I really enjoyed my study of Chinese, about 40 years ago. I especially enjoyed various Chinese essays and novels from the 1920's and 1930's. Against the backdrop of war lords, colonial arrogance and oppression and eventually Japanese invasions, Chinese writers explored their own feelings and described the struggles of individual Chinese people, including themselves, looking for a new way in a confused and changing world. I enjoyed it and it was a big part of the attraction of studying the language.
I also read the Communist propaganda, the writings of Mao, the constant propaganda about struggle, always struggle, against the enemies, always enemies, especially class enemies, especially capitalists. Today it is the former Communist party higher ups who are the biggest capitalists. I needed to read this stuff to learn the terminology. But it was not real. It was not the real feelings of people. It was all about shouting slogans from the rooftops, shouting louder than the next person. It was empty and hard, compared to the writings of the 1920's and 1930's, which were about people.
So, here we are in the lead up to the Olympic Games of 2008. Who is kidding whom? What is sacred about the Olympics? Beijing wanted them for political reasons. Vancouver wanted the Winter Olympics in 2010 for commercial reasons. The athletes are spoiled elite people, many of whom earn large salaries from companies who want you to buy their products. Nothing wrong with that, but lets not make it out to be sacred. I see no ideals, no people helping people. Just pride and nationalism.
Now we have the public relations nightmare for China of the spectacle of bringing the Olympic torch to Beijing. China wanted the Olympics for their political reasons, to show off. The Tibetans are using the Olympics for their political purposes. Professional demonstrators are using them for their political purposes. Who can be surprised?
The statements by Chinese leaders, diplomats and commentators on various blogs around the world,are almost calculated to make non-Chinese people less sympathetic to them. The demonstrations are "disgusting "said the Chinese Ambassador to Canada. The demonstrations will "earn the hatred of 1.3 billion people", threaten the legion of Chinese people commenting on foreign language blogs. "The torch parades will continue no matter what" say the Chinese Olympic officials. The Chinese even sent a squad of special trained police goons to go to foreign countries and guard the torch and intimidate both athletes carrying the torch and demonstrators. Another public relations disaster.
In all of this, what strikes me is the power of the individual. Everything in life comes down to what you do, or can do, as an individual. It is not about numbers.
There is not one spokesman, not one representative of China, who has the charm, wit, and persuasive power of the Dalai Lama. At this stage of the PR battle it is Dalai Lama - 1 and 1.3 billion Chinese and all their leaders - 0. That does not mean freedom for Tibet. Nor am I in a position to judge China in Tibet. It just means that when the Dalai Lama speaks, many people want to listen. When the Chinese government and the oh-so indignant Chinese around the world speak with one voice, or claim to speak with one voice, few are sympathetic.
To some extent that comes with being powerful. It is the US/George Bush syndrome. But it is more than that. The Chinese arrogance, uniformity of views, and lack of common sense, make them appear machine like and almost inhuman, a far cry from the 1920's and 1930's essayists and novelists who tantalized me with Chinese language, culture and humanity. Today it is all pride, vanity and power.
The Dalai Lama is an outstanding spokesman. The Chinese should hire him. Maybe they should offer him the position of President of China.
Perhaps I should qualify my comment. I did not mean President in the sense of actual head of government, but rather in the sense of ceremonial head of state, sort of like the Queen, or the governor general. In other words, someone who could be a spokesperson. But then I was not really being serious either.
_________________ Steve
Language learning success depends on the attitude of the learner and the time spent with the language. All the rest is unimportant.
Perhaps I should qualify my comment. I did not mean President in the sense of actual head of government, but rather in the sense of ceremonial head of state, sort of like the Queen, or the governor general. In other words, someone who could be a spokesperson. But then I was not really being serious either.
One word I learnt from English is stereotype, a word that I think would fit some of the westners' attitude towards China or Chinese. When these westners look at China related issues, they would reach their conclusions way ahead any facts gathering or even any thinking. In their mind, there is a fixed equation or logic.
That is:
1: All communism countries are bad countries.
2: China was and is a communism country, therefore China is a bad country.
3: Anything that a bad country says is not truth. Anything/people that is against a bad country must be truth, therefore we should support them.
