Megan Shank dot com

Ok, ok. So in the advertisement for this t-shirt, I think they meant “a part” rather than “apart,” as it appears in the video from which the meme came. English is a complicated language, and these are complicated issues with vastly different opinions and interpretations that arise from looking at very similar components. The basic question seems to be whether there is a space in between or not.

Semantic errors and historical bungles aside, there’s no mistaking people here are deeply upset about the recent Olympic torch protests, about the comments by CNN’s Jack Cafferty on Chinese “junk and goons” and about rumors that the French supermarket Carrefour supports the Dalai Lama.

In the States we generally think of activism as being anti-establishment, but in China the protests that make the news are the ones that have been allowed to make the news. There are some exceptions, of course. Recently a Shanghai community rallied against the construction of an electronic train that was possibly toxic, and last year residents of the seaside city of Xiamen turned out en masse to protest the construction of a chemical plant positioned just a wee bit too close to city limits. Then there are protests that not only were never meant to be seen but also enjoyed no happy ending – such as those a few years ago by poor country residents seeking more representative local government

All of these protests were local ones. And the protest against Japan a few years back—in response to Japan’s official visits to the shrines of war criminals and the publishing of revisionist history books—was nationalized. But to protest what they view as slander and attack on the nation’s policies, on the country’s sovereignty and its Olympics, Chinese young and old, rich and poor, erudite and uneducated have turned out from New York to Shanghai. They’re blogging, they’re making videos for YouTube and Tudou, they’re designing t-shirts late into the night, and they’re sharing heated conversations—whether over tea in Beijing or coffee in Chicago. Today at work in Shanghai, I noticed out of more than 200 Chinese contacts in my MSN instant messenger list, more than 90 percent had placed a (H)China or (msn heart)China after their name in a sign of solidarity. This was meant to be a glorious time for China to invite in the world—has there ever been a time so many foreigners were asked to come to China, this traditionally isolated nation, rather than invading it?—but instead it has faced the international community’s finger wagging and the resultant loss of face. This is fair criticism to some degree– China should have handled the Tibet situation with more decor and less violence–but we must also question the efficacy of the West’s reaction and perception of events.

In addition to being inundated with MSN Heart-Chinas, today I also became privy to a long stream of e-mails passed between working Chinese in the United States from a diverse array of occupations—banking, hospitality and education, among others—and all spoke of boycotting French goods, protesting CNN and Time and educating people about China’s long and complicated history with Tibet. These young people are not communist party members and have lived abroad for some time, so what gives? If they’ve been in the States for as long as a decade, which some of them have, certainly they should have embraced the values our nation represents and abandoned their evil Chinese ways, right?

But let’s just consider something truly radical for a second. In some capacity, however diminutive, they might have a point. The media has, sometimes sloppily, packaged the story the West wants to buy, a vision that will invariably make the West feel more assured about its position in the world and less anxious about its own offenses. I have found Westerners also have a particular affinity for self-righteousness and snobbery when it comes to China. And of course, it’s much easier and more ego-gratifying to hustle to a rally with friends and high spirits and yell “Free Tibet” before heading off to the nearest microbrew pub for heated hyperbole than it is to make a conscious effort to boycott Chinese goods or send challenging letters to Western Olympic sponsors or examine which companies—clue: not just Chinese ones—have been essential in building the railway to Tibet or bottling its mountain water.

Also, as our world becomes more influenced by the Chinese, it might behoove Westerners to seek to understand opposing ideas before they attack—it’s a basic principle in The Art of War, in any case. Personally, I’ve learned during my time in China that growth and cooperation with the Chinese people only comes through subtle dealings. For example, if I berate a reporter working under me in front of others, I have lost all efficiency in dealing with that person who will become closed off to me and antagonistic to everything I say. If I, on the other hand, ask them to have lunch with me, speak of light matters and slowly work my way into the problem as we finish the meal, my concern will be edible to them, and they will happily digest it. I can say with absolute certainty and conviction that no amount of torch obstruction and no amount of opening ceremony boycotting will bend China to international will. It will only serve to isolate them at a time when they need, more than ever, to be in line with the world.

I am no moral relativist. China is far from blameless. The country must eventually trust its sovereignty enough to believe that allowing greater freedom of speech won’t topple it. It must trust that even bad news has an element of truth in it, which must first be explored rather than denied. It must handle its people with dignity and respect and detest the use of violence. It must, as a major global player, seek to influence the world in a positive, sustainable way. The next step, which recent events have made abundantly clear, is for China, an emerging nation, and its people, increasingly global citizens, to learn to cope with even the most vitriolic criticism that comes along with being part of the world without demanding apologies or proclaiming someone who doesn’t agree immoral, as has been the case. It must also open itself up to the possibility that sometimes it too is wrong.

The West, in turn, needs to consider solutions that work—not merely ones that feel good.

This entry was posted on Thursday, April 17th, 2008 at 12:12 am and is filed under Blog. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.