Why Chinese Patriotism is to be Respected and Feared

You are Here: Home>> Sino News >>Why Chinese Patriotism is to be Respected and Feared

Click Here to Subsribe to the 'Sino News' Feed

Why Chinese Patriotism is to be Respected and Feared

Written by Robert Vance on April 25, 2008 – 4:22 am

“My father was sent to a camp to be re-educated and my uncle went to prison because they knew someone who the government did not like,” one of my close friends told me recently. She explained to me that because of ill treatment and poor nutrition, her father developed severe stomach problems in the camp which have remained with him into middle age. Her father and her uncle, of course,were detained and released long ago while Chairman Mao still ‘held the reins’ of power over the PRC. When I asked my friend if her father held a grudge against the Chinese government because of his unjust detainment, I was startled by her answer. She replied that while her father viewed his detainment as a serious mistake by the government, he was never resentful because he believed that such ‘errors in judgement’ were an integral part of the growing process for the new PRC. She explained to me that her father is not a Communist but that he greatly admires “what Chairman Mao did for China” and that he was more than willing to sacrifice his time and his health for the well-being of the country.

This fierce patriotism is the ’superglue’ that has held China together during the last 60 years. It is what has prevented people from losing faith in their government and in themselves during periods of intense starvation, political upheaval, and national turmoil. The Chinese patriotism in fact a powerful phenemenon that transcends Chairman Mao, the CCP, and the creation of the PRC in 1949. This patriotism emanates from the land itself: the mountains and valleys, the rivers and the lakes, the forests and the deserts, the rolling countryside and the sprawling cities. It is a feeling that is based on thousands of years of history, a feeling that has been passed down from generation to generation. This patriotism, which sometimes seems almost tangible, is the only form of religion that most Chinese people have ever adhered to. They worship their country and treat her with the respect that other cultures would bestow upon a ‘god.’ Of course, the principal way in which they feel they can show that respect an honor is through an unwavering allegiance to their government.

In many ways, I do respect this Chinese patriotism which is ’second to none’ in the modern world. The patriotic facade that is ‘put on’ by many Chinese people is often harsh and defensive. However, I have been able to break through that ‘wall’ and discover that behind the rhetoric there is a deep sense by Chinese people that the survival of their country in such a hostile world has been ‘nothing short of miraculous.’ So many things in China have changed but the love of country and a steadfast trust in the government are the only ideologies that Chinese people have been able to ‘hang onto’ in the past 60 years. Without this patriotism, it is highly unlikely that the PRC would have survived and continued on its current path of development. It is no wonder then that Chinese people are so defensive when people attack their government and their system of life. They feel as if their foundation and their mainstay for existence is being ‘ripped out from under them’ by the foreign media.

While I admire this patriotism and how it unifies China, I also fear it. A Chinese friend once told me that “every man, woman, and child” would be glad to take up arms for China should the Taiwan conflict ever escalate. I believe him. Patriotism is driven into Chinese children from a very early age. They grow up believing that there is nothing more important in life than their country and its interests. I would pity the country that had the collective patriotism and will of the Chinese people focused upon it in war; it would be like a military grade laser beam being focused on a single grain of wheat. The results would be catastrophic. It would be foolish to underestimate the strength of the Chinese in a conflict. For this reason, the Chinese government in recent days has attempted to gently ‘calm the masses’ as they have descended upon Carrefour and protested the comments made by CNN’s Jack Cafferty. The government does not want to dampen the patriotic spirit but at the same time understands the danger in allowing the protests to go too far.

While it is easy to imagine how Chinese patriotism would influence the outcome of a war in China, it is more difficult to imagine the Chinese with guns in their hands. The Chinese people are peaceful; they have demonstrated that quality recently during their protests at Carrefour. They just want to be heard. One of my students asked me today if I “thought it was wrong for the Chinese people to ask CNN for an apology.” I thought about it for a moment and realized that the Chinese people have this right. CNN has the right to refuse the request as well but there is no reason why the Chinese people cannot ask a news organization to retract a statement that they feel was detrimental to their culture. I just hope that they can make these protests based on their own informed opinions and patriotism and not on what the government is saying through the media. If that is the case, then the Chinese people should cherish their right to protest and do it proudly.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Don't miss...

Demerzel on April 25th, 2008 at 10:03 pm

What would you define as the difference between Chinese patriotism and Chinese nationalism?

Robert Vance on April 26th, 2008 at 3:17 am

Hi Demerzel,

You bring up a good question. As you noticed, I did not use the word ‘nationalism’ in my post. I’m sure you know that although the two terms are often used interchangeably they are quite different in meaning. Those who are convinced that the Chinese are ‘forcing themselves’ on the Tibetans would probably be more apt to use the word ‘nationalism’ in place of ‘patriotism.’ Nationalism is of a fanatical nature; nationalists have a one tracked mind and country is more important than anything else in their lives. Again, some may choose to use ‘nationalists’ to describe the Chinese people. I think the term definitely can be applied to the ruling Communist party. I used the word ‘patriotism’ because I do sense that Chinese people truly love this land and that their love transcends the Communist party. They love this land because of its long history and rich culture. Perhaps I could have used the word ‘nationalism’, however, in the latter part of my article to describe how the Chinese would act in war. In this case, I think that ‘nationalism’ would rear its ugly head and replace the ‘fierce patriotism’ which now exists in China.

FOARP on April 26th, 2008 at 1:34 pm

The difference between patriotism and nationalism is the difference between the love that a child has for their mother and the love a stalker has for his victim.

A patriot will love his/her country in spite of all its faults, and will attempt to rectify them, a nationalist ignores these faults and blames everything that is wrong in his country on foreigners. A patriot wishes to serve his country, a nationalist wishes his country to serve him. A patriot loves his country, a nationalist hates his country’s enemies and thinks this is the same as love.

It is not for nothing that the online fenqing (愤清) have been labelled aiguozei (爱国贼 - patriotic traitors) by more levelled-headed Chinese observers - that is , the hateful way in which they run their mouths issuing death-threats and calls to arms which they have no intention to keep is something which is actually quite harmful to China’s image - sensible people recognise this.

As for the force of Chinese patriotism in war, before WW1 it is unlikely that any country in the world had quite the level of nationalistic fervour and desire to right perceived wrongs as that which existed in Germany, but it was the nature and sheer force of German nationalism which turned others against them. Likewise, no country’s armed forces have shown quite the willingness to die for their country as the Japanese armed forces did during WW2, but as General Paton said, the true business of war is ‘not to die for your country, but to make the other poor bastard die for his’. Both Germany and Japan received a hard schooling in what the true cost of holding your country’s honour so high that every slight is seen as a national insult is, it is my true and sincere hope that no such schooling need ever be given to China.

Demerzel on April 27th, 2008 at 12:51 pm

Now that is good way of explaining it! I think one can go a bit further in explanation as I have come across Americans whom think that the US is technologically advanced in every single thing above every other nation. I would put those kinds of thoughts under nationalism as well–that the country is and always will be the pinnacle of civilization.

Mr. Ningbo on April 28th, 2008 at 3:28 am

I’ve certainly seen my share of angry Chinese these days. They are making threats - Internet Tough Guy[tm] threats, but nonetheless they feel violent. The most common theme is “shut up”. Needless to say, this is hardly a productive attitude.

The other edge of the sword here is the media truthfulness - now that China has discovered what the rest of the world already knew (Western media are either lazy or lying to serve their personal biases most of the time), I wonder if the Chinese people will begin to question their own media.

Robert Vance on April 28th, 2008 at 6:45 am

Good point Mr. Ningbo. I am not big fan of the Western media myself but when Chinese people point fingers at other media oulets while acting as if their sources in China are the epitome of truth, their words ring hollow. It is time for the Chinese people to wake up and realize that all media outlets, whether government controlled or not, have their own biases. I would offer a large sum to the person who show me a truly objective news organization.

FOARP on April 28th, 2008 at 7:10 am

@Demerzel - this is why contact with the outside world is the ultimate antidote and cure for nationalism, and why nationalism is more prevelant on the whole in countries like the US and China where people have little opportunity to meet those from other countries.

As a young boy I thought that the UK was the best at everything, I remember my disappointment when the English football team lost in the semi-finals against Germany “How could we lose?” I thought, because at that time I believed we were the best - but obviously Peter Shilton and Chris Waddle were not as good (or, at least, not as lucky) as their German counterparts. Likewise, as a child I had an argument with my mother: “Britain has always been on the right side in the wars she has fought, and has never lost”, my mother tutted and said “haven’t you ever heard of the opium wars? And what about the American war of independence and 1066?”. I had always thought Britain to be the richest country on earth, until I discovered that Switzerland, Sweden, Luxembourg etc. are richer, and although Stone Henge might be more than 5,000 years old, this still only puts it in the same age bracket as Chinese civilisation - and the Pyramids are still much older than both.

You see, without those experiences, and the myriad discoveries that one gets from contact of any kind with people of other countries, I might still be walking around thinking that the UK is the best place in the world at everything - it is from this position that I view both Chinese and American (and British) nationalism.

Still, we kick arse at Rugby!

