Blogs » Politics » One Year Later, Wukan Faces Same Challenges
Blogs » Politics » One Year Later, Wukan Faces Same Challenges |
- One Year Later, Wukan Faces Same Challenges
- Photo: Street in Baiyang town, Baoshan, Shanghai, by Remko Tanis
- The Rich List, “Brother Watch” and the Gini Coefficient in China
- Foxconn Plant Open, But Broader Issues Persist
- Does Mitt Romney Know the Difference Between Currency Manipulation and IP Infringement?
- The Fourth Amendment in the Electronic Age
- No Passport, No U.S. Visit For Ai Weiwei
- The journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step…
- Growing Up a Chinese Patriot, Then Heading West in a Changed World
- Tourism Businesses in Asia must be Socially Responsible
- China’s Online Commenters Greet First Aircraft Carrier With Doubt, Disdain
- Photographs Capture a Disappearing China
- 20 Die in Coal Mine Plunge
- Why I have no female Chinese friends
- Let Them Eat Pop-Tarts!
- The Daily Twit – 9/25/12: Giraffes on Frickin’ Aircraft Carriers
- China to top the world with 1,318 skyscrapers by 2022
- Taobao Links Up With Another U.S. IP Advocacy Group
- Defaming Confucius
- Mitt Romney Jumps the China Debt Shark
| One Year Later, Wukan Faces Same Challenges Posted: 25 Sep 2012 11:14 PM PDT After a minor protest in Wukan last Friday at the lack of progress made by the village's democratically elected leaders since last year's land grab demonstrations, The Wall Street Journal's Josh Chin questions whether Wukan still has value as a blueprint for political reform in China:
© Scott Greene for China Digital Times (CDT), 2012. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us |
| Photo: Street in Baiyang town, Baoshan, Shanghai, by Remko Tanis Posted: 25 Sep 2012 10:26 PM PDT  Street in Baiyang town, Baoshan, Shanghai © Sophie Beach for China Digital Times (CDT), 2012. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us |
| The Rich List, “Brother Watch” and the Gini Coefficient in China Posted: 25 Sep 2012 10:21 PM PDT Hurun has released its annual list of China's richest individuals. Topping the list for the second time in three years is Zong Qinghou, founder and chairman of beverage giant Wahaha Group, who owns a fortune worth $12.6 billion. Time Magazine looks at the statistics behind the list:
A report from the Wall Street Journal says that the decline in overall wealth is due to a slowdown in the property market, where many on the list made their fortunes: While elsewhere in the world, being named on such a list might be cause for celebration, many in China prefer to keep a lower profile. With a widening wealth gap and corruption becoming major concerns of the Chinese people, China's wealthy elite often prefer not to draw attention to themselves or the sources of their income. According to a new study, they have good reason to worry. From the Financial Times Beyond BRICS Blog:
Chinese citizens are growing increasingly frustrated with blatant displays of wealth and power by even low-level local officials. After a local official in Shaanxi was shown wearing numerous luxury watches, which he wouldn't be able to afford on his salary, he became the target of netizen outrage. He was subsequently removed from his position. Responding to such public outrage, the government has launched a crackdown on corruption and conspicuous consumption. Some observers say that this has led to a slowdown in the overseas luxury market. But despite these efforts, the wealth gap is growing and so is the anger of those on the losing side. From Business Week:
Read about the "rich list" from previous years via CDT, and more about the wealth gap in Chinese society on our special Great Divide page. © Sophie Beach for China Digital Times (CDT), 2012. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us |
| Foxconn Plant Open, But Broader Issues Persist Posted: 25 Sep 2012 10:08 PM PDT Foxconn's Taiyuan plant reopened on Tuesday morning after closing due to a worker riot, and the company expects little impact to production as it gets back to the business of assembling electronics for the likes of Hewlett-Packard, Nintendo and Sony (Apple's iPhone is made in Foxconn factories elsewhere in China). But while Foxconn has denied that the Sunday evening melee was work-related, The New Yorker's Evan Osnos explores what it says about the broader labor situation in China:
It was largely business as usual on Tuesday, writes The Financial Times' Kathrin Hille, but observers say that more issues will likely resurface despite Foxconn's attempts to improve conditions. Her interviews revealed many of the work-related frustrations of employees at the Taiyuan plant, from the obvious (unpaid wages to lack of overtime during the upcoming National Day holiday) to the less-than-obvious:
In an interview with Gawker, China labor scholar Eli Friedman spoke at length about evolving labor conditions in China, including the ongoing shift in geographic concentration by companies such as Foxconn:
© Scott Greene for China Digital Times (CDT), 2012. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us |
| Does Mitt Romney Know the Difference Between Currency Manipulation and IP Infringement? Posted: 25 Sep 2012 09:58 PM PDT
Here's a link to the ad on YouTube. The point of the ad is to hit Obama on his China policy, essentially faulting the administration for being too "soft" on China. The relevant text is this:
Factcheck.org has taken a look at the ad and done a decent job pointing out its faults. The main problem here is that the ad mixes up two different issues. The "seven times" language is a reference to the U.S. Treasury Department's semi-annual report on currency manipulation. The Obama Administration has had seven opportunities, in issuing those reports, to label China a currency manipulator, and it has failed to do so, something that Romney says he would do if elected president. On the other hand, the "stealing American ideas and technology" language refers to intellectual property rights infringement. The statistics cited in the advertisement on job losses are numbers from the International Trade Commission's analysis of intellectual property infringement. Obviously the currency issue is completely different from IP, and Romney's conflation of the two is dishonest. It's the old George Will trick — just throw out a statistic from a reputable source to establish credibility, but then misuse the number. Most readers won't get past the credible source, assuming that the number means what you say it does. There are many problems with the ad, including a lot of nonsense related to the currency issue, and I've certainly talked about that before. A keyword search at China Hearsay for "currency," "RMB," "Treasury Department," or even "Chuck Schumer" will probably get you more than enough analysis on that topic. Moreover, I'm not going to even bother questioning that ITC report on IP infringement-related job numbers. I wasn't too thrilled when several Senators asked for the report and was skeptical as to its usefulness, but when it was issued, I did admit that having more economic data on IP was a positive. More relevant was my post back in June of last year, which was a response to an Op/Ed written by Tuck School professor Matthew Slaughter, who argued, based on the ITC report, that U.S. pressure on China to better enforce IP law could result in as much as 2.1 million new American jobs. For a variety of reasons, I found Slaughter's analysis to be wanting:
Let's forget for the moment that Romney is purposefully mixing up the currency and IP issues and assume that he is suggesting a more forceful stance on IP enforcement by Obama would have led to significant job creation. Even so, Romney's use of the ITC numbers runs into the same problems as Slaughter's argument. First, suggesting that China can somehow magically transform its IP enforcement system to be on par with the U.S. regime is ridiculous. If I had any reason to believe that the Romney campaign had enough of its shit together to even be making that point overtly, I'd say that they were woefully ignorant of the IP situation over here. In reality, it's more of an inference I'm making from the "logic" of the advertisement. Second, a much more overt suggestion in the ad is that Obama has been asleep at the switch when it comes to IP. As I've said many, many times over the years, IP has been, and will continue to be, among the top three U.S.-China issues. EVERY SINGLE TIME the U.S. and China sit down and talk about the bilateral relationship, IP plays a prominent role in that discussion and subsequent negotiations. Without even getting into actual disputes, WTO actions, and other ad hoc efforts, I can tell you that Romney's implication here is absolutely without merit. If you don't believe me, ask the folks at the Motion Picture Association, the Business Software Alliance, or Phrma if the U.S. government cares about IP. One last issue. In addition to conflating IP and currency valuation, the Romney ad also groups together traditional, private sector IP infringement with hacking and espionage. The ad states that China is stealing everything from "computers to fighter jets." This general statement may be true, but if you're then going to back it up by using those ITC job loss numbers, then we're once again in bullshit territory. This is not rocket science. If a Chinese company makes a widget based on patented technology owned by a U.S. company and then sells that product, then one can make the case that the U.S. company has suffered economic losses. However, if Beijing engages in espionage, stealing technology necessary to construct an advanced jet fighter, this is not a private sector loss but a national security issue. Whether China builds a fighter jet or not, it certainly won't be giving the contract to Lockheed Martin. (Real problems do exist with IP and components used in the defense industry, but that wasn't discussed in the ad.) From top to bottom, this latest China ad from the Gang that Can't Shoot Straight is extraordinarily weak. It conflates currency matters with IP, using statistics from one area to somehow justify a policy in another. Moreover, even if we give Romney the benefit of the doubt and assume that he actually is talking about IP-related job losses, we encounter more conflation, confusion and obfuscation. FUBAR © Stan for China Hearsay, 2012. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us |
