Descontructing overseas Chinese prejudice of their own people

Original article in Chinese.

Translated by ESWN into English

(My1510.cn Blog) An analysis of Grace Wang's essay in The Washington Post. By 'Chairman Rabbit.' April 22, 2008.

Grace Wang's essay is worthy of attention, because its publication and her subsequent media interviews (including with certain strongly anti-China media) have escalated the affair. She has clearly "taken a position." Her choice could be due to (a) the criticisms within and outside of China driving to her to an even more extreme position; (b) the western media seeking for someone to express a protest; (c) she is politically naïve.

In my view, Grace Wang's essay is political suicide. In the language of past history (and somewhat ironically here), she has decided to stand diametrically opposite to the Party and the People. Objectively, one can say that she is a "Public Enemy."

Some people inside and outside of China are sympathetic to her for a couple of reasons. First, "even if I don't agree with your viewpoint, I will defend your right to speak with my life (that is, your freedom of speech)." Secondly, people object to the extreme personal attacks such as the disclosure of the private information about her family, the death threats, the dumping of feces at her home, etc. I think that her essay and subsequent statements have decreased the number of sympathizers in the first category.

I want to make a few points.

(1) First, I think that Grace Wang is wrong. The negative impact of that essay goes far beyond her imagination. She has been completely exploited by western media. Subjectively, she had even worked hard to meet their needs. I will discuss this point further with respect to her essay.

(2) Next, she adopted a rational and moderate position in her essay. She characterized herself as a middleman and mediator who wants to serve as a bridge in a rational way in order to resolve conflicts. This is a lofty position. Let us not discuss whether she actually accomplished those objectives. But let us accept Grace Wang's claim that she studied languages in order to promote exchange of viewpoints to resolve the conflict between the Chinese and the Tibetans; at the same time, let us suppose that she wants to learn more languages for more communications and exchanges. Did she achieve the results? I don't see it. I have to look at the overall situation. Tibet is the focus of the clash between China and the west, and that reflects the clash of political cultures and interests. What can we see? However we look at it, the two sides have major problems in exchanging views.

In this affair, the western media have made extremely misleading and selective reports. They communicated much inaccurate information, they misled the public, they reinforced prejudices and even created hatred. Over the years, the western media have ignored the viewpoint of China. Rarely have they examined the rise and development of China in a neutral and objective manner. On this platform, China does not have its own voice.

If Grace Wang really wanted to solve the problems and if she loves China, she would have asked the western media to report a fuller picture of China as opposed to just satisfying their pre-defined prejudices and imaginations. That was how she could have helped east-west exchange and even help China to solve the Tibet problem. This was how mediation could have occurred. Instead, Grace Wang used her unique status in this affair to evoke the sympathy of the western media, satisfy the western prejudices and political needs, reinforce pre-existing western attitudes and biases and magnify the misunderstanding and conflicts between China and the western people. What kind of rational mediation effort is this?

Grace Wang's essay was not just an expression of her personal feelings. Based upon the content and organization, she has spent a lot of effort on this. It is a strongly political essay.

I tend to think that she is too young and she is very politically naïve to hold those kinds of views. She has no idea what she is doing and she does not realize the consequences.

In the following, let us scrutinize her essay. I feel that the essay was carefully crafted to express her views. She was not just describing the affair, but she was also expressing her views about China and Tibet. The political position was obvious. Precisely because of that crafting, the damage is even bigger. That is why I cannot help but to comment in detail.

My China, My Tibet -- Caught in the Middle, Called a Traitor

I study languages -- Italian, French and German. And this summer -- now that it looks as though I won't be able to go home to China -- I'll take up Arabic. My goal is to master 10 languages, in addition to Chinese and English, by the time I'm 30.

Comment: This shows that she loves to learn and she has good intentions. The readers will be sympathetic, and even possibly respectful.

I want to do this because I believe that language is the bridge to understanding. Take China and Tibet. If more Chinese learned the Tibetan language, and if Tibetans learned more about China, I'm convinced that our two peoples would understand one another better and we could overcome the current crisis between us peacefully. I feel that even more strongly after what happened here at Duke University a little more than a week ago.

