Western Media Bias: The Little Things

There has been some discussion about Thoman Friedman’s most recent op-ed, “Our One-Party Democracy“. In it, he compares China to the US favorably, arguing that China’s autocratic system is more efficient and responsive:

There is only one thing worse than one-party autocracy, and that is one-party democracy, which is what we have in America today.

One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages. That one party can just impose the politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward in the 21st century. It is not an accident that China is committed to overtaking us in electric cars, solar power, energy efficiency, batteries, nuclear power and wind power. China’s leaders understand that in a world of exploding populations and rising emerging-market middle classes, demand for clean power and energy efficiency is going to soar. Beijing wants to make sure that it owns that industry and is ordering the policies to do that, including boosting gasoline prices, from the top down.

In point of fact, Friedman’s column isn’t even really about China, it just uses China as an example. And in terms of the things he’s talking about, it’s pretty hard to argue that China isn’t in a better position than the US. But, God forbid, he said something good about China, so someone was sure to take the bait.

In “Thomas Friedman Demands Communist Revolution” (clearly, they’re going for subtlety here), Gawker takes aim at the straw-man argument that China’s political system is unequivocally better than the US:

And why are things better in China? Because the current “reasonably enlightened group of people” in charge of China, at the moment, can just impose “politically difficult but critically important policies” like raising gas prices to encourage clean power investment and so on.

So, yes, the party may be increasingly corrupt and full of the Princeling children of former Communist party officials, the party may stoke violence against ethnic minorities [this link was included in the original post on Gawker], it may censor the media and lock up journalists and cheerfully ignore human rights, but at least they can get cap-and-trade passed.

Yes, the Party does do an awful lot of those things (Friedman admitted in his column that there are downsides to autocracy). But “stoke violence against ethnic minorities”? The text in their post links to this article from the Toronto Star, which questions the claim that a Uighur conspiracy was behind the recent stabbings (pokings?) in Xinjiang.

Astute readers may recall that we, too, were skeptical. We were skeptical specifically because there was a lack of empirical evidence linking Uighur groups to the stabbings, many of which were themselves unsubstantiated reports.

For the same reason, we’re a bit skeptical of the idea that the government is intentionally “stoking violence against ethnic minorities”. There just isn’t any evidence.

What Happened in Xinjiang?

Granted, truth in this case seems to be a moving target. But as far as we can tell, the panic started from a police text message sent to residents of Urumqi that read: “”Recently, several residents were attacked by hypodermic syringes. Local police security departments have also uncovered a case in which assailants used syringes to attack passers-by. Please don’t panic over the incident, and inform police officers if you find any suspects.” Note that there’s no reference to the ethnicity of the suspects.

Of course, despite the urge not to panic, people did. Suddenly overwhelmed with reports of stabbings in a region that had barely a month earlier erupted in separatist riots, officials reacted predictably, blaming the stabbings on Uighur separatists. But were they really stoking the flames of ethnic violence? They also imposed yet another ban on unlicensed protesting in an attempt to prevent vigilante revenge mobs like the ones that sprung up around Urumqi after the July riots.

Of course, in the past few days, it has become clear that the initial reports of attacks were largely overblown. Many of the “victims” showed no evidence of having been attacked, and many of the actual “wounds” ended up being attributed to harmless things like bug bites. Only three people have actually been prosecuted thusfar. What’s perhaps more significant is that this evidence, debunking the previous reports of some widespread Uighur conspiracy, has come entirely from Chinese state media sources.

The three prosecuted people were, indeed Uighurs, and Western reports say that the government has indeed indicated that the crinimals motives are separatist, but is that really stoking ethnic violence? It seems pretty clear both from the anti-rioting measures and from the general tone of the Chinese media reports that ethnic violence is the last thing the CCP wants. In the most recent Xinhua report, there is no mention of “separatism”, or even “Uighur” aside from an early reference to Xinjiang being a “Uighur autonomous region”. Is it really accurate to suggest that the government is stoking violence against ethnic minorities? Even the Toronto Star article Gawker originally linked didn’t suggest that.

Why the Little Things Matter

We suspect that some people might wonder why it really matters? After all, the Chinese government does do plenty of the other things Gawker listed. Others might wonder why we care so much about one sentence from a Gawker post anyway.