Jason Ding on April 28th, 2008 at 7:30 am

“Good point Mr. Ningbo. I am not big fan of the Western media myself but when Chinese people point fingers at other media oulets while acting as if their sources in China are the epitome of truth, their words ring hollow. It is time for the Chinese people to wake up and realize that all media outlets, whether government controlled or not, have their own biases. I would offer a large sum to the person who show me a truly objective news organization.”

Bob,

We have been always knowing our media has problems. We have known it better than you did. But we knew what kind of information the government hided something and what kind of didn’t.

Dare you bet for me about Feudal Serfdorm system ruled by 50 years ago?
Dalai said it’s peaceful theocracy and you believed it.
Chinese government said its’ serfdorm system and I believed it.

Now should we bet on that?

Robert Vance on April 28th, 2008 at 7:39 am

FOARP and Demerzel,

Thank you for the interesting comments. I have one question. If you had written a similar story would you have chosen to use the word ‘nationalism’ in place of ‘patriotism?’ In my opinion, there are plenty of people in China who fall into both categories.

Jason Ding on April 28th, 2008 at 7:43 am

“You see, without those experiences, and the myriad discoveries that one gets from contact of any kind with people of other countries, I might still be walking around thinking that the UK is the best place in the world at everything - it is from this position that I view both Chinese and American (and British) nationalism.”

FOARP,
Please don’t be so confident on it since you have been to China. I have been to US, UK, Canada and Sigapore and Malaysia, totally oversea time more than 2 years etc. I just returned from UK on 3/10. I mastered 3 languages (English, German, Chinese) and 2 dilacts. Think about millions of oversea Chineses, they have been to every corner of the world. They are enjoying the western freedom and democracy.

Chinese has never thought they were the best in the world. Chinese knows hard working and peaceful living can make better life. If others don’t insult us, we will be friendly. If we can not bear the insult, it will break out. That’s why this time it’s broke out because it could be bearable any more.

FOARP on April 28th, 2008 at 8:10 am

“If we can not bear the insult, it will break out. That’s why this time it’s broke out because it could be bearable any more”

Once again, if protests which were almost entirely non-violent, the ill-advised comments of one CNN commentater and a few photos showing Tibetan riots in Nepal over a piece about riots in China and elsewhere add up to ‘an unbearable insult’ then what chance is there of ever living in peace with China? And why are the small and harmless insults that foreigners have made so much more important than the vast wrongs that corrupt officials and businessmen inflict on China everyday?

Ivan Grozny on April 28th, 2008 at 8:58 am

“While I admire this patriotism and how it unifies China, I also fear it. A Chinese friend once told me that “every man, woman, and child” would be glad to take up arms for China should the Taiwan conflict ever escalate. I believe him. Patriotism is driven into Chinese children from a very early age. They grow up believing that there is nothing more important in life than their country and its interests. I would pity the country that had the collective patriotism and will of the Chinese people focused upon it in war; it would be like a military grade laser beam being focused on a single grain of wheat.”

In regards to the Taiwan conflict, what you are describing is patently not patriotism, but nationalism. As George Orwell defines it (and I agree):

‘Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. Both words are normally used in so vague a way that any definition is liable to be challenged, but one must draw a distinction between them, since two different and even opposing ideas are involved. By ‘patriotism’ I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, NOT for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality.’

Taiwan is never going to attack the mainland. If a war comes, it will be because the mainland attacks Taiwan for making a decision the mainland doesn’t like. Therefore, any support for a war against Taiwan is support for aggression rather than defense. You can’t be enthusiastic about taking up arms and forcing people to become part of your country, regardless of what they want, without being a nationalist rather than a patriot.

But setting aside that, having a population of fanatical nationalists is a good asset in war. I tend to think, however, that military competence, intelligent diplomacy, and modern weaponry turn out better results. There’s a reason why U.S. analysts refer to a potential Chinese invasion of Taiwan as the ‘million man swim’, and the last time China turned it’s laser-beam-like ultra-nationalism against a country the result was the debacle of the Vietnam invasion of 1979.

I don’t fear China….yet. Barring an actual invasion of the mainland, which would of course be horrific and probably catastrophic, China simpIy isn’t prepared for the kind of naval and air war which would likely mark a war with the United States and/or Japan.

Call me back in 2050 and I may have changed my mind, but for right now Chinese nationalism is far more dangerous to China itself than to any of it’s neighbors.

Ivan Grozny on April 28th, 2008 at 9:12 am

Incidentally, I quoted Orwell above. The essay quoted was ‘Notes on Nationalism’, which concisely explains why my feelings towards Chinese nationalism lean much, much more heavily towards intense dislike rather than fear or respect. It isn’t a virtue in any sense of the word; it’s a flawed, illogical habit of mind which makes debates with the average 憤青 a brain-cell killing exercise in futility. I would very much like to see this kind of thought weeded out of people everywhere, whether in China or the United States or Britain or insert-country-here, but unfortunately it seems to really hit people hard in China….and East Asia in general.

Here’s the essay. Extremely good read, highly recommended.

http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/o79e/part30.html

Robert Vance on April 28th, 2008 at 9:36 am

Ivan,

Thanks for your comments. I think you make a good assessment by writing that a war with Taiwan would be nationalistic reaction as opposed to a patriotic reaction. However, if I may play devil’s advocate for a moment, my friends in China ‘claim’ that most people in Taiwan want to be united with China. That is what the Chinese government tries to make them believe. I know, after talking to many Taiwanese that this is completely untrue. Nevertheless, if there was ever a war with Taiwan, the Chinese government would easily garner the support of the majority of its citizens by making them think that by using military action, they were actually defending the Taiwanese(and the country of China) against a small separatist minority. That is why I want to be careful about using the term ‘nationalist’ to label the Chinese people. Their government is definitely nationalist in its thinking but the Chinese people have been tricked into thinking that Taiwan is a patriotic issue. They think that it is their duty to defend their Taiwanese ‘brothers and sisters’ from the evil people who want to rip Taiwan away from its mother.

Jason Ding on April 28th, 2008 at 9:40 am

“Harmless or not” is not decided by your perception.
So do you think he could say “Negro” agaisnt “black america” in US. According to your word, it’s harmless too. And all of discrimination words is harmless in your term.

And again it’s just few photos issue. It’s because the western media didn’t tell the truth about Tibet.
I enumerate again here:
1million massacre tibetan people
Culture Genocide
No free religion
Tibetan is suppressed by Chinese government

All above are not the true stories. That’s the reason.

Patroisam or Nationlism, it’s just a term. Ask US why 90% of their citizen agreed for inavding Iraq, 5 years still death everyday. I don’t know what you called these so democracied and so called “peace lover” agreed the war for killing. Why didn’t you charge George Bush and US patroism as War criminal?

What did your country do in the last 2 centuries? Who was the first country to invade China, bringing the opium to China? Why didn’t you blame ancenstor for the crime? Look at your British Museum. How many treasures did you loot from all of the world? Now it’s peaceful day. Why don’t you pursade your government to return these treasures to those which have been conquered by your “civilized” army? Who did really inaved the Tibet? It’s you in the earlier 1900s.

Did you China invade any other countries in the long histories? No. We have suffered for centuries. I have just begun our peaceful life after 1949. Why did we suffer so long time? It’s because of your civilized countries.

In 1949, our country just really returened back soveingty. During the developement, obviously Mao made mistakes and people suffered. But now the government has corrected the mistake and tried to focus on development. We wanted to have stable sociaty to keep on the development. Any war or unstable status is not what we need. Riots like that is not bearable. And the riots were called like peaceful demonstration is not torelated. Any method to break our mutual living between ethnics is not tolerated too. That’s why we have to fight against the western media. This is way to protect our social stable and soveingty.

If you can not understand, please don’t talk about Chinese issue.

Jason Ding on April 28th, 2008 at 10:04 am

Worry about the ware is unnecessary. China appreciates this time and focuses on its economy and social problem. It has no intention to declare any war to any country unlese China is invaded. According to current situation, Taiwan will not declare totally independence with this election as Ma as president.
The relationship currently with neighbors is ok. I think the worry is unnecessary.
The country which is mostly likely to declare war is US. Every 10 years US liked to have a war overseas.

1950s Korea War Supported Iran’s “Democracy” president which was failured soon
1960s Vietnam War
1970s Overthrown Cambodian government and created a new “democracy” power and was failure quickly.
1980s Supported Iraq Sadam to fight against Iran
1990s First Gulf War Serbian War for Kosovo, resulting in Kosovo independence.
2000s Afghanistan war against Taliban, Iraq war against Sadam
What’s the next war? Against Iran, North Korea or Cuba? All possible
Try to split Tibetan? there is possibility. But China will not allow that happen.

Ivan Grozny on April 28th, 2008 at 10:17 am

“However, if I may play devil’s advocate for a moment, my friends in China ‘claim’ that most people in Taiwan want to be united with China. That is what the Chinese government tries to make them believe. I know, after talking to many Taiwanese that this is completely untrue. Nevertheless, if there was ever a war with Taiwan, the Chinese government would easily garner the support of the majority of its citizens by making them think that by using military action, they were actually defending the Taiwanese(and the country of China) against a small separatist minority. That is why I want to be careful about using the term ‘nationalist’ to label the Chinese people. Their government is definitely nationalist in its thinking but the Chinese people have been tricked into thinking that Taiwan is a patriotic issue. They think that it is their duty to defend their Taiwanese ‘brothers and sisters’ from the evil people who want to rip Taiwan away from its mother.”

