The other "Canon"

[lawpark]

He is not ragging (not a proper word, but cant think of la mote juste right now) at the fact that china has problems, the problem and I agree with JBI is that China is unwilling to look at itself in the mirror, while it scrutinizes everyone else in their mirrors. JBI is railing against the Hypocrisy. And in the most part I agree with him, from when I spent some time in China I saw a lot of what he seems to have seen as well. Of course China has plenty of good, but its determination to pretend that the bad doesn't exist and it never has, and how it has mind-washed generations into actually thinking that, is infuriating - especially for a westerner who has grown up with different notions of what society should be, and different notions of individual liberty and freedom.

- For "China" in your first sentences - are you referring to the government? the culture? the people?
- the "infuriating" part is interesting - as one who grew up elsewhere with different notions would be convinced that the Chinese are "mind-washed" (which I actually agree they are, especially true for the generation before me); but as with reading outside of one's culture, if that can lead to one questioning how much as a westerner who has grown up elsewhere has been similarly "mind-washed" (or "mind-breached", whatever you prefer), it does serve a good purpose

[JBI]

- For "China" in your first sentences - are you referring to the government? the culture? the people?
- the "infuriating" part is interesting - as one who grew up elsewhere with different notions would be convinced that the Chinese are "mind-washed" (which I actually agree they are, especially true for the generation before me); but as with reading outside of one's culture, if that can lead to one questioning how much as a westerner who has grown up elsewhere has been similarly "mind-washed" (or "mind-breached", whatever you prefer), it does serve a good purpose

It's different when you have free press, and are brought up to think an academic setting is a place for discussion. I'll give you an example, I've been in a seminar meeting discussing China and Chinese policy - the difference between local students and Chinese exchange students (of which there are many) is that they are not brought up thinking these things can be discussed, or trained to discuss them. For about half of it, the local students generally spent time cutting at this issue and that, but the Chinese students remained silent, dumbfounded and scribbling notes. Then one exchange student asked, "Why do we sit here and discuss governments, why do we criticize these things and spend so much time pointing out what's wrong." Well, the leader of the tutorial remarked, "Well, firstly, it is considered a part of democracy to discuss these issues and be involved, and to self-criticize and point faults out, the same way Canadians would complain about domestic issues, and vote accordingly, secondly, as an institution, the university is supposed to act as a buffer and a place where this sort of discussion can be had, and where these areas can be debated - that is essentially the point of the discussion, to try and understand what is going on, why, and to act as an interpreter and critic, as that is the role the institution is filling in the public." To which she returned to sitting quietly dumbfounded.


We come from a culture that believes democracy, and self-criticism, accountability, historical evaluation, and critical analysis are essential to being part of a community and being a citizen. Likewise, we come from cultures that think public speech, and debate about issues is essential to functionality. You would probably agree being raised in Hong Kong, where a mass rally in memorial of the Tian An Men Massacre happened with 150,000 people showing up this year. China thinks differently, the population was denied access to that information, and is unaware that the protest happened, let alone the massacre.

It's that kind of warped logic - we value criticism, because that is the point of studying, that is essential to literature, as it is to democracy, and to international relations. We should floor issues, like how benevolent China supports Dictatorships and Genocides in Africa, let alone at home, or how Shell, and BP and others do the same - as people who read, it is considered part of a social responsibility.

The point is, our mind washing isn't state run, we don't have a ministry of propaganda, or a central news agency, or intense censorship. There is still propaganda, but it is buffered, the same way warped CNN's take on the first Gulf War was undermined by the emergence of other news agencies like Al-Jazeera.

I'll give you a different example. My past teacher for Chinese in China told me, after going to Japan first as an exchange student, then as a Chinese teacher, she was required to publish a paper about her experiences on her return. She told me how the publisher told her her article was not sufficient, as it was too flattering of Japan, and didn't criticize them, and therefore was not suitable to meet with State censorship, she was in the end forced to criticize. IT's little things like that that cause problems, where simple movies are banned nonstop, arts, culture, media, etc. all are weaved through a censorship board.

As for economic communism, that is all but disappeared. What you have now is something that as a model is a cross between 19th century American capitalism, and 20th century South American Capitalism, with rich families, connected and controlling everything, media, construction, transportation, etc.

Beyond this, the influence of the propaganda model is used as an imperialist doctrine, the same way British colonists made use of propaganda, and American colonists after them, the only difference is, the game has changed. What they are doing is trying to gain political influence everywhere, and a different reputation, they are doing what Qaddafi did before his fall, namely creating a new BS reputation through self-promotion. In the process, they are also running a colonial regime, and a Caste system back home that need speaking of, with a wide gap that is widening. They don't want us to know about it, don't report it, and keep on with human rights violations that are forbidden to be known - they don't even have academic freedom in that country, and the education system functions as an outlet for government policy - museums function to promote the regime (Hu Jintao has a shrine in the newly built national museum in Beijing, with an ironic painting of the Yangtze Dam as it smooths over the rough waters and brings harmony to the country (painted for the exhibit of course).

