To Chinese or anyone who knows about China's views about America

boy this thread got ugly pretty fast...

Robbie380: no worries about the links, but be sure to cite Bernstein and Gertz. I don't know if this is a H.S. paper or a college paper, but if your teacher is any sort of expert, you'll need to get to those two books.

Newgirl: sorry about being alarmist, but you really ought to take a look at the rhetoric of your own govt. why do they say these things if they don't mean it? why do they buy all these weapons if they don't intend to threaten anyone with it? i realise that perhaps many chinese don't feel that way (you are apparently one of them), but it sure isn't being reflected in policy... Let's hope the new leadership are people with more sense like yourself...

RIET: I'm peeved with China's treatment of SARS as well. My dad works there. And he transits every month between China's interior, Guangzhou, HK, Taiwan, LA, and Chicago every month (he's got the one of the highest mileage in the entire country)... He traveled from the Chinese interior to visited my sister in Chicago and her baby 2 weeks ago, and scared all of us ****less. We pleaded for him to avoid Guangzhou and HK, and to transit via Shanghai or to stay in the interior for another few weeks. But he said that it was all an exaggeration in the foreign press, that it was hardly being reported in China, and that officials claim to have it under control, etc. etc. Meanwhile, my sister and I were reading new travel advisories popping up every day via WHO and the State Department... To put a long story short, he transited through Guangzhou and HK anyway, and so my mom had to bluntly threaten my dad and force him to self-quarantine for a couple of days in L.A. And only after getting to L.A. and watching the news there, did he realise how serious it was... Man, he could have been super-spreader #1 in the U.S., and seriously put at risk my newborn niece, my sister, and my entire family! This ain't no joke...

Wizkid: great post about the power of capitalism and materialism. you accurate reflect much of the thinking of the chinese moderates and new consumer elite that usually live in the big cities and along China's coast. you've got to get your voices heard!

 

Pretty much all wrong. I live in Guangdong right now, government officials acknowledged SARS back in the beginning of February. Not like "till last week".

People in China always don't believe in the government, that's a fact, BTW, they don't believe in foreign government, especially the USA.

There is indeed rumors going around, and China 2-3 weeks ago is by no means a dangerous place. 1000-2000 cases of infections are nothing among 1.3 billion people. AIDS came from the USA, did the USA president say that USA is a dangerous place to go back then?

A predominant doctor in China says the government is trying to hide things? so what? funny how you automatically relate that to the central government. You don't seem to know a lot about the contradiction between the central government and the local goverment in China, so back away from the gun you were trying to jump.

It's like saying "Ok that white cop beat up a black guy, the federal government must be behind this."

There is no a shred of evidence that the central government lied. In fact, nobody could catch them if they just keep denying. WHO calling out China underreport the numbers? LOL. Yes they did, but a WHO official that went to China confirmed that local officials often manipulate numbers reporting to the higher ranks. That's something quite usual in China. I'm not giving a final verdict here, but it's premature to pretend that China lied while you can't disprove that China annouced inaccurate numbers based on the false local reports.

AND YOU THINK THAT CHINA WOULD INVITE WHO OFFICIALS GO DEEP INTO CHINA AND CHECK EVERYTHING OUT IF IT WANTS TO COVER THINGS UP? HELLO? IT WAS THE WHO OFFICIALS CALLED OUT CHINA AFTER THEY CONDUCTED SERVEY IN CHINA UNDER PERMISSION OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT.

I take offense with this remark.

You might not be stupid genetically, but who knows when bias kicks in....

Actually, don't lie to us that you believe that any government on the face of earth is completely void of going into denial or shifting blame.

It's quite obvious that you know nearly nothing about China, all your post is based on much speculation with old stereotypes thrown in.

You don't live in China and you are stupid, deal with it.

 

as you should be...I dont hold it against you..

I was just mentioning to robbie how he should make sure he understands the context from which you guys speak..

I've seen you and others get into mucho piss-fests over the whole PRC/Taiwan issues so noting where the viewpoints come from is essential to getting the whole picture.

