Subject: Chinese Community Forum (#9414)
From: Editorial Board of Chinese Community Forum <[email-masked]>
To: Multiple recipients of list CHINA-NT <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 1994 22:24:50 -0500

==+==+==+==    C h i n e s e   C o m m u n i t y   F o r u m    ==+==+==+===

                         Wednesday, March 23, 1994

                              (Issue No. 9414)

+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
Chinese Community  Forum (CCF) is a  journal published  on China-Net. CCF is
dedicated to the discussion on the  issues related to the Chinese community.
The opinions  expressed here do not  necessarily  represent the views of the
Editorial Board of CCF. Contributions  to the discussions and suggestions of
new topics are very much appreciated.
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
                                                                       # of
Table of Contents                                             Author | Lines
============================================================================
1. Trade and Politics
  a. Keep Pressure On China -- Recent Crackdown Demands
     Forceful Western Response.........................Kangcong Zhang     83
  b. A Letter To The Editor Regarding MFN Discussion............Ty Hu     46
  c. A Political Game........................................A Reader     36
  d. Meaningful Discussion on Human Rights Needed............Kan Liao     30
  e. China 1, America 0.................................The Economist     99
  f. Trade Threats From Uncle Sam.......................The Economist     71
2. China Watch
  a. A New Constitution Is Needed..........................Daniel Qiu     47
3. Readers, Writers and Editors
  a. One Earth, One People?............................Marsal Gavalda     60
  b. Ways To Know A Foreign Culture..............David Prager Branner     58

===========***==========***==========**==========***==========***===========
                              From The Editor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this week's Chinese Community Forum, the relationship between the U.S.
and China, China's MFN and recent crackdown on dissidents in Beijing are
still on the focus.  Several Chinese students and scholars in the U.S.
expressed their different views on these issues.  Apparently, no consensus
has been reached and the debate will be much like the famous Energizer:
"Keep going and going and going".  Jump in as you wish.

In last week's CCF, our editorial appeals to the National People's Congress
to abolish the "Counter-Revolutionary Crime".  One of our readers gives us
his thought on this.   We also have a couple of letters from our readers in
responding to Ms. Y. Y. Xu's article on her experience with the
International Fest in her school.

===========***==========***==========**==========***==========***===========
1. Trade and Politics
 1a. Keep Pressure On China -- Recent Crackdown Demands
     Forceful Western Response.........................Kangcong Zhang     83
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

China was once again in the political spotlight over the weekend.  As it is
often the case, it got the world's attention not because it had done
something good or right.  Just the contrary -- it did so by rounding up its
most well-known political dissidents.

Within a period of 72 hours beginning late Wednesday (March 2) night, China
detained eight political activists, including the country's most famous
dissident, Wei Jingsheng, who had been jailed for 14 and one-half years in
prison for his pro-democracy activities before he was released last
September.  Among the others detained were Wang Dan, a student leader from
the 1989 pro-democracy movement; Yuan Hongbing, a dissident law professor of
Beijing University; and Quan Yumin and Zhou Guoqiang, two prominent
dissidents known for supporting a peace charter calling for non-violent
political reform.  Some of them, including Wei and Wang, were released after
being held for 24 hours.  The others are not so lucky and will have to wait
until the Western world generates greater pressure on the Chinese
government.

The Chinese government's latest crackdown caught the Western world,
especially the United States, by surprise.  Well, not that the crackdown
itself was so surprising.  What was surprising was its timing: it took place
while a State Department human rights envoy headed by John Shattuck,
assistant secretary for human rights, was visiting China, and a week before
Secretary of State Warren Christopher was scheduled to arrive there for
talks on human rights issues.

So, what did the Western world read off of all this?  And, more importantly,
how is the Western world going to react?

Well, to the first question, at least one expert gives a pessimistic answer.
Rubin Munro, Hong Kong representative of Asia Watch, a New York-based human
rights group, interpreted China's latest crackdown as a defiant response to
pressure to improve its human rights record coming from the U.S.-led Western
world.

As to the second question, President Clinton's comment pretty much answers
it.  "I have done what I could to make it clear that the United States does
not seek to isolate China economically or politically," he said, "and that
we want a constructive and strong relationship with them."

Need any translation?  In plain English: there is very little the United
States can or is willing to do about it.

Unfortunately, both Munro and the president are right.  Being one of United
Nations' five Security Council voting members, one of a dozen or so
countries possessing nuclear weapons, and an economic power on the rise,
China has every reason to consider itself an existence to reckon with.