We talk of foreign irritation, well, as a Canadian, going to these Canadian universities and hearing outward racism from students there in Chinese, people who aren't citizens, and are studying in the institution because their parents have money and they couldn't get into a great university in China (and are too bourgeois to go to one of those other mediocre ones, besides the fact that virtually all institutions there have no academic credibility by international standards) and you cannot help but think, what are you doing here? You come here, you spout racism in Chinese about "外国人“ or foreigners (the local population) and have all Chinese parties and look down on people and plan on making money off of the country and you cannot help but think, where do you get such ego from? Where do you get this "I am Chinese so I am better than you attitude" if not from your culture. Namely, governmental promotion, literature, art, policy, and ignorance.

Seeing textbooks in China and what they say about Canada just illustrates the point - we are seen as a crop for the picking. They have no regard for us, do not want to discuss things, are self-righteous, and ignorant, and have the nerve to spit on local people because they happened to be born in the place that so nicely welcomed them. That's what we call imperialism, colonialism, racism, and Chinese policy, and as soon as you begin to question China, you get the dialog about how China is a victim, how it's not fair that we criticize, how it's not such a bad place, how we are racist, how we are intolerant of x, y, and z.

Well bring it on China, and Chinese culture, if one can be critical of Western culture, and Western history, and Western governments, why the hell can they not be critical of big old China too? Why can't we look at 5000 years of history and break it apart. The truth of the matter is, every place has 5000 years of history, every place with a population that has lived there 5000 years. Most cultures are ashamed of certain practices that the culture preformed, likewise, most cultures are proud of moving forward. Others like the Chinese one think it was those damn foreigners who ruined the party and colonized them, yet ironically are the only real government with sway supporting a genocide in Sudan, and are a major player in African and world colonialism (ancient China had a huge colonial history, anybody who denies it has not clearly looked at the size of China C. 2000BCE and the size of it C 1200BCE and the size of it today, likewise look how many places have fallen off the map). But why don't we discuss that? Why don't we talk about these things?


Jin Yong's fiction is necessarily linked with politics, because everything is. Likewise, you may choose to only look at the text relative to the author, but the text has implications based on its readers - it promotes a grand idea of China, and has become part of the propaganda model of China. So we should be able to look at that and say, does he support nationalism, Han Chauvinism, Jingoism, do his readers get that sort of message from his texts, how is he interpreted?

[JBI]

Because what you say about China can be very offensive.

Where exactly did you stay there? China is too diverse to generalize the way you do in some of your comments.

Also, if you were to nitpick with every country in the world the way you do with China, what country would come out entirely clean?

I stayed in Beijing which gets the brunt of my criticism. I was in China for a total of one year minus about two weeks. I traveled extensively to every province but Heilongjiang, Hainan, Qinghai, Tibet (closed to foreigners in honor of the celebration of the 60th anniversary since liberation), Ningxia and Gansu. Meaning I have been to almost every region and seen far more of the country than the vast majority of locals. I have spent extensive time in both rural and urban China, as well as spent time in some of the poorest villages of Guizhou, and the richest neighborhoods of Shanghai's urban core.

As for nitpicking, I do, the same way I advocate things about my country's own domestic policy, and international policy. The same way I criticize the history of Canada, and the histories of the regions my family come from. As a citizen, that is my duty, and as someone who thinks himself in the intellectual class of the country, taking a stand is integral.

You can ask anybody, I've taken a fair number of stabs at many countries, but on questions of human rights violations, one is limited with certain countries. For instance, I cannot talk much about Canadian foreign policy, since we are not a particularly important player on international levels (we don't have the corporations that own countries in all but name). We also do not have the military, and we have a rather clean human rights record back home. In general, there are only a few issues one could nitpick, namely Aboriginal Affairs, Quebec Separatism (which isn't a human rights issue) and illegal and temporary labour. Our government in the past little while has had a relatively clean slate, minus our treaty obligations that led us to Afghanistan which the vast majority of people at home, including myself, has opposed.

Tell me, am I not allowed to criticize others? Then why even have world literature? IF I cannot criticize Chinese culture and literature, as well as government (who control publications TV, Media, Radio, and other forms of cultural outlets) then what is world literature? You would have me what, sit here praising Confucius without reading him? Sit here reading Jin Yong and not discussing defects in his ideology and literature? What is the point of debate then, to just sit there flattering. Well if that's world literature, namely not being able to nitpick and discuss issues, then I want out.

It's that old Chinese racism again, the Jew from Canada dared to criticize us, what ground does he have to criticize? Americans tell me the same thing. But the ground is this, one has a right to criticize internationally, one gains that right by knowledge and by evidence. I know a great deal more about Chinese literature than probably the vast majority of Chinese people. As someone who is treated in China as a perpetual outsider (yes, they literally stop to take pictures) I should have a right to pass a judgement other than "You guys are the best."

I have been a strong promoter on these boards of Chinese literature. I promote good things about culture, and I can criticize bad things. Just because I'm white doesn't mean I am not knowledgeable. Your problem is not that I am talking about China, but that I am allowing myself to say something that doesn't agree with what the regime wants me to say, well, I am not a Chinese citizen, I will say whatever the hell I want to, and will criticize them for not giving their citizens the same right, and for pumping them so full of bull**** that they probably couldn't even if they tried.

According to polls they think they have a democracy there, and according to state doctrine certain things never happened, and do not exist. We know that to be fact, so we cannot exactly trust what they say any more than we can trust what we ourselves say anyway.