This is true, and it would probably more fairly be labelled as misguided patriotism for many or most of them rather than genuine nationalism. What worries me, however, is that large numbers of Chinese I’ve interacted with seem to have swallowed whole this idea that ‘China’ must be defined as ‘the Qing Empire at it’s height’, and anything less than that is an attempt to ‘divide China’, regardless of whether those former parts of the Qing want anything to do with the PRC.

When I see the arguments made about why Tibet is part of China, for example, the issue of what the Tibetan people themselves want is rarely mentioned. There is a lot of talk about how much better off they are under Chinese rule, a lot of talk about how ugly and backward Tibet was before the PRC took over, and a lot of talk about historic claims….but the simple question, ‘do the Tibetans want to be a part of China?’ seems almost irrelevant. If it were possible, I’d really like to do a survey and ask a large number of Chinese citizens: ‘If the majority of Tibetans were in support of independence and opposed to Chinese rule, without foreign or outside manipulation of any sort, would you still support Chinese rule in Tibet?’

I have an ugly feeling what the answer would be for the overwhelming majority, because right now the PRC has framed the entire question in terms of CHINA’s rights to it’s territory rather than the rights of other people to self-determination. In other words, it’s molded the thinking of the population of China to think in terms of nationalism rather than patriotism.

I’m only happy they’ve chosen the Qing as their model of what the ‘true China’ should be. I can’t wait for the day some wit decides to start defining ‘China’ as the Yuan dynasty at it’s height and lays claim to Siberia, Korea, Vietnam, and so on.

Ivan Grozny on April 28th, 2008 at 10:29 am

Jason Ding,

You are commiting a very, very common error which I see repeated by Chinese netizens constantly. The technical term for what you’re doing is ‘Ad hominem’, and it’s a logical fallacy. Read about it here in English:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_Hominem

Or here in Chinese:

http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%BA%BA%E8%BA%AB%E6%94%BB%E6%93%8A%E7%9A%84%E8%AC%AC%E8%AA%A4

To put it simply, if the United States were spending every second of every day boiling Iraqi children alive, it would not make China’s actions in Tibet even the slightest bit more correct. Or incorrect, for that matter. It has no relation to anything related to Tibet. Not even in the slightest.

FOARP on April 28th, 2008 at 1:22 pm

@Ivan - Yes, I have even heard Chinese of the ‘愤青’ variety call for the return of Mongolia - which after all was de facto Chinese until 1921 - de jure the R.O.C. still claims Mongolia as part of the ‘Mainland area’. The PRC recognised Mongolian independence after the civil war - this following a referendum held under Soviet auspices in which the Mongolian population voted overwhelmingly for independence. Somehow these elements - a seperate ethnic group wishing to found their own state, being allowed a referendum in which they voted for independence and then peacefully spliting off - are not mentioned in Chinese text books, which merely noted that in such-and-such a year Mongolia acheived independence and leave it at that. Where is there hatred for the Mongolia ’splitists’?

Mr. Ningbo on April 28th, 2008 at 3:51 pm

Ah, yes. Jason Ding said it right there - don’t talk. Don’t debate, don’t argue, don’t say anything that doesn’t agree. And attacks against other countries are a substitute for defending your own. As an American, I am so accustomed to being relentlessly attacked at every opportunity for every reason under the sun, I barely notice it any more.

canrun on April 28th, 2008 at 6:50 pm

@ Ivan,

Any chance you are the Ivan of Peking Duck.com fame?

Jason Ding on April 28th, 2008 at 10:14 pm

“To put it simply, if the United States were spending every second of every day boiling Iraqi children alive, it would not make China’s actions in Tibet even the slightest bit more correct. Or incorrect, for that matter. It has no relation to anything related to Tibet. Not even in the slightest.”

First of all, I think you have deviate the topic, not me. Here Bob said he worried about the war that China may declare. My answer is no. But most probably, there will be another war declared by US, the history of the war showed about that. And we have seen the patrioism of US citizen’s. I listed the evidence and told the truth. I don’t think I could agreee that you said that I’m “Ad hominem”. If I provided the information is wrong, please pointed about, I could read the book again and correct my mistake. Then apologize to you.

For Tibet issue, when you said that government did things wrong, please give me evidence. Please don’t use “culture revolution”, at that time, the whole countries were suffered seriously. Please presented the evidence about the current government’s wrong doing.

Jason Ding on April 28th, 2008 at 11:20 pm

@Bob,

To my surprise, I thought only Chinese used the “Hat” to put on someone if any dispute happened. I found now that US guys are also familiar with these skills. I got two, perhasp Three Hats now “Brainwahsed”, “Ad hominem”and perhaps “愤青”, wondering if Foarp has already put that hat on me.

Why did such kind of debate still applu the “Hat” to someone? In US or Uk, do you use the same way during debate?

FOARP on April 29th, 2008 at 3:20 am

“wondering if Foarp has already put that hat on me.”

In the UK we say “If the cap fits, wear it”

FOARP on April 29th, 2008 at 5:16 am

@Bob - To answer your question, yes, I would have used ‘nationalism’ rather than patriotism. Patriotism cannot be a political force in the same way that ‘parenthood’ cannot be a political force - it is something that the vast majority of people agree with.

Demerzel on April 30th, 2008 at 8:51 pm

@FOARP

Britain may be the best at rugby, but that’s only because no one cares about the sport, just like no one cares about American football.

Seriously though, you are right, and it’s always why I tell my Shanghainese friends that Shanghai is not yet Cosmopolitan.

@Robert Vance

I may have titled the article “Why Nationalism is a Double-Edged Sword” instead, but would I interchange patriotism with nationalism? No. I would, however, note the very fine line between patriotism and nationalism.

@Jason Ding

China invaded Vietnam after the US which was after France.

“During the developement, obviously Mao made mistakes and people suffered.”

Demerzel on April 30th, 2008 at 8:54 pm

Sino-Vietnamese war in case you’re wondering:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War

FOARP on May 1st, 2008 at 6:18 am

“Britain may be the best at rugby, but that’s only because no one cares about the sport,”

Spoken to any Aussies/Kiwis/Springboks/French/Argentines/Italians/Irish lately?

Plus you forgot to mention the invasion of India and the Soviet Union. If I was Nanheyangrouchuan I would now cut into a rant about how China is an aggressive country and a threat to world peace, but this would be an exaggeration. The Chinese leadership see little wrong with invading their neighbours when it suits their interests, but they have no interest in sparking a war at the moment.

As for the difference between patriotism I would say that Mao was a clear example of a nationalist who is obviously not a patriot. Several times he had the opportunity to end the civil war and to co-operate better with the KMT in fighting the Japanese, but in each instance he preferred to carry on with the internal dispute with the KMT and inflict great suffering on China. Sure, Chiang Kai-Shek had his own share in this, but Mao could have ended it. His clear goal was the accumulation of power, placing himself as indisputable leader of the country and eliminating even those he suspected of being capable of challenging his leadership - and ruining China in the process as most modern historians accept.

Demerzel on May 1st, 2008 at 9:44 pm

Oh, I know, just joking around with you on that

moral of the story: Mao = Nationalist, Deng = Patriot, yes?

Why the Train Collision in Shandong is not Big News on May 1st, 2008 at 10:54 pm

[...] a cultural attitude in China that seems to contradict an article that I wrote recently entitled Why Chinese Patriotism is to be Feared and Respected. The Chinese love their country very much and gladly join hands on political issues, but this unity [...]

FOARP on May 2nd, 2008 at 4:03 am

@Demerzel “moral of the story: Mao = Nationalist, Deng = Patriot, yes?”

I’ll answer that one with an absolute and resounding “maybe!”

Demerzel on May 2nd, 2008 at 9:07 pm

Good man! hahaha

Guy on May 5th, 2008 at 1:51 am

Jason

You might also want to check up on your history of the korean war. It was actually started by N.Korea, not Amercia as is trypically stated by most Chinese. In addition it was a UN force of 17 nation that helped to repel Chinese and N.korean forces from taking control of S.Kore, not just America

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War

it is always interesting to understand how history is reflected locally in China especially when it relates to foreigners. A good example being the boxer rebellion in 1900. The normal Chinese opinion on this is that 8 armies invaded China for no reason other than to attack Beijing and loot it. There is no mention of the fact that hundreds of westerners were under siege in Beijing at this time, or that the German ambassador has his head cut off.

I think the article is a good one though with a lot to make one think, I do find it interesting about the frequent comments made that Chinese are a peaceful race. I can’t really say that China in the same way as any western powers is any more peaceful than the others. they have been involved in conflicts with korea, Russia, India, Vietnam, since the foundation of the PRC,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_border_conflict
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Indian_War

and the nationalism that one sees at the moment hardly seems to say anything different has changed. Is there a lot to fear, in this respect I would certainly agree with Ivan, not at the moment, but lets see what happens in another 30 years

Jason Ding on May 5th, 2008 at 8:16 am

uhm… that’s a nice way of saying millions die of starvation by a man who never learned how to govern see the errors of his ways (incidentally, similar to many other country uniters-turned rulers)–thank goodness for Deng Xiaoping.
”
The war was totally wrong. That’s the last war that China involved. But did you know US actually supported this while Deng’s visit in US.
But if CIA didn’t subvert Cambodian Kingdom,how could Kehmir Rouge take over the power? How could the following disaster happened? There would have no vitenam invasion to cambodia and the consequent China invaded vietnam.