You have every right to be biased and proud of where you come from, we all are..

 

whooaa there cowboy...you need to do some MAJOR research before you start spouting stuff outta your mouth...

AIDS started in AFRICA...it was spread into Europe and the US at roughly the same time..the French were tryin to figure out what this new illness was at the same time that the CDC was just realizing that there was a new illness..

It is now worldwide..with the highest rates of new infections in Africa..

btw...nice way to encourage civil discourse...

 

Ignorance at its best. I am absolutely shocked that China did not try to blame SARS on some US conspiracy to "contain Chinese power" or some other BS.

Exactly my point. They will deny it and then blame someone else.

Oh please. China's modus operandi is so transparent, anyone with their eyes open can see their schemes.

If you ever go through the public statements sent out by the national government, you'll see that they will continually criticize the US at every vantage point to gain leverage in negotiations and sway public opinion.

Panda - Denial and Namecalling. Exactly what I would expect.

 

If China had more diversity I think they would thrive. They seem to have plenty of potential for economic growth. But without any diversity they will fail to adapt to a changing world in the way that Americans can.

 

If you mean ethnic, China has several ethnic minorities. I swear some of the people at one part of the country are definitely of arab decent. I think China has 30+ ethnic minority or something. I don't know if you can say we aren't adapting, China has the fastest growing GDP in the world and trust me when I say they are greatly being assimilated in to the developed country's life style as far as the cities are concern.

There's even have a opressed, illegal immingrant work force in the cities right now from the people that came in from the country side. Since you can't legally move from city to another city to work with out proper qualifications, sort of how US decides only let skilled professionals in. But since the big money is to be made in the cities, a lot of people from the country side comes in and work illegally, mostly jobs people in the city wouldn't want to do anyway. This almost parallel the illegal South American immigrants situation in the south. And even some legal immigrants from the country side are faced with discrimination. You can usually identify some one by his skin tone (people in the cities are typically a lot lighter) and his accent (people in the cities speak diffrently from those in the country side).

I thinking by working through and diffusing this current situation as they are doing, China can gain many valuable experience that can carry through on a global scale.

 

Gosh, he DOES sound like an expert. In that case, you're going to have to do a whole lot more work than I anticipated. Try to check out that Cato Institute book. It has articles by numerous Chinese authors in it (maybe including your prof?)...

Yup. Both Gertz and Bernstein and Munro start out with the obvious premise that China is a threat to be reckoned with. But the very fact that both books have generated such a storm of controversy and so many book reviews in prominent printed media attests to their wide influence. Much of the subsequent work in the field came as a response to these two books.

That's my point really. You'll need to at least cite them as part of any sort of literature review... You can critique their lack of balance, and offer a more balanced view, but in any case you'll need to mention the books.

Another piece of advice. Since the professor is from the mainland, I'd strongly advise AGAINST suggesting anything about the China Threat. Tilt your paper as much toward exploring the pro-engagement and "constructive partner" side as possible. For your own GPA's sake.

For example, try not to discuss their secret acquisition of advanced fighter, cruise missile, air-to-air missile, and nuclear weapons technology. However, DO discuss the emerging moderate, skeptical, and increasingly cosmopolitan attitudes of the urban youth and the saturation of mass media and the Chinese marketplace by Western and other Asian (Korean, Japanese, HK/Taiwanese) culture.

Don't discuss the historical conflicts and animosity between China and nearly all of her neighbors (Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Taiwan, India, Russia, all Western powers, etc. etc.). DO discuss the recent collaboration between China and Russia, its active efforts to engage ASEAN, its support of the US war on terrorism (albeit not Iraq), its assistance in mediating between U.S. and North Korea, and its efforts to create an Asian free trade zone.

Really, there is nothing more ideal than a strong, liberal, democratic, prosperous China in the near future that can not only help shoulder responsibilities in maintaining the world order, but also curb the excesses of U.S. and EU arrogance. Yes. Just think positive thoughts. Remember, positive thoughts!