| The Fourth Amendment in the Electronic Age Posted: 25 Sep 2012 06:49 AM PDT The Fourth Amendment in the Electronic Age(By Senator Charles McC. Mathias, Jr.)In 1817 former President John Adams wrote to a friend who had asked him to recall the genesis of the American Revolution. Age had not dimmed Adam's passion, or his memory of the events that had liberated his country from England. He went straight to the first of the great dramas in our long advance toward libertarianism. Richard Harris, in his New Yorker essay on the fourth amendment, has given us a detailed account of that drama, and those events. Today I'd like to touch the highlights. "The scene", Adams wrote, "is in the council chamber in the month of February, 1761 . . . in this chamber, round a great fire, were seated five judges, with lieutenant-governor Hutchinson at their head, as chief justice, all arrayed in their new, fresh, rich robes of scarlet English broadcloth; in their large cambric bands, and immense judicial wigs". John Adams was a young lawyer of 25. He and every other member of the bar of Middlesex County and Boston sat in the chamber that day, also arrayed in the gowns and wigs of English tradition. Adams took noted, and 57 years later resurrected the scene, which echoes today as powerfully as ever vital in our law and heritage. At issue were the general warrants called writs of assistance, a legacy of the repressive court of star chamber. The writs authorized officers of the crown to search homes and property for smuggled goods, and to compel any British subject to assist in the search. They did not specify whose property, or what evidence was to be looked for. The merchants of Boston demanded a hearing. They asked James Otis, Jr. of the Bay Colony to represent them, and offered him a generous fee. Otis accepted the job and declined the fee. "In such a cause", he said, "I despise all fees". The Revolution had found one of its first heroes, a man usually overlooked in the liturgies of the Bicentennial. Otis resigned as advocate general of the admiralty court, a position with promise of wealth and advancement, and went to work for the Colonists against the writs of assistance. John Adams never forgot Otis' 5-hour performance that day. According to Adams, Otis wove a spellbinding mix of classical allusion, history, legal precedent, constitutional law, and prophecy. When he was done, opposition to the writs was unalterably set in the minds of the Colonists, and one of the fundamental principles of English common law had been indelibly written in our history. "I will to my dying day", Otis began, "oppose with all the powers God has given me all such instruments of slavery on the one hand and villainy on the other, as this writ of assistance. It appears to me the worst instrument of arbitrary power, the most destructive of English liberty and the fundamental principles of law that ever was found in an English lawbook. . . ." A warrant, he said, must designate the place to be searched, the evidence to be looked for and the person in question. It can be issued only upon a sworn complaint. A general warrant, in Otis' view, was in dead conflict with the British constitution. "On of the most essential branches of English liberty", he said, "is the freedom of one's house. A man's house is his castle, and whilst he is as well guarded a prince in his castle". It was America's first defense of the right to privacy; a first glimmer of the notion that a citizen has the right to be let alone. After Otis' peroration, the colonists followed events in England, where in 1763 a pamphleteer named John Wilkes was arrested and his home ransacked on the authority of a general warrant. Wilkes sued the officer for trespassing, claiming that a general warrant was illegal under the unwritten constitution. The jury found in his favor. At the same time another incendiary writer, John Entick, was arrested on a warrant that did bear his name but ordered the seizure of all his books and papers, without specifying any particular ones. Entick sued and won. The Government appealed, and the Court of Common Pleas found unanimously in Entick's favor. "Papers", wrote Lord Camden, are the owners's goods and chattels: they are his dearest property, and are so far from enduring a seizure that they will hardly bear an inspection". Soon afterwards, the House of Commons declared general warrants illegal. William Pitt the elder, the Great Prime Minister who was dismissed by George III for his sympathy toward American grievances, put it most eloquently of all: "the poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the force of the crown. It may be frail: its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storms may enter, the rain may enter, -but the King of England cannot enter; all his forces dare not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement!" In 1791, the Founding Fathers compressed theses events and utterances, and the tradition that shaped them, into the succinct injunction of the fourth amendment: "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized". To procure this right was one of the overriding aims of the American Revolution. It is a right no despotism can accommodate. It is a right no free society can be without. It is fair, I think, to suppose that Madison and his colleagues were satisfied that they had guaranteed the people from intrusion, search and seizure beyond all doubt. They Bill of Rights was written to clarify. It drew lines around the individual freedoms, intended to be unalterable and plainly visible. But the Founding Fathers could not foresee the electronic age. They could not foresee telephones, wiretaps, bugging devices, computers and data bands. Technology has cluttered the domain off the constitution. It has confused things. It has made our homes and our private lives accessible, even when our doors are looked and our shades are drawn. It has created a new kind of intrusion: invisible, unannounced often untraceable. Unauthorized intrusions have almost always been a temptation to police in search of evidence, and to governments troubled by national security. With the electronic age, the temptations have proliferated. The meaning of privacy has become blurred in many minds, and in the confusion, electronic prying has outrun the restraints of the fourth amendment. In 1928, the Supreme Court dealt for the first time with wiretapping in Olmstead versus United States. The plaintiffs were bootleggers who had been convicted on the evidence of recorded telephone conversations. They claimed that the use of such evidence violated the fourth and fifth amendments. The supreme Court upheld the convictions. Chief Justice William Howard Taft wrote the opinion. Wiretapping, he ruled, was not a search and seizure and not an illegal entry, because the tap had been placed outside. Only the spoken word had been seized, and the spoken word was not protected by the fourth amendment. In spite of Taft, the Olmstead case produced an historic definition of privacy: the famous dissent by Mr. Justice Brandeis. "The makers of our constitution", he wrote, "sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone--the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. To protect that right, every unjustifiable intrusion by the individual, whatever the means employed must be deemed a violation of the fourth amendment. Nonetheless, Taft's unimaginative pronouncement stood for 39 years, until the court decided in Katz versus New York that warrantless wiretapping had to be construed a violation of the fourth amendment. "The fourth amendment", the court ruled, "protects people, not places". One did not have to be at home to be intruded upon. The Katz decision vindicated Brandeis' 1928 dissent. And I believe the fourth amendment bears no other interpretation. What did the Founding Fathers intend to confer, if not the right to be let alone--the right to speak in private, the right to think in private? Jefferson once warned that "the natural process of things is for Liberty to yield and Government to gain ground." In our 200 years history, we have resisted that tendency. Armed with the Constitution, we have fought infringements of our liberties, and on balance have squeezed out enough victories to bring civil liberties alive and well to the present day. The courts have stood by our right to privacy in some areas, such as the right to read as one chooses in the privacy of one's home. But the courts have not guarded us as well against intrusion and surveillance--nor has the Congress or the legal profession. And where we have turned our backs. Government has exceeded its rightful powers, almost without fall. Liberty has yielded, and Government has gained ground.  |
| No Passport, No U.S. Visit For Ai Weiwei Posted: 25 Sep 2012 08:16 PM PDT In a telephone interview, Ai Weiwei has told The New York Times that he would likely miss the opening of his exhibition at the Hirshhorn Museum in Washington, as well as several other scheduled appearances in the United States next month, because Chinese authorities still have not returned his passport:
In a preview for an article which will appear in this week's Huffington iPad magazine, Gazelle Emami sat down with Ai Weiwei at his Beijing studio:
See also Ai Weiwei's take on "contemporary Chinese art", as well as recent profiles of Ai and his former protege Zhao Zhao in Smithsonian Magazine and Spiegel, respectively, all via CDT. © Scott Greene for China Digital Times (CDT), 2012. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us |
| The journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step… Posted: 25 Sep 2012 07:08 PM PDT I know the blog admin doesn't want too much content on any single day, but today is special, today marks a new beginning.