Jason Ding on May 5th, 2008 at 8:28 am

“You might also want to check up on your history of the korean war. It was actually started by N.Korea, not Amercia as is trypically stated by most Chinese. In addition it was a UN force of 17 nation that helped to repel Chinese and N.korean forces from taking control of S.Kore, not just America
”

Yes, that’s the truth. But when did China involve this war? It’s at the time that the whole North Korea was defeated to Yalu river and it’s direct threat to Chinese border. It’s the MacArthur who made wrong judgement to provoke the Chinese to involve the war. If at the time MacArthur stopped at 38 lines, there would have been no reason for Chinese involvement. Did you agree?

Jason Ding on May 5th, 2008 at 8:39 am

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Indian_War

@Guy,

Which country really make this trouble? It’s UK which set the argued border line.
UK actually made more troubles, Tibet issue is another case.
The seperation of Inida and Pakistan resulted in serious conflict and many lifes lost. Still Keshmir problems was left.

UK fought so many countries and grabbed the treasures and left so many conflicts and pains to those people living there until now so many issues haven’t been solved.

Which country should really be blamed? Think about it.

Jason Ding on May 5th, 2008 at 8:52 am

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_border_conflict

China has so long borders. There are some border dispute is regarded as normal. Resorting to war is not wise. The conflict between Soviet and China should be considered smaller in terms of War but it really severly degraded bilateral relationship which led to build normal relationship between US and China.

China learned from if that war can not solve the problem. Did you see within past 30 years China hasn’t involved any war except UN peace mission?

But look at US, 30 years, how many wars did it involve? How many lifes have been lost due to those wars?

Jason Ding on May 5th, 2008 at 8:54 am

“Why the Train Collision in Shandong is not Big News”

Why did you think “Chinese thought it was not Big News”? Look at the newspaper of Chinese, actually it is.

Guy on May 5th, 2008 at 9:24 pm

I agree that China did physically join the Korean War after UN forces crossed the 38th parallel. However the point I was trying to make in this regard was that the Korean conflict was not started by the Americans which is typically stated in Chinese history, it was a UN conflict with support from many other countries, although America did provide the majority of the troops.

China and Russia as well as in the Vietnam conflict in the 1960’s and 70’s were behind the scenes providing supplies. America which was trying to act as a bulwark against the spread of communism and trying to promote democracy and capitalism, China and Russia also had their own agendas which were to support the spread of communism.

Regarding the other points you raised I certainly don’t disagree with your comments about the between the conflicts with Russia and India. Although I could certainly discuss with you the merits of whether these conflicts are justifiable from either side or not, as this is based on the presumption that China as it is now is entitled to the lands where the border conflict took place in the first place, both XinJiang and Tibet having been conquered in the first place by Manchu troops as part of the Manchu empire, not the Han Chinese empire, certainly what the UK and other imperialist powers did in the 19th Century was not good, and many people accept this and history has judged it accordingly. But then how many of these countries still have colonies? China frequently complains about Western Imperialism but then practices it itself in their colonies, however in this respect I digress.

You stated that “The country which is mostly likely to declare war is US. Every 10 years US liked to have a war overseas.”

1950s Korea War Supported Iran’s “Democracy” president which was failured soon (Not started by the US, UN action, supporting a country is not the same as fighting a war)
1960s Vietnam War
1970s Overthrown Cambodian government and created a new “democracy” power and was failure quickly. (Who did they overthrow, they engaged in a war to do this?)
1980s Supported Iraq Sadam to fight against Iran (not with troops, only with equipment and advisers, no different than what Russia or China has done in Cambodia, Korea and Vietnam)
1990s First Gulf War Serbian War for Kosovo, resulting in Kosovo independence. (First Gulf war was a not started by US, UN Action, Serbian war in Kosovo, not started by US, UN action)
2000s Afghanistan war against Taliban, Iraq war against Sadam (Afghanistan conflict is primarily a UN action)

In the conflicts you listed above most of these are UN actions, not US actions. In many of these cases the US was not the initial aggressor. Certainly since 9/11 America has become a lot more aggressive in how it protects itself, hence the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. Were these the right things to do? We don’t know, history will judge them on this, certainly Iraq will be hard to justify

Yes since the invasion of Vietnam in the late 1970’s China has not invaded any other countries this is true, but their actions internally such as Tibet and Tiananmen Square as well as their attitudes towards Taiwan don’t show China to be any better than how the US has behaved. How will their attitudes change in the future? Again nobody knows. Since China still lays claims to other areas in India, Russia, Mongolia and Taiwan it will be interesting to see how they handle these.

Jason Ding on May 5th, 2008 at 11:28 pm

“Serbian war in Kosovo, not started by US, UN action?”

See Below: (it’s NATO, not UN, who gave NATO the right to do this regardless of UN?)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_war#Kosovo_in_Tito.27s_Yugoslavia_.281945.E2.80.931986.29

[edit] Reaction to the war
The legitimacy of NATO’s bombing campaign in Kosovo has been the subject of much debate. NATO did not have the backing of the United Nations Security Council because the war was opposed by permanent members, China and, in particular Russia, who had threatened to veto any resolution authorising force. NATO argued that their defiance of the Security Council was justified based on the claims of an “international humanitarian emergency”. Criticism was also drawn by the fact that the NATO charter specifies that NATO is an organization created for defence of its members, but in this case it was used to attack a non-NATO country which was not directly threatening any NATO member. NATO claimed that instability in the Balkans was a direct threat to the security interests of NATO members, and military action was therefore justified by the NATO charter; however, the only NATO member country to which the instability was a direct threat was Greece.

Jason Ding on May 6th, 2008 at 1:01 am

Putin’s opinion represents most of our Chineses’ thoughts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_reaction_to_the_2008_Kosovo_declaration_of_independence#States_which_are_about_to_formally_recognise_Kosovo

Russian President Vladimir Putin described the recognition of Kosovo’s unilaterally declared independence by several major world powers as “a terrible precedent” that “breaks up the entire system of international relations” that have taken “centuries to evolve”, and “undoubtedly, it may entail a whole chain of unpredictable consequences to other regions in the world” that will come back to hit the West “in the face”.[156] During an official state visit to Serbia following the declaration, Russian President-elect Dmitry Medvedev reiterated support for Serbia and its stance on Kosovo.[157]
Russia has also said that the recent violence in Tibet is linked with the recognition by some states of the independence of Serbia’s breakaway province, Kosovo. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, in an interview with a Russian newspaper, also linked the demands for greater autonomy by ethnic Albanians in Macedonia with the Kosovo issue. Lavrov said, “There are ground to presume that this is not occurring by chance. You can see what is happening in Tibet, how the separatists there are acting. The Albanians in Macedonia are already demanding a level of autonomy that is a clear step toward independence. Furthermore, events in other areas of the world give us grounds to assume that we are only at the beginning of a very precarious process”.[158]

China: The Good and the…Good on May 6th, 2008 at 3:01 am

[...] people are even in the face of great adversity. I recently wrote about this in an article entitled Why Chinese Patriotism is to be Respected and Feared . This optimism that I speak of has fueled the Chinese people desire to work hard and to help bring [...]

Guy on May 6th, 2008 at 9:22 pm

Sorry you are correct it was a Nato operation, however I can’t see from reading the information on this that America just decided to start a war. If you read the whole text you will find that NATO was there originally with international peacekeepers. Their role failed as they were not allowed to do anything. After Serbian troops massacred many local civilians in 1999, it was at this point that NATO became more militarily involved and bombed the former yugoslavia, Warnings were given first to get them to stop but nothing happened. Do you think that this is wrong to go into a country when civilians are being massacred and many refugees are being forced to flee their homes. Do you not think this is a humanitarian disaster? Do you not think the international community should do something? Or should they just sit and watch. As far as the reasons you gave on why the balkans are not considered of serious import to Europe, just look at what happened there in 1914. That was the flash point for the first World War, hence one reason why European countries were concerned about it. A localised conflict in that area can quite easily get out of control and move to other neighbouring states. That would be a big worry for any nearby countries.

Even if we take this example and say ok America started the conflict, which I would tend to disagree with, as the conflict was already there. NATO was trying to stop it. The actions of Germany against the Jews and other migrant peoples has had the affect on many western countries to try to help out and stop such formes of genocide / war when they happen, especially if it is right on their doorstep. The fact that Russia and China did not support this doesn’t really surprise me, when one considers their normal reactions to such things. The deaths of a few thousand people are of no importance to the governments of Russia or China.

Your comments on the impact of Kosovo’s declaration of independence are certainly a of concern for many countries, Turkey, Spain, China, etc are all in this sort of situation, will it mean that those countries will have these issues, sure, but certainly there is no guarantee of anything. If these countries really want to stop such things happening, they should maybe consider fully why the thoughts are there in the first place and try to solve them. I don’t see too much of this happening. Certainly their is a better way to resolve these issues with dialogue, rather than force, unfortunately force tends to be the easiest way, but you have to at least sit together first and try to understand the real issues.

Again though this is by the by, as I stated before your comment incorrectly stated that America itself starts a war every 10 years just because it likes to. That statement in itself is fundamentally incorrect. America has been in many conflicts in the last century, many of which it did not want to get involved in (WW1 and WW2 specifically), but as it has emerged as the worlds global policeman since the end of the second World War, it is inevitable that they will tend to be pulled into many such conflicts. Lets face it if America had not been involved in the second world war at all, think what the face of Europe and China might be now. Maybe we would all be speaking German and Chinese would be speaking Japanese….

yonder on May 6th, 2008 at 11:26 pm

@Guy

US may not direct start the war in Balkans, but intentionally dismantle Yugoslavia with some Acts, you can check them out in congress achieves. Considering the deaths of a few thousand people, isn’t there a better solution to solve this problem and get Yugoslavia into EU? Serbs had been living with other ethic groups for decades under one country!

I would say that the world may need a policeman, UN is too weak, but US is not a good policeman either for some cases, it has too many hiding agendas. I don’t think US people cares about the million dead Iraq civilians, but 5000+ US soldiers, do you?

Most people still appreciate the help US given in WWII, no matter how many money US business man made to selling weapons to Japs/Soviets/Germany, many US soldiers died for liberating the world from Nazi. But the US at that time is not the US in now days.

The topic is deviated. The world is not perfect, just live through it with appreciation

Demerzel on May 6th, 2008 at 11:45 pm

@Jason:

First: “Did you China invade any other countries in the long histories? No. We have suffered for centuries. I have just begun our peaceful life after 1949. Why did we suffer so long time? It’s because of your civilized countries.”

Second: “The war was totally wrong. That’s the last war that China involved.”

Just pointing out what you said before and what you said later. Oh, and if you meant long history = pre-Republic, then China did invade Korea during Song Dynasty.

Yes, US supported, but it does not disprove the point that China /has/ embarked to declare war in its own interest without another country threatening it as well.

@Guy:

As you bring up some good points of the US using the UN (the Korean War however is a bad example considering how the US shut the doors to prevent the USSR from voting) to legitimize its wars, Jason brings up a very good point about the illegality of NATO going into Serbia without UN approval.

Jason Ding on May 7th, 2008 at 6:51 am

US is a democracy country. But what does US as a country in international stage act as? Every country knows it’s the dictator. UN is just the puppet. If UN could be utilized, US used it as legal action. If UN became the obstacle for its action, put UN aside, it did its own way. Other countries voice, it doesn’t matter. Whether it’s action correct or not, there is no punishment at all.
You could see that’s the US. A lion king of the world.
An iraq war was totally wrong and totally violated international law, was it punished or sued? No. Because it’s a dictator.

France didn’t agree with Iraq war. It immediately revenged France.

So inside country it sounds like democracy, in the international stage, it’s a dictator. How could let the popel of the countries believe such kind of democracy?

So NATO bypassed the UN is the fact, that really means it didn’t obey the international law. If the law really doesn’t fit, that means the law need to be improved. It doesn’t mean each country has the right to bypass the international law.

Why did Nato this time dare to strike Serbian? Because they knew Russia would not involve in this war. They didn’t fear about it. There was no other organization that restricted their powers.

US considered first on it’s own interesting instead of the other countries. Control oil is their real interesting.

Jason Ding on May 7th, 2008 at 8:16 am

“The fact that Russia and China did not support this doesn’t really surprise me, when one considers their normal reactions to such things. The deaths of a few thousand people are of no importance to the governments of Russia or China. ”

You assumption about that is not correct. I think both countries concerned about it.
But UN is the really right place to solve the problems. If most of countries think that China and Russia’s veto is not correct or the current UN structure can not represent the real voice of all of countries’ will, the first step is to reform the UN and let it be more fair to all of countries.

We can not violate the law because the law is not proper. We could express our will to let law maker to change the law. Anyone in the country should obey the law, for the countries any country should obey international law. I think it’s the foundation of democracy country. Do you agree?

Jason Ding on May 7th, 2008 at 8:45 am

@Guy
What’s the purpose of UN?

See below. It’s not the NATO’s purpose.

Human rights and Humanitarian Assistance
The pursuit of human rights was a central reason for creating the UN. World War II atrocities and genocide led to a ready consensus that the new organization must work to prevent any similar tragedies in the future. An early objective was creating a legal framework for considering and acting on complaints about human rights violations.

The NATO’s purpose is to defense not to Attack other countries. (See below)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO); French: Organization du Traité de l’Atlantique Nord (OTAN); (also called the North Atlantic Alliance, the Atlantic Alliance, or the Western Alliance) is a military alliance established by the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty on 4 April 1949. Headquartered in Brussels, Belgium,[3] the organization constitutes a system of collective defense whereby its member states agree to mutual defense in response to an attack by any external party.

Jason Ding on May 7th, 2008 at 9:00 am

” but as it has emerged as the worlds global policeman since the end of the second World War, it is inevitable that they will tend to be pulled into many such conflicts. Lets face it if America had not been involved in the second world war at all, think what the face of Europe and China might be now. Maybe we would all be speaking German and Chinese would be speaking Japanese….”

First of all, which countries agree that US is the “policeman”? Does UN authorise US as a policeman? UN has its own peace keeping force.
US regards himself as policeman and the policeman doesn’t want any restriction to limit its power, actually it’s very dangerous.

Iraq war is the testimony how dangerous it is really. The people are suffered. Conflict continued. US taxpayer billed to cost. And on the other hand, look at the pocket of company’s like Halliburnton, Look at the oil related company, look at Arms dealer, those who have good relationship with Bush administration. Their profit is really rocketed. Any loss for Dick Cheney or Bush? I can not see. They have got enough benefit from this war.

That’s the result of the dictatorship of US.

Jason Ding on May 7th, 2008 at 9:45 am

@Demerzel

Although I didn’t think the war was right(the problem should have been solved by peaceful method), there are following reason’s for this war. But I don’t think it should be called “invade” because PLA retreated its Army immediately after complete its target. That’s the strategy of “Teach Veitnam a lesson” due to the following reasons and cambodia issue. 3 wars all related to borders dispute and China declared the withdraw unilaterally. You could see China is more defensive than offensive.

The racially biased expulsion and persecution of ethnic Chinese in Vietnam (Hoa) within Vietnam that began in the late 1970s was one of the reasons. Persecution began when Vietnamese Chinese were stripped of their Vietnamese citizenship as well as rights to own businesses and hold political positions of any kind. Within the cities, large Chinese-owned businesses were seized by the Vietnamese government and their goods confiscated overnight. Any remaining small businesses were subjected to additional taxation not applicable to ethnic Vietnamese-owned business. The Vietnamese government’s rationale regarding these actions was to prevent disruption in services and goods in the event that the ethnic Chinese population in Vietnam chose to sympathize with China if conflict arose between the two countries. Vietnamese Chinese living near the China-Vietnam border were simply forced back into Chinese territory.

The second and more official reason for the Chinese incursion into Vietnamese territory was Vietnam’s intrusion onto the Spratly Islands chain; claimed by China as her territory. Vietnamese Navy vessels would move into the area, then fire at Chinese fishermen if they were found operating in the area. Military establishments were also built in the face of official protest by the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of China. These Vietnamese actions were viewed by the Chinese Government as provocative and aggressive.

“The third reason was the ongoing issue of the artillery harassment of frontier villages and agricultural assets on the Chinese side by the Vietnamese army. Farmlands could not be cultivated due to risk from explosions, created by Vietnamese artillery impacts. This affected the local economy and decreased productivity. Subsequently, this led to dissent amongst the local population regarding the Chinese government’s inaction. As a result, this further raised cross-border tensions and escalated the situation.”

Robert Vance on May 7th, 2008 at 10:51 am

I have a feeling that Jason won’t be the only who disagrees with me about this, but in my opinion, the responsibility of ‘policeman’ is always going to fall on the shoulders of the world’s superpower. Someday, China may find itself the superpower of the world. Long before that happens, they could certainly become the superpower in Asia. Do you mean to tell me that China will always bow down to the will of the U.N.? I don’t believe that for one solitary instant.

Jason, I hope that you are being facetious when you state that the United States government is a dictatorship because otherwise it is simply an ignorant statement. Did you forget that most of the U.S. Congress (including Hillary Clinton) voted to go to war? President Bush did not unilaterally make that decision. Congress could also vote to stop funding the war but they have not chosen to do this. It is fine if you don’t agree with America’s decision to go to war; many Americans are also against the war. However, if you are going to accuse President Bush of being a dictator, you had better back it up with some facts.

Guy on May 8th, 2008 at 3:03 am

@ Yonder
Many of the former components of Yugoslavia are now in the process of getting EU membership. However getting EU membership normally requires that certain requirements are met before a new member can join. There would have been no way for this to happen with an ongoing conflict in that country. However I would tend to disagree with your comments about the attitudes of the various ethnic groups within the former Yugoslavia. You are 100% right in that all options need to be considered before force is used. It is just hard to define when that point is.
I can’t disagree with you about the US acting as a world policeman. For sure it is a thankless task and many countries are hostile to it. I believe that you are also right in that the US also has some hidden agenda’s and that they are primarily looking after their interests first, but that is normal for all countries.