 

robbie,

a horrible thought just occurred to me.

do you think, your professor, being a chinese, in houston, might be a yao ming/rockets fan, surfing this board, reading this thread, this very moment?

oh... my... god...

 

Robbie,

FWIW, if what you said about him is true, then he is like a typical mainlander.


Shrimpie

 

http://www.nap.org/pdf/origin.pdf

The first case of AIDS infection was found in USA. It's important to know that HIV virus is different from AIDS. One can have HIV without getting AIDS. It's when HIV affects the immune system, and if the system's ''T-cell" count falls below 200, the patient has AIDS. So when it's reasoned - while actually no one knows for sure - that HIV comes from Africa, AIDS started in USA.

Civil discourse is not slandering other's position by implying they are liars or living in a place that renders their opinion inferior. I was merely getting back.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

robbie:

I said " nobody can catch China if they keep denying" and I mean it. I say this as China went through drastic changes to expose the problem of underreporting in full cooperation with WHO. WHO has no upper hand dealing with China. China can play games with WHO if it wants to deny. China didn't. I don't think that China is foolish enough to first allow WHO officials to investigate in China, then respond by first, firing officials, second, announcing accurate infection cases in Beijin after WHO said the numbers were wrong. It's China's attention to cooperate with WHO and I think it says volume about the lack of motive to deny as a country.

I suggest you search for articles or pages on the internet written by foreign people who stayed in China for a period of time. I think their views are a lot more accurate than lots of western jounalists and their consequently uninformed readers who just stare at China from outside and make up things along the way.

I don't agree with some things in the following link's articles, but it has at least showed some genuine efforts from the outsiders to understand China.

http://www.startribune.com/stories/1653/

 

Here are some international articles regarding China and SARS.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/ED24Ad03.html
http://www.dailytelegraph.co.uk/new...rs10.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/04/10/ixworld.html
http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/apr/25rajeev.htm
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/18/1050172758353.html


http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20030429/COCHING29/TPHealth/

By FRANK CHING

The dismissal on Easter Sunday of Chinese Health Minister Zhang Wenkang and Beijing Mayor Meng Xuenong for their role in covering up the seriousness of the SARS epidemic was the biggest governmental shakeup in more than a decade and has far-reaching ramifications.

By its move, the Communist Party is signalling that it recognizes that the health of the Chinese people, as well as the health of people around the globe, is more important than the party's desire to minimize problems to ensure economic growth and social stability.

Before the about-turn, the official propaganda apparatus was denouncing all those who voiced skepticism about the Chinese figures. As recently as April 17, the on-line edition of the People's Daily labelled critics as "malicious." The article specifically denounced The Wall Street Journal for saying that, "even today, China still refuses to give the WHO all necessary information." A few days later, China admitted it had suppressed information not only to the World Health Organization but to its own people.

Even now, however, the Chinese government hasn't apologized for having misled the international community and for letting the virus infect the world. There has also been no indication that Guangdong officials, who were involved in the cover-up from the beginning, have been disciplined. China still doesn't even acknowledge that the epidemic originated in that province.

President Hu Jintao recently told Hong Kong's chief executive, Tung Chee-hwa, that the central government "attached great importance to the well-being and health of the people in Hong Kong." It would have been far better if Beijing had acted early enough to prevent the spread of the disease to Hong Kong.

In a sense, the dismissal of Mr. Zhang and Mr. Meng constitutes an injustice. No doubt, the two men had not presented an accurate picture of the epidemic in Beijing. But the party leadership knew full well that the health ministry had no jurisdiction over military hospitals, where most of the SARS cases were being handled. And, no doubt, the two were doing their jobs as they saw fit. They were simply acting in the tradition of the Communist Party, lying when necessary to save face for the party and government. In a sense, they were sacrificed to appease the international community.

Mr. Zhang, of course, has no chance to tell his side. A minister is simply not senior enough to decide on a cover-up, especially when he is not covering up his own mistakes, but rather the extent the disease had spread in the country.