By the way, to find out more, go to CDF (free registration required): http://www.china-defense.com/smf/index.php#1 |
| Growing Up a Chinese Patriot, Then Heading West in a Changed World Posted: 25 Sep 2012 03:32 PM PDT  The Chinese says "I love my motherland," a mantra that once glowed I have hundreds of memories of the ceremony, the earliest of which took place in the playground of my elementary school: A dirt opening ringed with cypresses and gingko trees, a small brick-and-concrete platform, and a shining flag pole. Every Monday morning, the school gathered on the playground after second period, belting out the national anthem while watching the flag climb. "Arise–ye who refuse to be slaves–," the flag bearer, a member of the Young Pioneers Group, jerked his hands to spread the flag in a swish, his tiny body thrown into an arch, as his partner started pulling the rope. "The people of China–have arrived at the most dangerous time! Everybody must let out a final cry–" the flag rose slowly, bathed in the morning sun, birds chirping in the trees. "March on–march on–march on!" The unison broke toward the end, voices syncopating, as we each adjusted our pace so the last note would coincide with the "Ding" sound when the flag reached the top. The flag raising was followed by the "Speech Under the National Flag," a name given by the students. A speaker was usually a fifth or sixth grader picked by teachers, who took the microphone at the center of the platform and read a political speech prepared by another student writer. We stood in silence and listened. The words had a unique rhythm, like a troop marching by, breaking into a run, switching to goose step, then to parade step, never missing a beat. They were words both strange and familiar, words printed in bold in our "Ideology and Morality" textbooks, or announced in central television evening news programs. "Love your class, love your school, love your country!" "Building socialism with Chinese characteristics requires the service of each and every one of us!" "Realize the Four Modernizations!" These phrases, their meanings but vague contours, glowed in my mind. Like chants, like mantras that, if mastered, could bring me the life I wanted. They were also ubiquitous in my daily life: Large characters chalked on the boards outside my classrooms, red banners hanging under city overpasses, the phrases in the pledge to join the Young Pioneers Group, and the lines in the cross talk shows performed at the Chinese New Year gala. As a result, even as a fifth grader, it was difficult for me not to notice in 1999 when all those words seemed to catch fire overnight, burning with anger. One day that year, Headmaster Wang asked me to come to his office after class. "Next week, we have a theme for our student speech at the flag-raising ceremony," he said, leaning back in his chair and looking at me from across his desk. "Your Chinese teacher recommended you, and I want you to write something about what just happened, the NATO bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade." A moment of silence. I tried to digest his request. "But I don't know anything about the bombing!" flashed through my mind, but I immediately pushed it aside. Surely I could watch some news. "What should I say about it?" came next, but somehow the answer was already there before I finished asking myself the question. I imagined two thousand students at the flag-raising ceremony, standing in silence and focused on my words. I wiped my wet palms on the back of my pants. "Sure. When should I hand it in?" Walking out of Headmaster Wang's office, I looked out of the hallway window at the flagpole and the small platform on the playground, gleaming slightly in the afternoon sun, and quickened my steps. Writing the speech didn't turn out to be an onerous task. It felt more like stacking blocks than making a sculpture—none of the hair-pulling, nail-biting agony in the search for ideas, or the consuming labor involved in creating a work of self-expression. There was a vast pool of resources I could turn to for inspiration: Ledes in the front-page news, phrases in television announcements, words beyond my comprehension but within grasp—"gross encroachment on China's sovereignty," "willful trampling on the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations," "barbaric atrocity," "oppose hegemonism." Pushing these phrases around on paper, I produced my first "Speech Under the National Flag." The following Monday was sunny and cloudless, with a touch of the approaching summer heat. Above the rows of students on the playground, standing straight in their bold white school uniforms, my words echoed, delivered by a firm and ardent voice slightly blurred by microphone feedback. "U.S.-led NATO has committed a crime…it was a serious incident that has shocked the world. It was a serious infringement on Chinese sovereignty and an affront to the feelings of the Chinese people!" The speaker leaned forward slightly, nodding her head while pronouncing each line as if to an internal drumbeat, the written speech rustling in her hands. "We express our utmost indignation and stern condemnation, and lodge the strongest protest against this barbaric atrocity!" I looked around. The student in front of me turned back half way, sticking out his arm low and erecting his thumb. I managed to stifle a smile as the angry speech rolled on. After writing my first speech, I seemed to have boarded a fast-moving train that carried me along on an exhilarating and dizzy ride full of praise and recognition. More speechwriting tasks started coming my way: For National Day, for Anti-Japanese War Memorial Day, for the school's opening ceremony, for commencement. Before each event, I handed my speech to Headmaster Wang, who read my early efforts while rubbing his temples, but later took only a glance before returning them to me with a smile. After each speech, more classmates began to recognize me, walking up to me in the hallway of our school building, addressing me as "the speechwriter." The task seemed to become almost effortless over time. While I initially had to scour piles of newspapers to collect popular buzzwords and catchphrases, as I moved on to middle school and high school I developed a mental reservoir for these words. I learned to pick and arrange them for different themes; from China joining the WTO in 2000 to the 2004 Athens Olympics to the 2005 anti-Japanese protests, I could rattle off relevant terminologies as if I were reciting the periodic table. The meanings of these words, however, had always remained elusive to me. Why are the "Four Modernizations" important? What exactly does xiaokang—"fairly well-off"—entail? What does a "harmonious society" mean? But I didn't dwell on these questions, nor did I attempt to explore them in the speeches, for the teachers who proofread my drafts always smiled approvingly, and the students listened without commenting. In my high school junior year political science class, we learned to define some of this vocabulary: "people's democratic dictatorship," "initial stage of socialism," "socialism with Chinese characteristics," words that sounded no more relevant to our lives than when we first heard them in elementary school. We made jokes about the political science teacher, mimicking his heavy provincial accent, while still duly copying his words onto our notebooks and memorizing them for exams. It was important to remember the "inherent contradictions in the capitalist mode of production" and the difference between "the Chinese People's Congress system" and "the Western Parliamentary system," for they had provided answers for two multiple choice questions in the previous year's gaokao, the national college entrance exam. As the years passed, the flag-raising ceremonies seemed to grow longer. Sleep-deprived high school juniors mumbled the lyrics of the national anthem between yawns as the flag climbed the pole, and listened, heads drooping, as the speeches droned on. Speechwriting, too, seemed to have lost its exciting punch. These words, now ubiquitous in our lives, had lost their grandeur, and become a currency only valuable when converted into scores on our school report card. For the next exam, and for the one after that, I did not mind repeating them.  Deerfield Academy beckoned from the front of a glossy brochure By 2005, something was changing. More than a few of my peers started to consider applying to high schools and universities abroad. The legends of the "Harvard Girls" and "Yale Boys," Chinese who had successfully made it into the best universities in the world, were tickling the minds of thousands of others in China. Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Oxford, Cambridge–the school names, appearing in history textbooks next to pictures of Nobel Prize winners, assumed the same vague but glowing contours in my mind as patriotic vocabulary once did in elementary school. Terms like "liberal arts education" and "critical thinking" on the school websites felt as elusive as the "Four Modernizations" and the "Eight Honors and Eight Shames." But maybe no one would ask me to define those, either. The game had changed, and new rules needed to be mastered. Perhaps the English application essays would prove scarcely harder to write than the "Under the Flag speeches" after all. Over one weekend, I filled out an application to a private high school in the United States, then dove back into to my school textbooks. After all, before any alternative destination came into view, it was risky to deviate too far from the well-trodden path. Three months later, a package from Massachusetts arrived in the mail. I tore it open, and a thick bundle of envelopes and booklets fell into my lap. The top one was a brochure that had a cover photo of a majestic-looking building with red bricks and white pillars behind well-manicured grass. It was the campus of Deerfield Academy, glowing in the sun. |
| Tourism Businesses in Asia must be Socially Responsible Posted: 25 Sep 2012 03:08 PM PDT Memo #176 By Azilah Kasim - azilah [at] uum.edu.my