[JBI]

Most people in Chinese cities at least aren't as mind-washed as it might appear to outsiders. They realize that the government is lying to them, and sometimes they know the truth too, only they're not allowed to show it (for instance in the case of the recent train crashes). No adult I know in China is happy with the government but no one dares to complain either.

Also, as a passing note, most governments conceal some of their history, maybe just not as much.

I find the Chinese government infuriating, but I don't think it's fair to call the entire culture corrupt or immoral, or that "Chinese believe in nothing but money nowadays" ... That's some people, and that's a stereotype. It's impossible to generalize like that with a whole nation.

A fair point, and granted, but that isn't to say we should adhere to Chinese opinion that it doesn't happen either. As for the train crash, they know about it, and people are not afraid of their government having done something to them, but are in contrast just afraid of crashing - big difference then the government rolling a tank over you - a safety standard (with a freak accident) and a massacre are two different beasts.


As for governments censoring history - not really. I think that is illegal in Canada, as in many other places - historians do not work for the government. Burning history is one thing, concealing it is a whole other. No governments without censorship conceal their history, since historical writing and direct government control are usually quite separate. Take an example. There were a few Dams that burst in communist times that led to the virtually instant deaths of a few hundred thousand (I believe they were in Hubei, cannot recall exactly, but that is not the point). During the communist regime, that information was withheld. Now, if that happened in Canada and the information was withheld, well, that isn't impossible since there is freedom of the press, the extent of government censorship would be to stop news that would cause moral panic. Likewise, the Canadian government was sued severely because of the mishandling of AIDS blood in the medical system, something which they were not able to cover up, and never did - China would have, as I believe they have a major AIDS activist in house arrest in Henan for talking to much.

As for people in China criticizing, not really. The reason the criticism in cities is tolerated is because those people who have the ability to sit and cities and criticize are the ones most likely to be benefiting from the current regime. It's rare when someone shoots themselves in the foot. It's no big deal if some girl goes on and says "I should get facebook here, this sucks," while her father says, well, it's my bribe that keeps it there, and funds you getting a new Mercedes. You have a conflict of interests on most scales there, so it has become fashionable to complain and do nothing, to make jokes yet take advantage of the situation at hand. Those Beijing people are not likely to say, "we should let these people have free immigration to the city," they are more likely to say, "those dirty, thieving 外地人“ so they may complain, but they are still well fed.

[lawpark]

It's different when you have free press, and are brought up to think an academic setting is a place for discussion. I'll give you an example, I've been in a seminar meeting discussing China and Chinese policy - the difference between local students and Chinese exchange students (of which there are many) is that they are not brought up thinking these things can be discussed, or trained to discuss them. For about half of it, the local students generally spent time cutting at this issue and that, but the Chinese students remained silent, dumbfounded and scribbling notes. Then one exchange student asked, "Why do we sit here and discuss governments, why do we criticize these things and spend so much time pointing out what's wrong." Well, the leader of the tutorial remarked, "Well, firstly, it is considered a part of democracy to discuss these issues and be involved, and to self-criticize and point faults out, the same way Canadians would complain about domestic issues, and vote accordingly, secondly, as an institution, the university is supposed to act as a buffer and a place where this sort of discussion can be had, and where these areas can be debated - that is essentially the point of the discussion, to try and understand what is going on, why, and to act as an interpreter and critic, as that is the role the institution is filling in the public." To which she returned to sitting quietly dumbfounded.

- Consider relative weakness in thinking through verbalizing (debates) is actually not just Chinese - cf. the book Can Asians Think?
- Have it occurred to you that if one does not have right to vote (e.g. exchange student in Canada), there is much less points for one to be involved in policy discussions?

The point is, our mind washing isn't state run, we don't have a ministry of propaganda, or a central news agency, or intense censorship. There is still propaganda, but it is buffered, the same way warped CNN's take on the first Gulf War was undermined by the emergence of other news agencies like Al-Jazeera.

- Mind-washing is more scary if it is successful, which means that one does not even know one's mind has been washed. In China, everyone knows there is a Party and there is censorship. In US, how many people would question their news source? It actually is quite a bit more scary (cf. I read it from Chomsky - actually too scared and too depressed so I stop reading his political writings which are mostly just documentations)

As for economic communism, that is all but disappeared. What you have now is something that as a model is a cross between 19th century American capitalism, and 20th century South American Capitalism, with rich families, connected and controlling everything, media, construction, transportation, etc.

- It is actually a problem other parts of the world, especially China, has with the West. It is actually very often accused of things it hasn't done, based on analogy of bad things that have been done by the West one or two centuries ago. Yes, 19th century American capitalism wasn't nice - but it was actually nice because it was done under democracy. Yes, extreme Nationalism wasn't nice - but it was actually ok that it was invented in the West when it created so much loss of lives in two world wars but it is not ok for someone like Jin Yong to write with moderate nationalism.

Beyond this, the influence of the propaganda model is used as an imperialist doctrine, the same way British colonists made use of propaganda, and American colonists after them, the only difference is, the game has changed. What they are doing is trying to gain political influence everywhere, and a different reputation, they are doing what Qaddafi did before his fall, namely creating a new BS reputation through self-promotion. In the process, they are also running a colonial regime, and a Caste system back home that need speaking of, with a wide gap that is widening. They don't want us to know about it, don't report it, and keep on with human rights violations that are forbidden to be known - they don't even have academic freedom in that country, and the education system functions as an outlet for government policy - museums function to promote the regime (Hu Jintao has a shrine in the newly built national museum in Beijing, with an ironic painting of the Yangtze Dam as it smooths over the rough waters and brings harmony to the country (painted for the exhibit of course).