And nowadays, to reckon with China, the rest of the world (with Hong Kong
and its governor, Chris Patten, being a possible exemption) often has to
play by rules laid down by its opponent.

It was not that long ago that Congress liked to think it had a way when it
came to dealing with China, banking on that China would cave in if the
United States threatened to revoke its Most Favored Nation (MFN) trading
status.  As years passed by, both parties have learned the better of it:
neither party wants China's MFN status stripped -- billions of dollars'
worth in trade and hundreds of thousands of jobs are at stake on either
side.  In real-life politics, conscience and morality take a back seat.

As things stand now, it seems that the China vs. the Western world
confrontation on human rights issues will continue for some time to come.
Keep in mind that China has a tradition of respecting history (one of its
rare lapses, the 1966-76 Cultural Revolution, only brought about
catastrophic outcomes), and things in China change only when the historical
conditions that necessitated or justified their existence become no more.

This means that China's human rights situation is unlikely to improve
substantially before its leaders responsible for the 1989 Tiananmen Massacre
fade away in history, and when that time comes, change has a chance.

This does not mean, however, that the Western world can not keep up its
pressure in hopes of bringing freedom to more of China's tens of thousands
of political and religious prisoners.  In fact, such pressure does reap
fruits occasionally.  And when fruits are measured in terms of freedom of
human beings, any possible effort is worth taking.

                                                     <[email-masked]>

[This article was originally published on The Badger Herald, a student
newspaper in University of Wisconsin, Madison on March 7, 1994]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1b. A Letter To The Editor Regarding MFN Discussion............Ty Hu     46
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Editor,

It is interesting to read articles in this issue of CCF (#9412).  Good job.
Congratulations!

A couple of thoughts:

First, for the first time in recent years, we have witnessed the Chinese
government playing political games.  The play by any definition was a grand
one.  It was in the UN, where Chinese government shelved a West sponsored
Resolution; then, in Beijing, an "in your face" blow to US Secretary of
State W. Christopher (and all of those who were behind him) by the Foreign
Minister and Premier of China, which was then followed by philosophical and
aphorist discussion from the Chinese President.  If these could be called
the sticks, then Christopher got his carrots (a list of prisoners and some
promises) only when he was ready to leave empty handed.  So, regardless the
content of the game, wasn't it better when Chinese government finally picks
up some of the old tricks?!

Secondly, it seems that we have been hearing about human right condition in
China too often from one person.  Who is Rubin Munro of Asia Watch.  Could
anyone on the network provide some background of this person?  Wouldn't it
be better to have some more diverse sources when it comes to such a critical
policy issue related to a quarter of human population?!

Thirdly, it is time for IFCSS to mature.  The best way to be an adult is to
get the IFCSS system set up in a sober way following democratic procedure.
Like other have suggested, it's time for IFCSS to officially register it's
membership.  And I do believe that it is critical for the CSS to have this
organization.  By joining the organization through membership, CSS can
manage it professionally.  Majority rules!

Finally, China is definitely not ready to lose its MFN.  The abrupt
termination of MFN will for sure cause thousands of people out of job (in
China), and set back the process of development economically and socially.
Chinese domestic market does not have the power to absorb all that lost from
the export under MFN.  It would result in social disaster.  So please don't
promote the idea that China can endure the loss of MFN.  That's euphoria!

                                                     <[email-masked]>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1c. A Political Game........................................A Reader     36
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

MFN has become a hot topic around this time every year since 1989. This year
the debate seems special, because the U.S. government imposed the conditions
with human right on MFN, but the Chinese government just arrested several
political activists.

In my eyes, all this actions from both sides are just political games. The
U.S. government want to use the human right issue to gain advantage on the
trade issue, the President and the Congress like two actors on the
platform. The aimed audience is the Chinese government. President says I am
in favor of giving you MFN, but you got to do something for me because I am
in trouble here to get support from the Congress.  The Congress, on the
other hand, behaves like this:  I don't like what the Chinese government did
on the human rights, so I do not support to renew MFN for China.  You see no
matter what they say before, at the last minute, China  never lost MFN in
the past several years.

The reason is simple.  If China lost MFN, say this year, what the U.S.
government can use to argue with China on the trade issue next year?  For
the Chinese  government, human rights issue is always trouble issue.  You
want to see progress and I don't want to lose big, so I creat something to
make the issue simple.  That's what happened right now.