There are two main reasons for this: First, the increase in global tourism by 30 per cent in the past decade implies stronger pressure on local resources such as water, electricity, and land space. There has also been increased production of solid waste, gray water, and sewage. As Asia and the Pacific mainly consist of developing countries, local governments are simply incapable to effectively address environmental management of destinations alone. Tourism businesses must step up and help out. Second, being socially responsible is a business approach already widely practiced among Western and European tourism businesses. Hotels for example are awarded by local and global associations (such as the Green Hotels Association in the US and the International Hotel & Restaurant Association) for implementing positive environmental practices. The Pacific Asia Travel Association must enforce a similar "carrot and stick" approach to encourage more of the region's tourism businesses to be environmentally friendly. Doing so will not only help improve the environmental conditions of a local destination, but also attract more discerning, high-end tourists from developed countries. Being socially responsible towards the environment is a strategic business decision that can enhance the image of a business. Many prominent tourism companies such as GAP Adventures, Marriott International Inc., and Metropolitan Touring have strategically shown social responsibility in dealing with their externalities to enhance their image. Ultimately, tourism is an industry that relies on environmental aesthetics. It makes sense for tourism businesses to not "kill the goose that lays the golden egg." Unsustainable business practices will slowly but surely degrade a destination. In the long run this will jeopardize the tourism businesses' own existence and sustainability. Dr. Azilah Kasim is a visiting associate professor at the Institute of Asian Research. She is from Universiti Utara Malaysia, Malaysia. She is a cited author who has researched and published quite extensively in the area of CSR and Marketing. If you enjoyed this memo, subscribe to our e-newsletter for free and receive new memos 2+ times per week via email.  Nature at its best is tourism's primary draw Links:
Related Memos:
|
| China’s Online Commenters Greet First Aircraft Carrier With Doubt, Disdain Posted: 25 Sep 2012 12:28 PM PDT
That mouthful certainly sounds like a big step. But China's netizens appear to believe their country has taken a much smaller one. As television host Zhang Quanling (@张泉灵) tweeted to her nearly five million followers on Sina Weibo, China's Twitter, "I spent an afternoon looking at these materials, and from the aircraft carrier matter it's even clearer to see that China is still a developing country. Among the five permanent members of the U.N. security council, China is the last to have an aircraft carrier. Among the four BRIC countries, China is the last to have an aircraft carrier. In Asia, even Thailand has one. Today's China [now] has its first aircraft carrier, [so] from now on we don't have to be coming from behind. This is worthy of praise, but a long way from jubilance!" [2] Her post appears to have received a generally supportive reception and has been retweeted over 2,500 times. Other netizens also sought to contextualize the acquisition. @少林小三哥 complained, "I can't find the excitement. The little Japanese brought these into the battlefields in the '30s or '40s." @Dukk淇 also combined evident dislike for Japan with dissatisfaction at the state of China's military, writing: "Can this be used in war? Where are the planes? Useless. The little Japanese had about 20 of these by the '70s." @KINGKONG8333 sighed, "We're only better than a few small African nations." Indeed, one question on netizens' tongues was: Where are the planes? The images released online did not show any planes onboard the carrier, and the New York Times recently reported that Chinese experts aver the carrier, purchased from Ukraine, will be used only for training in the short term, with no planes yet able to land on its massive back. @不满的机器 mused, "Without aircraft…is it still an aircraft carrier?" @栖居的行者 tweeted sadly, "Ah, an aircraft carrier without planes is a lonely one." A small minority of netizens greeted the decision with the jubilance that Ms. Zhang professed herself unable to muster. Hu Xijin (@胡锡进), editor of the conservative Global Times, tweeted: "Congratulations to China for putting its first aircraft carrier into service. This is a great day in the history of the Chinese navy. China is experiencing a beginning that holds meaning for the entire human race. Our thoughts and our hearts should catch up with these changes. It's likely history will show this aircraft carrier moving China away from war, and not the opposite. " [3] While Hu argued the carrier would increase regional peace, a small number of netizens seemed emboldened by the acquisition. @烈火1977 wrote, "Go to the Diaoyu. See if the Japanese boats still dare to collide [with ours]." From all available information, it's clear the Liaoning is not yet ready for prime time. That was the sticking point for many netizens, who showed the admixture of patriotism and cynicism so often found on China's Internet. They seemed to want to become a military power without going through the growth steps necessary to do so. @润东之火 expressed hope the carrier does not "just become a tool for domestic performances." @西山剑之扬眉剑出鞘 demanded to know, "Can they use it? Do they know how to use it? Do they dare to use it?" @都百炼生 seemed to challenge China's navy: "If you've got skill, go to Diaoyu for military training. Otherwise, you're the same as the model sitting on my windowsill." [4] @ 思绪纷绯 was more ambitious: "I await a wholly Chinese-made, nuclearized…carrier-based stealth fighter aircraft carrier." [5] If online reaction is any guide, China's military faces pressure from both sides. Its foes, neighbors, and uneasy allies prefer that China's military slow its rate of growth. Domestically, however, it cannot move fast enough to please many commenters. @halisport summed it up this way: "This should be the beginning, eventually the number of Chinese aircraft carriers should be commensurate with our national power." Could other aircraft carriers be on the way? @中隐于校 jokingly (or hopefully) theorized, "It would appear we will make at least 34 carriers, with each province and administrative region getting one named after it." @进口酒运营商 was eager to help: "I hope there comes a day when I can donate an aircraft carrier to the nation." With its citizens harboring that level of ambition, China's government–including its military–will be hard pressed to manage expectations over the coming years.  Chinese naval sailors and officers looking at the ready. Via Weibo Footnotes (? returns to text)
|
| Photographs Capture a Disappearing China Posted: 25 Sep 2012 10:33 AM PDT With rapid and profound economic and social changes underway in China, many aspects of day-to-day life are being transformed. Several artists have recently made efforts to document the current way of life for Chinese families as a way to preserve a lifestyle that may soon disappear. In Beijing, an exhibit of photographs by Huang Qingjun portray families outside their homes with all their worldly goods. Huang spent ten years traveling to remote areas of China to photograph the country's poorest residents, but also included members of the wealthy elite. Despite a wide disparity in the amount and worth of the possessions, almost all photographs include a television. From the BBC:
See also a previous CDT post on Huang's work. His exhibit brings to mind a show at New York's Museum of Modern Art in 2009, in which Chinese artist Song Dong displayed the complete contents of his mother's home, amassed over 50 years. In a similar effort to document a disappearing lifestyle, journalist and photographer Howard French has published a book together with writer Qiu Xiaolong of photographs, essays and poems titled, Disappearing Shanghai: Photographs and Poems of an Intimate Way of Life
See more of French's photographs on his website. © Sophie Beach for China Digital Times (CDT), 2012. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us |
| Posted: 25 Sep 2012 08:52 AM PDT Twenty workers were killed in China's latest mining accident in Gansu. This comes just after another one of the deadliest coal mine blasts in nearly three years. AP reports:
According to AFP, officials who oversee the mine refused to comment. China's mines remain the deadliest in the world:
Aside from the accident in Gansu, China Daily reports a total of 22 miners trapped after three separate accidents:
Read more about mine safety in China, via CDT. © Melissa M. Chan for China Digital Times (CDT), 2012. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us |
| Why I have no female Chinese friends Posted: 25 Sep 2012 08:49 AM PDT The other day I shared a story about forging some special friendships in China, and in it wrote, "I have always had trouble making female Chinese friends." I was hoping I wouldn't have to get too into this — mainly because it is very difficult to write in a way that will not illicit angry, politically-correct responses — but one commentator called my bluff. So I'll do my best. This is a slightly longer post than others. First, let me clarify that I am a female, and that my "friends issues" are largely personal rather than cultural. Of the handful of Chinese people whom I would consider real friends — not just a language partner, co-worker, or someone to eat meals with — there may be just one female. My particular manner of befriending females is the biggest factor. I've never had the patience for frivolous banter, and tend to give the initial impression of bitterness rather than sweetness — opposite to many women. In friends, I look for the ability to have a deeply philosophical conversation as well as the wherewithal to be active and adventurous: to play a sport, or go to a party, or to basically be spontaneously silly. In high school, I had very few female friends for this reason: the girls at my school were just more of the frivolous banter-types than their male counterparts. Since getting closer to adulthood, that has changed, and I have made many intriguing, daring, and fun female friends. In China, I feel somewhat like I'm back in high school. I have trouble finding a Chinese female who has had the similar extent of life experiences that I have had; someone who can not only understand me, but who is interesting to be understood; someone who will not judge me for my opinions or experiences, and who will not be afraid of being judged herself. The sports and partying is all a side note: the biggest factors seem to be simply understanding and judging. Understanding: By the nature of being a foreigner in China, it is already difficult to find someone who understands you enough to be patient with your differences. I really appreciate those who have shown this patience; among them, many (if not most) are female. We tend to lose the potential for connection early