@ Demerzel
I don’t believe that the US shut the doors on the USSR voting against the UN action in Korea. They were boycotting the UN at this time as a protest against Communist China not holding the Chinese seat on the UN council. If it really meant that much they could have walked back in and voted. Regarding the points on intervention in a foreign country UN approval should always be sought, however as things goes at the moment this is where most of the problems tend to come up, one country or another always has the ability to veto something if they don’t like it. Sometimes this is of benefit as it allows the countries to try to work together to come up with a compromise of some sorts, which everyone can accept, sometimes though this tends to just ensure that whatever issues are trying to be resolved continue to be unresolved. When people are dying there comes a point when you have to stop talking and start acting. Again the question is where you draw the line. As Jason mentioned I would agree that if the law is not working it should be fixed and where countries break the international rules then there should be something in place to stop these abuses. Are these controls in place at the moment, I would say not.

Jason
How does NATO attacking Serbia relate to oil? I am confused on this one. Sure Iraq you can use that reasoning but not Serbia. Again it comes back to my point where would you draw the line. If a country is killing thousands of unarmed civilians and destabilizing a region what should they do? Sit and watch it the humanitarian issues become bigger, or try to nip it in the bud before it becomes out of countrol.
Regarding China and Russia’s attitudes to their own populations, I think it is hardly likely they will be particularly bothered about other countries people unless they have their own agenda.
I agree that the rule of law should be paramount, in this regard what has happened recently in Iraq is not acceptable, and certainly more so as more details start to come out. Unfortunately at the moment this is an imperfect system, sometimes these things happen. With regards to the UN and NATO sure the roles that they have are fairly clear, but you will find since the collapse of the soviet union, NATO has taken on many more peacekeeping roles in support of the UN.
If you read the rest of the article about NATO, you would see that they were originally supporting UN mandates in Yugoslavia from the early 1990’s, In Yugoslavia most of the peacekeepers had been NATO soldiers, as typically the UN doesn’t have any troops and has to call in support from member states for any forces, whether the troops come from individual member states or coalitions of countries is irrelevant. If one country is breaking the law and killing people inside its borders (we are talking mass murder here not rioting or such like) and certain members of the international community try to justify that killing, surely those governments should be held accountable as well. Why should one country then try to stop the rest of the international community from trying to stop this? When do you draw the line and say enough is enough?
As for the world policeman role? Which country do you think puts the most men and money in the UN? Where does the UN get most of its forces from for peacekeeping and such like? In the 19th century this role was occupied by the British, after the decline and dissolution of the British Empire and the growth of the US they have sort of moved into the position. I don’t believe that the US specifically wanted this role but it is something they have tried to do as best they can. Sure there will be mistakes, no country is perfect, but on the other side, how many conflicts and wars have been avoided because of this.
Certainly the current US administration has a lot to answer for and I think you will find millions of people around the world, who disagree with what they have done, but that is one administration. Lets hope the next one is better…

Jason Ding on May 9th, 2008 at 9:45 am

Hi Bob,

I think you misunderstood my meaning of “dictator” of US. In the international stage, each country act as a person, UN acts as a country. So US and other 4 countries as the leadership team. So every decision about the world affair should be voted by those 5 countries or voted by all of member countries. For Iraq war, it should be voted there. Also the war for Kosovo should be voted there too. Actually we didn’t see that happened. Obviously US violated the international law. The act without vote jumped into war is not the democracy action. Instead it’s the dictator’s action. Wish you understand what I mean.

What you said I have seen that most of america voted to go to the war. But here is the another question for me. Now that the advanced deomocracy still can not avoid an disaster war, does this “democracy” system have problem? Why did the wrong information easily lead to the war? Where is other voice about it? I know that at rest of the world, most people knew this war was wrong before the war. Why did American become so blind? Did the democracy really exsit at that time or have already been replaced by nationalism or patrioism?

US acted as policeman is good thing. But to be a policeman, you still have to obey the law. In US, does policeman has the right to arrest a criminal at home without warrant for arrest. I’m sure that you know he couldn’t do that. US decalred the war against Sadam is exactly the same “without warrant for arrest”.

The policeman would be charged if he violates the law. But could we charge US for his violation of international law? No. None of Western countries mentioned about it. Even UN didn’t mention that. The rest of countries also selected to be silence. Why? Because there is no way to charge and dare not to charge.

So many questions for me to think about, the more I think, the more I found that the Western democracy are far from perfect.

Jason Ding on May 9th, 2008 at 9:54 am

“In the 19th century this role was occupied by the British, after the decline and dissolution of the British Empire and the growth of the US they have sort of moved into the position.”

Hi Guy,

I strongly opposed your above statement. British Empire was tried to conquer and loot from other countries via its weapons. Not the policeman totally. With its act, the Chinese government was conquered by it in first opimium war in 1848, and Hongkong was forced to be occupied by it for a century.

If you wants to comapre British’s 19century crimes to US, go ahead. But I don’t think so.

Jason Ding on May 9th, 2008 at 10:37 am

“If a country is killing thousands of unarmed civilians and destabilizing a region what should they do? Sit and watch it the humanitarian issues become bigger, or try to nip it in the bud before it becomes out of countrol.”

During Khmer Rouge reigned the government, more than these numbers people were killed. Why did NATO or US send troops to save them?

If Soviet Union has had been as strong as former Soviet Union, did you think NATO would do the same thing?

NATO is not oil. The aim is to seperate the former communist countries and to transfer their culture and value to those friends of the Soviet Union. The more the countries have been seperated, the more values are transfered, the more success and safe they will feel. Kosovo war is the tipical for it. It’s not really for the interesting of Kosovo people because there will be more conflicts in Kosovo in the near future. Because Servian is too weak comparing with NATO, that’s why there is no further war. If Serbian is as strong as Russia, I dare to say NATO will not take any action for those thousands of people.

Chechen is the case. But NATO, US dare not to take any action. What’s the difference between Chechenian terrorist and KLA.

After the report of Tibet, I doubted whether there were so many one side reports against Serbien in favor of Kosovo independence? I think it must be possible. Those medias have the capability to let 1 side report going on while none of opposite side voice to be known. I could see most of Chinese government news would not be used in Western media. But once the government said that 1 Tibetan was killed by police, the western media was excited immediately and would say “Finally chinese government accepted shooting 1 tibetan”. That’s what I could really see.

So how should I believe the western media not exaggarated the situation in Kosovo? At least I should do investigation by myself.

Jason Ding on May 9th, 2008 at 10:52 am

Bush as US leadership should be blamed on the international stage. Now everyone knew that there wasn’t WMD. The cause of the war didn’t exist. Did he apologize for his wrong cause? No. He still insisted that the war was right decision with so higher lose of human being and cost. He should be charged as war criminal for loss of more than 100,000 iraq people’s life and the wrong cause of the war itself. If you don’t think he should be charged along, then the whole US congress should be charged.

Jason Ding on May 10th, 2008 at 10:08 am

Share the bbs who discussed about Tibet 1 year ago: (There are more answers there)
http://discussions.pbs.org/viewtopic.pbs?t=68073

Andy on May 10th, 2008 at 10:52 pm

This is a very well written piece of mind. To understand better about Chinese patriotism and their determination of having a unified nation, I suggest people to learn about one of Chinese greatest patriot, General Yue Fei of Southern Song Dynasty.

Robert Vance on May 11th, 2008 at 7:27 am

Hello Andy,

General Yue Fei’s story is an interesting one especially since much of it is shrouded in myth. While I admire his resolve to help his country, I cannot help but see him as a ‘Don Quijote’ figure. In other words, he was someone who was so obsessed with heroes before him that he wanted to be just like them. What do Chinese people in general think about Fei’s story?

Jason on May 12th, 2008 at 2:06 am

Having been in the US military for 6 years and 2 wars, shot twice, Im still patriotic, even though at times I thought some missions were too dangerous, and down right stupid. I find some of the US bashing offensive, but I guess being a US citizen and serviceman I should.

The one comment someone made about US soldiers burning Iraqi children (or something to that effect) is really disturbing.

I spent a year and a half there, and trust me we treated our prisoners much better than our troops were treated. Yeah Yeah Abu Garib.. some photos were taken and that incident was not one that I would condone in anyway shape or form. I can tell you this though…we never beheaded innocent civilians for the sake of propoganda, or the sake of anything for that matter. I’m not sitting here saying innocent civilians have not been killed by the hands of US forces, but my first hand experiance we did our best to avoid collateral damage, at times makeing our own situation more dangerous for us. The Iraqis I fought against gave no such quarter.

2nd, remember soldiers have no choice where we go fight. That decision is made by the government, so don’t down our soldiers, as I’ve personally seen many brave men, friends, with family and children KIA. If you want to down someone then down the powers that send us soldiers to war.

I can say now that I am greatfull to have made it through, and gratefull to be here in China with my new wife. Personaly most of the Americans I meet here are more apt to try to get along with others. Seems alot of times you can walk down the street and see another foreighner, and they go out of their way to avoid you. I allways try to give a nod or a hello, if the situation is right, strick up a conversation. I personally seen a foreighner fall flat on his face off a curb, because he was doing his best to avoid eye contact with me.

As far as China goes, more power to them. My wife is Chinese and I respect her and this country, regardless of what the media says.