One more advantage the Chinese government has now is the economic progress
in China. They can use those U.S. companies to lobby the Congress.  Imagine
if China lose MFN, the companies will lose the order from China, then many
                                           ^orders
Americans will lose their jobs.  Who will be responsible for this, the
President and the Congress will have to take the blame from the American
people. But nobody would like to  take the blame.  So I can see, at least in
the coming several years, China will enjoy the MFN no matter what the U.S.
side says before it is renewed.

                                                         <[email-masked]>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1d. Meaningful Discussion on Human Rights Needed............Kan Liao     30
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear editor:

It is very interesting to read the discussion on the odd couple of MFN and
human right on CCF.

It all  depends upon how much longer China can be kept out of GATT (General
Agreement on  Tariffs and Trade). Once China gets into GATT, the MFN is no
longer an issue.  Any of those self claimed human rights advocates have ever
thought about that?  Linking human rights, an important aspect in human
civilization, to MFN, a  temporary government policy, is very absurd. It's
just like a salesman in any stores in the U.S. refuses to sale me goods
because I am not a Christian. That salesman would be pretty ridiculous, but
less than those who would have cheered him.

Human rights issue is a very difficult one, especially some of the
privileges of the developed nations are mixed in as "rights".  I hope those
human rights advocates give more thoughts to the meaning of human rights,
rather than just copy down what is in  the UN declaration of human rights
and U.S.' Constitution and its Bill of Rights.  Every one who knows English
can read them.  I am sick and tired of the saying that put pressure on China
will improve human rights in China.  For me, I have not seen many meaningful
discussion of human rights, yet.

                                                  <[email-masked]>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1e. China 1, America 0.................................The Economist     99
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I AM somewhat disappointed," said the Chinese foreign minister, Qian
Qichen, on March l5th, after the visit of the American secretary of state,
Warren Christopher, to Beijing.  "My talks with Christopher have not
produced as many results as previously expected."  Not half as disappointed,
in all probability, as Mr Christopher.  The encounter was perceived in
America as a victory for the Chinese government and a disaster for the
administration's policy of using trade to extract human-rights concessions
from China.

Since the American administration is as keen as the Chinese government on
renewal of the most-favoured-nation (MFN) status that allows Chinese goods
into America at preferential tariff rates, Mr Christopher was scratching
around for anything that might look like a concession.  He came up with
some "developments": information on the cases of 235 political prisoners
that  America had asked China about; a promise of information about Tibetan
political prisoners; codification of an agreement to re-open Chinese prisons
to  American customs officials to check that they were not producing goods
for  export to America.  But he failed to get agreements on ending the
jamming of  the Voice of America radio station, on releasing sick prisoners
or on allowing  the Red Cross to visit Chinese prisons.

Mr Christopher found himself squeezed uncomfortably between the
inflexibility of the Chinese and the determination of American businessmen
to protect their positions in China against a trade war.  At breakfast with
the  American Chamber of Commerce in Beijing, Mr Christopher was told that
the administration's policy might be "well-intentioned" but that "in the
view  of American business interests it is misconceived."  Despite China's
$22.7  billion trade surplus with America last year, American businessmen
are  starry-eyed about the potential of the Chinese market and fearful that
sanctions might cut them out in favour of the Europeans and Japanese.

Their arguments were strengthened on March l5th when negotiations for
China's readmission to the GATT resumed after a break of six months. China
wants to join before the end of the year, so that it can be a founder member
of  the World Trade Organisation, which is to succeed the GATT in 1995.  The
Europeans and Japanese both said that they were keen for the talks to be
accelerated, while America muttered that it was against an "artificial
deadline".

The welcoming noises from most of the foreigners are excellent news for the
Chinese government.  But in order to qualify for readmission to the GATT,
China will have to push on with economic liberalisation--cutting tariffs
further, for instance.  And the annual meeting of China's rubber-stamp
parliament, which coincided with Mr Christopher's visit, showed that the
government is so nervous about some of the effects of liberalisation that
its  instincts are to move in the other direction.

The result of freeing the economy without having put in place instruments
of macroeconomic management is that it has run out of control.  The  economy
grew by 13% last year, but inflation went up too.  In January the cost-
of-living index in 35 big cities was 23.3% higher than a year before.  The
government fears that inflation may fuel disaffection among the people.