This post matters for two reasons. One, the knee-jerk “how could you say something good about the CCP?” reaction misleads Western readers. It contributes to the widespread perception that China is run by unequivocally evil overlords who kill puppies for fun and pit ethnicities against each other for…well, Gawker never actually said what the motivation for that might be. If Westerners are to have any hope of understanding China, for better or for worse, they’re going to need to have a more nuanced understanding of the CCP than “evil.” Otherwise, communication is impossible.

That leads into the second reason this post matters, which is that it gives more fodder to the army of Chinese netizens hunting for evidence that there is some kind of Western vendetta against China. That, in turn, invalidates any valid criticisms Westerners might make. Why the hell should China listen to us on human rights if we’re making up things about the government trying to incite ethnic violence (or making up things about “crackdowns” in Tibet, or making up things about “crackdowns” in Xinjiang)?

Westerners who want to say anything about China ever have to fight pretty hard against allegations that we “don’t understand”. But real communication — and can we all agree that China and the West communicating effectively is a good thing? — is going to necessitate actual understanding. And it’s hard to see how we can understand China, or why China would care about understanding us, if we keep implying things happened in China that didn’t.

Advertisements

0 thoughts on “Western Media Bias: The Little Things”

  1. “And it’s hard to see how we can understand China, or why China would care about understanding us, if we keep implying things happened in China that didn’t.”

    It’s a two-way street, for sure, but I think the greater problem lies in the perception of ‘foreigners’ (itself a term full of meaning) that is planted and perpetuated through China’s education system and media. Foreigners are presented as those out to harm or undermine China in some way, and students have all the attendant phrases on the tips of their tongues: ‘American hegemony’; ‘Britain’s shameful past’; ‘Japanese aggression’ etc.

    Hence, when an overseas film festival shows Rebiya Kadeer’s film, or when a European leader invites His Holiness for a chat (both pretty innocuous events), China turns apoplectic and blames foreigners for trampling on her sovereignty and failing to understand the Motherland’s sensibilities.

    China has to play ball here as well. If they don’t want others to ‘keep implying things happened in China that didn’t’, then they need to engage on issues with more transparency. Right now there’s not nearly enough subtlety or nuance in those dialogues.

    Again, it’s a two-way street, but China certainly puts up more road blocks to understanding than the west does. The greatest barrier to understanding is that the CCP prefers to hide behind a veil of false complexity and finds it impossible to react in calm, measured tones to any event or opinion that doesn’t conform to THEIR selective interpretation of history and THEIR vision of China’s place in the world. They need to come down from their fences. But what are the chances of that?

    Like

  2. Custer: Very nuanced point, articulated exceedingly well!
    In equal measure, however, apart from the nonsensical line about stoking violence against ethnic minority, the Gawker post is fair criticism of Friedman’s oversimplification and unnuanced exaltation of “one-party autocracy” on the ground that “one party can impose the politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward in the 21st century”. In his rush to (rightly) criticise the Republican stonewalling of healthcare reforms, Friedman overlooks the horrors that the unrepresentative political system in China does to the least among its people. If anyone believes that that is the enduring model going forward, heaven help us!
    The same Friedman was writing a year ago that ‘Asia’ was missing America’s influence and Asian countries were wary of a rising China.

    Like

  3. @Stuart

    While I think you definitely have a point that it is a two way street, I would caution you not to enter into the “they started it!” or “they put up more blocks than we do!” argument.

    In actuality, we probably both have about the same amount of misunderstandings about each other’s cultures. I never wanted to believe that in my first year and a half in China — that Americans could really be so presumptuous about what they didn’t know. I was quite disallusioned when I returned to America this summer and someone told me, “I heard you can speak Chinese” and when I replied that I can, he started making unintelligible sounds and asked if I could understand him; or when my mother told me with confidence that Chinese villages all have thatched roofs and are living in the stone age, or when someone tried to insist to me that there must be dojos on every street corner throughout China. The list goes on, but the point is that they are simply unwilling to have an increased understanding of China or even Asia in general.

    But it surely doesn’t stop with American foolishness. I once jokingly told my Chinese teacher that she should find a foreigner for a boyfriend after she told me she’s getting too old to find a good man and she immediately said that that was impossible because of irrenconcilable cultural differences. I’ve had taxi drivers and students tell me I don’t understand China and that the American government is constantly bullying other countries around and that Vietnam and the Phillippines always kiss America’s ass. Finally, I’ve had countless amounts of people tell me that all foreigners are only interested in hitting-and-quitting when it comes to women, don’t care about their kids, and kiss each other upon first meetings.

