|
Following on from Jack’s thoughts on the ten year anniversary of the NATO bombing of China’s embassy in Belgrade, I asked the younger Tony (former secretary general of the model UN, if you remember) for his take. I myself find how Tony’s classmates seemed to have been indoctrinated against the US in ’99, and then reacted to 9/11 as a result, fascinating…
*
I was still in primary school when the accident happened. That was a gloomy Monday, May 10th, 1999. Early in the morning after the flag-raising ceremony, the headmaster came to the front, protested against the US-lead NATO, and asked all the students to repeat him, sentence after sentence. I guessed primary schools, junior and senior highs and universities were using the same protesting words, full of various “-isms”. We could not grab the whole meaning of the slogans. We just repeated them.
On my way back home, buses were rushing on the street, sending protesting college students to the US embassy. Dazzling red flags hung on the outside of the buses, indicating which university they belonged to. Later on came the evening newspaper, in which Xinhua published photos of furious citizens throwing stones to the embassy.
I wasn’t exited at that time, nor indifferent. Just like many other classmates, I was watching the fun.
That reminds me of the day after September 11th, 2001, when I was in junior high. At that time, it was routine for us to write short articles and hand them in every week to our Chinese teacher, who was a middle-aged lady, strict but respectable. I cannot explain why, all of a sudden, everyone was writing under the title “US was bombed” unanimously. Even more ridiculous, all told the story with a cynical tone, saying “this was the revenge that the US deserved to get”, without a single word related to terrorism, without any feeling of compassion. After all, the mass media didn’t say such things, and neither did my family members.
We were scolded by our teacher the next day. “Don’t you have friends and relatives in the US? How can you be so cold, indifferent, or even teasing when you saw families losing their members and desperate people anxiously waiting for their relatives to be rescued out of ruins. You are taking pleasure in other’s misfortune. That is shameful.” These are the words I will never forget in my life.
In regards to Chinese nationalism, it is too vague a concept for me to define. The Chinese are prone to describe the Western world as “diversified”, without noticing its universal ethics and beliefs. Similarly, when it comes to nationalism, the western side tends to take China as a single monolithic actor, but they overlook its diversity of ideas, mixed and disorderly during the transformation era.
I began to understand that my two experiences are inter-related. Yes, the United States had done shameful things and China has the right to protest, to impose pressure against the US government.
But it doesn’t mean that I, as an independent individual, should hate all US citizens.
It doesn’t mean I have been granted legitimacy to throw stones into their embassy, regardless of existing international law.
It doesn’t justify the actions of Milosevic, under the hidden logic, “we support all the things imperialists oppose”.
I’m not talking about common sense, but it is a formidable task for Chinese people to separate man and state, to recognize the principles of international practice, to strengthen the immovable belief in humanism and rationalism. Such a tortuous journey started as early as the 1840s. The cost has been tremendous but we are still on our way.
Let’s move on.
Over lunch with Mary the other day, she asked if Indian women really lead horrible lives. She’d read an article and seen some pictures along those lines … like this one:
Well, I’ve no idea of what life is like for women in India, but I think it’s interesting that that’s how they’re portrayed on a Chinese website – and how that view of Indian society filters through to Mary. Beijing-based journalist Pallavi Aiyar in her book Smoke and Mirrors talks about on-the-street Chinese impressions of Indian women being, in order: 1. surely they all sing and dance like in the films? 2. isn’t it very dirty there?
In any case, it got us talking about gender equality in China – the greatest legacy of the Mao era, after millenia of patriarchy. (Though there’s a Chinese proverb from way back in the day – yin sheng yang shuai – female strength/superiority over male.) I always thought that equality between the sexes was something admirable in modern Chinese society.
Then Mary told me of her job application last March to a coal mining engineering company. He had a strong CV, good experience etc. etc. But they told her outright that they didn’t want a girl. Their reasons were equally forthcoming: some kind of unease of sending women down the coal shafts, and also the other role was filled by a guy – meaning a separate dormitory had to be set up, at added cost to them.
She has a female friend who had almost exactly the same experience … and who has a boyfriend with exactly the same qualifications as them who got the job. So it’s depressing to see that the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Here’s a snatch from an interesting conversation I had with William the other day…
William: I think that we must strengthen civil society to limit the power of government. Here the government is very powerful. Its power must be equal with its responsibility.
Me: How?
William: We should fund more NGOs for environmental protection or fighting poverty and social problems … The government has funded many NGOs, but we call them ‘Gongo’ [government organised non-governmental organisation]. Every citizen can fund genuine NGOs.
Me: Isn’t that difficult in China?
William: The government doesn’t want to let its citizens fund NGOs. Laws for [registering and maintaining] NGOs are not suitable. But citizens can register a company, and then do non-profit things … Government can do it best, if they’re willing. But they have much power, and not enough responsibility in comparison to their power.