Comment: This section reinforces the reader's impression that China and Tibet are two different peoples. They are different in terms of ethnicity, culture and language and they rarely communicate with each other. The Chinese are ignorant about the Tibetans. The Tibetans are ignorant about the Chinese, and they rarely speak the Chinese tongue. But one has to ask: What is the concept of China? She does not employ the concept of the Chinese people as "the multi-ethnic political entity (consisting of 56 different ethnic groups)" and she does not use the narrative based upon the relationship between the Han and Tibetan groups. Instead, she spoke of the relationship between "China" and "Tibet" as if China were a single ethnic group outside and independent of Tibet. What kind of consideration is that?

Trying to mediate between Chinese and pro-Tibetan campus protesters, I was caught in the middle and vilified and threatened by the Chinese. After the protest, the intimidation continued online, and I began receiving threatening phone calls. Then it got worse -- my parents in China were also threatened and forced to go into hiding. And I became persona non grata in my native country.

It has been a frightening and unsettling experience. But I'm determined to speak out, even in the face of threats and abuse. If I stay silent, then the same thing will happen to someone else someday.

Comment: In this section, she is trying to seize the moral high ground. This narrative will easily invoke the sympathy of western readers: she represents the value of freedom of speech. Her position is close to the positions of many western readers, who might think that Grace Wang represents the small minority of people who stand up for truth inside China but unfortunately cannot express their speeches and views due to the threats and oppression from the compatriots. Such voices are usually oppressed and the west cannot hear them. But now that she is in the United States, she can speak up. But if she can speak up as she wishes, then please tell the truth!

So here's my story.

When I first arrived at Duke last August, I was afraid I wouldn't like it. It's in the small town of Durham, N.C., and I'm from Qingdao, a city of 4.3 million. But I eventually adjusted, and now I really love it. It's a diverse environment, with people from all over the world. Over Christmas break, all the American students went home, but that's too expensive for students from China. Since the dorms and the dining halls were closed, I was housed off-campus with four Tibetan classmates for more than three weeks.

I had never really met or talked to a Tibetan before, even though we're from the same country. Every day we cooked together, ate together, played chess and cards. And of course, we talked about our different experiences growing up on opposite sides of the People's Republic of China. It was eye-opening for me.

I'd long been interested in Tibet and had a romantic vision of the Land of Snows, but I'd never been there. Now I learned that the Tibetans have a different way of seeing the world. My classmates were Buddhist and had a strong faith, which inspired me to reflect on my own views about the meaning of life. I had been a materialist, as all Chinese are taught to be, but now I could see that there's something more, that there's a spiritual side to life.

Comment: This is the key section. This is the key for the entire essay. Here, she is trying to explain (a) the evolution of her thinking process; (b) and she explained her right to speak on this issue compared to the other "ignorant" Chinese people.

The Tibet that she describes here fits the original romantic, Shangri La-like model of Tibet that the west has imagined: it is mysterious, romantic, religious and transcendent. There is nothing about Tibetan history, society, policies or challenges (such as those about development and poverty alleviation). The West takes a very partial view on Tibet, with a strong flavor of romanticism. They emphasize factors such as the mysterious religion and they don't want to talk about the challenges and opportunities of social and economic development. Grace Wang's narrative enhances those prejudices. Furthermore, Grace Wang asserted that all Chinese are educated under "materialism" and that is a serious charge. This creates the impression that there is no freedom of religion in China; that China is a materialistic and vulgar society (when China is one of the countries with the largest Christian and Muslim populations in the world, together with a large number of Buddhists with different degrees of faith). When Grace Wang might have used "materialism" to refer to the Marxist concept, the term "materialism" means something different and negative in English because it implies the Chinese people have only materialistic goals and zero spiritual values.

This narrative is powerful. For the reader, a certain person from a secular, vulgar, modern, coarse, totalitarian and spiritually empty society has been converted and elevated by the spiritual culture of Tibet to find a new meaning in life. The evil force has been overcome by the good force. For the American reader, this may create a strong resonance (the United States is one of the countries with the strongest religious sentiments and the majority of the people are religious; for most Americans, the word "secular" has a pejorative meaning).

