less know any of their original language. Of course I have met some Native Americans from other regions who do not have as much white and black mixed in with them and who do speak Native American languages, but that is the exception more than the rule.
Is singer Wayne Newton white or Native American? One of his grandparents identified as Patawomeck (Virginian Algonquian) and another claimed to be part Cherokee. He married a Japanese-American. What are his kids? My grand nephews are Cablinasian and I would hesitate to affix a racial label to them.
The racial lines in the USA are also blurred.
Re: Xinjiang, I was very impressed by seeing Urumqi and Turpan, cities which are in China but not dominated solely by Han Chinese. Cities in the East completely lack this ethnic variety. You do see Uyghurs and other minorities in those cities, but they are more like curiosities, maybe like seeing Native Americans in Philadelphia.
I went to visit Xinjiang with my Chinese American cousin, and we got split off from the HK tour group we were with and had to take a bus back with a group of Uyghurs from Hotan. I really found that experience interesting, and makes me want to see Hotan and Kasghar before Han-nification is complete.
The situation between Uyghurs and Han otherwise feels very tense. I sensed that many of the Uyghurs were wary that other people might be trying to spy on them. Unfortunately, I could only communicate with them in Mandarin, so I don’t think that would put them at ease.
Both Han and Uyghurs told me that I could pass as Uyghur. I am not sure that is safe given the hostility between them.
LikeLike
@ Jefe
“When Han, Europeans and Austronesian Aborigines encountered each other in Taiwan in the 1600s, they surely perceived each other as different. not sure if they used “race” per se, but a different peoples for sure.”
True. What I was trying to express is that Americans are used to (1) thinking of race in terms of the three-race or four-race models and (2) thinking of this type of oppression of native peoples as something that occurs in the framework of that racial model. What happened in Taiwan 400 years ago is a reminder that out-group/in-group oppression can occur within what Americans categorize as a single race. It is, admittedly, a very U.S.-centric thought on my part, and I didn’t stress adequately that the Han and the Taiwanese aborigines would have seen themselves as different races rather than different ethnicities within the same race.
I was thinking mostly of the situation as it would have been at First Contact when I made that observation. But I appreciate your reminder than in the present-day population of Taiwan, there has been enough intermixing that the differences are more in cultural/ethnic/social/etc. identity rather than race per se.
“Of course I have met some Native Americans from other regions who do not have as much white and black mixed in with them and who do speak Native American languages, but that is the exception more than the rule.”
This may be one place where your experience and mine differ and therefore affect the way we think and speak about things. You are quite correct that many Native Americans are highly mixed. But having lived on the West side of the country and having had close ties with two tribal colleges, I’ve met a lot of people who fit the “exception.” Perhaps that skews my perception.
“My grand nephews are Cablinasian and I would hesitate to affix a racial label to them.”
I am in full support of the right of mixed-race people to self-define themselves and to embrace whatever part of their heritage they wish at any given time. I apologize if my previous comments somehow suggested otherwise.
“But, the CCP has never taken on that mindset. Any expression of cultural or ethnic identity is branded as separatism or a threat to sovereignty.”
What is so ironic about that is they seem to want to promote those expressions to the outside world, tourists, etc., in a controlled and sanitized manner. The university where I’m currently at has a group of study-abroad students from the PRC every year. For a long time now, this group has put on an annual China Cultural Night performance — that by itself is pretty typical. But the last couple years, the program has been to present traditional dances of the different ethnic groups in China, including the Uyghurs and the Tibetans, even though the students themselves are all Han. The cultural appropriation upsets me enough I can barely sit through it. (I know white Americans have been and continue to be guilty of similar cultural appropriation, but when that happens, I at least feel able to speak out and voice my objections to those in charge. With this, there’s little I can do.)
“I went to visit Xinjiang with my Chinese American cousin, and we got split off from the HK tour group we were with and had to take a bus back with a group of Uyghurs from Hotan. I really found that experience interesting, and makes me want to see Hotan and Kasghar before Han-nification is complete.”
I hope you get a chance to go. It sounds fascinating.
LikeLike
I want to visit Asia someday before I die. Hopefully I can connect with the people there…
LikeLike
@Solitaire,
The Olympics has given the world a whole new set of lenses to see China and another set of challenges for China to manage its image.
The following article came out today. It is written by Stephen Vines, and veteran journalist in HK and Asia for decades. He used to host a local TV show on the local free-to-air channels which discussed thorny political issues. His show was discontinued last year, but he still contributes columns in English to various local English newspapers, sometimes even to the SCMP (which appears to be more censored than before after purchased by Alibaba).
Anyhow, he discusses about how China has trouble seeing itself as a multi-cultural multi-ethnic society, and how China culturally appropriates its ethnic minorities on the international stage.
He also discusses why many in HK are not cheering for the national team (but still cheering for the athletes that represent HK itself). 10-15 years ago, they did cheer for the national team.
Why many Hongkongers are not cheering the national team in Rio
(http://www.ejinsight.com/20160812-why-many-hongkongers-are-not-cheering-the-national-team-in-rio/)
Again, he alludes that some suggest that foreigners are partly to blame.
This is why I claim that China shoots itself in the foot. By clamping down on HK in the past 2 years, the pro-independence movement has exploded. China attracts the very things it doesn’t want.
LikeLike
@ jefe
Interesting Stephen Vines piece. Thanks.
LikeLike
@Abagond,
If you liked Stephen Vines piece last week, you might also like this week’s.
Schoolkids become targets in Orwellian thought control
(http://www.ejinsight.com/20160819-schoolkids-become-targets-in-orwellian-thought-control/)
The Secretary of the Bureau of Education in HK (Eddie Ng or Ng Kwok Him) was summoned to Beijing earlier this week to receive his lecture about how to treat the discussion of independence in schools. At the end of last week and prior to Secretary Ng’s trip at beginning of this week, most of the lapdog lackeys in the government, including CY Leung himself, warned of serious consequences (including criminal penalties) to educators if they dare mention about independence in schools or allow any discussion in schools to proliferate.
They claim that it has nothing to do with free speech.
The most disturbing thing (at least to me) is how the Secretary for Justice (Rimsky Yuen) has been tinkering with the “rule of law” and is trying to establish a system as Stephen Vines puts it:
This is exactly how I see the law is executed in Mainland China. Laws are merely a set of vague administrative procedures which, on the one hand can be negotiated with local officials, or, on the other hand, can be selected or discarded to effect what the government wants. This can be frightening to people in HK who grew up in a legal system based on British Common law. In China, there is no legal concept of things such as “civil rights”.
Apparently, Secretary Ng was summoned to Beijing to receive clarification on the matter.
This is what he came up with after his return:
Education Sec. asks school principals to ban Hong Kong independence activities – report
(https://www.hongkongfp.com/2016/08/19/eddie-ng-education-sec-asks-school-principals-to-ban-hong-kong-independence-activities-report/)
Taiwan has been openly discussing the situation of independence from China for many decades. But the government has never declared it, and the status quo has remained the MO during the whole time.
But apparently the status quo in HK (One Country, Two Systems) is not satisfying to the CCP. Regarding education, they have tried to control it, ie,
– 2012 – Moral and National Education based on the “China model”. As you know, that was quashed mainly by the then 15-yr old Joshua Wong’s group Scholarism and other groups that joined in. The resistance was successful to the extent that the proposed patriotic education was shelved.
– 2014 This caused the demand for fuller democracy and universal suffrage to grow, but which was put down by Beijing’s 8-31 (2014) white paper. We know this grew into the Occupy Central and Umbrella movement which was not successful in overturning Beijing’s decision.
However, that failure has spurred many, especially young people, to come to the conclusion that a push within the existing system for fuller democracy and universal suffrage allowing HK a degree of autonomy or self-determination is a hopeless cause that Beijing will never allow. The interest in greater autonomy gained from outside the existing system has grown, even public discourse about independence from Beijing. Polls now show that 40% of the population under age 30 favour independence and 60% of students at the major universities now favour it.
This is very surprising, as I can tell you that as recently as 2 years ago, no one really discussed the idea of independence as a viable option. Now it is daily discourse. It is interesting that the mainstream media try not to discuss it very much and try to downplay its significance.
which brings us to
– 2016 – Parties which favour Independence have surfaced, but the government at the last minute issued an order (leading legal figures and scholars have postulated that the government did not have the legal authority to do so and have expressed group statements condemning the government action) requiring candidates to sign a form saying that they support certain provisions of the Basic law, including a clause which states that HK is an inalienable part of the PRC.
Well, some candidates signed the form, and some didn’t, including some of the traditional pan-democrats who have served in the legislature for decades. Some of the independence leaning candidates signed the form. Some did not.
Well, the government disqualified 6 candidates based on this form, even though 2 of them signed it. Yet other candidates that did not sign the form were allowed to run. In other words, a selective and arbitrary procedure was used to determine who was allowed to run as a candidate. This has never happened before in the history of HK.
A legal challenge is being waged, and most pundits believe that the courts must rule that the Government extended beyond its authority to disqualify candidates on this basis. Which means that the upcoming Legislative Council election will be ruled a sham.
Now the government is clamping down on even the discussion of independence in the schools. There is a demand for this discussion, so I don’t think it will stop it. In fact, it will likely do the opposite.
I think we are heading straight towards another showdown, possibly even greater than Occupy Central and certainly more violent. This time the demand will not be for greater democracy and universal suffrage. It will be for greater autonomy from Beijing itself. And Beijing will be much less tolerant this time than it was during the Umbrella Movement.
The concerted effort on clamping down and more control by nipping in the bud only seems to cause the resistance to grow new and more resilient shoots.
It has come to the point when I feel more anxious about the future prospects of civil society in HK than I do about a Trump led or Hillary led America.