- You seem to be talking about the current Chinese regime. Exactly just what I said - Chinese regime is bad - granted - but it is often accused of things it have not done by using analogies of things that the West actually has done. I am reacting to the imperialism and colonialism here.
- I think this is the type of criticism that undermines the criticisms that are much more valid. My stand is: of course China or Chinese can be criticized, but it has to be done based on sufficient fact and sound logic. If one starts criticizing because one has the right to, that is not good enough.

We talk of foreign irritation, well, as a Canadian, going to these Canadian universities and hearing outward racism from students there in Chinese, people who aren't citizens, and are studying in the institution because their parents have money and they couldn't get into a great university in China (and are too bourgeois to go to one of those other mediocre ones, besides the fact that virtually all institutions there have no academic credibility by international standards) and you cannot help but think, what are you doing here? You come here, you spout racism in Chinese about "外国人“ or foreigners (the local population) and have all Chinese parties and look down on people and plan on making money off of the country and you cannot help but think, where do you get such ego from? Where do you get this "I am Chinese so I am better than you attitude" if not from your culture. Namely, governmental promotion, literature, art, policy, and ignorance.

- You clearly have the rights not to like the Chinese; especially some particular Chinese people or groups.
- If you read your posts again, it is hard not to read it as "JBI does feel that he is superior over any Chinese".

Well bring it on China, and Chinese culture, if one can be critical of Western culture, and Western history, and Western governments, why the hell can they not be critical of big old China too? Why can't we look at 5000 years of history and break it apart. The truth of the matter is, every place has 5000 years of history, every place with a population that has lived there 5000 years. Most cultures are ashamed of certain practices that the culture preformed, likewise, most cultures are proud of moving forward. Others like the Chinese one think it was those damn foreigners who ruined the party and colonized them, yet ironically are the only real government with sway supporting a genocide in Sudan, and are a major player in African and world colonialism (ancient China had a huge colonial history, anybody who denies it has not clearly looked at the size of China C. 2000BCE and the size of it C 1200BCE and the size of it today, likewise look how many places have fallen off the map). But why don't we discuss that? Why don't we talk about these things?

- Let's talk about this China being too big theme - which I read in a Times magazine cover as a college student actually "infuriated". The logic was exactly what I was saying, it goes like "Well, every Western countries gain land by winning wars, like how we colonized Americas and Oceania; look at how big China is, it must have done the same." That's it. Well, purely logically it is flawed, because a country can grow big also because of mergers - e.g. Scotland with England; or European Union. On a factual basis, yes, the worse guys have been Qin Shihuang and Han Wudi, which the Chinese tradition really didn't like. Tang was pretty expansionist, but in really pretty ineffective at that - especially in the Northeast / Korea. China actually got a lot bigger afterwards by being conquered (Yuan and Qing). (Of course in the official ideology now the Mongols and Manchus are now officially Chinese - but at the point they were making the conquests the ethnic identities have not thus developed yet.) You may now call this the "victim" theory. But if you compare the maps it is hard to argue against.
- Of course, if there are better documentations, let's bring them up and compare how bad Colonialisms had been. By the way, as you make the comparison, don't forget the things that were done by the Greek colonists and the Roman imperialists.

[JBI]

It's simple, Tibet, seized, and recently, Xinjiang is currently undergoing something one would call colonialism - Dali was conquered during the early Ming - border pushes within sichuan itself, including the integration of the Tibetan and Yi portions are 20th century enterprises. The border with North Korea has a large Korean speaking population.

If we take the Han Dynasty though, where was Guangdong then, a renegade vassal state as was the area around it under the leadership of Nanyue - the Xixia regime outwest was pretty much wiped off of history, as was the Liao regime in the north. The uyghar autonomous regimes that coexisted with Qing land claims are still being fought over today, often bloodily. Likewise, a North South, East West divide is culturally and linguistically there - in addition to various pockets of land that never were really under Chinese authority, like the Southern part of Hunan, or Guizhou as a whole - generally where the minority groups lived. Likewise the Mongolian nomads who ran up up top.

If one wants a clue as to how divided the country historically was, one need only look at breakdowns of religion, language, or better yet, look at food. Are you telling me there was always a Chinese presence in Xinjiang, Tibet, Qinghai? Or Yunnan, or Manchuria, or Mongolia? Those are all new ideas that haven't even to this day really settled in. The Ancient Chinese concept of the end of the world is right near Dunhuang at the 玉门。 Hainan before it was beach resort was desolate place of exile.

Yes, all countries have expanded, and we have novels like Blood Meridian which give s an idea of what that expansion was like. We don't have 60th anniversary parades where all foreign spectators are kicked out.

Likewise, most countries today have historical identities that try to understand the darkness in their path, China has no humor about it - they just don't talk about the bad, and act like it wasn't there.

The reason why China didn't go out to conquer as far as they could was because they failed, not because they didn't try. Even the Mongols failed their expansion southward into Indochina. China tried to take Korea more than once, and got told to beat it by delegations from modern day Afghanistan.