on, however, with the inevitable Boy conversation. It goes like this: Potential Chinese female friend: What type of boys do you like? Every country has its own dating culture, but China's and America's are pretty distinctly different. I feel absolutely uncomfortable talking with a Chinese person about America's "hook-up culture" that permeates colleges these days. And even in the rest of the US, where the preferred method of dating is something a little more PG, Americans still tend to have several significant others before tying the knot. In China, it is shameful to date too much, and people are very private about their sex lives, especially the women. The conversation about dating boys — a subject that is universally a topic of bonding and interest for heterosexual females — is therefore uncomfortable, one would even say a lost cause, from its outset. This is one cultural difference that may be too great to overcome. Judging: The fact that I am being judged in a language and culture not native to me is part of the fun, but it is also highly uncomfortable and often inaccurate. On the last day of my study abroad program in college, my female teacher told every student in the class what she thought of them (in front of everyone). If that was not tactless enough, she was also terribly inaccurate. When it was my turn, she said: "Hannah, you are like a Chinese flower; shy, pretty, and traditional." My friends had a good laugh about that one — traditional? She must have confused my inability to communicate in Chinese (and her own inability to connect with her students in a meaningful way) with "shyness." I often find PCFF's saying things like this to me, thinking they are flattering me. Why this phenomenon *seems* particular to Chinese females moreso than Chinese males is worth exploring. Perhaps some terrible combination of Asia's value of "face" and women's traditional subservient position in society make it difficult for women to be as spontaneous, daring, and "in-the-moment" as their male counterparts. Like in most societies, she is systematically taught to be subservient to men in many subtle ways — to be quiet in a group, let the men do the talking, and to act cutesy. She is specifically and systematically encouraged to focus on finding a husband who can take care of her [financially, not so much emotionally], to provide a grandchild for her parents, and basically to be a desirable, attainable — even purchasable — object, even as she is also a full-time worker. There is little room in that trajectory for a girl to become worldly, comedic, philosophical, or brazen. These are generalizations and of course we can all think of exceptions. The bottom line is, I have more Chinese male friends because they are overall easier for me to talk to. They don't talk to me much about dating or gossip about other people. The conversation is usually something more interesting, or at least has an edge of daring and humor that I find less often in PCFF's. I wonder now if foreign men have a similar experience or not. While foreign men are more likely than foreign women to find a Chinese lover, friendship may be a different story. What's your experience? Filed under: Life in China   |
| Posted: 25 Sep 2012 08:40 AM PDT While more companies are relying on Chinese tastes to produce luxury goods and cars, food companies, such as Nestle, have also followed suit. The Wall Street Journal reports Kellogg has now agreed to a joint venture to expand its snack business in China:
As a result of the announcement, shares of Wilmar jumped two percent. Reuters adds:
Despite the jump in share price, critics say the entrance of Kellogg's various unhealthy snacks may lead to a growing obesity rate in China. Concerns about the obesity rate in China have already been highlighted due to the rapid influx of fast food chains. From The Los Angeles Times:
© Melissa M. Chan for China Digital Times (CDT), 2012. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us |
| The Daily Twit – 9/25/12: Giraffes on Frickin’ Aircraft Carriers Posted: 25 Sep 2012 08:07 AM PDT I think we've gotten to the point of saturation with the China-Japan islands dispute. The Twitterati this afternoon was so bored that several of us became fascinated by this photo of a couple of giraffes being transported along a Beijing highway to God knows where. Theories include the Beijing Zoo or a new exclusive restaurant for plutocrats with exotic tastes. Then again, they could have been on their way to a new exclusive brothel for plutocrats with exotic tastes. You never can tell with the filthy rich, emphasis on the filthy. Aside from the giraffathon on Twitter today, there was one other new item out there: China's latest military toy, the aircraft carrier Liaoning. After a spot of research, I was surprised to find out that the carrier is not actually named for Liaoning Province, as I had assumed, but for the medieval Mongol word for "useless military prestige project." You learn something new every day. If you actually want to know something about the latest in maritime boondoggles, you could read one of these exciting articles: Associated Press: China says first aircraft carrier entering service, although not ready for combat or planes — Hmm. Not exactly as advertised, I guess. Without the planes and the combat readiness, the Liaoning leaves quite a lot to be desired. Xinhua: China's aircraft carrier poses no threat to world — Yeah, after the whole "no planes or combat" warnings, I kind of figured that out for myself. Guardian: China launches aircraft carrier amid rising tensions with Japan — However non-threatening China says the carrier is, the timing suggests that it is meant to be . . . well, I'm going to have to go with "warning." Interesting that China chose the name "Liaoning," the province where the shit went down in 1931 that precipitated the Japanese invasion. Just a coincidence, I'm sure, but a nifty one at that. Shit, I thought we were talking about a piece of military hardware, but just as I thought I had safely left the China-Japan spat behind me, the damn thing sucks me right back in. Very well, let's go there: LA Times: The specks of land at the center of Japan-China islands dispute — Love the headline, and the reference to the "feral, inbred goats" (the islands' only inhabitants) isn't bad either. Attitude in a major newspaper – that's refreshing. How did Barbara Demick get that language past the anti-snark detectors? Financial Times: Taiwan's fishermen enter troubled waters — Just when you thought you knew all the characters in this little drama, some Taiwanese fishermen show up. It's worse than a Russian novel. Apparently the Japanese even turned the water cannons on these guys this afternoon. No, really, I'm not making this up. Telegraph: Japanese water cannon attack on Taiwanese fishing boats over Senkaku dispute — See, I told you I wasn't making it up. I see that the Telegraph has gone with "Senkaku" in its headline (and not "Diaoyu"), which probably means that its Beijing correspondent will have problems renewing his visa next time. Oops. MarketWatch: As Japan, China argue, analysts stay hopeful — I'm glad someone is maintaining a sunny outlook. Then again, you can always find a couple of finance types to talk up the market. Any dissenting opinions out there, maybe even on the same web site? Here's one: Toyota to cut output due to China protests: report — that sounds like a negative impact to me, although it could very well end up being short-lived. Global Times: Japanese auto companies suspend marketing in China — Also not the best news. If consumer demand for Japanese products is down, and only a week ago folks were breaking and burning the stuff, sounds smart to keep a low profile for a while. Asian Lawyer: Firms Fret Over China-Japan Tensions — Another negative story, but a close read will tell you that this is mostly hand-wringing by nervous corporate lawyers. We are a jittery bunch. Cross-border deals (that include PRC/Japan) are being scrutinized perhaps, but so far, they are not being cancelled. In other news, I'll stay away from most of the empty speculation on the import of the riot/brawl/disturbance at the Foxconn plant in Taiyuan. If you read my post from yesterday, you'll remember that the whole thing made me cranky. But if you need a summary of where things stand as of today, check this out: Financial Times: Foxconn's supply chain of lost souls. Rumor has it that the Party Congress has finally been calendared for mid-October. For an interesting discussion of the Hu/Wen legacy and what lies ahead for the handover — Guardian: China's fraught succession. The China bashing in the U.S. presidential contest shows no signs of slowing down. Oh joy. Elizabeth Economy has apparently had enough of it. The Diplomat: Message to the Candidates: Talk China Policy not China Smack. I went after Romney myself today for his latest foray into misleading China blah: Mitt Romney Jumps the China Debt Shark. © Stan for China Hearsay, 2012. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us |
| China to top the world with 1,318 skyscrapers by 2022 Posted: 24 Sep 2012 06:45 PM PDT
By 2022, China will have more skyscrapers than any other country in the world, according to a report released by MotianCity, a research organization in China focusing on skyscrapers. The United States currently has 533 skyscrapers (standing over 152 meters tall), outnumbering China's 470 on the mainland. But in the next five years, China will surpass the US, with 802 such buildings on the mainland. And in 10 years from now, the number of skyscrapers on the mainland will reach 1,318, compared to 563 in the US. Analysts have mixed views on the skyscraper construction boom and its likely effect on the country's future economy, according to Sina.com. "The boom is expected to generate a total investment of more than 1.7 trillion yuan (US$269 billion) but might be a 'bubble' that could pose a threat." |
| Taobao Links Up With Another U.S. IP Advocacy Group Posted: 25 Sep 2012 02:28 AM PDT The political and industry savvy of China's big online players continues to impress. From the time that the video and audio file sharing sites began licensing music, films and television programs, to Baidu's various content deals, things have come a really long way in a very short period of time. For its part, Taobao inked a cooperation agreement with the powerful Motion Picture Association earlier this month, promising to work with the studios to fight copyright piracy, and now the e-commerce platform has signed an MOU with one of the better known anti-counterfeiting groups.