Me: Are there other methods for citizens to correct this?
William: Protesting/uprising [youxing] is not suitable, it’s not rational action. We need more rational action … Public participation can surprise government.
 Calligraphy in the breeze at Sichuan Normal University, a year on from the earthquake which killed tens of thousands (picture by Katrina Hamlin)  Young, patriotic crowds gather in Chengdu's Tianfu square to mark the anniversary (picture by a friend of one of Katrina's students) Below is a guest post by Katrina Hamlin, a friend of mine who has taught English in Chengdu since last August. I find especially interesting the idea (in the fourth from last paragraph) that the earthquake has encouraged in the city’s youth the spirit of a civil society, at the same time as channelling immense pride in China’s state.
*
Tuesday 12th May 2009 in Chengdu, Sichuan. A year since the earthquake. In the morning, I attended my Chinese class at Sichuan Normal University. In the afternoon, I taught English. No-one mentioned the anniversary. There was no memorial or silence. I don’t think I heard the word ‘earthquake’ once.
In the evening, I found the teachers’ flats surrounded by dozens of paper wreaths, taller than me and glowing with colour. There was a tent containing trestle tables and the remains of a banquet. I slipped inside. No, the guests assured me; this has nothing to do with the earthquake. They showed me a picture of a serene old man who had recently passed away.
I know my students and colleagues won’t forget last May. I’ve heard many stories about comforting hysterical friends and sleeping on the basketball courts for a week. Why, then, did they act as though the earthquake had never happened?
I wondered if I’d mistaken the date.
I didn’t see anything until the end of the day, when I spotted a line of pastel posters; doves, candles and rainbows. Behind, calligraphy hung in the trees. It was beautiful in its simplicity. But I still struggled to see how thousands of deaths prompted a few pictures while one old man had drawn a crowd.
I thought of what I heard before the anniversary. I’d asked my boss whether class would stop in honour of the occasion. She stared, told me not to expect a holiday, and promptly changed the subject. I also had a meeting at the university’s international office.
“Don’t speak about that,” the wide eyed secretary implored me.
So I avoided the topic in this week’s classes. Instead I prepared lessons on national identity and moral dilemmas.
What does being Chinese mean to you, Candy?
“Since the earthquake, China has changed for me; I feel more together with the Chinese people; more united.”
Why would the passer-by not rescue the drowning boy, Serena?
“Sometimes, we must be selfish. Even in the earthquake, some people were selfish, not everyone can be a hero.”
I slowly learnt that the earthquake was on everyone’s minds. I finally plucked up the courage to speak to some students in private. I asked about the anniversary, and how they’d marked it on campus – if at all.
Well, they’d made a banner. There were some photos too, but they were taken down because it rained. What else? Nothing.
What was their impression of Wenchuan’s recovery?
They were overwhelmed by the initial response. But now they feel very aware of how much remains to be done, though resources and media interest are dwindling. Moon, an English major, told me about her concern for the victims� mental health. Many psychologists had volunteered to help those suffering from severe emotional trauma. But without a salary, they couldn’t stay. A year is a long time without your home or family, but far too brief a period in which to come to terms with such a loss.
Moon and the other students responded to all my inquiries with a great deal of thought and quiet passion. They’d kept up with developments, and spent time thinking through what had happened. They really did care. But had they found a more public way to express that, beyond posters and photos? Some had.
Jia you!
Xiong qi!
‘Add oil!’ – ‘Go! Go!’. Sichuan Normal University might have been quiet on the Tuesday, but Chengdu’s Tianfu Square was not. Moon’s friend had joined the crowd. We pored over pictures taken on his mobile phone. People laid chrysanthemums beneath the Chinese flag, sung the national anthem and observed a three minute silence. Then they sang again: ‘tuan jie jiu shi li liang‘, ‘Unity is Strength’, and ‘wu xing hong qi‘, ‘The Five Star Red Flag’. But here too, grief wasn’t much in evidence. Optimism came first.
After speaking with my students, I sought out other members of Chengdu’s foreign community to ask them to share their observations.
Teachers’ and students’ experiences mirrored my own. There’d been little signs of mourning in their schools and campuses.
Sichuan Quake Relief’s project manager Walter Brown has worked with young people in Chengdu and the disaster zone since last May. He described his impression of the youth’s response.
To him, they seemed increasingly selfless. Many were eager to contribute to relief work. Children are declaring “I want to grow up to be a volunteer”. Overall, the quake was encouraging the growth of a civil society. But, Walter cautioned, it also represented another way for them to express their national pride.