With just a few words, Grace Wang is able to use her personal experience to set up the polar opposition between "Tibet" and "China" that the western world has imagined.

We talked a lot in those three weeks, and of course we spoke in Chinese. The Tibetan language isn't the language of instruction in the better secondary schools there and is in danger of disappearing. Tibetans must be educated in Mandarin Chinese to succeed in our extremely capitalistic culture. This made me sad, and made me want to learn their language as they had learned mine.

Comment: There are plenty of categorical statements here. For example, is the Tibetan language close to being extinct? I think that any serious scholar would have to delve into this issue carefully. In my personal experience, only the Tibetan exile government and Tibet independence activists would make such a bold assertion. There are many minority ethnic groups in China, far more than the western world imagined. Apart from those officially recognized by the state, there are many more "sub-populations" with their own languages. Are those languages near extinction?

Furthermore, it is a complex matter about Tibetans learning the Han language. Cantonese-speaking students have to learn putonghua, and they have to answer many complicated questions about putonghua pronunciation in the university entrance examinations. The Chinese have to learn English for the sake of globalization. That is an issue of globalized competition for which there is no simple answer that can be reduced and politicized to one about human rights. Serious observers recognize that these questions deserve careful study. But those debates are secondary because here we have to see what Grace Wang choose to present. Are those views full? Are they biased? Why did she choose those views and not discuss the full story? Are those views consistent with the simplified imagination of the West? I believe that Grace Wang has deepened certain existing prejudices of the West about Tibet to a large degree. It is irresponsible to express those views to the public in the media.

I was reminded of all this on the evening of April 9. As I left the cafeteria planning to head to the library to study, I saw people holding Tibetan and Chinese flags facing each other in the middle of the quad. I hadn't heard anything about a protest, so I was curious and went to have a look. I knew people in both groups, and I went back and forth between them, asking their views. It seemed silly to me that they were standing apart, not talking to each other. I know that this is often due to a language barrier, as many Chinese here are scientists and engineers and aren't confident of their English.

I thought I'd try to get the two groups together and initiate some dialogue, try to get everybody thinking from a broader perspective. That's what Lao Tzu, Sun Tzu and Confucius remind us to do. And I'd learned from my dad early on that disagreement is nothing to be afraid of. Unfortunately, there's a strong Chinese view nowadays that critical thinking and dissidence create problems, so everyone should just keep quiet and maintain harmony.

Comment: Here, Grace Wang puts herself into a high point that supersedes the debate between the two sides. Based upon the previous supposition, most Chinese people (as well as Wang) did not understand Tibet. Through her personal experience, Grace Wang has now understood Tibet. She is one of the few people who understand the truth, and therefore she is alert and aware. Together with her rationality, she can stand out and act as the mediator. The reader is bound to stand erect out of respect, and understand in a preliminary fashion just how Wang turned out to be a different kind of Chinese person.

Wang also provided a certain portrait of Chinese society and culture; the people are irrational and intolerant about dissident opinions, thus satisfying pre-existing negative western imaginations. Of course, Wang does not belong to that group of people because she is one of the rare few who are aware and conscious.

Wang also rendered another opinion. She said that Chinese here are scientists and engineers who are not confident of their English skills. Thus, she expressed that her English skills are better and therefore she can play the role of mediator. Thus we see that she repeatedly demeaned others while elevating herself. This sense of superiority should be clear. Without doubt, this is going to infuriate many people.

A lot has been made of the fact that I wrote the words "Free Tibet" on the back of the American organizer of the protest, who was someone I knew. But I did this at his request, and only after making him promise that he would talk to the Chinese group. I never dreamed how the Chinese would seize on this innocent action. The leaders of the two groups did at one point try to communicate, but the attempt wasn't very successful.