Although I used to attend some of their conferences, I haven't had any direct contact with IACC for years. As I recall, it is a solid group that does good advocacy work. It is not in the same league as MPAA in terms of sheer political power, but it has a very good profile in IP circles, and particularly in D.C. where it is headquartered. This kind of partnering up is really smart. Taobao can take advantage of the valuable network of contacts via these groups. Moreover, it can let these groups educate them not only on new IP developments in different countries, but also how to successfully navigate the corridors of power in places like D.C. I assume Taobao already sends representatives and in-house legal folks to IACC events and has used these conferences to learn how other e-commerce companies are solving their IP problems. Although Chinese companies like Taobao and Baidu are not engaged in significant outward investment in places like the U.S., this type of model, partnering with strong, politically connected organizations, should be emulated as much as possible by other Chinese firms moving overseas. Doing so will allow them to avoid a lot of mistakes and wasted resources. © Stan for China Hearsay, 2012. | Permalink | 2 comments | Add to del.icio.us |
| Posted: 25 Sep 2012 01:56 AM PDT
Zigong inquired, "What if everyone in a village despises a person?" The Master said, "It's not enough. It would be better if the best villagers love and the worst despise, this person." -Analects 13:24 There's no one more emblematic of Chinese wisdom than the ancient Chinese sage, Confucius (Kong Zi). His legacy as a philosopher in Chinese history is unsurpassed and his influence still seen even two and half thousand years after his death. The spirit of his ideas can be felt in the words, actions and future hopes of the Chinese people despite the fact that much of the influence has been diluted during contemporary times.
Even Marxism could not totally abolish it. It is an enduring if not inherent part of the Chinese soul. Even the communist party members, some of the least Confucian people in the world and whom would readily acknowledge the poverty of modern society in Confucian wisdom would agree that China needs to return to its philosophical roots in order to build a truly just society. Modern ills often reflect the kinds of deep problems which occur across time; problems Confucius struggled against in his life often rear their heads in modern forms. But here I am concerned with how Confucius is looked upon by the west and among many ethnic Chinese people throughout the world. Like many things related to China, the image created by modern western discourse reflects deep-seated prejudices. He is cast as either villain responsible for much of China's ills throughout history or denigrated to the role of inscrutable fortune cookie sayings. But these images are not supported by facts and often not only get things wrong but get things sometimes precisely backwards. There are many myths about Confucius's views. Many of them so wrong as to be the polar opposite of what the Sage actually believed and explicitly argued against. Defaming Confucius is a tactic that is rooted in much of western discourse on Chinese history and values. It is part of the Orientalist program. No singular person represents Chinese thought and values more. He represents the deep-seated thinking behind the values of much of the Chinese people better than anyone and attacking him is a way to attack the Chinese worldview. In a society that is conditioned to loathe anything Chinese, those that come closest to embodying what is essentially Chinese are the targets of the most baseless accusations. He is synedoche of the Chinese collective soul and by discrediting him, they discredit Chinese culture and everything that China and its people stand for. Even some "experts" of Confucius have fallen into this trap (see here for an example of one such scholar). Even some ethnically Chinese people during contemporary times who have probably never having even read Confucius, "criticize" him not out of genuine disagreement with what he actually said but out of a sense that it is fashionable to do so. Mao was widely esteemed by his Marxist comrades for his anti-Confucian views. Intellectuals such as Liu Xiaobo and a predecessor, Lu Xun, also mocked him, warned against the evils of his influence. Much of modern Chinese cultural criticism from certain intellectual circles revolve around an anti-Confucianism. The most commonly held and baseless myths concerning the great Sage today are that 1. That he advocated for forceful, coercive authoritarian governments. 2. That he favored Aristocratic, hierarchical societies over more egalitarian ones. 3. That he was for strict obedience to authority in the family and in other crucial relationships. 4. That he advocated sexist practices (such as foot-binding). These are not only false but, in many cases, the exact opposite of what he advocated. I will prove this with his own words quoted from his most cherished work, The Analects (actually it's a compilation by his students of his wisdom). Moreover, the other major Confucian philosophers such as Mencius and Xunzi quite often agreed with him on major relevant issues. The images (caricatures) constructed of him, of Confucianism, and hence of China's wisdom tradition, in the modern west and sadly sometimes adopted uncritically by many Chinese people, are distortions. They are mere manufactured mirages used to denigrate a non-white and non western tradition by people who often are from societies with a colonial past. Moreover, I will contrast what Confucius actually said with much of the views held in some of the most influential western political and ethical tracts and show how much reality can be turned upside down in the words of defamers. Granted there are many bad translations of the Analects. Also granted, one may cherry-pick some ambiguous passages here and there like you can do with any ancient text (or modern for that matter). But such cherry picking do not express truthfulness and intellectual honesty. One has to see the overall context and see trends in the text. One has to put them in the proper perspective. I will quote from the Ames and Rosemont translation of the Analects (unless otherwise noted) which I believe is the best translation (along with the D.C. Lau translation) Myth 1: He advocated for forceful, coercive totalitarian governments One of the most persistent myths is that Confucius was for a strong centralized government that uses coercion and force: i.e., authoritarian or totalitarian governments. Statements like this are commonly perpetuated in both the west and in China, both among the public and more intellectual circles:
It's a ubiquitous myth. Almost anyone that seems to have an opinion about Confucius in the west seems to have at least this uncritical view and to take it as so obvious, so well-established that not a iota of effort is taken to ever examine it. For example, western intellectuals such as represented by Samuel P. Huntington in his (in)famous Clash of Civilizations simply assumed that Asian societies are doomed to authoritarianism because they are doomed to be Confucian. This common idea is ridiculous. Confucius advocated an ideal that focused on cultivating personal virtue and strengthening social relationships. The Confucian ideal state's role was relegated to the performance of rituals and to provide for basic necessities, not in using any form of coercion never mind the use of force. The emperor was ideally a role model, not a true center of power, never-mind coercive power. The state's main job was to provide basic necessities and to coordinate societal development. Harmony in society is cultivated through individual virtue and the redemptive power of strong relationships (specifically the five Confucian relationships). It was not the role of the state to do what families, friends, and the individual was supposed to do: that is, cultivate virtue and thus harmony and justice in society. Even laws were seen as too intrusive, too coercive and superficial as a means towards building a harmonious society. This is because Confucius thought punishment was an inherent element of law but that aspect is not only coercive but superficial. People will be outwardly decent but only behave that way because of the fear of punishment and not out of a virtuous soul. Consider the Analects 2.3.