Guy on May 12th, 2008 at 11:15 am

Hi Jason

Irrespective of what you think, Britain in the 19th century was the most powerful country, no matter what bad things they may have done as part of colonialism, they also tried to do good things as well in the countries that were occupied, the rule of law was brought in, teaching and medicine were brought in, sure it would not have been perfect but as a whole there tended to be less tribal violence, pirates on the high seas if caught were punished, etc.
Incidentally how was China conquered in the opium wars? Britain didn’t take control of China, The only thing ceded to Britain in the Opium wars was the island of Hong Kong, which they gave back to China in 1997, even though they didn’t have to. The main purpose of the treaty was to break open the monopoly China had on trade, by allowing the opening of ports for trading whilst allowing them to trade with anyone they wished. Hardly seems like they were taking over China. It was not to take control of China and rule it.
By today’s standards sure colonialism is considered a bad thing; nobody disagrees with that, although of course the CCP tends to ignore that fact when it does the same thing. After all the excuses Britain and other Imperial powers used to go into many countries were that they were poor and under developed, so they should go in and make it better for them… Kind of sounds familiar doesn’t it when you look at certain provinces in China. Again though it always seems to come back to other countries are bad, China is not, they never do such things. The original point was that America was blamed for always starting wars, China never did such things. But when we look at the details America did not start many of these conflicts, and China did start some. Why do so many Chinese continue to state that China is where it is now because of what other countries did to it 100 years ago? Look at Japan, look at Germany? They were absolutely devastated after WW2, did they sit around complaining. No they sat down and got to work and look at them now. If China had done the same things instead of blaming their conditions on others think about where they might be now. If anything after 1949 China regressed. It was only after Deng XiaoPing allowed it to open up that things really started to improve, and that was by opening up to the outside to the so called enemies of China who supposedly caused all the problems.
The problems in Cambodia were indeed a tragedy, but after Vietnam I think America had no interest in entering into any other policing actions in the far east…. Just too many bad memories. I am not American so I can’t really say much about this, but I am sure the other Jason would be able to give more information on American attitudes. Also at that time NATO forces were tied up in the cold war hence no help would come from them. Incidentally when the Khmer Rouge was finally ousted by the Vietnamese, after Cambodian forces attacked Vietnam, the Chinese then attacked Vietnam to punish them for attacking Cambodia.
Where do you get the information that NATO is aiming to separate former communist countries. Those countries were invaded by Russia Imperialism they never asked for that. Many of these have now decided to join NATO. No one is forcing them it is called free will, maybe they just feel that joining another large group will help to protect them from potential Russian Imperialism in the future….
About Chechnya, I agree I think all countries should try to do more to help resolve the situation, same as in other countries like Zimbabwe and many of the other African countries, but there are reasons why this hasn’t happened. Unfortunately no-one knows all the reasons. Sure part of it is because of Russia, but I am not sure that this is the whole reason.
I agree 100% never believe everything you are told. Go out, do the research get all sides of the story and make your conclusions. Sometimes your conclusions will be wrong; you might get new information or new facts come to light. Then you can change your conclusions as the facts change. For sure western media makes mistakes but when these mistakes are made there is normally a public apology, Some of the reporting on Tibet was pretty damn poor for sure, but then how about in China? Most people I know here state quite often that they know the government lies to them, they don’t believe a lot of what they are told in the news, yet as soon as the issue in Tibet happens, they all stand up and say the same thing; they all support what is reported in China. Anyone who says otherwise is a traitor to the country, if this isn’t nationalism in action then what is? Love your country sure, but love it for the right reasons, and don’t love it blindly.

Jason on May 13th, 2008 at 9:40 am

As far as the general American attitude (as of now) to getting involved in another war I would say the general public would not go for it at all. Americans were in a panic after 9/11, and that I believe, is the only reason the government was able to convince the public a war with Iraq was in the interest of national security, not to mention the intelligence we got from the UK about the existance of WMD’s there.

Sure, not long after a shocking attack such as 9/11 the governement could have probably convinced the people that we should go to war with just about any country it wanted to. People were afraid, civilians had been killed, and all we seen on TV were people celebrating the deaths of thousands of innocent American civilians by jumping up and down and some fireing their AK-47’s in the air in jubalee.

IMO attacking Iraq was not something that we “needed” to do. However noone can deny that a ruthless tyrant was taken out. IMO the US should have left right then. Let the Iraqis solve their issues from then on out. Many countries have had civil wars, it’s terrible, but even after years of being their it still seems to be a given among the Iraqi sects.

Point being, at this time I’d have to say that the general population would be against any other war at this point, unless we, or a close ally was blatently attacked.

Jason Ding on May 13th, 2008 at 10:29 am

@Guy,
British forced the China to open the port to sell the opium to Chinese, that’s the biggest crime. They sold the drug to Chinese people. I could not understand your thoughts. You support democracy but at the same time you defended for the criminal action of what british empire did toward the world. How many those colonized people could agree with your points?
You mention human rights, did the colonized people has the same human rights as the british conqueror. At this time, you didn’t mention “Culture Genocide”, why did the English become the government language of the conquered country?

I gave you example, a wealth person who killed his neighbor and occupied his wife. But this man gave the neighbors’s children good education. Do you think those children would appreciate what this wealth man’s doing? If you think it still does, just think you are one of this children. British was exactly as that man.

Refer to Tibet issue, if you still think it’s because of nationalism, go ahead. As I said before, most of Chinese people wanna tell the world what Dalai told the world is not whole story, it was not the truth. Western media distorted the stories. Respect to the truth is the media’s principle and I think that’s every human being’s hope. If you wanna just believe your media’s distortion story, let it be.

Thanks for reminding me “don’t love it blindly”. But I would tell you I’ve never been that. I have posted here so many links, even the Dalai’s website. I have my own independent thought and have my own conclusion.

Those who blamed others as “traitor” are just part of people, not all of them. You could see the difference here. But you can not prevent it since everyone has the right to say something. Those people exist in US or UK too. Before Iraq war, look at those who were against the war, they were blamed harshly. What’s the difference? Yes, this kind is nationlism, but this is just the defense, just the action of voice out and what else happened? And at the meantime, what did Chinese government tell Chinese people? “Patrioism is good, but please calm down and please divert those enthusism to hard work and be more tolerance as to be a big country.”

But the nationlism in US caused the offensive and resulted in another Nation in deepest suffer. And before the war, none of other countries and people was able to stop US ot declare this war. That’s the most dangerous issue in the world. Would US’s nationlism cause another war? Who could prevent such kind of war happene again?

Interesting question is why NATO still thinks Russia as threat to them? How about Russia to join NATO?
Why idoes this world still need enemy? China and Russia must be imaged as the enemy of the so called “democracy” country?

Another issue is Russia never invaded Ugoslavia. After Aghanistan war, Russia didn’t declare any war in the world. It has been almost for more than 20 years.

If you think the western media really sincerely apologized, I didn’t think so. We have seen that. They just thought the crackdown really happened and the PLA did open fire to the monks but they didn’t get the photo. It was just the photo was fake. But the crackdown was true. I guess most of you thought in the same way.
Based on this kind of thought, how could the apologize as sincere?

Jason Ding on May 13th, 2008 at 10:45 am

“I spent a year and a half there, and trust me we treated our prisoners much better than our troops were treated. Yeah Yeah Abu Garib.. some photos were taken and that incident was not one that I would condone in anyway shape or form. I can tell you this though…”

The enemy is cruel doesn’t mean that US has the right to do the ugly things too. Actually Abu Garib scandal has totally ruined US Army’s reputation in the world although I know most of US service men are brave and good.

This is really the war which should not happen.

Jason Ding on May 13th, 2008 at 10:52 am

“Point being, at this time I’d have to say that the general population would be against any other war at this point, unless we, or a close ally was blatently attacked.”

That’s point I agree. The question is what is really good way to prevent?

Suppose someday another tragedy similar as 9/11 will happen in some place, will US people go to panic again and nationlism rise up to declare another war?

We still feel that US has the intention to fight against Iran.

Jason Ding on May 13th, 2008 at 11:02 am

I always think a question which I can not get answer. According to Bible, I could not see that the war could happen.
Jesus said if someone slap on your right cheek, turn your left cheek to him. Jesus also said to love your enemy.

If someone really believe in Jesus Christ and follows his word, even the people was killed by others, there should be no hate except the generous love. Death for Christian is not the tragedy because in the heaven the God prepare everything for his eternal life. The flesh life is just short journey. The very important life is the eternal one.

According to Bible, I could not image there could be a war declared by Christian.

Jason on May 13th, 2008 at 11:54 pm

Mr. Ding to say the US Army’s reputation has been ruined by the actions of a few people at a remote prison camp is ridiculous. So you would say the insurgents have a better reputation then? Allso, I never said the actions were justified there, infact I pointed to the opposite. They were sick individuals, and as much as I had hate in my heart for the enemy at that time (which is now gone) my troops would have never done that under my watch. What you had there was an inept col. and a few sadistic assholes.

Do some research on Sadam Hussien and find out what kind of man he was. Is the world a better place without him? Damn right! Is Iraq in a better situation, of course not, but thats largly do to the fact they can’t get their own act together. Too many sects trying to gain power, it was stable under Saddam because he would not hesitate to kill houndreds of thousands of his own people to maintain control, yes including women and children…which by the way he did.