As Stephen Vines mentioned last week, a more autonomous Hong Kong would be a more patriotic one. I found that HK was very patriotic during the early years after the handover when it exercised more autonomy. But somehow Beijing does not realize that, so it has created the very situation that it does not want. I refuse to believe that it is due to some murky, unknown “foreign forces” (ie, the USA). They are creating a new generation of people who are willing even to fight with their lives amidst a situation they see as hopeless.
LikeLike
This explains why I have no faith in any information I get from the Global Times:
What Hong Kong election?
(https://www.hongkongfp.com/2016/09/06/hong-kong-election/)
The Global Times is the only online paper from Mainland China which still has any coverage on the event (the few others were quickly removed). My friends who work for mainland media organizations told me that they are forbidden to report on perhaps the biggest newsworthy event in HK since the umbrella movement. (Yet they held wall-to-wall coverage of the visits of the Mainland Chinese athletes to HK and Macau, something that most local HK people care very little about).
Southern China broadcasts HK TV stations, but there was a total blackout on this event.
The quoted article has a translation of the Chinese version (very bland, with no specific information) and the English version which tries to portray the pro-establishment forces as weak, inept and unorganized, at least in comparison to the anti-establishment groups and people. Anyone living here knows that that is the complete opposite of the actual truth. Pro-establishment groups are exceedingly well-oiled, enjoy great government support and are supported by the majority of newspapers in HK, which are pro-establishment. The non-establishment groups and individuals are very disparate and rarely can collaborate or come to a consensus (which is why we had some many more candidates from that side).
What is that doublespeak idea in Orwell’s 1984? There is no better place to witness this in action than what we see here.
Example of this outrageous doublespeak from the article:
* There is no such thing as an “anti-establishment camp” as those that form policies in opposition to the government are exceedingly diverse and disparate, hence the formation of so many parties and independent candidates.
* The addition of so many pro-democracy and pro-independence candidates weakened each candidate’s ability to garner enough votes to win a seat. The pro-establishment parties limited their candidates to ensure that enough would win seats.
* Many anti-establishment candidates withdrew from their campaign in the last 2 days before the election, in an attempt to increase the chances of the remaining anti-establishment candidates
–> in other words, what actually happened is the opposite of what was reported. And this is the only media in Mainland China that reported on it at all. Pure doublespeak.
LikeLike
Meanwhile, Stephen vines just posted his post-election commentary.
Never underestimate the people of Hong Kong
(http://www.ejinsight.com/20160906-never-underestimate-the-people-of-hong-kong/)
What he said is more in line with what actually happened.
As said above, there was a 99.9% media / internet blackout on the mainland re: the Hong Kong Legislative Council Elections except for one media outlet that spoke in doublespeak.
LikeLike
If reading an article is too dry, then here is a satirical 5 mins. video produced in New York about the HK elections, where several of the leaders of the umbrella movement have now been elected into the legislature (despite the arbitrary disqualification of 6 others). China cannot say that they are fringe groups with no real political power. (OF course they will still say it as part of their doublespeak).
How to Win a Rigged Election in Hong Kong | China Uncensored
(https://youtu.be/1gk7fDoPxOk)
The whole issue reiterates to me how China shoots themselves in the foot often from the need to maintain absolute power. Two years ago (just prior to Occupy Central) the notion of “Hong Kong Independence” was a complete non-issue. I believe that as late as August 2014, 95% of HK never questioned the legitimacy of China’s sovereignty over HK. Now it is front page news almost every day locally in HK.
What is front page news on the mainland for HK includes reports such as the visit of China’s Olympic athletes to HK after the Rio games. In 2008, HK people were fiercely proud of the Beijing games and when the athletes came to HK to boost national pride THEN. NOW, in 2016, the majority couldn’t care less.
Having said this, I can certainly agree that the US media spin on things in general often only tell one side of the story, such as the spat between Obama and Duterte.
Lately I have been seeing more comparisons between Hong Kong and other jurisdictions such as Saipan and Puerto Rico, ie, how “One Country, Two Systems” has worked out for other places such as the US. I think posts on these two places as well as others would be good for mainland US Americans to learn about.
Encountered this one this morning
Puerto Rico vs. Hong Kong: A tale of two colonies and their independence movements
https://www.hongkongfp.com/2016/09/11/puerto-rico-vs-hong-kong-a-tale-of-two-colonies-and-their-independence-movements/
They point out that rule by the USA or UK may not be any more benevolent. IT might even be worse.
LikeLike
More bad news for Jefe. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/philippines-president-rodrigo-duterte-ends-joint-military-drills-us-china-does-not-want/
LikeLiked by 1 person
I thought this an interesting article. The people of a remote Chinese village test positive for high amounts of Caucasian DNA. Speculation is that it is a the remnants of a lost Roman legion.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/8154490/Chinese-villagers-descended-from-Roman-soldiers.html
LikeLike