    However, what’s important to keep in mind is that those people, from both east and west, are also usually the same people that think that all of Africa is one gigantic country that, when it’s not war torn with child soldiers, is full of people running through the jungle with spears and loincloths.

    My point? Both sides are responsible for the lack of communication and if China has more people that engage in this type of behavior, it’s probably only due to a larger population.

    Like

  4. 1. Friedman is a columnist, a professional provocateur. He’s had a bug up his rear end for years about global warming and the importance (for U.S. competitiveness) of taking a leading role in creating new “green” technologies. This being the case, his giving China credit for something is as much a rhetorical tactic as it is a clear description of any real Chinese advantage.

    2. As for the claim that the CCP has stoked ethnic violence, I don’t see your problem. It seems to me that a reasonable argument can be made in support of the idea. After all, over the years, hasn’t the CCP prevented most Han Chinese from learning about acts of violence perpetrated by Han Chinese on Tibetan and Uighur Chinese while simultaneously allowing/directing the Chinese media to go on and on about acts of violence directed at Han Chinese by members of ethnic minority groups? Can you imagine, then, that this imbalance might lead to a perverse understanding of the true state of ethnic relations in China? Finally, could this perverse understanding then be construed as leading to increased ethnic tension? If so, is it so unreasonable to suggest that CCP policies have lead to (i.e., stoked) ethnic violence? I don’t think so. In any case, it’s a defensible claim. Perhaps if Han Chinese were permitted to understand the larger context of Han/minority history, recent acts of violence against Han Chinese wouldn’t appear so surprising or, indeed, so inexplicable.

    3. On the whole, perhaps it’s true that the educated Chinese middle class understands the U.S./West somewhat better than the educated U.S./Western middle class understands China. Nevertheless, Chinese ignorance of the U.S./West is nothing short of mindboggling. If ever there was a case of the pot calling the kettle black (五十步笑百步), the Chinese claim to understand the West better than the West understands China is it. As a graduate student in a China-related field at a top U.S. university with a BA and MA from Peking University, I feel perfectly comfortable asserting that, on the whole, the Western academic class understands China better than the Chinese academic class understands the West. No contest. Sometimes I actually wonder if the Western academic class doesn’t sometimes understand China better than the Chinese themselves. No kidding.

    4. Piling on the Western media for getting it wrong is a waste of time, I think. Why not spend a bit of time writing about how the Western media gets it right and leave the grousing to the Chinese and the Anti-CNN crowd. In the end, it’s not as if the Western media speaks with one voice or is controlled by Western governments. Better to concentrate, I believe, on the importance of pluralism, freedom of speech, and a free media. Better to write about how such things raise the quality of a people than to constantly nitpick.

    Like

  5. @ Josh

    “… and when I replied that I can, he started making unintelligible sounds and asked if I could understand him; or when my mother told me with confidence that Chinese villages all have thatched roofs and are living in the stone age…”

    Well, that’s a level of (mis) understanding that I never experienced before I left the UK for China, or on subsequent visits home. If I had, I might be inclined to agree with you. And I certainly didn’t mean to suggest that ‘they started it’, but stand by my opinion that Chinese ‘education’ does more damage to the cause of understanding than a western approach.

    Like

  6. “hasn’t the CCP prevented most Han Chinese from learning about acts of violence perpetrated by Han Chinese on Tibetan and Uighur Chinese while simultaneously allowing/directing the Chinese media to go on and on about acts of violence directed at Han Chinese by members of ethnic minority groups?”

    Ma Bole,

    That is BS.

    First, the violence on Tibetans by Chinese police is not much different from the police violence on Han Chinese. The only difference maybe the violence was on the seperatists.

    Second, We Han chinese dont know much about the violence Han had on minority either, so where did you get this crap ?

    Third, China media does lack of transparency, but the key now is that Western media doesnt have credibility among Chinese. One thing you have to remember : a necessary condition that government propaganda can brainwash people is that people believe the media, which simply is not the case in China, but the case in West. so only westerners can be brainwashed.

    Like

  7. About “First, the violence on Tibetans by Chinese police is not much different from the police violence on Han Chinese. “, let me give an example :

    Last year, a han chinese named Yang Jia brutally killed 6 han policemen, and he got lot of sympathy from people.

    See what is going on ? police violence is widely spread in every corner in China, why did your media ONLY report the violence in Tibet ?

    You know the result ? the result is that westerners were brainwashed to believe that the violence on Tibetans was Han’s suppress on Tibetans.

    So save the crap of Han’s hatred on Tibetans.

    Like

  8. Wahaha,

    Let’s be academically honest here. The case with Yang Jia got sympathy from people because the government held the trial and passed a verdict behind closed doors with lots of details about the case being very vague and under dispute. The mother was also given one chance to see her son before his execution and was told that if she showed any signs of crying during their meeting (which was the first time she’d seen him in months, btw), that the meeting would be cut short. He was then executed without warning.

    Secondly, most likely the reason why Tibetan or Uighur riots get more play in Western media is because those places are known internationally to be “hot” zones where stories are likely to emerge. Therefore, as a news agency with limited resources, places like those are the natural choice. However, I don’t think that was Ma Bole’s point. He was talking about the effect of Chinese education on the Han’s understandings of the minorities, not the amount of indiscriminate violence.

    Like

  9. “The case with Yang Jia got sympathy from people because the government held the trial and passed a verdict behind closed doors with lots of details about the case being very vague and under dispute. ”

    Wrong.

    He got sympathy since the news came out, not till the trial. There were tons of “explanations” on internet why he did that.
    ___________________________________

    “Secondly, most likely the reason why Tibetan or Uighur riots get more play in Western media is because those places are known internationally to be “hot” zones where stories are likely to emerge. ”

    Wrong.

    Read Sun Tsu “Art of War”, and you do know that India got America Nuc fuel and tech help, dont you?

    No one want to see the rise of China except Chinese. please dont pretend you dont know the fiesta in this “human right” issue in Tibet.

    Like

  10. @ Ma Bole: 1) Yup.

    2) It seems to me what you’re describing is more failed policy than it is actively fostering violence. I don’t think that “lead to” and “stoked” are that similar. One implies inefficacy or incompetence; the other bad intentions from the outset. Neither of those things are good, but they aren’t the same, either.

    3) Yes, but this is a blog directed at Westerners. I’m not interested enough in the West to write a blog about it in Chinese to help further their understanding, although I did try that for a while once. You’re right, but I am but one man, and this is but one post.

    4) When I do nitpick like this, the reason — as I explained in the post — is that these little things stop Chinese audiences from listening to the big things. I should also add that my goal with this blog is just to increase Western understanding of China and to conduct a dialogue about stuff my contributors and I find interesting. I’m not out to “raise the quality of a people”. In fact, I find that goal rather pedantic and, to be perfectly honest, pretty goddamned creepy-sounding.

    Like

  11. Wahaha,

    The story is all over Chinasmack if you want to read about it. And the timing of people’s sympathy for him seems like semantics.

    And I’m not sure what America’s selling India nuclear fuel and giving tech help or the Art of War (which I’ve read, to be honest, thought it was a pretty slow read) have to do with the placement of western media coverage in China. I’d still maintain that if the western media hates anyone, it’s probably the Chinese government, not Hans.

    Perhaps you have a point somewhere in there, but when you write something, to this reader anyway, you seem to be making these gigantic logical leaps without filling the holes in between. Lesson for writing for you there: don’t assume anything about your reader. You also seem to be among the many that believe that the Western media means “all of America and its constituents.”

    Like

  12. Josh,

    Thx for your advice.

    and obviously, you understand what I mean.

    _____________________________________________________

    “if the western media hates anyone, it’s probably the Chinese government, not Hans.”

    It is not about hate, it is about justifying a war, a war aiming at natural resource. China now is in a war with West in controling the natural resouce in Africa and South America, and maybe middle east.

    and it is not about Hans, politicians dont care human right, OK?

    Britain in 1950s overthrew the elected Iranian president to control the oil; Germany and France sold billions of dollars of weapons to Saddam Hussein; in last decade, Canada’s GDP grew every year, but they spent less and less money on native aboriginals (funny, Cananda is often on the front line on Tibet issue.)

    Like

  13. @Custer

    Just briefly. There are strong incentives for local party officials in Tibet and Xinjiang to exaggerate ethnic tensions in order to appear “firm” in the face of “separatists”. Ask any journalist or political scientist with experience from the field.

    Like

  14. “There are strong incentives for local party officials in Tibet and Xinjiang to exaggerate ethnic tensions in order to appear “firm” in the face of “separatists”.”

    Exactly. That’s why Hu Jintao is so popular in Tibet to this day.

    Like

  15. @ Hemulen: Again, there is a difference between “exaggerating tensions” and “stoking violence”. “Exaggerating tensions” gives local officials leeway and makes them appear in control, but if violence breaks out, is that really in their best interest? My guess is the all the guys who just got fired in Xinjiang could answer that question for you.