Comment: This is obviously a serious matter. First, since she stated that she understands the proclivities and characteristics of the Chinese youth, then why couldn't she dream what the Chinese would feel about her actions? This is completely not credible. Secondly, was the request from the American protestor reasonable? Was this an offensive provocation? We believed that Wang wanted to be a "neutral mediator." The American protestor recognized her role plus the fact that she was Chinese and yet he made that request. I though that this was a malicious act of provocation.

Let us switch positions. The Chinese and the Tibetans are having a dialogue. A Tibetan comes over to say that he wants to mediate. The pro-China supporters tell him: "You write a slogan 'One China' first or else we won't talk to you." What would this Tibetan and the other pro-Tibet demonstrators think? Would they interpret this as an act of provocation? If this Tibetan person agreed, would there be repercussions among the other pro-Tibet demonstrators?

Thirdly, why would Grace Wang agree to this irrational and offensive request? Does this show a certain leaning? This is about an issue of principles. For the pro-China demonstrators, the act of Grace Wang meant that she had lost the legitimacy as 'mediator.' I think that their response was normal.

Actually, all this is commonsense. If Grace Wang is such a smart Chinese person, how could she "never dreamed" of this? There is just one answer -- she is trying to gloss over this. Not only is she just glossing over this, but she is being evasive.

The Chinese protesters thought that, being Chinese, I should be on their side. The participants on the Tibet side were mostly Americans, who really don't have a good understanding of how complex the situation is. Truthfully, both sides were being quite closed-minded and refusing to consider the other's perspective. I thought I could help try to turn a shouting match into an exchange of ideas. So I stood in the middle and urged both sides to come together in peace and mutual respect. I believe that they have a lot in common and many more similarities than differences.

But the Chinese protesters -- who were much more numerous, maybe 100 or more -- got increasingly emotional and vocal and wouldn't let the other side speak. They pushed the small Tibetan group of just a dozen or so up against the Duke Chapel doors, yelling "Liars, liars, liars!" This upset me. It was so aggressive, and all Chinese know the moral injunction: Junzi dongkou, bu dongshou (The wise person uses his tongue, not his fists).

Comment: It is up to those who witnessed this incident to judge how accurate her description was. Her sentiments were obviously on the side of the demonstrators who supported Tibet independence, because they were the "weak." In truth, in many western nations (including the United States), the number of pro-Tibet demonstrators exceeded the pro-China demonstrators to the point of one-sided superiority. During the demonstrations (such as the Olympic torch relay), there were violent incidents. Did she show any sympathy? That is hard to say. But should she have elaborated when she described this particular incident?

I was scared. But I believed that I had to try to promote mutual understanding. I went back and forth between the two groups, mostly talking to the Chinese in our language. I kept urging everyone to calm down, but it only seemed to make them angrier. Some young men in the Chinese group -- those we call fen qing (angry youth) -- started yelling and cursing at me.

What a lot of people don't know is that there were many on the Chinese side who supported me and were saying, "Let her talk." But they were drowned out by the loud minority who had really lost their cool.

Comment: This is a continuation of the denigration of the pro-China demosntrators. The use of "fenqing" expresses a certain sense of superiority and loftiness. The angry youth are blind and irrational. "They" are "fenqing" and "I" am obviously not. Therefore, I am rational and calm. Obviously, there is not a single word about how many "angry youth" were among the Americans who support Tibet independence. We are also not able to read what they said and did in this essay.

Some people on the Chinese side started to insult me for speaking English and told me to speak Chinese only. But the Americans didn't understand Chinese. It's strange to me that some Chinese seem to feel as though not speaking English is expressing a kind of national pride. But language is a tool, a way of thinking and communicating.

Comment: I believe that this is a secondary issue. First, in a situation in which there are no foreigners (such as there being no Americans listening to their conversation), she should obviously use Chinese. I don't know if this was the case. Secondly, as a Chinese group, if a so-called mediator suddenly emerged within their own camp, they should communicate with her using their own methods in order to figure out her position and background. It is normal to use Chinese. Anyway, I feel that this is quite natural. Yet her characterization of others are partial. To say that not speaking Chinese cannot express national pride is simplifying the matter down to nationalism and let the readers fell that this group of people are narrow-minded.