As to the point about other countries doing it in the past, well, we aren't in the 19th century are we? Americans have a dark history, does that give China the right to take its turn creating its own dark history? London got polluted during Wordsworth's time, so does that give China the right to dump all sorts of trash everywhere, and to clog up their skies?

You forget something, we are in an international world, in the 21st century, to be a part of it, you cannot be playing with 19th century rules. You do not get a get out of jail free card for not being developed.

Truth be told, China had just as dark a history in the last centuries. One or two centuries ago they were doing just as nasty things as they are now. Just because plumbing is a new idea, and modernity is newer doesn't mean they can get away from social responsibility. Taking forever to develop doesn't give a country a right to not develop basically accepted ideas, especially ones like the UN Charter of Human Rights that they've even signed onto. They signed it themselves, with a quote from Confucius to head the thing off.

My question of expansionism was not to take a stab at ancient expansion, it was more to point out what 5000 years really means - basically if you are from Henan, you will come close to it - you've had 5000 years of Chinese writing, or not quite, or... Beyond that - no resemblance. The regime changed, the culture changed, the language changed, the territory changed - massive migration and blood mixing occurred. Which is what occurred everywhere. Truth be told China proper spent more of those 5000 years divided than it did united - the idea of continuous national history is ridiculous, but alas, it is still part of the propaganda model.


As for me being superior or not, I don't find myself superior, as that is a difficult thing to claim, or justify. I just think people take things and they put them under this we don't touch this category, and as soon as I shake the boat a little, everyone drops the racist, white, imperialist western guy line to shut me up, well, it won't work that easily. The same way Chomsky can yell about American policy, he can yell about Chinese policy, he's a coward in that regard. Does he hate his country? Not at all, but he thinks he has a social responsibility to point out what it does wrong.

You can criticize without hating something. I enjoyed my year in China, but there is a difference between enjoying something and being stupid about it. They literally paid me to have a good time, and spread the word of their benevolence but it isn't likely to happen. It's not about superiority, it is about leveling the playing field.

You do not need to be racist to criticize. Feel free to take that nonsense and can it - Apartheid in South Africa ended because of international criticism - just because those complaining weren't South Africans doesn't mean they didn't have a right to complain and pressure the country. Did that mean that everyone involved was looking down on South Africans?

Geez, quit putting the country on a pedestal. IT shouldn't be immune from criticism just because I am white.

[Heteronym]

- It is actually a problem other parts of the world, especially China, has with the West. It is actually very often accused of things it hasn't done, based on analogy of bad things that have been done by the West one or two centuries ago. Yes, 19th century American capitalism wasn't nice - but it was actually nice because it was done under democracy. Yes, extreme Nationalism wasn't nice - but it was actually ok that it was invented in the West when it created so much loss of lives in two world wars but it is not ok for someone like Jin Yong to write with moderate nationalism.

The West isn't a monolithic culture. 19th century capitalism wasn't accepted by everyone because there was also marxism, socialism and anarchism suggesting different approaches, and in their heyday they had millions of followers.

Nationalism also came under fire by many writers, philosophers and politicians during the two world wars. Many brave people died or were ostracised for speaking against it.

Finally, I'd be shocked to find any novelist in the West today writing from a perspective of uncritical nationalism. Perhaps Tom Clancy, who writes porn about the USA army; that guy surely seems to love his country. But then I turn to José Saramago, and he had to live in exile because he was censored by his won country; I turn to Dario Fo, and he's hated in Italy for constantly mocking the corruption of its politicians; I turn to Ismael Kadare, who's always criticisng Albanian backward culture. Nationalism has, thankfully, fallen into disrepute in the West. And I think it's telling that in a totalitarian country like China it still exists and informs the works of its novelists.

[lawpark]

The West isn't a monolithic culture. 19th century capitalism wasn't accepted by everyone because there was also marxism, socialism and anarchism suggesting different approaches, and in their heyday they had millions of followers.

Nationalism also came under fire by many writers, philosophers and politicians during the two world wars. Many brave people died or were ostracised for speaking against it.

Finally, I'd be shocked to find any novelist in the West today writing from a perspective of uncritical nationalism. Perhaps Tom Clancy, who writes porn about the USA army; that guy surely seems to love his country. But then I turn to José Saramago, and he had to live in exile because he was censored by his won country; I turn to Dario Fo, and he's hated in Italy for constantly mocking the corruption of its politicians; I turn to Ismael Kadare, who's always criticisng Albanian backward culture. Nationalism has, thankfully, fallen into disrepute in the West. And I think it's telling that in a totalitarian country like China it still exists and informs the works of its novelists.

- The West is not monolithic just like China is not monolithic. Just like even Confucianism or Christianity is not monolithic.
- If what you are saying is right, some pockets in the West was repressing ideas based on ideologies as late as WWII. I would add that this general trend lasts until at least end of Cold War.
- The author we are talking about, Jin Yong, is still living, but his novels (his main works) was written from late 50's to early 70's. And his views are what I would call moderately Nationalistic, and not jingoism as JBI was claiming - it is not like someone like Nazis come to life again, or in Japan when on the street you sometimes see cars with flags showing their war-time (WWII) flag broadcasting military music down the street.
- Just for the record, I am not a fan of Nationalism - but, the modern world system (e.g. United Nations; international relations) are still founded on the basis of nation-states. So it is also extremely difficult of not using some concept of Nation to talk about anything.