    Like

  16. Pingback: Hao Hao Report
  17. I’ve had taxi drivers and students tell me I don’t understand China and that the American government is constantly bullying other countries around and that Vietnam and the Phillippines always kiss America’s ass.

    There’s a lot of truth to this and you will hear the exact same thing from people in Vietnam, Philippines, Taiwan, wherever.

    hasn’t the CCP prevented most Han Chinese from learning about acts of violence perpetrated by Han Chinese on Tibetan and Uighur Chinese

    You mean perpetrated by Tibetan Communists against Tibetan Muslims, monasteries, etc? That’s not the same thing, it isn’t about ethnicity. Contrary to popular (and deceptive) reports by “the West”, most of the damage done to Tibet during the CR and onwards was done by Tibetan Red Guards, not Han Chinese.

    Nevertheless, Chinese ignorance of the U.S./West is nothing short of mindboggling.

    Western ignorance of the world in general is staggering, and far exceeds the ignorance of all other nations. Because while most peoples are ignorant and sometimes willing to admit it, only in the West will you find incredible arrogance involved. Even simple things are misunderstood by Westerners because “Westerners” are inundated with messages of either racial and cultural supremacist/guilt that fundamentally impede with their understanding of non-white cultures and thus the world.

    Westerners do not understand China. They do not understand Arabs. They do not understand Latin America. They do not understand Africa. They do not understand Eastern Europeans.

    What Westerners have is a utterly skewed and perverted worldview that has been misled by mass media and corporate interests.

    I feel perfectly comfortable asserting that, on the whole, the Western academic class understands China better than the Chinese academic class understands the West. No contest. Sometimes I actually wonder if the Western academic class doesn’t sometimes understand China better than the Chinese themselves. No kidding.

    Laughable statement.

    Why not spend a bit of time writing about how the Western media gets it right

    Because they never do. Everything even down to unimportant things like the food, dress, language of the Chinese is bungled by the Western media. Americans can’t seem to grasp the simple concept that not all Chinese people are Cantonese restaurant workers wearing queues in qipaos, who moonlight at third world slave-factories.

    Like

  18. Sometimes I actually wonder if the Western academic class doesn’t sometimes understand China better than the Chinese themselves.

    ============================
    I went to see a performance this afternoon. It was a folk song and dance troupe (called Yangguang Yishutuan, if you’re interested) consisting of retirees who were sent to remote rural areas in the 1960s as the so-called zhiqing in their teenage years (in the case of my parents, 16). They went through everything, the GLF, the great famine, the CR, the telling on family members, the death of friends and relatives, a life unimaginable by the Western academic class. And then they experienced the “gaige kaifang” that bought economic growth but also fast deterioration of social morals, the “xiagang” by the millions, and the commercialization of higher education that sucked them dry when they tried to send their kids to college, followed by skyrocketing real estate prices across the country. They breathe in the air pollution, drink contaminated water, endure government bureacracy and corruption on a daily basis.

    But they’re trying to live a happy life, as evidenced by the excitement and smiles I saw on their faces this afternoon during and after the performances. So whenever I hear foreigners say they understand the Chinese better than the Chinese themselves, I want to do a Serena Williams and shove an effing ball down their effing throat. Jesus Christ where do they get the arrogance even when they haven’t lived that life? When their mom’s family is still haunted by the tragedy where their aunt publicly denouncing their grandpa in the cultural revolution, you their qualified to talk about understanding the Chinese better than the Chinese themselves. Otherwise they should shut the ef up. Seriously, people would hesitate before saying they know better about their family members or closest friends than they themselves. Where do they get the audacity to accounce they understand a country better than the people who live in it with the good, the bad and the ugly the country offers them everyday?

    Like

  19. And Thomas Friedman is a daydreamer. I’d rather read Maureen Dowd calling Anna Wintour an escapee from District 9 or scratching Sarah Palin’s eyes out. The only people who deserve serious attention and respect are Bob Herbert, Frank Rich and Nicholas Kristof, even though lately the first two have been throwing around the racism card like nobody’s business. But the outrage and defensiveness that stem from a few words of praise Friedman threw in China’s way really are unbecoming to the image of America as a superpower confident and secure about itself. Some of my friends, after the two riots these two years, have learned to simply smile when foreign media criticizes China. But God forbid an American columnist praise China over America. Now I’m not so sure Americans are that confident about themselves as imagined by themselves and the world.