Only a virtuous soul can genuinely good actions spring forth naturally. Virtue is also more nuanced and can adjust to the complexities and contingencies of life that systems of law are simply too crude to handle. True virtue does not come from external forces such as inducements from punishment but from the human heart (xin) which is itself inherently good but need healthy a environment conducive to develop its natural course. That environment is fragile because it depends on the formation of many healthy relationships throughout one's life such as parental, pedagogical and that of friendships. The role of those "in power" such as the emperor are relegated to that of paradigmatic role model. Someone who can dutifully carry out rituals and personal relationships with such care, grace and understanding that others will be inspired to perform their duties to each other with equal care, grace and understanding. The emperor or the state ministers do not coerce others but influences them indirectly through their own behavior as exemplar. In fact, the emperor doesn't even tell people what to do. He is the Pole Star or the Wind and others induced to virtue by mere observance or or his presence and not in virtue of coercion or even explicit commands.
This is the Confucian ideal. All of this shouldn't be surprising because the close association between Confucius and Taoism has been noticed by quite a few scholars of ancient Chinese philosophy. Taoism is an extreme version of an anti-authoritarian philosophy. It is essentially anarchist. As the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy explained,
Confucianism is actually far closer to Taoism in this regard than many people realize (which also shouldn't be surprising because Confucius discusses Taoist sages in several passages with admiration. Confucius's most admired sages of yore were Yao and Shun, two mythical Xia Dynasty kings who embodied the concept of wu wei or effective ruling without overt action and deception. These two kings were more like ideals of virtue and their societies were ideals of society rather than concrete historical examples for Confucius. These kings rarely acted, never coerced or punished anyone and yet were able to achieve the building prosperous and harmonious societies. Analects 15:5 says:
In Confucius's time, facing "due south" is a ritual position signifying respect and humility (also see Analects 8.18). In another famous passage (3:5), Confucius says that Chinese people without any rulers are superior to barbarians with rulers. This is because the Chinese have culture and education and can conduct their affairs virtuously without any authority looking over them. One can probably make a far better case that Confucius was an anarchist (at least on some conceptions of political anarchy) rather than an autocrat. Myth 2: He favored Aristocratic, hierarchical societies over more egalitarian ones Confucius could afford an optimistic moral outlook for the potential of human beings and the societies they could build without any coercion because he believed that human nature was inherently good. People behaved immorally because of corrupted past relationships and a failure of education or other kind of social failing (such as in times of economic desperation, natural disasters, etc). If human nature is allowed its natural developmental course, societies will be naturally just and harmonious without any coercive power structures in place whether that comes from a powerful Hobbessian king or the institution of punitive law. The vast majority of people can achieve great virtue (of being a junzi). Confucius believed that he was no different in basic nature from the vast majority of people (see Analects 7:20 and 7:34 for example). He believed that human beings were basically equal in their moral capacities. See Analects 17.2:
Other Confucian philosophers like Mencius similarly argued that human beings are innately good and that virtue is our natural tendency. It only needs the right healthy environment conducive to its development (which is by no means easily attainable for all the right elements must be in place) to take hold in society. Mencius' analogy of the sprout naturally developing into the oak tree when certain environmental conditions conducive for its growth are in place serves to illustrate this point. His famous argument (2A:6) that human nature must be good for even hardened criminals will reflexively feel an instant spark of dread at the sight of a baby crawling towards an open well palpably demonstrates this view. Mencius argued that this brief moment of decency in the hardened criminal goes against his malformed upbringing and his wayward lifestyle. It is his innate goodness which had been there all along expressing itself. It simply can't be extinguished despite a lifetime of vice. Also see Mencius in 3A.1 when Mencius admirably quotes a peasant who says he is not afraid of a tyrant king because both are men and no man is above another. Xunzi also made egalitarian arguments in asserting that the vast majority of human beings were alike in their basic nature. This view of human nature as fundamentally equal and good carries over to a sense of social justice that favored egalitarian distributive principles. 16:1 in the Analects, for example, has Confucius arguing that an inequitable distribution of wealth is morally worse than overall poverty for a state. Equal distribution of wealth (jun), education, and appropriate ascription of honor and dishonor based on the fair evaluation of conduct (loosely translated as yi) and character (as opposed to social-status, popularity, and birthright) are all common themes in the Analects. Myth 3: He was for unwavering obedience and conformity to authority in the family and other relationships. Confucius's ideas here seemed not to differ from his previous anti-authoritarian political views and the views of that of his Confucian successors. That ought not surprise anyone because Confucians believed that the state was analogous to the family. In Analects 14:22 for example, he says to Zilu when asked how one can serve his lord properly, "Let there be no duplicity when taking a stand against him." Also in 13:15 partly reads,
In regards to the teacher-student relationship, Confucius says in 15:36 "In striving to be authoritative in your conduct (ren), do not yield even to your teacher." Also see 3:18, 13:23, 13:24, 15:28 for additional passages where Confucius warns against the dangers of mindless conformity and obedience to the masses or to village authority. This anti-conformist streak is sometimes even more pronounced in the Han Dynasty Confucian philosopher Xunzi who said in regards to the child-parent (filial) relationship that one's duty to be filial is to agree only when one's parent or superior is correct. But it is also one's duty, he maintained, to offer vehement disapproval when one's parents or superiors are wrong. "One should obey what is right and not [necessarily] one's father" (Quoted in Irene Bloom's article in de Berry) he boldly announced in one passage. Also he cites stories of Confucius who corrects Duke Ai of Lu (who asked about filial piety) that only those who scrutinize what is told of him and offers protest in the face of injustice can truly be called filial. Confucius also explains that filial sons must offer remonstrance (jian or defined as reasoned criticism or disapproval) at parents (or anyone else for that matter) when they are wrong. At least one comparative philosopher recently argued that remonstrance (jian) is among the core virtues of Confucian thought. Myth 4: He advocated sexist practices (such as foot-binding) Allegations of sexism in Confucius seems to be based on the sparsest of evidence. They usually focus on one passage in the Analects where Confucius says that petty people (xiao ren) are demanding and burdensome like women. One would think it would be easier to find other passages had Confucius been the misogynist he is often accused of being. Statements like this are so complacently accepted that they are beyond any doubt in the minds of westerners.