[cl154576]

I have been a strong promoter on these boards of Chinese literature. I promote good things about culture, and I can criticize bad things. Just because I'm white doesn't mean I am not knowledgeable. Your problem is not that I am talking about China, but that I am allowing myself to say something that doesn't agree with what the regime wants me to say, well, I am not a Chinese citizen, I will say whatever the hell I want to, and will criticize them for not giving their citizens the same right, and for pumping them so full of bull**** that they probably couldn't even if they tried.

I am not a Chinese citizen either. I admit that a lot of the Chinese are extremely racist, and it bothers me in my relatives. It's a sort of hypocrisy – they prefer Western culture over their own, but still they look down on the people who produced that culture. Also, many of the Chinese are racist even inside their country: Beijing residents scorn Shanghai residents, mainland China residents scorn residents of Hong Kong and Taiwan. I think that relates to your comments about historical division.

I agree that you have a right to criticize. I think you're very knowledgeable, I also don't like the current regime, and I've often criticized China too. I just disagreed with the severity of some of your criticisms. I didn't realize that you criticize all countries.

According to polls they think they have a democracy there, and according to state doctrine certain things never happened, and do not exist. We know that to be fact, so we cannot exactly trust what they say any more than we can trust what we ourselves say anyway.

About mind-washing in general, I'll agree that the modern generation is largely mind-washed. But their parents really aren't. They hear snippets of news leaked out; they might not know the full story, but they're suspicious that they're being lied to. Sometimes I get phone calls from my relatives asking about what really happened in some current events in China.

With the train crashes, the government was lying to them about how many people died. A lot of people realized that their relatives' names were missing from the lists and that when the police went in to "rescue" people from the train some people were buried alive (once there was a baby heard crying from inside the train as the train was being buried). Instead of printing what the government told them to print, newspapers left the page blank.

There are web pages criticizing the Chinese government, some of them by writers whose works have been censored. To avoid being censored online, however, they've had to replace characters with other characters of the same phonetic pronunciation.

I do not look down on you at all for not being Chinese, but the people criticize the government in secret, and it's possible you might not have heard a lot of it consequently. Not all the people who criticize are benefiting from the current regime, or joking. My relatives won't criticize in emails or phone calls for fear of being monitored, but they do talk about it in private.

[JBI]

The whole idea of secret criticism of a government is rather contradictory - criticism by nature is supposed to be public. That's what gives it its power. Otherwise it is just grumbling.

[lawpark]

It's simple, Tibet, seized, and recently, Xinjiang is currently undergoing something one would call colonialism - Dali was conquered during the early Ming - border pushes within sichuan itself, including the integration of the Tibetan and Yi portions are 20th century enterprises. The border with North Korea has a large Korean speaking population.

If we take the Han Dynasty though, where was Guangdong then, a renegade vassal state as was the area around it under the leadership of Nanyue - the Xixia regime outwest was pretty much wiped off of history, as was the Liao regime in the north. The uyghar autonomous regimes that coexisted with Qing land claims are still being fought over today, often bloodily. Likewise, a North South, East West divide is culturally and linguistically there - in addition to various pockets of land that never were really under Chinese authority, like the Southern part of Hunan, or Guizhou as a whole - generally where the minority groups lived. Likewise the Mongolian nomads who ran up up top.

If one wants a clue as to how divided the country historically was, one need only look at breakdowns of religion, language, or better yet, look at food. Are you telling me there was always a Chinese presence in Xinjiang, Tibet, Qinghai? Or Yunnan, or Manchuria, or Mongolia? Those are all new ideas that haven't even to this day really settled in. The Ancient Chinese concept of the end of the world is right near Dunhuang at the 玉门。 Hainan before it was beach resort was desolate place of exile.

Yes, all countries have expanded, and we have novels like Blood Meridian which give s an idea of what that expansion was like. We don't have 60th anniversary parades where all foreign spectators are kicked out.

Likewise, most countries today have historical identities that try to understand the darkness in their path, China has no humor about it - they just don't talk about the bad, and act like it wasn't there.

The reason why China didn't go out to conquer as far as they could was because they failed, not because they didn't try. Even the Mongols failed their expansion southward into Indochina. China tried to take Korea more than once, and got told to beat it by delegations from modern day Afghanistan.


As to the point about other countries doing it in the past, well, we aren't in the 19th century are we? Americans have a dark history, does that give China the right to take its turn creating its own dark history? London got polluted during Wordsworth's time, so does that give China the right to dump all sorts of trash everywhere, and to clog up their skies?

You forget something, we are in an international world, in the 21st century, to be a part of it, you cannot be playing with 19th century rules. You do not get a get out of jail free card for not being developed.

Truth be told, China had just as dark a history in the last centuries. One or two centuries ago they were doing just as nasty things as they are now. Just because plumbing is a new idea, and modernity is newer doesn't mean they can get away from social responsibility. Taking forever to develop doesn't give a country a right to not develop basically accepted ideas, especially ones like the UN Charter of Human Rights that they've even signed onto. They signed it themselves, with a quote from Confucius to head the thing off.