Of course, we don't know how high up the cover-up went. But it is difficult to believe that China's top leaders, such as Mr. Hu and Premier Wen Jiabao, were unaware of events in Guangdong.

One reason why the epidemic was able to spread was that it went largely unreported within China. The media had been told not to write about it. Even today, while the press is free to criticize the men who have been dismissed, it is unable to report whether higher-level officials had condoned their actions.

What is needed is a change in the system. The party should give the media a free hand to conduct investigations and to report, letting the chips fall where they may. An independent press not bound by party discipline also is vital.

But China's leaders don't seem to have learned this lesson. Li Changchun, the party official in charge of propaganda, has just called on the media to "help unite the people and boost public morale" in the fight against SARS.

Frank Ching is a Hong Kong-based journalist.

 

Robbie,

I really hope you don't judge mainland Chinese based on the authors of a couple books you have read. I guess most of those authors are still living in China not like your professor. So what do you expect to write in their books? Don't forget they have their families to support and they have to make sure they can make their ends meet just like most of us.

Anyways, back to your original questions. If you are only interested in writing up a paper to fulfil the requirements of a course, I would say it doesn't matter what references you are going to use and what books you are going to read and you can skip what I am going to ramble.

However, if you are into very serious research, I would say forget about those books written by American born scholars, I am not saying those people are not qualified to write books about China, but most of those people study China using the same framework they use to look at America. For example, The most ridiculous thing I have found about China study is that most scholars just ASSUME there are two factions within CCP: those who are for reform and those against it. (I understand there are two major parties in the US politics and one of them belongs to the left, and the other belongs to the right. And for a person who is so used to this two-party politics, it is easy for him/her to use this as a starting point to study China. ) Similarly, it is difficult for China's politicians to understand how American politics works. I would say that CCP still hasn't fully grasped how to work with American congress simply because there is no such a powerful congress in China. It would be difficult for a CCP official to understand that a congressman in USA is only responsible for the voters in his district and can easily say no to the President.

So where are we heading? I would say if you are into serious research on Chinese government policy towards USA, study their actions and try to deduce their policy trend from their actions. If you look at China's stands in the first Gulf War of 1991, in the Kosov war of 1999 and in the Free Iraq Operations, you can see a clear trend there: China is more and more willing to work together with USA, (of course Lil would say that is not true because that is bad news for Taiwan, however I don't think he can argue against the facts). As far as if China will pose a threat to its neighers with its inevitable prosperity, I suggest you read some histories of Ming Dynasty (not because of Yao Ming of course) or maybe West Han Dynasty. Don't use Qing Dynasty as a reference point because the people who ruled China in Qing were not the same race of most of the current CCP officials. Ming Dynasty can be used as a good reference because the rulers' backgrounds were similar to the backgrounds of CCP. I think that Han can also be used as a good reference since the first emperor of Han was very similar to Mao in some sense. Also, most mainland Chinese belong to the Han race in case you don't know.

Hope this helps.


Shrimpie

 

The Western Han Dynasty?

Do you mean this one?

"In 140 BC emperor Han Wudi began a reign of over five decades that saw great territorial expansion and a burst of economic and cultural activity. Armies invaded the north and west into Central Asia, east into Korea and south to the coast. "

or this one?

"With the economic prosperity during Han Wu-di¡¦s rule, allowed China to wage war. Wu-di believed he was strong enough to oppose the Xiong Nu, and wanted to end the payments to the tribes that were started by Liu Bang. However, Wu-di was concerned that the Xiong Nu might send an army into Northern China¡¦s sparsely populated steppe lands, or that they would ally themselves with the Tibetans. After securing his trade routes to Central Asia, Wu-di launched a series of military campaigns. Though his generals led the troops for him, Wu-di gained recognition as a ruler of vigour and bravery.

Wu-di¡¦s attack on the Xiong Nu was costly in manpower, but it pushed most of the Xiong Nu back from China¡¦s northern frontier.