Seems to me you have a dislike of the US and thats your business.

Finally, yes, as I said if the US was attacked we would certainly fight back, why wouldnt we? Why wouldn’t any country? SOME Iraqis fought against us, and just as many were glad to join arms and fight along side us. I think I have had about enough of this topic, I was there you were not…period.

Guy on May 14th, 2008 at 12:46 am

I agree with you, the justification for the invasion of Iraq was not really there. I do think that getting rid of Saddam was a good thing, but I am not sure that it was necessarily a good thing to leave at that time. If you are going to do this sort of thing you have to also bite the bullet and try to ensure that stability is in place. Unfortunately this seems to be where it all went wrong,

To Jason Ding
I am not defending the British position in China, I am stating as a fact that Britain did not go into China to conquer them, which is quite clearly what you stated. I am also not denying that some of the activities that took place as a part of colonialism were not good. If you actually check when the universal declaration of human rights was written it was in 1948, not 1840. You have to remember that this is something that took place over 150 years ago, before the modern notion of human rights was developed. The standards at that time of what were acceptable are not acceptable in today’s world. Should I start going back into history and blaming every single country that has ever done anything against my country and saying they didn’t give me human rights, that is just being childish? That seems to be what you are doing. After all many Chinese nationalists in the Qing Dynasty considered them to be invaders and not Chinese. Look at the rules brought in by the Manchus which Han Chinese had to adopt, no intermarriage, shaving the front of the head and the long queues at the back, etc. Why do you always try to muddy the waters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights

Tibet is certainly a complex issue and no-one can deny that China has spent a lot of money in Tibet to try to develop it. It is also true this has not always been reported in western news. However what is the justification for China to go into Tibet in 1950? Many Chinese say it was a feudal state. “We were just going there to free them from oppression”. Isn’t this the same reasons that Western Imperialist powers used? If you complain about what Britain and other Imperial countries did in their colonies you should also expect them to do the same with what China does in theirs. At least Western colonies have been given independence…. I don’t see the CCP doing that with Tibet.

Sure we all agree that some of the reporting done over Tibet by Western journalists recently was badly done and incorrect. It is absolutely right for Chinese to complain about this, but on the flip side how much of what the CCP is saying is correct? I don’t see any different opinions here. Anyone that does ends up like Jin Jing when she said that Chinese should not boycott French stores? She went from heroin to Villain overnight! Any opinion which disagrees with the party view is criticized. How can the average person check what really happened, they only get one side of the story. As I stated last time if you question the information and try to get all the facts then you can make a more accurate judgment. How can Chinese check anything when anything different from the party view was blocked. Admittedly this has changed recently, so will be interesting to see if this remains or not after the Olympics ends. But again many people are not interested in even checking anything different. “That is politics, I don’t like to talk about that”

You are right that many of the people who behave so nationalistically are probably a minority, unfortunately they are like in the US and other countries a very vocal one. This is where the majority of the population should be taking note as these sorts of things affect the way that a country is portrayed, and definitely not in a positive way.

I agree 100% nationalism is bad, blindly following what you are told without questioning it is not something that anyone should do, irrespective of whether it is a developed or developing country and the true patriots in any country should make themselves heard at such times.

With regards to Iraq it is not something that should be repeated but on the other side what do you do with a country that constantly flouts international rules and laws for over 13 years? Where do you draw the line, especially when some of the countries blocking any attempt to resolve the issue are breaking the laws when dealing with those states.

Regarding Nato, I think they may be willing to accept Russia to join them but I think as they have done with all the other countries that have joined them there are certain standards or rules to joining. Have they been approached I don’t know. The question maybe comes back to some of the other members such as Poland, etc that have recently joined, they will probably have some issues with this but I wouldn’t think it would be an insurmountable problem for them to join.

I think you should try reading the book State of Fear by Michael Crichton…. I think for any state they need an enemy, someone that they can use to justify the huge military investment, or to focus the people attention on when they have other internal issues that they don’t want the people to focus on. At the moment for the US that is terrorism, maybe later it will be China. For China it is probably Japan.

Not sure how Russia not invading any country in the last 20 years has an impact on anything.

I think for the really blatant issues relating to the pictures in the German papers there were apologies for these, I think for the other reports about the rioting and crackdown, until there is a proper review of what really happened it is hard to say whether they should apologise or not. If journalists were allowed in to talk to people then you might get different reports coming out that conflict with the earlier reports. That is part of the journalistic process you get the initial information you make a conclusion, as more information becomes available the conclusions may change.

I would also not start to quote the bible at all with regards to peace. It is true in the new testament of the bible it teaches tolerance, as it does in the Koran, but when you look at other parts of the Koran and also in the first testament of the bible you will find phrases such as eye for an eye. Many of the battles fought around the world, normally religion has come into it as some point. There are always some extremists in all religions who use these sorts of comments as an excuse.

Jason Ding on May 14th, 2008 at 10:19 am

“However what is the justification for China to go into Tibet in 1950? Many Chinese say it was a feudal state. “We were just going there to free them from oppression”. Isn’t this the same reasons that Western Imperialist powers used? ”

I tell you the difference,
1. Tibet was part of China at that time was supported by UN, US and UK. So China went to Tibet is legal, it claimed the soveignty. With the Tibetan refused to that and claimed the independent which wasn’t supported by any country, the fight was inevitable. But once the Tibet gave up the independent, 17points agreement was made for their totally autonomy. The serfdom system in TAR wasn’t changed before 14th Dalai exiled to India.
Therefore, I couldn’t see any illegal action here by China central government.
So China obeyed the international law and sticked to 17points agreement.

British declared war because that the opium was burned and confiscated by Qing Official. Opium is drug, the official had the right to forbidden it. After the war, more opiums were sold in China, causing lots of Chinese people lost lots of money and meanwhile as very sick. From that time, Chinese was called “Sickman of East Asia”. The war was absolutely as invasion and had long time harmful toward Chinese people. That’s the criminal.

2. After 1959, the serfdom system was totally abolished. The former slaves were liberated and allocated the land of their own. Their human rights of survival and body freedom were guaranteed. Is that a good progress of human rights improvement? If you denied this, I doubt if you have double standard of human rights.
I could not see that Chinese central government did anything wrong on this issue.
Did British sell the opium to Chinese that benefited the Chinese?

During the culture revolution, Chinese government did make big mistake, but all of Chinese suffered not just Tibetans.
But we could not say because of culture revolution or because Chinese government is communist party, you must deny what they contributed to the human rights progress.

Kindly remind you in US, a democracy country, in 1860s, In the south of America, people there still wanna keep the slave system and threated to be independent from US. At last a blood civil war started and at last the slave system was over. How much was the cost?

You may praise that Lincoln’s effort to free the slaves. But when the Chinese government freed the slaves, why should you blame it? I could not understand.

You still said that US may still do the right thing to subvert the dictator of Sadam although the war was illegal. But China central government ended up the serfdom system which was more darkness system, you said it was wrong. Why? What is really your standard of human rights?
Is your standard according to whether it’s so called “democracy” or so called “communist”. If democray country did it, it is correct. But if communist did it, it is wrong.

Jason Ding on May 14th, 2008 at 10:35 am

@Jason
First of all, I don’t hate US, neither UK nor other nations. Is there any good for me to breed the hate seed? I just talk about what I observed and what I thought.

I told you that US army’s reputation has been ruined is the truth whether you accept or not.
Sadam is not the good man, that’s everyone knew about it. Without him seems good but in fact, it was not as current situation is the prove.
“Democracy” is still unable to rein all of the sects. That’s the issue of those who are enthusiasm to export “democracy” to think about.
Is China ready for “Democracy”? 20 years ago when I was in campus, I was so naive and favored to say “yes”. Now I really understood, the answer is “no”. It’s not the ripe time to be fully democracy. It will take more time to prepare for that with more people to be well educated and be more wealthy on life. The China currently should focus on its economy. And at the time we have seen some drawbacks of western democracy, we need to consider how to avoid those.

Jason Ding on May 14th, 2008 at 10:46 am

“what do you do with a country that constantly flouts international rules and laws for over 13 years? Where do you draw the line, especially when some of the countries blocking any attempt to resolve the issue are breaking the laws when dealing with those states.”

@ Guy,
I think that’s UN should consider about it not just US only. If the effect could not take effect, then the international law or UN resolution should be revised. If UN decided to fight, there will be no dispute. In this way, the world will be in the right track.

Jason Ding on May 14th, 2008 at 11:08 am

“Anyone that does ends up like Jin Jing when she said that Chinese should not boycott French stores? She went from heroin to Villain overnight! Any opinion which disagrees with the party view is criticized. ”

I should say that’s one reason why Chinese government would like to have censorship. China has 1.4billion people. The way to discuss is sometimes like personal attack. But on the net, they have the right to express and then you have seen so many villified words. Think about that netizen is just small part of Chinese, if all of them go to net, you could image what would have happened. Actually on this issue

The China Teaching Web

TeachAbroadChina.Com

Why Chinese Patriotism is to be Respected and Feared

Other Recent Posts in Sino News

Don't miss...

174 Responses to “Why Chinese Patriotism is to be Respected and Feared”