My question of expansionism was not to take a stab at ancient expansion, it was more to point out what 5000 years really means - basically if you are from Henan, you will come close to it - you've had 5000 years of Chinese writing, or not quite, or... Beyond that - no resemblance. The regime changed, the culture changed, the language changed, the territory changed - massive migration and blood mixing occurred. Which is what occurred everywhere. Truth be told China proper spent more of those 5000 years divided than it did united - the idea of continuous national history is ridiculous, but alas, it is still part of the propaganda model.


As for me being superior or not, I don't find myself superior, as that is a difficult thing to claim, or justify. I just think people take things and they put them under this we don't touch this category, and as soon as I shake the boat a little, everyone drops the racist, white, imperialist western guy line to shut me up, well, it won't work that easily. The same way Chomsky can yell about American policy, he can yell about Chinese policy, he's a coward in that regard. Does he hate his country? Not at all, but he thinks he has a social responsibility to point out what it does wrong.

You can criticize without hating something. I enjoyed my year in China, but there is a difference between enjoying something and being stupid about it. They literally paid me to have a good time, and spread the word of their benevolence but it isn't likely to happen. It's not about superiority, it is about leveling the playing field.

You do not need to be racist to criticize. Feel free to take that nonsense and can it - Apartheid in South Africa ended because of international criticism - just because those complaining weren't South Africans doesn't mean they didn't have a right to complain and pressure the country. Did that mean that everyone involved was looking down on South Africans?

Geez, quit putting the country on a pedestal. IT shouldn't be immune from criticism just because I am white.

- Tibet was seized but it was also part of Qing at least in less than half a centuries’ time. That is why the question of legitimacy is murky – but clearly less so than US’s invasion of Iraq in this decade.
- Dali was first conquered by Mongols. Same issue as PRC vs. Tibet.
- On China being “colonial”, you seem to subscribe to the theory that a “people” that is of a distinct culture and language should be governed differently. Canada has Aboriginal Reserve – should that be a separate country? There are also lots of Chinese in Canada too – does it make Canada naturally bad when you just look at the demographics?
- Nanyue was a direct result of Qin Shihuang’s expansion. I’ve said Qin Shihuang’s policy was not really liked in the tradition.
- Xixia was wiped out by the Mongols, and Liao by the Jins/ Mongols
- Should all minority groups in all countries form their own separate state? In your phrasing of colonialism, you are actually basing it on a version of nationalism, which is that a “people” with distinct culture / language / religion / food should have its own state. This I disagree, but the funny thing is you are using this concept of nationalism to criticize China’s “colonialism” and its “nationalism” at the same time. Sense any inconsistency?
- Of course there are migrations that happened. Lots of ethnic Chinese now live “overseas” – these must have been some sort of colonialism by the Chinese too? Did anyone in the world keep talking about how US annexed Hawaii?
- I get back to my point – many of these situations are that, situational. If there are specific documentation about how things have been done in a bad way, that would make good criticism.
- There are of course things about how the governance of different parts of China that is problematic. But its phrasing of its history may not be fully factual (no current national history as taught in schools are), yet its phrasing is clearly not explicitly racist of the earlier South African type.
- China really didn’t go out to conquer as far as they could – one example being the border war with India – I have heard (not from Chinese source) that the Chinese army could have marched to Calcutta, but didn’t.
- If Americans have a dark history and generally paints its history with corresponding darkness, then of course it has every moral right to accuse China of (potential) wrong-doings. But what you have is that Americans have a dark history and paints it brightly (and in the mean time continuing to create these dark moments), then it really does feels like many of the slings it swings on China is hypocritical.
- We are in the international world, which is ‘inter-national’ – the basis of this world system and its rules are still based on nation states, where myths of nations are used as a matter of course. Somehow, China is the only country it seems like that cannot do its own propaganda. You will say that it is different because China does not have freedom of speech. I’d agree that freedom of speech is a problem in China, but that does not make China’s version of propaganda more wrong than any numbers of countries.
- China’s histories in the past centuries were of course dark, and in fact the same applies to the whole world since around the industrial revolution after 1800’s – does wonders for some (I would say including myself), but the history for most folks in the world have been brutal.
- Interesting that you mentions UN – United Nations. The UN system is vote-driven, not democratic in the sense that votes are proportional to population, but every country has a vote. And votes can be bought by money, overt or implicit, as in promise of tax cuts, etc. – as in most democracies. China is clearly playing the game, and reasonably successfully now. Of course it wouldn’t be successful for too long, for the West would soon find a way to change the rule so that China will look like the bad guy soon; just like the propaganda on China’s forex rates that happened in the past several years.
- Not to disagree with you that nationalist histories are faulty; but it actually turns out that China has more of a sets of historical records to spin a reasonably compelling nationalist history without as much twists as other nations.
- I agree that it is difficult to claim superiority – almost on every topic one needs to do quite serious information gathering and analysis before even generally relevant criticism. And even so the pre-conception could have misguided the “evidence” thus gathered. So as a western student you can think you have critical thinking and is thus in a position to criticize; on the other hand I can assure you that most loud criticisms have its basis as propaganda by someone – it is actually much more intellectually sound to be Socratic than accusative. That is why I think Chomsky is good – he is critical, but he makes sure he understands what he is criticizing, and is not doing general blanket criticisms. That is also why you see China’s propaganda machines in the past decade work reasonably well in the international scene as it is mostly on the defensive – it clearly can more easily muster information about its own situation, than launching broad general criticism (as it used to do) based on ideological banners.
- I think you are relatively more knowledgeable than most critics of China, and are not racist. I am suggesting that for someone with your intellect and knowledge, criticism of China – if you want to do that – is much more constructive if it is done specifically rather than generically – because it just detracts the force of the real criticism.