At the height of the protest, a group of Chinese men surrounded me, pointed at me and, referring to the young woman who led the 1989 student democracy protests in Tiananmen Square, said, "Remember Chai Ling? All Chinese want to burn her in oil, and you look like her." They said that I had mental problems and that I would go to hell. They asked me where I was from and what school I had attended. I told them. I had nothing to hide. But then it started to feel as though an angry mob was about to attack me. Finally, I left the protest with a police escort.

Comment: Same as before, so I won't say anything more.

Back in my dorm room, I logged onto the Duke Chinese Students and Scholars Association (DCSSA) Web site and listserv to see what people were saying. Qian Fangzhou, an officer of DCSSA, was gloating, "We really showed them our colors!"

Comment; I think that this forum is either internal or else it is a Chinese-language forum for the Chinese people to distribute information among subscribers. To a large extent, this determines the style and content. Does the publication of the information as well as the name of the author require the people's consent. I suspect not. Is this respectful of others? Does this respect the right of others? At the same time, Grace Wang's quotations also deprive others of speech rights. What does it mean to "show colors"? Does that mean some Chinese are coming out to demonstrate? Or are they going to beat people up? This is totally unclear. In conjunction with the preceding and following text, this reader is left to think that the Chinese have assaulted some people and then posted an internal message to celebrate. Qian Fangzhou could be one of the participants.

I posted a letter in response, explaining that I don't support Tibetan independence, as some accused me of, but that I do support Tibetan freedom, as well as Chinese freedom. All people should be free and have their basic rights protected, just as the Chinese constitution says. I hoped that the letter would spark some substantive discussion. But people just criticized and ridiculed me more.

Comment: Grace Wang's actions before and afterwards caused her to lose credibility among the student body. To put it another way, some people have made up their minds about her. In this essay of hers, she has other intentions, such as continuing to use words such as "freedom" to excite the western readers in order to gain identification, sympathy and support. This narrative also creates this other impression: the other Chinese students are disinterested in freedom and they are more supportive of totalitarianism. This clearly matches certain prejudices among western readers.

The next morning, a storm was raging online. Photographs of me had been posted on the Internet with the words "Traitor to her country!" printed across my forehead. Then I saw something really alarming: Both my parents' citizen ID numbers had been posted. I was shocked, because this information could only have come from the Chinese police.

Comment: This accusation is more serious, because Grace Wang has dragged the Chinese government in: The Chinese government is the "black hand behind the curtain."

I saw detailed directions to my parents' home in China, accompanied by calls for people to go there and teach "this shameless dog" a lesson. It was then that I realized how serious this had become. My phone rang with callers making threats against my life. It was ironic: What I had tried so hard to prevent was precisely what had come to pass. And I was the target.

I talked to my mom the next morning, and she said that she and my dad were going into hiding because they were getting death threats, too. She told me that I shouldn't call them. Since then, short e-mail messages have been our only communication. The other day, I saw photos of our apartment online; a bucket of feces had been emptied on the doorstep. More recently I've heard that the windows have been smashed and obscene posters have been hung on the door. Also, I've been told that after convening an assembly to condemn me, my high school revoked my diploma and has reinforced patriotic education.

Comment: I thought that these threats about deaths and personal security as well as the feces incident were wrong. They violate Chinese law. Unfortunately, the rational patriotism of the Chinese people has never received positive coverage. It is regrettable that such incidents occur and they become the talk of the western media. Grace Wang obviously provided invaluable raw material.

Finally, her high school revoking her diploma and reinforcing patriotic education also satisfied the western imagination: "The patriotism of the Chinese youth is the result of the brainwashing propaganda of the totalitarian government." Was this example the one that the western media tried so hard to capture?

I understand why people are so emotional and angry; the events in Tibet have been tragic. But this crucifying of me is unacceptable. I believe that individual Chinese know this. It's when they fire each other up and act like a mob that things get so dangerous.

Comment: Here Grace Wang is obviously one of the very few Chinese people who "are independent thinkers" who grasp the truth.