I believe that despite what I could – or couldn’t – see on the day itself, the students and young people in Chengdu felt the anniversary deeply. But they are only comfortable showing that in certain ways and contexts. The posters and banners provided one, superficial, outlet. But more striking expressions required a large group and a collective confidence. Individuals responded as a part of the crowd, or as a part of China; and that public response had to be positive.
When they came together they demonstrated determination and pride. Not sadness. I think – I’m certain – that grief and anxiety are there too. But for now these are private emotions, out of sight.
I hope this doesn’t sound like a nothing conclusion – ‘they are sad’. It felt like a revelation after what I did not see here on 12th May.
Here’s another offering in the ‘three questions’ vein … this time to Leonidas on something a little less contemporary than NATO bombs (though equally violent?!): ancient China. What I’m specifically interested in is the extent to which young Chinese know and care about classical Chinese literature and language, given China’s breakneck rush to get as far away from its past as possible in the last century.
[A couple of quick notes for anyone who needs them: classical Chinese is different to modern Chinese in both its grammar (think ‘Beowulf’, unless it’s a memory from school you’d prefer to forget) and its characters. Traditional characters are more complex and beautiful than their simplified brethren, for whom they were dumped – like an overly expensive girlfriend – in the 50s.]
*
1. How many young Chinese (not just at Beida!) do you think are familiar with classical Chinese language and literature?
To answer this question clearly, it is necessary to give a definition to the word “familiar”, that is, how familiar can be called familiar? Or, more explicitly, who can be said to be familiar with classical Chinese language and literature. A professor specializing in this field? A student majoring in Chinese language and literature? A person able to recite some classical Chinese works? A person capable of appreciating some classical Chinese works? A standard has to be set, though it is hard, to further the discussion. My standard is that one who is familiar with classical Chinese literature must:
- First, have a command of the common sense of classical Chinese language and literature including the common meaning of the often-used characters, the grammar of ancient Chinese differentiating from that of modern Chinese (these are for language), and basic information on famous writers and poets, and several great works of theirs (these are for literature).
- Second, he can recite some paragraphs or some sentences from these excellent works and know the meaning of them.
- Third, he can roughly understand a certain work with the help of the relevant dictionaries.
By my standard, I think perhaps 10% of university students in China have this familiarity with classical Chinese language and literature.
2. Isn’t classical Chinese just a relic with no real connection to modern China?
Absolutely, classical Chinese is not just a relic. On the contrary, it has a connection to modern China in many aspects.
When one is appreciating a classical Chinese work, he must have some knowledge of classical Chinese. Classical Chinese can tell one the evolution of the meaning of a certain character in modern Chinese, thus making it possible to use it correctly and exactly. Among learned people, classical Chinese is often used in conversation, letters and essays. Even for villagers who have not been educated so much, classical Chinese is also close to their daily life, appearing in the dialects they use, though villagers are ignorant of the fact.
Admittedly, the modern Chinese occupies a much higher percentage in usage than the classical one. However, the latter is in use today and is exerting its influence on the modern life, whether we realize the fact or not.
3. What do you think of the idea of mainland China using traditional characters?
Despite the advocacy from some persons, especially foreign ones, the proposal cannot gain my approval that the traditional Chinese should be used in mainland China instead of the simplified version.
My reasons in favor of simplified Chinese are:
- First, it is easier to learn, and consequently is quite helpful to decrease the rate of the illiteracy in China.
- Second, it has been for several decades and the mainland is used to it.
- Third, it works effectively. It can be written faster and is more understandable due to its simplicity.
Common reasons held by the exponents of traditional Chinese are:
- First, it presents a clearer picture of the meaning of characters. Actually, this is wrong. Most of the characters used in simplified Chinese are different to the ones in traditional Chinese and can also help readers to guess their meanings.
- Second, it is traditional. However, the presumption that traditional is good is doubtable. Even though the presumption stood impregnably, what we use would be “more traditional Chinese” instead of the traditional Chinese proposed. “More traditional Chinese” here means Chinese which is older. In fact, characters used are varying all the time. The characters used in Tang Dynasty were different from the ones used in Han Dynasty. For the people in Tang Dynasty, the latter were of course more traditional than the former, but they chose the former. If we just pursue tradition, hieroglyphs must be the best choice.
- Of course, simplified Chinese is far from perfection, with some flaws remaining in it, for example, the similarity between some pairs of characters. But I think we benefit more than we suffer from simplified Chinese
[NB: that last answer’s in line with what most Chinese netizens are saying, as translated by chinaSMACK. See CDT too]
With enough on our minds already about the day after tomorrow (and I don’t mean the film), here’s a little something on the day before yesterday. May 8th was the ten year anniversary of NATO missiles destroying the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, sparking big protests over here. For more, go no further than the China Beat’s reading list …
So I put three 10-years-on questions to Jack (whose previous essay on this blog has attracted some heated comments). If there were one sentence in the below I had to highlight, it would definitely be this one in his answer to question two:
On the economy, [the West] have been chanting free trade and free market all the time without recognizing China’s full market economy status, but what they really like are protectionist policies and nationalization of banks.