[JBI]

Uh, I believe the Mongols under Kublai lost in Dali. As for Tibet, there were delegations with the Dalai Lama, but it was never "controlled" by China. Neither was Xin Jiang for that matter even if there were military garrisons.

[JBI]

You are arguing about pseudo-readings of history, not the point I was trying to make, the point I was trying to make was that everywhere has 5000 yeas of history, and that there is no such thing as this "great Chinese tradition" that is a continuous beast. I do not know what you are arguing about.

The point I am attacking is this idea of "Old wonderful tradition" that is spoken of every time we hear about Chinese culture. Simply put, every place with people has a long history. you are just rambling about particular events that only illustrate my point.


AS for Jin Yong's fiction then, he has imposed an idea of nationalism then into a fake historical discourse. As you put it, nationalism is a new idea - so why don't we read that in him hmmm? Why don't we discuss how he is obsessed with a false idea created by my understanding during the Boxer Rebellion.


As for Chomsky, well he is a whack, he was alright in the beginning but now he is just selling things out. Check on Tudou.com for instance for a speech he made in Beijing - anybody who could sell out like that is pathetic. He knows what he is talking about and knows how to spin it to sell books. He never agrees with anyone, and never says anything positive, he is just someone who likes to piss on everything and charge as much as he can for it. He can get up in China in front of an audience and rant about how bad American policy is, meanwhile getting a foreign honorary degree and not once mentioning them - why didn't he say something like,m we are in an intellectual environment, 20 years ago those same intellectuals got plowed by your government.

But no, he took the pay check.

[ralfyman]

Teachers are quite influential, but the point is that such anthology are almost irrelevant. Either excluded or included. The anthologies respect first the rules of market, not of aesthetics.

My sense is that administrators are influential, with teachers usually following directions. Also, about rules of the market, that was my point, and it's not just anthologies that follow "the rules of market".

And? I am not denying the lists. I am saying those guides are not so relavant, as they say almost nothing about anything. There is no real conection when you read a list that may put together Voltaire, Edward Gibbon, Goethe, Schiller, Diderot, William Beckford, Samuel Johnson and they do link enough to make a list.

I think there's relevance. I see that, at the very least, when I talk to those who are stuck with Harry Potter.

Your point is that such lists works as a travel guide. I point it not so great. The lists have no clue or path to which place you should turn. Even the most famous of them, Bloom canon, is impossible (and lazy, as he resume several authors with a complete works edition) and easily replaced by some classic section on a library. And he is not canonical at all, therefore his influence wont last as his classics. Right now, he is even missing something, as Harry Potter can be find in almost all libraries and the books you can borrow is a stronger influence than the books Bloom or any critic listed to make money with self-help (yes, because it is boil down to it) be a good reader list.

I don't understand what you're trying to point out: are you saying that instead of reading Harold Bloom's book, one should just go to the "classic section" of a library? But Bloom's selection does not cover everything in the "classic section."

Second, why do you refer to Bloom as "canonical"? I don't understand the relevance of that argument, although I do notice that you imply that "his classics" will last longer. In that case, does that make his list of readings relevant?

Third, are you saying that Harry Potter should be added to his list because it has a "stronger influence" than his own book? If so, then are you saying that a canon should include works based on, say, sales? With that, would it be better to, say, just look at sales reports of books sold?

[JCamilo]

My sense is that administrators are influential, with teachers usually following directions. Also, about rules of the market, that was my point, and it's not just anthologies that follow "the rules of market".

Administrators of what? There is no such thing as Administrators of Canonical works, Shinning brotherhood of Classics, anything as such. Even Academies, english and american academies have different approaches to literature (or even other fields, as one give more credit to Freud, while other dont)....

And of course Rules of market do not command just anthologies, but they do not command the canonical process either, which is what matters here.

I think there's relevance. I see that, at the very least, when I talk to those who are stuck with Harry Potter.

Explain to me how.

I don't understand what you're trying to point out: are you saying that instead of reading Harold Bloom's book, one should just go to the "classic section" of a library? But Bloom's selection does not cover everything in the "classic section."

I am saying, his list, possible the most popular list of canon in the recent years, has almost no influence and is pointless as guidance. As you should see by your worlds : the list does not solve the problem of acessibility of books or any of the very "negociations" that lead someone to read or like a book. (I will add that like JBI points, the list make it a geographical busines, which is false. It also makes some short of chronological organization. False too. And put together works which give no clue to the reader if he will conect with those works).

Second, why do you refer to Bloom as "canonical"? I don't understand the relevance of that argument, although I do notice that you imply that "his classics" will last longer. In that case, does that make his list of readings relevant?

It does not. That is what I said.

Third, are you saying that Harry Potter should be added to his list because it has a "stronger influence" than his own book? If so, then are you saying that a canon should include works based on, say, sales? With that, would it be better to, say, just look at sales reports of books sold?

Nope, but I am saying his list has such influence that is completelly ignored by the younger reader. It is not the list of canon but Harry Potter the one read, so he is missing something.