    Like

  20. Where do they get the audacity to accounce they understand a country better than the people who live in it with the good, the bad and the ugly the country offers them everyday?

    See my point about Western arrogance, callousness and general mass delusion. Some people with access to wikipedia think they know everything.

    Like

  21. I’m a bit late on this thread…

    In general, I think Thomas Friedman doesn’t need too much attention. The guy isn’t bad; it’s just that he’s so quick to coin a phrase—and by extension, to cut an event down to a manageable size—that he’s a bit dangerous when he’s outside his realm of expertise. So, he deals with Chinese “meritocracy” in a glancing manner, elevating what he thinks it is against another enemy of the moment, folks in the U.S. dragging their feet on climate change legislation, before he fully digests it.

    Unfortunately, China is treated this way a lot. Gawker does the same thing, albeit in a more traditional manner: holding China up as the definition of tyranny.

    It’s not just a bias. It’s a desire to place China on the far end of some spectrum, as either the ultimate in technocratic efficiency (Friedman) or the ultimate in states-that-should-be-criticized-but-aren’t-because-politician-x-or-y-is-a-wimp (Gawker) or the ultimate in something else.

    Like

  22. “I want to do a Serena Williams and shove an effing ball down their effing throat. Jesus Christ where do they get the arrogance even when they haven’t lived that life?”

    You don’t need to live it to understand it, so don’t get all apoplectic just because some old timers tweeked your nationalistic neurology at folk class.

    The ‘arrogance’ you speak of is a common misperception, particulary among those with a hard-wired ‘China versus the world’ mentality.

    Remember that the next time China ‘demands’ an apology and ‘corrective action’ when another country dares to: allow the Dalai Lama’s plane to land; show a Uighur film at a festival; invite dissidents to a symposium, etc etc

    You really need to get over your retribution syndrome, for your own sake.

    Like

  23. “Jesus Christ where do they get the arrogance even when they haven’t lived that life?”

    You don’t have to live it to understand it. You’re falling into the ‘western arrogance’ misperception trap because a few senior citizens tweeked your neurological nationalism during a folk song.

    Like

  24. >It’s a desire to place China on the far end of some spectrum,
    True ever since the days of the “Age of Enlightenment” when Voltaire and his ilk held up Qing China as some superior exemplar of non-Christian secular virtue and used it as his bat to beat Western monarchs over the head in the case for social liberalization.

    China does the same thing today (or increasingly yesterday) in the way she expects the West to be better as everything. This was IMHO largely a consequence of Deng’s efforts to reform the economy. He had to portray the quality of life in the West in the most attractive terms relative to the worse in China. This is also when Deng alleged that famines had caused the death of 30million people which he attributed to Maoist policies. Anybody think that Deng had every incentive to exaggerate the 30million figure? Well our fine Western “experts” will tell you that us Chinese are prone to lying to save face so the number must be at least 70 million. Since then I’ve seen it inflated to 100million.

    Like

  25. You’re falling into the ‘western arrogance’ misperception trap because a few senior citizens tweeked your neurological nationalism during a folk song.

    You’re falling into the ‘western arrogance doesn’t exist’ misperception trap because a few senior citizens tweeked your freedomocratic uber-nationalism during a folk song.

    Like

  26. I do wish that the West in general would take the high ground, and just downright report in a more intelligent manner, but I’d also like it if they would start restricting Chinese abuse of Western assets.

    As for Friedman, he doesn’t know what he’s talking about as proven right here: “led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today,” I agree that America’s government isn’t really impressing me much more at this point, but this point is so incredibly ludicrous, I can’t ignore it. The fact that the people running the country are not in touch with anything is the reason they’re going crazy on censorship right now, enacting poor economic policy in banking (LOOK AT THE LONG TERM, NOT THE IMMEDIATE GAINS), etc. Seriously, I actually have done my homework on what they’re working with. The people who are enlightened are the people who typically aren’t in the government, China has good intellectual talent, no doubts there, but its NOT in the government. The only reason the government hangs on for control is because of an innate need for structure in the Chinese mentality.

    Like

  27. but I’d also like it if they would start restricting Chinese abuse of Western assets.

    More like Western abuse of China’s natural resources and environment.

    The only reason the government hangs on for control is because of an innate need for structure in the Chinese mentality.

    Chinese people are innately defiant and obstinate against control, but they’re smart enough to know that the CCP comes between them and foreign partition/invasion/genocide. They wanted the KMT first, but after Japan and Russia destroyed them (no thanks to America) the CCP was all that was left.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s