Almost two million Chinese citizens migrated into the newly acquired territory, and Wu-di established new colonies of soldiers and civilians. The Xiong Nu who stayed behind became farmers, were drafted for construction labour, or employed as farm labourers. Moreover, even some of them were drafted into the Chinese army, their families forced to remain were they were as hostages against treason.

Wu-di learned more about the origins of the products they were importing. For added revenues, Wu-di demanded that the neighbouring states pay his Empire to sell their goods to the Chinese, and he began military campaigns to force them to do so.

In 108 BC, Wu-di sent his forces northeast and conquered an iron-using Kingdom in northern Korea. This Kingdom was similar to the states of China before the Ch'in united them, and it harboured many Chinese refugees from the previous century.

In the south, Wu-di¡¦s armies conquered territory lost during the civil war that brought the Han to power, including the port town of Guangzhou. Chinese immigrants followed the army closely and occupied the new territories.

After a long and tiresome struggle, the Chinese army managed to conquer Northern Vietnam, an area that the Chinese called Annam (Tang Dynasty), which means ¡§Pacified South.¡¨ Chinese immigrants came here as well, and some would settle near the Annamite Mountains in Central Vietnam."

or this one?

"One of the greatest Han generals, Pan Ch'ao, reconquered Eastern Turkestan in 73 AD and drove as far as the Caspian Sea in series of campaigns lasting until his death in 102. Pan Ch'ao defeated all nomadic tribes in Central Asia from the Hindu Kush Mountains to the Aral Sea and even forced tribute from the Kushans (modern Afganistan). During this period, his lieutenant, Tou Shien launched a devastating punitive campaign (89-91AD) against the Hsiung-nu which drove them westward, beginning the migrations which culminated in the Hun invasion of Europe three centuries later. "


Be careful what you cite. In a way mao China IS similar to the Han Dynasty, in that it ALSO invaded Tibet and Korea (and Russia, India, Vietnam, Taiwan too for that matter). I haven't even started with the Ming Dynasty.

Let's hope the new generation of Chinese rulers are nothing like mao or the Han...

 

By Ming Dynasty you obviously mean this one?

"One of Ming Emperor Yong-le's major undertakings was to incorporate the states of South and Southeast Asia into China's tribute system. This tribute system was based on the overlord-vassal relationship between the ruler of China and the rulers of other countries expressed by the traditional "culturalism" that saw China as the largest and oldest state in the world. As such China was viewed as the "parent state" of all other kingdoms and the source of civilisation in general. Foreign rulers who wished contact with the Middle Kingdom (China) had to accept its terms and acknowledge the universal supremacy of the Son of Heaven. Trade with China was incredibly valuable and the tribute formalities of the performance of the kowtow (the "three kneelings and nine prostrations"), the exchange of envoys, tribute, and conduct of diplomatic relations; were the price to be paid."

or this one?

"Powerful, expansive dynasty emerged with a long series of strong rulers that reconquered Vietnam, and forced Korea to pay tribute after multiple military interventions... During the Ming period, Chinese authority extended into Mongolia, Korea, Southeast Asia, and the Ryukyu Islands... "

or this one?

"Zheng He visited Sri Lanka on possibly three occasions between 1405 and 1415. On his first visit he had requested the Tooth Relic for the Chinese Emperor but was refused and barely escaped from an attempt to waylay him.

He returned in 1408 and led an invasion as far as Kandy and captured King Vira Wijaya Bahu VI and several of his court and held them hostage in China for five years before returning them."

-----
The Ming was probably the weakest of all major Chinese Dynasties, and even this did not refrain it from plenty of what China does best, Conquest and Subjugation.



Hey man, I'm just messing with ya. I know that's not what you mean. Just trying to make sure you're not trying to rewrite history... NEVER has China existed in peace with her neighbors. This new age of peace, if it ever arrives, will be unprecedented.

But I'm still rather hopeful and optimistic about the new leadership in China. For Taiwan's sake, if anything.

 

He wanted them to give him the <i>Tooth Relic</i>? He is very lucky to have escaped.