In her narrative, her biases are shocking because there is not a hint about the full picture. For example, the Tibet incident was an unfortunate thing; the clash between China and the west was an unfortunate thing. On these issues, she made no attempt to look for anything problematic on the part of the West and then look for a fair assessment. Instead, she concentrated on a one-sided criticism of China.

On one hand, she chose certain things; on the other side, she did not choose other things. What do these choices say about her leanings?

Now, Duke is providing me with police protection, and the attacks in Chinese cyberspace continue. But contrary to my detractors' expectations, I haven't shriveled up and slunk away. Instead, I've responded by publicizing this shameful incident, both to protect my parents and to get people to reflect on their behavior. I'm no longer afraid, and I'm determined to exercise my right to free speech.

Comment: The keywords reappear: Freedom of speech. This will no doubt invoke resonance among the readers. The reader thinks: No matter what, you are no longer in totalitarian China; here in free America, you have genuine freedom of speech and you can say what you want.

Because language is the bridge to understanding.

Comment: Language, communication, exchange. These are her selling points as well as the main themes of her essay. In front of a group of unreasonable, barbaric and irrational people, these qualities are clearly outstanding.

Conclusions:

The essay of Grace Wang was shocking, either in its biases or structure.

The biases:

(1) The essay did not cite any Chinese views about the Tibet problem whatsoever. It made not positive reference to anything about how China handled Tibet either in history or practical terms.

(2) The essay made no reference to the clash between China and the West over this issue. It made no reference or criticism to the prejudices and responsibilities of the west. It made no positive reference about China.

(3) The essay made no reference about anything that China has done to develop Tibet, and certainly nothing positive.

(4) The essay made no positive reference about the overseas patriotic movement. It made no positive reference to the patriots. Instead, the characterization is about their obstinacy, bigotry, irrationality, barbarity and violence. The pro-China activities of the Chinese students at Duke University were judged negatively.

The one-sidedness of the presentation was stunning. This goes even far beyond the deeply prejudiced reports from the western media.

Then there is the clever weaving of the logic and structure of the essay. We know that the communication of information requires the establishment of a powerful polarity in order to create an impact on the reader. Let us look at the portrait that Grace Wang created.

(1) Tibet versus "China"

Tibet: Romantic, idyllic, mysterious, free, warm, full of spiritual values, satisfying

China: vulgar, materialistic, value-free, naked capitalism, money-grubbing, totalitarian, suppression of freedom of speech, monolithic, singular, boring, brain-washing education, no personal freedom

(2) Tibetans versus "Chinese"

Tibetans: Endearing, friendly, warm, pursuit of spiritual values, content, peaceful, tolerant

Chinese: vulgar, materialistic, ignorant and barbaric towards Tibet

(3) Pro-Tibet demonstrators versus pro-China demonstrators

Pro-Tibet demonstrators: Willing to engage in dialogue, weak, helpless, outnumbered, victims of physical violence; no other bad qualities

Pro-China demonstrators: Reared up in materialism, atheists instilled with patriotism and ignorant about Tibet; irrational, barbaric, violent, intolerant about dissident opinion, representative of totalitarian culture, impossible to hold dialogue with

Is the portray of Grace Wang genuinely responsible and objectively/rationally complete? Or is she biased?

The narrative of Grace Wang fits the imagination of the western media. The emergence of Grace Wang is a godsend at the moment of greatest need by the western media. She provided them with the perfect first-hand raw material that meets the various imaginations that they hold about China. This also offers the interpretation that they longed for about Chinese nationalism as brain-washing propaganda.

As for Grace Wang herself, she obviously relieved her anger through her moment of fame in the western media.

If anyone was unclear about her position before all this, then I felt that this essay is a clear statement.

No matter how you look at it (whether from the motives or results), this essay by Grace Wang was a mistake. Objectively from the viewpoint of results, her essay has enhanced the pre-existing prejudices among the western media. This essay does nothing for mediation and understanding. It was just another one-sided demonization of China; it only diminishes the minimal speech space of China within the western media. In the end, it only increases misunderstanding, alienation and conflict about China.

From this angle I can only say that Grace Wang was hypocritical and opportunistic.

As far as the people are concerned, Grace Wang is unlikely ever to rid herself of the "Chinese traitor" label.

Of course, the western media will forget her quickly. But the Chinese people will remember.

Walking in a garden, waking from a dream

I feel, in the course of ascertaining the future of China, that my personal intellectual foundation has recently been solidified. Mid 2007 to now, what an unremarkable year in day to day life, my gamble to stay has paid off. Intuition proven correct. Given time, it could be crystallized, but for now real life awaits...

Sinking, Choking

My question is, do these type of people know what they are doing? Do they even care about the legitimate grievances of the Chinese people have against the bias and violence brought on by the western press? Their idea of being "fair" is to automatically assume their own people are "wrong." Such people can only appreciate their own self-righteousness and vanity.

This NPR piece not only does it reinforce the dominant narrative that any Chinese people who support China is "not informed." But it uses one of their own to divide and conquer, effectively dismissing mainstream overseas Chinese indignation over the bias of the western press by painting it as a disorganized (i.e. "divided") "mob mentality".

Western paternalism - another emerging willfully ignorant narrative is that nationalistic sentiments immediately makes the whole of China as "immature," an attitude that seeks to silence the voice of Chinese protest against the violence wrought against Chinese Olympic Torch carriers. This is their sense of superiority over "non-democratic" China.

Frankly, this paternalism is reflective of a sense of self-delusion. An impression that comes from the error of perceiving Chinese sentiments as appeals to western sensibilities when, in fact, they are revolting against the very same western narcissism.

As an overseas Chinese, I am disgusted by this western paternalistic fantasy that ranges from portraying Han Chinese as non-humans (as oppose to the happy, child like Tibetans who targeted and killed Han and Chinese Muslims alike), to painting overseas Chinese who shows solidarity with China and the Olympics as brainwashed nationalists or even communist agents.

The thing that must be done is to deconstruct these rhetoric, to claim one's own narrative in history. It is naive to leave people's voices to the western press, to leave it to those who have no stakes in the livelihood of Chinese people.

Eileen Chang documentaries 香港筆 張愛玲

Series about Zhang Ailing in Hong Kong:









Haha, yet another person who intermixes mandarin and Cantonese. I know a lot of people his age who does the same, with the same degree of inextricability from this mode of code switching.

This one in mandarin:

Music from Les Parapluies de Cherbourg

"J'avais tellement peur de ne pas te trouver
je suis serieuse de avec toi
maintenant je rire parce-que je me raconte
combien je suis bete comme je suis toute seule
j'ai parle avec maman de notre marriage
elle m'a evidenemnt traite de folle
elle puis ce soir elle m'a interdit de te voir
tu comprends, j'ai eu si peur

J'aime mieux partir de oportune ne plus revoir maman
que tu de port
nous nous mariront en cachette

oh tu sais maintenant s'en ne plus de importance
nous avons meme de notre temps
ce matin j'ai recu ce des feuilles et le route
et je dois partir pour deux ans

alors le marriage on de parlera plus tard
avec ce qui se passe a Algerie a ce moment
je ne reviendra pas d'ici longtemps

Mais je ne pourrai jamais vivre sans toi
Je ne pourrai pas, ne pars pas, j'en mourrai
Je te cacherai et je te garderai
mai mon amour ne me quittez pas

Tu sais bien que c'est ne pas possible
(je ne te quitterai pas)
mon amour il faudra pourtant que je partes
tu sonra que moi je n'en pensai que toi
mais je sais que toi tu m'e attendra

deux ans deux ans de notre vie
ne pleurre pas je t'en supplis
deux ans non je ne pourrais pas
calme toi et nous reste si peux de temps
ce peux de temps mon amour qu il ne faut ne pas gacher
il faut que essayer notre feuille
il faut que nous gardions de nous dernier moment
un souvenir en peut de tous
un souvenir qui nous rappelera dans la vie

j'ai tellement peur comme je suis seule
ne nous retrouveront en nous se ronde plus forte
tu connaitrera d'autre femme et m'oubliras
je t'aimerais jusque a le fin de ma vie

Guy je t'aime, ne me quittez pas

Mon amour.... ne me laissez pas

Viens, viens, mon amour, mon amour"

Post-Cyberpunk

The SF Site Featured Review: Rewired: The Post-Cyberpunk Anthology

"we might say that 'post-cyberpunk' bears pretty much the same relationship to 'cyberpunk' that 'postmodernism' bears to 'modernism.' That is, although certain themes and ideas might be traced from one to the other, it would be wrong to see one as the starting point for the other, and indeed just as there are precursors of postmodernism that predate modernism, so there are precursors of post-cyberpunk that predate cyberpunk."

The Biggest, Most Violent Riot in Recorded History

James K. Galbraith laying the smackdown on Milton Friedman, 18 years ago.

31:23

The Eternal Snow Beauty

Thought more about the Eternal Snow Beauty (永远的尹雪艳) - the decadence, the morbid glamor of money and power, the utter lack of concern of the elite for the fate of the nation - and the disgust with the characters when comparing their frivolous lives to the idealism and heroism of the same period.

Bored, eating ramen

Have physics test on Thursday, need to study for 10 hours in order to get an above average t-score. Any ramen could taste good with spicy seasoning. DVD encoding, decoding, and re-encoding is so slow. Thesis presentation on Sunday.

apt. hunting checklist:
1.Location

a.Distance to work

b.Distance to amenities

c.Traffic

d.Ease of access

2.Apartment amenities

a.Pool

b.Weight room

c.Tennis court

3.Laundry

4.Utility bills

5.Apartment position

a.Direction

b.Floor level

c.How far from the gate

d.Edge of the complex

6.Security

a.Card

b.Code

c.Clicker

7.Noise

a.Insulation

8.Layout

a.Floor layout

b.Ceiling height

c.Gas vs. electric

9.Price

10.Maintenance service

11.Parking

12.Year built

A City of Sadness 悲情城市

Now I understand better the grievances involved.

Factors of Contemporary Nationalism

The Enemy of My Enemy

Yes.

Cure for germanophilia

I'm quite disappointed with the gullibility of German popular opinion. Especially when I held their intellectual life/standard in such high regards. Well, no longer.

edit 5/26/2009: Goethe's dictum lives, we have it better over here in America.

Encounters With A German

I said: "On the contrary, our media would never smear any other country in this manner. Do you know why so many Chinese students are willing to come to study in Germany? That is because ... " (I wanted to say that we liked Germany because the Germany that we saw on Chinese television is beautiful and developed, and that is why we want to come here to learn.)

But she interrupted me with an arrogant look in her eyes: "Because our education level is well-developed and our tuition fees are cheap. It is very simple."

I was offended by this rude interruption, but I continued to finish what I wanted to say. Then I added: "But once we arrive here, we found out that the German media never reports any good news from China. To a certain extent, we overseas students are disappointed in Germany."

She said: "We did not only say that China is bad. We also said that China is good."

I said: "Good. Let me ask you, what good things are there in China?"

She thought about it and said, "The Chinese economy is developing."

I said: "You don't need the German media to tell you that because the whole world knows that. So what good things have you heard about our government?"

She thought about it and could not come up with anything. But she immediately came up a victorious look and said to me: "Can you tell me what good policies the Mexican government has?"

I said: "I don't know."

She was delighted. She said: "You see, you don't know either."

I said: "I don't know because I don't care. I don't know if they have done something good, but I don't know if they have done anything bad either. But when it comes to a country that I care about (such as Germany), I would know their good as well as bad points. We learn about something from both sides. This is something that we were taught since middle school."

The Art of Being Found Out

"They were both about matters which concerned Lady Gregory most, about what she could not somehow keep to herself, what she wanted known and not known, and at once concealed with care and dimly disclosed: women who deceived their husbands and were discovered. The affair belonged to her nightmares, but it also belonged to a dark area in her psyche where she was ready to put herself in danger to have it known who she really was, and what had once made her happy both beyond telling and only too ready to tell."

Speaking of people whose motives are most tangled and whose psyche is most damaged...