Five years ago similar levels of inflation contributed to the discontent and
protests that culminated in the bloodshed of Tiananmen Square.  In a country
where people are used to five-year plans, this summer's anniversary will
take  on a special significance.  The leadership wants to make sure the
echoes of  1989 do not grow too loud.  When Li Peng, the prime minister,
gave the  keynote address to parliament, "economic reform" hardly passed his
lips  without the words "and stability".

Without market mechanisms for restoring economic stability, China's leaders
are reaching back to old, communist-style controls.  "Temporary ceilings"
are  to be imposed where prices of some goods rise too fast.  The goods
include  some basic foods, fuel, rent and school and hospital fees.  Price
controls on  grain were recently reimposed and Chen Jinhua, a planning
minister, said  that inflation should be kept under 10% this year.  There
are to be  investigations of recent price increases, with punishment for
those who have  sinned.  On March l7th the prime minister, Li Peng, blamed
local officials for  allowing prices to soar, and said that in future mayors
would be held  personally responsible for inflation.

Zou Jiahua, a deputy premier, has demanded bluntly that local governments
"stop market demand expanding too far".  Zhu Rongji, another deputy prime
minister, who is also head of the central bank, has conceded in a speech to
parliament that price rises are inevitable as controls are lifted.  But,
while  backing temporary measures to curb price rises, including a clampdown
on  building, Mr Zhu is in favour of freeing prices in the longer term.  He
believes that inflation can be brought down to 6% next year.

Price controls may not prove a solution to the government's problem. There
is some doubt as to whether the government will succeed in implementing
them, since the machinery of the state has already unravelled so far.  If
they  can be made to work, they will depress production.

In any case, while trying to control inflation through price controls, the
government is stoking it through a huge deficit.  According to the budget
presented to parliament on March 11th by the finance minister, Liu Zhongli,
the deficit this year is likely to be $8 billion, three times as high as
that in 1993,  mostly as a result of a 15% rise in government spending.
Part of that is the  result of a 50% pay rise for civil servants announced
at the beginning of this  year, designed mainly to appease university and
school teachers.  They have  long complained of being underpaid--and are
close to those awkward students  whom the government will no doubt be
watching carefully this summer.

                                       [From: The Economist, March 19, 1994]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1f. Trade Threats From Uncle Sam.......................The Economist     71
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

IMAGINE that when America's Federal Communications Commission  decided on a
digital standard for high-definition television, the Japanese  government
had protested.  Japanese firms already had their own standard  for HDTV, and
would now not be able to sell their hardware in the United  States, even
though in Japan they had a high market share.  To secure fair  access for
Japanese firms, the government went on to insist, the American  government
must "persuade" a local company to promote the Japanese  system alongside
the American one.  Otherwise, Japan would impose trade  sanctions on
America.  The deal was done.  "We believe that this is good  news for the
American consumer," said Japan's ambassador to the United  States.
"Toughness works," crowed Japanese officials.

Unimaginable?  Yes, but this is exactly what America has just done to Japan
on behalf of a single American firm, Motorola, in the cellular-telephone
business.  Now try another piece of imaginative thinking.  It is 1955 and a
foreign government--China, say--decides that America's civil-rights record
is  outrageous.  Unless America can demonstrate substantial progress on
desegregation and other civil-rights issues, China threatens to remove
America's "most-favoured nation" status and impose discriminatory tariffs
on American exports.  "Go away," says America, or some less polite phrase
with the same meaning.  This situation, too, is hard to imagine.  Yet it is
exactly what Warren Christopher, America's secretary of state, tried to do
this  week in Beijing.

PYRRHIC VICTORIES, DESERVED DEFEATS

The outcomes of these two examples of what now passes for American trade
policy are different--so far.  In the Motorola case, the White House and
sundry  trade hawks consider the outcome to be a triumph, proof that it is
right to be  tough with Japan because it is amazing what concessions a
previously  intransigent Japanese bureaucracy will make when a gun is held
to its temple.   In the Chinese case, Mr Christopher's threats are thought
to have failed  because the Chinese government sounded intransigent even
with a gun at its  head, and because American businesses hate the thought
that the threat  might actually be carried out.

Yet there is a common thread between the two.  It is that America is making
threats about trade without a clear idea either of what will happen if it
carries  them out, or of how to identify and measure the benefit provided by
a change  of policy offered by the opposing side.  For sure, China's human
rights record  stinks.  But the damage wrought to China, to its Asian
trading partners and to  American exporters and consumers by an American
trade embargo would be  immense, and hard to contain.  If a clear
human-rights gain could be  identified from such an embargo, it might be
possible to mount an argument  in its favour.  But how could such a gain be
measured?  Again, the civil-rights  example is instructive: there have been
huge changes since 1955, but they  have not been rapid (would the trade
embargo have lasted ten years, say, or  20?).  And if China now had a
protectionist lobby (as America does) you can be  sure it would be arguing
for the embargo to be maintained on the grounds  that racial discrimination
still exists.

The Motorola case is even clearer.  Japan's "concession" is to force
Motorola's  Japanese partner to spend more money building Motorola's system,
and to  meet targets for the system's coverage in the Tokyo-Nagoya region by
March  31st 1996.  What has this yielded?  The American government has
negotiated  on behalf of a single firm, giving it some sales gains dependent
on Japanese  government intervention.  It has interfered in another
country's economy,  without proving a violation of any international trade
rule.  American  consumers are no better off; nor are American producers as
a whole.   Lobbyists have been given further proof that their activity pays
dividends.   Neither Japan's economy, nor its cellular-telephone market, is
any more  "open", in the sense that competition has become freer.  Meanwhile
both the  desire to threaten wider sanctions, and the political pressure to
do so, have  increased.  Some triumph.

                                [Editorial of The Economist, March 19, 1994]

===========***==========***==========**==========***==========***===========
2. China Watch
 2a. A New Constitution Is Needed..........................Daniel Qiu    47
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is very interesting to read the editorial last week appealing the
National People's Congress to abolish the "Counter-Revolution" Criminal Law.
I am whole heartedly support the call.

However, simply abolishing CRCL would be far from enough for China to
advance to a legalistic society.  Much more need to be done.  The first, and
the foremost is to write a new Constitution, at least massively revise the
current constitution.

If I remember correctly, late Premier Zhou once said that the Party
represents the interests of the people and "if someday in the future, our
party does not represent the wills and the interests of the people, the
people shall stand up and overthrow this party."  It seems that, at least on
its face value,  Premier Zhou would oppose the first paragraph of the
current Constitution had he still been alive, since he would not "uphold the
leadership of the Communist Party" without checking into whether the
leadership represents the will of the people.

I am not comparing Deng's regime with Mao's regime.  Neither am I making any
judgement on the Party.  I am simply saying:  A Constitution says to uphold
the leadership of a certain party is simply make the Constitution itself the
second to the Party and therefore, the Constitution itself becomes a joke in
term of a legalistic society.  No matter how the other legal codes are
revised, if this is not stripped out of the Constitution, the symbol of a
legalistic society is not there.

On the other hand, I want to say that even CRCL is abolished, there still
can have political persecution with different names.  Would subverting the
government be a political crime?  Who would be the person to define what is
a political crime (or crime of conscience) and what is not?  A very good
example we have now is the CIA "mole" Ames' case.  It is reported that the
couple have more than $2 million in Swiss banks.  The U.S. government seeks
to freeze their assets in Switzerland.  But according to Swiss laws,
"espionage" is a political crime, and therefore they would not cooperate
with the US Government.

To sum up, let me say this:  Abolishing CRCL is far from the most important
or even symbolic move, yet could be a good start.  Even if we get a brand
new constitution, we still will have a long way to go toward a legalistic
society.

===========***==========***==========**==========***==========***===========
3. Readers, Writers and Editors
 3a. One Earth, One People?............................Marsal Gavalda     60
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Y. Y. Xu,

Congratulations for your excellent article!

I am a Catalan (Spanish) computer science student but I've traveled to Asia
and I'm deeply fascinated by Chinese culture. I know some Japanese and now
I'm learning Mandarin (I love the Chinese characters).

I totally agree with what you said: "It is amazing to see how they always
carry on such arrogance with perfect ease so that it almost disguises their
ignorance."

I think Americans are one of the most self-centered and ignorant people on
this Earth. They regard all other cultures as funny, peculiar, amazing or
whatever but they never understand why people would have such customs or
traditions.

Anyway, I think the most important point in this discussion is how
desirable/possible a truly "global village" is, although a previous question
is what do we mean exactly by "global village".

For instances, in my last trip to Taiwan I felt two contradictory emotions:
on the one hand I found that it is simple enough to get on a plane and
emerge in a new country in which most of the people understand some English.
It's easy to phone and keep in touch with the rest of the world, etc.  But
of course on the other hand I also realized how different the people think
and behave and how improbable it seems that one day every single individual
of this planet could be aware of the existence of other cultures (not to
mention feel some empathy toward them). Or is it maybe that this last
proposition is a contradiction in itself, for in this supposed global
village there would be only one culture? (most probably that of Levi's
jeans, Coca-cola and MTV).