So the conclusion is, Anything China/Chinese/Chinese government sad is lie. Dalai Lama against China, therefore we must support him.
So it is actually not that hard to understand why some westners have those funny opinion about China, if you know they have the above logic.
We all know, including those westners, the proper direction to think and make desicion is from FACTs to conclusions. When anything involved China, those westners just can't think like normal.
I almost agree 100% when Steve said "The Chinese arrogance, uniformity of views, and lack of common sense, make them appear machine like and almost inhuman" except that "The Chinese" should be changed to "Some westners" or "Most westners". And the perfect sentence whould be" Some westners/Most westners' arrogance, uniformity of views, and lack of common sense, make them appear machine like and almost inhuman.
The Dalai Lama is an outstanding spokesman. The Canadian should hire him. Maybe they should offer him the position of President of Canada. (I guess you would agree he would be a much better president than Harbor).
To Steve, to see before you say, don't let the outdated cold-war papropaganda pollute your judgement.
|
Steve ()
Posted: 2008-4-10 07:25
Rather than throw out claims about stereotypes, it is more useful to look at the issues involved.
I will not address your 3 points here since it will only cause trouble for this Forum with a government that does not tolerate freedom of expression, and actively seeks to suppress it. Any government that suppresses freedom of expression is suspect. Anything they say is suspect, simply because it is too easy to lie if you can suppress the views of those who disagree with you. It does not matter who you are, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
My point was that the actions and attitude of the Chinese government and their supporters on this file have been characterized by arrogance and have only served to antagonize people everywhere. They need a new PR adviser, at the very least.
The main argument in favour of China's control of Tibet is the fact that China controls it, which is a considerable argument. Maybe that is the main argument in favour of the present governments in the Americas vis a vis the aboriginals.
Only during the period when China was controlled by the Mongols and Manchus was Tibet in any way part of the same territory as China. So what? There are many independent countries that were part of other Empires for hundreds of years and are today independent.
The Tibetans are culturally and historically distinct. But that need not mean independence. There are many culturally distinct areas, with distinct histories, that are part of larger countries.
I have no idea if appropriate force was used by Chinese security forces recently in Tibet. The police have a right and duty to maintain order and protect civilians. I have no idea whether the majority of Tibetans want independence.
I do know that the Tibetans are not allowed to say what they think. I do know that the government in Beijing behaves with utmost arrogance, the arrogance of absolute power. For that reason their position, and that of the people that support them, is suspect in my eyes.
Chinese people whom I have heard on this issue never express even one iota of understanding of the aspirations of the Tibetans for independence, and even deny them the right to hold such views. All I hear is nationalistic slogans, as if the Tibetans only exist for the benefit of the Chinese, and they should be lucky to have big brother China looking after them.
_________________ Steve
Language learning success depends on the attitude of the learner and the time spent with the language. All the rest is unimportant.
Perhaps I should qualify my comment. I did not mean President in the sense of actual head of government, but rather in the sense of ceremonial head of state, sort of like the Queen, or the governor general. In other words, someone who could be a spokesperson. But then I was not really being serious either.
The Dalai Lama has charm and wit and has persuaded people of many different languages and cultures, that he is a man of peace and compassion (whatever the truth behind him may be).
What is the connection between that and a raving nationalist, inspired by race hate, revenge for perceived insults and injury, and seeking to impose his power on other countries? You should read your history.
Hitler may have been able to put on charm and wit, but these were not his most obvious traits. With the Dalai Lama they are.
_________________ Steve
Language learning success depends on the attitude of the learner and the time spent with the language. All the rest is unimportant.
Perhaps I should qualify my comment. I did not mean President in the sense of actual head of government, but rather in the sense of ceremonial head of state, sort of like the Queen, or the governor general. In other words, someone who could be a spokesperson. But then I was not really being serious either.
The Dalai Lama has charm and wit and has persuaded people of many different languages and cultures, that he is a man of peace and compassion (whatever the truth behind him may be).
What is the connection between that and a raving nationalist, inspired by race hate, revenge for perceived insults and injury, and seeking to impose his power on other countries? You should read your history.
Hitler may have been able to put on charm and wit, but these were not his most obvious traits. With the Dalai Lama they are.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
Global Announcement:
:
Jump to:
