Skyscraper City Forum banner
1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
130 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
First posted to the China Resurgent Forum on March 28, 2005 at the following link:

http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=238054&messageid=1112059351&lp=1112059351

==================================================
Wang Xiaodong and Chinese nationalism

Below is an article published in the Guardian whose link appear below. I have quoted it and inserted my comments. It is about the Chinese nationalist movement especially about a Mr. Wang Xiaodong who is a vocal advocate of Chinese nationalism.

==================================================

http://www.guardian.co.uk/china/story/0,7369,1445560,00.html

The future is China's

Although his combative opinions got him the sack from the university of Beijing, Wang Xiaodong remains an outspoken champion of the Chinese nationalist movement. He tells Martin Jacques why his country must not trust the US

Friday March 25, 2005


Our knowledge of China is being transformed with each passing day. Five years ago, virtually the only subject on people's minds was Tiananmen Square. Now nearly everyone knows that the country has undergone a huge economic transformation, and that the future belongs to it in a way that was previously inconceivable. But knowledge about China still remains of the broadest brush. There is little or no perception, for example, of the political and intellectual debates that shape the attitudes of either the Chinese elite or the population at large. Indeed, there is still an underlying assumption that this is an autocracy in which there are no real debates, just fiats handed down from on high.

This is a misconception or, at best, a half-truth. The extraordinary success of China over the past quarter of a century is the product of a sophisticated political leadership, highly attuned to the problems and possibilities that it faces and informed by a plethora of debates and arguments. Those arguments, however, take place within strict parameters, are largely confined to elite circles and are often highly coded. The most important recent such debate has concerned nationalism, and one of its key figures is Wang Xiaodong, a Chinese intellectual in his late 40s. Largely as a result of his book Chinese Nationalism Under the Shadow of Globalisation, which was published in 1999 (just after the Nato bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, which led to angry demonstrations in Beijing), Wang is now widely seen as a leading thinker of the nationalist movement.

His main target has been what he calls "reverse racism", or the widespread attitude among Chinese intellectuals that denigrates China and looks to the west for the country's future and salvation. In fact, this kind of attitude is far from unusual in the Asian tiger countries: as they have exploded into economic growth, they have invariably looked to the west, at least initially, as their model and their vision.

=================================================
(Liang's comment: This is an unfortunate phenomenon seen in many backward countries. Chinese people have been having an inferiority complex for a long time.)
=================================================
The venom of Wang's assault on this mentality, during a recent visit to London, says a lot about the Chinese psyche. "In my opinion, this is not very different from Hitler's racism. The only difference between them and Hitler is that they direct this theory against their own race." There is, of course, every difference between self-denigration and the extermination of another race. It is an utterly inappropriate use of the term "racism": indeed, it suggests an ignorance of what racism is, an ignorance that typifies Han Chinese attitudes more generally. China - and the Han Chinese who make up the vast majority of the population - is characterised by a deep Sino-centrism. When I suggest that terms such as self-hatred or self-loathing might be more accurate, Wang counters: "I insist on using the term racism because foreigners don't believe it can happen in China, the idea that the Chinese are an inferior race. We have never had this experience in Chinese history before."

=================================================
(Liang's comment:

Racism [Merriam Webster dictionary]:
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

It is obvious that it is the writer, Martin Jacques, who is the one who does not know the meaning of the term "racism" which as defined by the Merriam Webster dictionary as indicated above is "racial prejudice or discrimination". And Wang used the term in this sense of the Chinese people having "racial prejudice" and "discrimination" against themselves. It is also the defined meaning of the term "racism" that race is believed to be the "primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race." Unfortunately, many Chinese have come to believe that they are inferior because the Chinese could not independently develop the high tech that the West doesn’t seem to have any problem developing.

Therefore, the "reverse" of the belief that the Chinese race is racially superior is that the Chinese are racially inferior. And this is precisely what Wang is saying - that the Chinese are feeling that they are inferior due to their own inferior racial characteristics. With this understanding of the definition of the terms racism and the reason why many Chinese feel racially inferior, we can see that it is correct for Wang to use the phrase “reverse racism” to describe the mindset of some Chinese who believe in the racial inferiority of the Chinese race and hold open prejudice and discrimination against the traditional Chinese culture and philosophy.)

==============================================

This sense of inferiority is hardly surprising, especially after the Cultural Revolution, during which the country took leave of its collective senses. Wang agrees, arguing that "reverse racism" is strongest among those in their 30s and 40s who lived through the revolution; those in their 20s, whose attitudes have been shaped by a very different set of circumstances, have a very different mentality. "They have a sense of pride in their nation. They care more about national interests. They are not unconditional supporters of the United States." In short, they are products of China's successful economic growth. Wang, now a pollster, has polls to show these generational differences, but alas, these are still only for restricted circulation.

==============================================
(Liang's comment: I certainly hope Wang is right. I hope a new generation of Chinese are growing up with pride and confidence in themselves, who don't see themselves as degraded people without hope of ever standing tall among the peoples of the world.

To read my thoughts on Ah-Q who was portrayed as the personification of the Chinese national characters please go to the following link:

http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=238054&messageid=1091410325&lp=1091410325
)
===============================================
For a century and a half, China has lived in the shadow of the west, and indeed Japan as well. An intensely proud country, which for centuries boasted one of the most advanced civilisations in the world, it felt humiliated by its backwardness and, above all, by its defeats at the hands of the west and Japan. The extraordinary economic transformation of the past two decades has lent the country a new sense of pride and self-confidence. For the first time for two centuries, China is beginning to feel good about itself and, as a consequence, flex its psychological muscles.

===============================================
(Liang's comment: Those Chinese with inferiority complex are simply too ignorant to understand what advances a country. They think the West is more advanced because they are superior human beings. This is obviously not true as no genetic studies have revealed any race to be uncontrovertibly superior. Furthermore, there are so many Chinese who are as well educated and successful as the best whites in America that there is ample proof that Chinese on the average is at least as superior as the white if not even more superior than they.

The problems that caused China's decline are rooted in the ignorance of the government. With the realization of the fact that economic advancement is correlated to technological advancement and that technological advancement is directly correlated to education and funding for R&D, China could expand the scope of both and advance to the technological forefront within 10 years and be as rich as the rest of the world combined within 30 years. And the goods news and the bad news is that it is the Chinese government that stands between China and its superpower status. It is goods news because the mindset of the government could change overnight. All it takes is a competent leader to make the policy change. Unfortunately the bad news is that without a competent leader to make the change, China will advance very slowly continuing to pursue policies that while having brought advancement in the last two decades are no longer applicable.)
=================================================
Wang came to prominence in the late 90s when he was an editor of Strategy and Management, the most important and interesting literary and intellectual journal in China at the time. The so-called nationalist debate could hardly have been more central - or sensitive - to China's future: it concerned the most important issue facing the country, namely which economic strategy the country should pursue. It was an argument that Wang lost, leading to his sacking from his job as an economics professor at the University of International Business and Economics in Beijing.

According to Wang, there were three main positions: the first, which was ultimately to triumph and become indelibly associated with the leadership of Jiang Zemin and Zhu Rongji, proposed that the country should embrace globalisation, join the World Trade Organisation and open itself to foreign capital, even though it was recognised that this would inevitably cast China, at least initially, in the role of a low-technology manufacturer, in the nether reaches of the global economic food chain. The second position, which was associated with the left, emphasised, in the face of economic growth, the importance of maintaining social equity. The third, Wang's own position, argued that the Chinese state should pursue a more selective and protectionist approach towards globalisation, borrowing from the Japanese and South Korean experiences, in order to prevent China becoming permanently trapped at the lower ends of the global division of labour.

==============================================
(Liang's comment: There is nothing wrong with increasing contacts with all nations on earth. Nor is there anything wrong with expanding trade and accepting foreign investment. The problem is that while things may be beneficial in moderation they oftentimes become deadly in excess. Globalization that expands China's global influence is obviously good. However, globalization in the sense of simply allowing any foreigners to come into China or accepting the leads of foreigners in world politics is not only foolish but also dangerous for China as China will quickly lose its sovereignty and become a de facto colony again.

I’ve always characterized the WTO as evil as it contains the same essential points and conditions as the treaties that were forced onto China during the Qing dynasty. Under the evil WTO, China must give up its economic sovereignty and cannot make any law concerning its own economic development without consulting the evil organization. And China could not enforce any law on its own sovereign soil and must appeal to foreign courts dominated by hostile foreigners. It is shear stupidity for China to put the dog noose around its own neck when there is absolutely no necessity to do so. And China could not expand its own internal economy at the fastest rate possible if it continued to subject itself to the control and domination of the evil WTO which will guarantee that foreigners with their superior technologies and excessively favorable exchange rate and unrestricted investment rights into China's economy will systematically buy out and own the Chinese economy. Joining the evil WTO is the single most traitorous act in the entire long history of China and I cannot condemn it is less harsh tone.

To the extent that Wang favors a more cautious approach to globalization and foreign trade and investment, I certainly agree with him wholeheartedly. As I said, there is nothing wrong with becoming more open to the world and establish greater trade and accept more investments from the foreign countries. But these should be predicated on demonstrable benefits in the advancement of China's own technological level which is all that China needs from the foreign advanced countries in order to leapfrog them ultimately.

There is a big difference between giving some market share in exchange for critically needed technology and simply inviting foreigners to take over the entire Chinese economy or whole sectors of Chinese economy such as the auto sector. It is beneficial to trade say some 10% of China's auto sector if China could quickly gain the technology to put it on a par with the most advanced countries. In which case China could not only make available the best cars in the world for its own people but could also export cars that have more added values than cheap toys or textiles and compete with advanced countries with higher paid workers and not compete with backward countries with the lowest paid workers in the world. And by exporting high tech products that compete with advanced countries, China could raise the exchange rate to the full PPP value thus eliminating the insidious subsidies to the exporters through the excessively low exchange rate thus freeing the Chinese people from the burden of subsidizing the exporters which rob them of their incomes and suppresses China's internal economy.

The biggest problem with the concept of globalization as favored by those so-called Chinese intellectuals who are unconditionally loyal to the Americans is that they are degraded people who look at the Chinese history in the last 150 years and are terrified of foreign invasions again. These cowardly Chinese "intellectuals" prefer to believe that by "globalizing" China it would make the world a big happy family where everybody treats everybody else with kindness and consideration and furthermore everybody can become equally rich. But this is a pipe dream that is totally unrealistic. America had "helped" China during the WW2 and the subsequent Cold War because it wants China as an ally to fight America's biggest enemy of the time who were first Germany and Japan and later the USSR and the communist block. Historically, America always had and still has a particular contempt and antipathy for the Chinese. Every since the Chinese arrived in California in 1850 to dig for gold, they had been met with persistent efforts to exclude them from America. The Exclusion Act was specifically passed to keep out the Chinese from America. The Exclusion Act was not changed until after the Americans went to war against the Japanese and needed the Chinese as allies. Therefore, it is a pipe dream for the Chinese people to think that the Americans are basically friendly people who will love the Chinese only if they could understand the Chinese better. These people should look at what happened as soon as the USSR collapsed. The Americans bombed the Chinese embassy and knocked down the Chinese jet fighter right over China's own sovereign economic zone and then the American spy plane had the gall to land on a Chinese airbase. Unfortunately, Jiang in the most farcical episode of Chinese history accepted a non-apology and shamefully papered over the despicable incident so that China could get back into the good graces of the Americans without disturbing the foreign trade and tourism business.

To read my post on the danger of China being assigned to a perpetually lower level in the international division of labor, please go to my post at the link below on how relative advantage of international trade could be very disadvantageous to developing countries such as China:

http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=238054&messageid=1102474161&lp=1102531929
)

================================================


So what does he feel a decade on? Has the gamble of high growth and foreign capital worked? Was he wrong? "I am an optimist," he says. "I do not think we can yet say that China has already won this bet, but the chances of victory are very large because China is already showing signs of moving towards hi-technology under market forces."

=================================================
(Liang's comment: To the extent that opening up had brough in some needed technologies and exposed Chinese people to the more efficient ways of production, it had been a success. But the very fact that China needed to learn from foreigners is a condemnation of the failure of the CCP government in advancing China's own technologies in the first 35 years of its rule. If China had embarked on a serious effort to expand China's higher education and supplied the funding for scientific R&D, then China would have been fully developed by now and not having to keep trying to learn from the foreigners.

Furthermore, the so-called Chinese intellectuals still have no clue as to how technologies are so advanced in foreign countries. They think the Chinese people are somehow inferior to the foreigners and that is why the foreigners can advance technology while the Chinese people cannot. As I've explained many times. technology advancement depends on the number of scientists and the funding for R&D. Since the Chinese have not seek out the genius level students and put them into an intensive science program to the highest doctorate level, nor have they supplied adequate amounts of funding to the few scientists they do have, it is surprising that the Chinese technologies have advanced as far as it has.)
===================================================

In one sense, the argument is far from over. Wang's real target is what he calls the "liberal faction", which he describes as "pro-American, pro-wealth and pro-democracy - providing that it does not harm their wealth". When asked to define what he means by the liberal faction he suggests those members of the elite outside the Communist party who occupy the dominant positions in the universities and the media. As Christopher Hughes, who is writing a book on Chinese nationalism at the London School of Economics, points out, Wang is an astute political operator who knows whom to attack and whom not to - he leaves the party well alone.

==================================================
(Liang's comment: The so-called Chinese intellectuals who favor globalization are actually fools who know nothing. They know nothing about the nature of the foreigners such as the Japanese or the Americans. They know nothing about how science and technologies are advanced. They know nothing about what economic policies to implement. They know nothing about the potential strength of the Chinese people.)
===================================================

At the core of his argument lies the attitude of this group towards the US: "When it comes to the problem of the national interest, China's liberal faction stands unconditionally on the side of other countries, mainly the United States. They submit unceasingly favourable reports about the United States: that we don't need vigilance towards the Americans, nor should we develop our national industries. We should place our full confidence in the United States for recovering Taiwan. This is nonsense." The fact that America "is the pillar of the world situation at present proves that our international order has the structure of a dictatorship. At present ... China is benefiting ... but American foreign policy could change".

================================================
(Liang's comment: The Chinese liberals are naive cowards as I said earlier. They know nothing about the Americans. Anybody who truly knows the Americans would not place any trust in them to help the Chinese reunify Taiwan. Anybody who thinks America is helping Taiwan on democratic principals are naive to the point of stupidity. America has only one purpose regarding China and that is to suppress the rise of China. This has grown out of the historical hatred of the Americans toward the Chinese and will continue forever or until America needs China to fight another one of America's enemies. In which case the Americans would hold their collective nose and "co-operate" with China until the crisis is over. The recent "warming" of the Sino-American relationship is due to the Americans' need for China's help in suppressing N. Korea's nuclear program. As soon as China suppressed N. Korea's nuclear program the Americans will go back to bombing Chinese embassy or knocking down Chinese fighter or maybe even sinking a Chinese warship.

The best way to guarantee China's safety is the deployment of a credible nuclear deterrent consisting of at least 1,200 strategic nuclear warheads on some 800 DF-31 and DF-31A ICBMs. China's future would be much brighter if it immediately shift away from a subsidized exports regime to one of developing the internal economy. And China certainly must not rely on foreigners for its next generation technologies but must immediately expand its own R&D and leapfrog the foreign technologies. China has every potential to accomplish this difficult task. China has more latent human resources than any other countries in the world. And the fact that China has so few world class scientists is a condemnation of the CCP and the Marxist dogma.)
================================================

Wang believes in globalisation as a way of fulfilling the nationalist ideal of a wealthy country and strong army: "China is a beneficiary of the present international order. We want to preserve the international order." In so saying, he distances himself from much of the developing world and from the anti-globalisation movement. But he constantly warns that American policy may change, that China must depend on its own strength. His clear message: do not trust the United States.
==============================================

(Liang's comment: China cannot become a wealth country if it continued on its present policy of subsidized exports of low tech products that compete with the countries of lowest wages. China should have shifted course some 10 years ago and begin concentrating on developing the internal economy through the urbanization of the farmers while at the same time rapidly expanding the number and level of its scientists. The fact that the CCP had failed to do this has caused a basically dangerous trend of China's economic progress. The relative wealth of the cities are subsidized by the rest of the country which is why the incomes of the farmers are so much behind the cities. And as long as the CCP leadership don't understand this, they cannot solve the problem of the farmers' low incomes.

Wang is perfectly right in not trusting the Americans and stressing the importance of relying on China's own strength. But I would also warn him not to place too much faith on globalization which is in many ways just a cover for the economic invasion of China which will inevitably lead to political invasion as well. When the foreigners own the majority of China's economic assets, what will the Chinese military do? Will they protect the foreigners' assets against the Chinese people themselves?)
===============================================

Despite his relative isolation, Wang is a popular figure in China. In Chinese terms, he says what he thinks. He is combative, displaying a toughness that has no doubt helped him to survive defeat. He is also confident of his own position - and probably with very good reason. Although he complains that the nationalist position has been largely suppressed by establishment intellectuals and the state-run media - "my channels for publishing articles have been very few, and often publication has only been possible due to the use of personal relationships" - he points to the internet, and sites such as BBS (Bulletin Board Service), to suggest that there is considerable latent support for his position. As China takes its place on the world stage, it is not difficult to imagine growing support for the kind of arguments presented by Wang.

Until now, the Chinese position has been sotto voce. Given the country's abject poverty and underdevelopment, Deng Xiaoping recognised the need to concentrate all China's efforts and resources on economic development - everything else would depend on its success in this enterprise. With extraordinary self-discipline, this is exactly what China has done for the past 27 years. But it would be wrong to mistake the single-mindedness that China has displayed for its longer-term ambition. China is an extraordinarily old and proud culture, with a very powerful sense of its own identity. Successful economic growth is the pre-condition for the exercise of a wider political, cultural and military influence.
============================================

(Liang's comment: Deng's economic policies of opening up and accepting foreign technologies have been successful. But the very need of opening up is a condemnation of the CCP's own failure in the first place to advance China's technologies during its first 35 years of rule. It has become obvious that China has learned all it can from the foreign countries. China cannot buy any more technologies from the foreigners but must develop its own in the future. Furthermore, China cannot continue to sell its economic assets or the foreigners will soon own most of China's economic assets. Foreign car companies have already own at least half of China's auto sector. And foreign banks and insurance companies are rapidly expanding into these vital sectors as well. And still the traitorous liberals are defending the sell out as necessary while they denigrate and suppress China's own development of high technologies.

China must immediately start to shift away from the dangerous subsidized exports and expand the internal economy through the urbanization of the farmers. Overall, China must implement policies based on my 12-guidelines for rapid technological advancement and economic expansion. China has the greatest potentials that no other countries have. The fact that China has not achieved the world's sole ultra-superpower is a condemnation of the CCP's bad polices. And unless the CCP now change their overall policies, they will again stall China's future growth and put it at great danger. But let the CCP implement my 12-guidelines and China will become a genuinely powerful nation, and not just a big salve-labor camp churning out cheap exports for the Americans, within 10 years and achieve the sole ultra-superpower status within 30 years when with its awesome economic power and high technologies it could deploy the most formidable military power. And with such an invincible military power it could globalize the world in China's image of universal justice, peace, and prosperity.

To read my 12-guidelines please go to the following link:

http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=371672&messageid=1105667957&lp=1105667957

)
=============================================

Wang Xiaodong is unusual in that he asserts this broader perspective with unusual candour. But the views he expresses will surely become far more familiar to western ears as China becomes increasingly powerful economically.

=============================================
This article may be re-posted provided attribution of source is given.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
85 Posts
Uhmmm.....

What I read in this article is pure and simple fascism: nationalism, close economy, strenghtening of the military, disdain for foreginers...

Maybe the american empire is not "heaven on earth"....but I pray for us when China would become itself an empire...

Cheers.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
29 Posts
what about 黑奴和印地安人?和亚非拉殖民地?

这些白猪自己发家的时候就对别人残忍,现在自己发达了又来说别人的民主和人权了。。。

都是些不要脸的贱货,难怪他们怕中国强大,因为他们认为中国以后会杀回去的。

不过,中国不需要用低级的手段去剥削和掠夺,现在的手段不错,以后更强大了手段会越来越多的,中国已经知道如何玩这个游戏了,慢慢看好戏,呵呵。。。
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
350 Posts
gaelthacht said:
Uhmmm.....

What I read in this article is pure and simple fascism: nationalism, close economy, strenghtening of the military, disdain for foreginers...

Maybe the american empire is not "heaven on earth"....but I pray for us when China would become itself an empire...

Cheers.
I tried to prevent this from happening, now it comes...
Please understand his posts only represent himself and his mind or a minor group of people who share the same shallow thoughts with him, hence you better not say big words like "China" or "Chinese", you don't need to go too far to argue that the US isn't imperialistic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
85 Posts
postmodern said:
I tried to prevent this from happening, now it comes...
Please understand his posts only represent himself and his mind or a minor group of people who share the same shallow thoughts with him, hence you better not say big words like "China" or "Chinese", you don't need to go too far to argue that the US isn't imperialistic.

But you agree with me that what I read is fascism....don't you?

BTW, I'm not trying to envolve the whole chinese nation....I suppose that chinese are not only like this man....

BTW2, I'm not saying that USA isn't imperialistic...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
350 Posts
No sir, actually I haven't read his post, I don't wanna read that long crap, since I've learned enough from his other posts...
But that doesn't mean I agree with you, to a certain degree...
But then I do think the comments about close economy(neo-protectionism), close mind, extremism and such are quite fit(for him and his thoughts)...
But a few stupid Chinese don't reflect the real mind and power of all Chinese, we know he has good intentions...
OK I hate useless words, people like to talk but they achieve nothing...
"Shut up and squat."
Let's make things real...
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top