They are simply axiomatically accepted. No evidence is needed to prove it. Also see here
Alternatively, some have argued that the conspicuous absence of women mentioned in the Analects suggests sexism. For example, when Confucius says that all men are basically equal, the absence of any mention of women's innate moral capacity is sometimes cited as proof of Confucius's sexism. But as Sandra Wawrytko points out, the character used for "men" in the original classical Chinese text of the Analects is gender neutral. Moreover, she points out that the one passage used so often as evidence for the inherent sexism in Confucian thought is overblown and taken out of context. There is simply insufficient evidence to argue for any signs of inherent sexism in all the Analects. Moreover, the more ridiculous accusation (due to the anachronism and the complete lack of reference to the practice in the classical Confucian canon) that Confucius is to blame for foot-binding is demolished by Confucian scholars such as Paul Golden. This belief is silly, not just defamatory, because of the fact that Confucius lived and died almost 1,500 years before the practice first appeared. Ironically, the only mention of the practice in the whole Confucian cannon are brief passages within the Neo-Confucian philosopher Zhu Xi's writing where he denounced the practice as barbaric. I don't mean to suggest that these are the only myths today in the west or in China about the great sage but these are the most prevalent. There are others equally unfounded. For example, the notion that he was for rigidly following traditional cultural traditions and rituals (see Analects 2:23). Or that he advocated education that focus on memorization without understanding (see Analects 13:5) Though rituals have a very important rule to play in Confucius's philosophy, he argued against uncritical following of past traditions and cultural practices. Examples from some of the most influential tracts in the western tradition The Bible The Bible is probably the single most influential tract in the western tradition. In it, one can find the espousal for public stoning to death of children who disobey their parents (see Deuteronomy 21:18-21, Exodus 21:17). It advocates or permits slavery (numerous passages such as Leviticus 25:44-46, Ephesians 6:7 and Exodus 21:7-11) for various purposes including child slavery and sexual slavery. (As a comparison, no where in the Analects or in any Confucian text, classical or Neo-Confucian, does any Confucian philosopher advocate for slavery). The Bible also describes explicitly the inferiority of women and how they are commanded by god to submit to men. Plato's Republic This book may have the title of the second most influential political/ethical tract in the western tradition. Many philosophers have noted that it is essentially an advocacy book for nearly an absolute totalitarian state. In the Republic, Plato argued that the ideal society uses coercion and force to build a maximally cohesive society (which he viewed as the best kind of society). His society is completely hierarchical with complete vertical obedience as one moves from bottom to top in the hierarchy. Those at the very top ("Philosopher Kings") have the right to impose strict rules over life and death on everyone else even including what colors and music people could be allowed to enjoy. Despite making some arguments for some plausibly feminist claims, Plato makes plenty of disparaging remarks in the Republic about their supposed inferiority too. Plato's most famous student Aristotle was far worse in his remarks about women, for example, claiming that they were fundamentally defective and lacked the part of the soul responsible for rational thought. He advocated for slavery and argued that, ideally, the best kind of government was a pure monarchy with total obedience of the masses (though, to his credit, he did argue that in practice democracies can be just as good as monarchies and oligarchies and in fact had certain advantages over them). The Prince Again, another central political/ethical text in the western canon which argues that coercion and force ought to be used against the masses by their rulers was Machiavelli's The Prince, which has been required reading for poli-sci majors for centuries. It is statements like,
that give the term "Machiavellian" its justifiable association with coercion, duplicity and cruelty. Hobbes Again, we see a common pattern as before: strict obedience to a central authority figure who has nearly absolute power (The Leviathan or an absolute monarch) is required for all citizens in a Hobbessian state so long as the central authority and his state provides for the basic safety of its citizens from devolving into a "State of Nature." The central authority figure is the source of civil conduct and not individual virtue (ren) as in Confucianism. In fact, it is the source of what even makes justice possible for Hobbes. Man's natural inclinations towards barbarity (red in tooth and claw as the famous Hobbessian phrase illustrates) demands such an absolute authority figure to coerce people into behavior against their natural inclinations to destroy each other so that everyone can benefit in a civil society.
Though Hobbes viewed all humans as basically equal in nature, he viewed that human nature as basically evil and that in a civil society, absolute inequality was necessary to prevent our basic evil natures from undermine anything noble. Hegel G.W.F. Hegel is perhaps the single philosopher who influenced modern totalitarian and fascist thinking the most. And he remains one of the most influential western political thinkers today. Hegel's views justifies the state's well-being even at the cost of those in it. The highest priority was the state itself and the people within it are mere cogs within a machine which can be replaced when they fail to make the machine do what it's supposed to do. The sole purpose of people are to be a part of that larger machine-state moving it in a historical trajectory towards an absolute teleogical course. One can contrast this attitude with the Confucian idea that the sole purpose of having a state to begin with is to benefit its people; it has no other purpose. Once it fails in that regard, it looses the Mandate of Heaven and is not even a state (its' name cannot be rectified as such). Karl Marx would later adopt the main tenants of Hegel's ideas and create his own political, social and economic ideas the worst aspects of which were a contributing factor to some of the most brutal periods in Soviet Russian and Cambodian history to name just two. As Karl Popper and Bertrand Russell both made clear, from Plato to Hegel, one sees two of the most adamant advocates for totalitarian politics in history.
And regarding Hegel
Why such misinformation? But why has Confucius's image been inverted so that white is portrayed as black and black, white? There may be myriad reasons. It may just be pure anti-sinitic bias; Confucius is Chinese and anything Chinese must be loathsome. The west's narcissistic love affair with itself also seems to be a contributing factor. Everything that glitters is western, everything that is stained must be non western. But as the political philosopher Thom Brooks has noted, western political thinkers have almost universally endorsed anti-democratic and totalitarian ideas. While as demonstrated here (except for a few notable examples such as the Legalists) Chinese philosophers have held either extremist anarchist political views or views endorsing anti-coercive, egalitarian and liberal principles. These principles may be the foundations for a truly just society. Additionally, the Chinese themselves are to blame for the myth manufactured about Confucius is, according to the sinologist and philosopher Herrlee Creel, birthed in China centuries ago. Confucius's ideas were co-opted by despots such as the first Emperor of the Qin dynasty for their own nefarious ends. Moreover, the Manchus continued to slander Confucius because his ideas were seen as a threat to their power. The dust jacket of Professor Creel's book on Confucius reads (as quoted in Shaughnessy):
But the world's slanderers cannot suppress Confucius's ideas. Much like there is a spark of goodness which cannot be suppressed even after a lifetime of vice in the reprobate criminal which society ought to kindle into full blown virtue, the spark of Confucius's ideas must be kindled so that society can become just and harmonious.
|
| Mitt Romney Jumps the China Debt Shark Posted: 25 Sep 2012 12:45 AM PDT
{facepalm} Several issues here, but let's start with the misleading nature of the comments with respect to China's holdings of U.S. debt. I've talked about this many times before, but let's update the numbers. Total U.S. government debt hit the $16 trillion mark at the beginning of this month. As of July, the amount of debt owed to foreigners was roughly $5.35 trillion, or about one-third of the total. So already, when Romney suggests that government debt equates to borrowing from foreigners, he is being misleading. But even that 33% might seem scary to some folks. Just who are these creditors? Well, among the top creditor nations include the UK ($141 billion); Switzerland ($190 billion) and Belgium ($144), not exactly countries that are hostile to the United States. China of course is at the top of the list and always held out as the bogeyman, as Romney's words illustrate. When you hear late-night comedians talk about the U.S. owing so much money to China, you might think that their ownership percentage of U.S. debt must be quite high. In fact, as of July, it was only about 7.2% of total U.S. debt, or about 21.5% of all foreign-held U.S. debt. By the way, #2 on the list of foreign creditors is Japan, which has been upping its purchasing of U.S. treasuries this year, while China has been reducing its buys. As of July, China held only about $40 billion more than Japan. That gap might even be narrower now. So Romney is essentially suggesting that every dollar of government debt equates to borrowing from China, when in reality, we're only talking about seven cents on the dollar and most likely comparable to what the U.S. owes to Japan at this point. But of course Japan isn't as scary as the Commies in Red China. Now, Romney can deny that he is being deliberately misleading. He can say something like "I never said that all of the borrowing was from China, just some." Right. So Romney wants us to believe that his entire calculation on federal spending will be based on the fact that China represents seven percent of borrowing? Even 7% is too much! Does that make even a tiny bit of sense? As usual, he is either lying his ass off or is mentally deficient (I'll go with the former explanation). In addition to this dishonest fear mongering that totally ignores real data, Romney never bothers to explain what this "test" might look like. How exactly would a President Romney determine whether a federal program was worth borrowing from China anyway? I mean, if you ask me, I'd borrow as much as possible from China at these low interest rates – what a bargain! To the question of whether Romney's statement about the "bad economics" of Keynesian recessionary spending is concerned, I'd suggest you go read Paul Krugman or just about any other economist who isn't a supply side ideologue. And as for the "morality" angle, well, hearing that from the mouth of a politician just makes me laugh. The sad part of all this is that I bet if you polled the American people and asked them "How much of our debt is held by China?" you'd probably get a number like 80%. I bet Romney's words resonate with some folks. © Stan for China Hearsay, 2012. | Permalink | One comment | Add to del.icio.us |
. As 
| You are subscribed to email updates from Update » Blogs » Politics To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
Comments