So how compatible is economic, material progress with the maintenance of
cultural  traditions?  I think the best example is Japan. Even though they
enjoy the comforts of modern technology they don't fail to keep up with the
old celebrations.  And what's more, they adapt cultural imports from the
West and make fun of them in theme parks and love hotels.  In the same way
they adapt English words: once written in katakana they become Japanese at
once.  They can even undergo some semantic shift, and they are used as the
Japanese please.

But of course this is not truly intercultural understanding either...

Which in my opinion can only happen when one is really open-minded, free of
prejudices and, most important, with a huge desire of learning: learning
about other cultures and -crucial- other languages (that's why Americans are
so bad). But this in turn requires a strong personal motivation, something
that not everyone will have.  Because we know that, yes, all persons may
have equal rights but definitely not all persons are equal.  So the question
remains open:  Will we ever be "One Earth, One People"?  Do we want to be
"One Earth, One People"?

                                                        <[email-masked]>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3b. Ways To Know A Foreign Culture..............David Prager Branner     58
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Y. Y. Xu,

I have read and enjoyed your essay, "'Multi-Culturalism', exotic  food and
ethnographic spectacle".  I very much share and understand your
frustrations with weird "cultural" activities of the kind you described.   I
also understand your resentment at being exploited by cultural
"connoisseurs".

But I was a little surprised to see you say that Chinese and  Americans have
a mutual responsibility to enlighten each other about  their respective
cultures.  It seems to me, after studying Chinese for  some 14 years and
living for long stretches in rural Taiwan and mainland China,  that Chinese
and Americans barely understand each other at all, and  probably cannot do
so without living with each other for some time.

And it isn't enough to live with each other;  we have to pay  attention
about it too.  Think of all the foreigners who lived in the  Shanghai
concession or the "Treaty" ports during Manchu and Min'gwo  rule and never
learned to speak a word of Chinese or observed the  dynamics of a Chinese
family;  think of all the foreign students who  get coraled into foreign
"expert" guest houses and other all-foreign  dormitories in China and never
get the chance to experience Chinese culture  for real;  think of all the
Chinese students who come to Western countries  to study and end up
ghettoized and never learn English or make friends with  a local.  Even with
all the seeming contact between our countries and  cultures, there is very
little understanding taking place.

It is not only westerners who put on these cultural spectacles;  in  my
younger days I went to any number of such events put on entirely by  Chinese
FOR Chinese - acrobatic shows cum folksongs cum ethnic minority  dancing
etc. etc.  The people who brought me along wanted to show me and  my friends
something of Chinese culture.  They wanted me to admire their  culture, and
so I did.  But what can you really learn at a  holiday shebang like that?
When you finally get to China and are living on  your own (if you have the
chance), how does your exposure to the charming  dainties of Chinese culture
- the things your Chinese friends wanted to  believe to be the true germ of
all Chinese culture - prepare you for the  Mafia-like stranglehold of the
bureaucracy on ordinary society, for the  profoundly petty way Chinese can
sometimes treat other Chinese, for the ugly  machismo of Chinese
nationalism?  There are things as nasty in American  society as there are in
Chinese.  Yet, for some strange reason, Americans  and Chinese continue to
be fascinated with each other, to idealize and  idolize each other, and this
persists no matter how much contact we have with one another.  It really is
a very strange relationship, when you  think of it.

The only way anybody can get to know a foreign culture is by  living in it
and paying attention.  Few people do, even when their  bodies are physically
present within the host culture.  As for these  culture shows, although they
are ridiculous, they seem to satisfy  people's love of a spectacle.  I do
not think they are much use, except that  by alienating us they sometimes
serve to open our eyes.

                                                <[email-masked]>

+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=++
+ Executive Editor: Changqing Yang         Executive Moderator: Huang Tang +
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+ For subscription: mail "SUB CHINA-NT Your-First-Name Your-Last-Name"     +
+       to  LISTSERV@UGA (bitnet)  or  [email-masked] (internet)  +
+ For back issues of CCF:                                                  +
+       anonymous ftp to  cnd.org[132.249.229.100]:pub/community/CCF       +
+ For contribution and inquiry: mail to [email-masked]               +
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=++