So now it’s the West who are hidden communists?! How things change. Obama, you have your first Chinese criticism for being too left-wing…
*
1. Do Chinese still remember and are offended by this bombing? (Also, do they believe now it was accident or intentional?)
Yes, we will always remember this bombing. In fact, it has been one of the biggest, if not the biggest humiliation to the Chinese people since reform and opening-up.
It was by no means an accident. In my opinion, it was masterminded by the military perhaps without the knowledge of the Clinton administration. Facts speak louder than words. In 1999 NATO bombing of Belgrade, only seven bombs out of more than 5,000 “missed” their targets, and five of the seven were thrown at the Chinese embassy. The five bombs hit the embassy from different directions, destroying the compound. The pilot also paid special attention to the residence of the ambassador, with one bomb precisely hitting his residence. Fortunately, that bomb did not explode. The U.S. was claiming that they had the best pilot, the best weapon, and the best intelligence, so how could they make such a “mistake”? The explanation given by the American side was not convincing at all. They said they used an old map on which the Chinese embassy was not marked. But the truth of the matter is at that time the embassy was marked even on a tourist map of Belgrade. Anyone with a common sense would not believe in their explanation.
After the incident, President Clinton apologized for five times and wrote two letters of apology to President Jiang Zemin. So many apologies made some Chinese people think that maybe it was carried out by the military without the knowledge of top U.S. decision makers. The truth has not been revealed, and perhaps will never be. But based on facts, Chinese people believe it was absolutely intentional, and the only thing unknown is who was behind the attack.
2. What do you believe has changed now in the attitude of young Chinese (like those who protested 10 years ago against the USA) towards America?
Over the past decade, I think the young Chinese have gradually dropped their illusion of the U.S. and begun to view it more objectively.
After reform and opening-up, to be more specific in the 1980s and 1990s, the Chinese people began to know more about the outside world. The prosperity of the west attracted the young people so much that all of a sudden everybody wanted to go abroad. At that time, we had a popular saying, “Moon of the west is even more beautiful than that of China.” Experiencing the sharp contrast between China and the west, many Chinese people became critical of China, perhaps in a cynical way.
However, when the Chinese embassy was bombed, many people began to think: is this the kind of democracy and human rights that we want to pursue? A number of other incidents followed suit, for example, the Iraqi war, Guantanamo Bay, biased report on 3/14 Tibetan incident, which compounded young people’s negative attitude towards the U.S. in specific and the west in general. Many young people tend to believe the west is very hypocritical and has its own weak links. On human rights and democracy, the West does not care about democracy and human rights in other countries at all, and what they care about most are their own interests, for example, oil, geopolitics. And they will bully the weak if the latter do not obey their orders. On the economy, they have been chanting free trade and free market all the time without recognizing China’s full market economy status, but what they really like are protectionist policies and nationalization of banks.
Disillusionment aside, the Chinese have been fully aware of the strength of the west, especially in terms of science, technology and education. Today, still many young Chinese are going abroad for study. And more and more of them are coming back. China is short of qualified professionals. For example, recently the government has adopted a policy to build Shanghai into an international financial center by 2020, but one of the biggest bottlenecks is the lack of talents. Therefore, we still need to learn from the west for our own development.
Generally speaking, the young people in China have gradually turned to view the west, particularly the U.S., in a more objective way. We have become more aware of the hypocrisies and weakness of the west while better understanding their strength. I think this is one of the biggest changes over the past decade.
3. What might happen now if something similar happened again?
First of all, I think the probability of similar incident is very low at present given the higher recognition of China by the west and broader engagement with the west by China. This is a period of transition, from one that China was criticized on many fronts to one that China is expected to take more responsibility as a “responsible stakeholder”. It is vital for China to manage the transitional process by reducing misunderstandings, concerns, or even fears in the west, and it is equally significant for the west to adjust their attitude towards China and “see China in light of its development”.
If something similar happened again, the government and the public would respond in a resolute, serious and rational way. On the one hand, the government would use the diplomatic channel instead of military force. It might impose pressure on the U.S. government for apology and bringing those responsible into justice. It might also stop cooperation with the U.S. in some areas, such as trade, investment, foreign exchange reserve, and so on. Meanwhile, the Chinese government needs to strike a balance between giving the public some space to vent their anger while maintaining social stability and preventing the spread of nationalism. On the other hand, the public would become extremely angry and protest against the U.S., hopefully in a more rational way without throwing rocks at the embassy.
|
|
