In a post last week, James Fallows raises an interesting question: "What is the Chinese Dream?" He is, of course, alluding to the notion of the "American Dream," and wondering whether contemporary China has a similar summarizing cultural symbol that captures the aspirations of the society as a whole.
It should be noted at the outset that any such endeavor is flawed in the sense that a "dream" of this sort is never fully inclusive of an entire society. The "American Dream," obviously, often fails. But Fallows's exercise is still worthwhile, if we are seeking a comparison of contemporary China and the US, at least along the "soft power" lines of symbolic imagery.
One point he raises, that I want to push back on, is the "non-universal" quality of Chinese ambitions. He writes:
…After China's centuries of seeming to move backward as a society and its more recent decades of tragedy and turmoil, the simple bourgeois comforts are much of what the modern Chinese miracle could and should provide.
But there is a way in which the question does make sense, as an expression of concern about what the rise of a "non-universal" nation will mean for the rest of the world.
He contrasts this immediate, particularist, material Chinese focus with the universal projects of the West:
Through the centuries of Western military, technological, and economic dominance, "universalism" of some sort has been so basic a part of international relations that it barely needed to be discussed. The leaders of the French Revolution issued their Declaration of the Rights of Man — not the rights of Frenchmen. The Declaration of Independence began, "When, in the course of human events," not "events in the colonies of North America." With varying degrees of sincerity, Western colonialists tried to create replica British, French, or American citizens in their colonies. Long before the colonial era, Christian missionaries wanted to bring people worldwide to their view of the one true universal faith.
We must first recognize that imperialism and colonialism and coercion were the means by which various universal ideals were imposed upon others around the world. And we must also recognize the terribly human cost of those impositions.
But Fallows's point, I think, is that, after WWII, certain ideas – popular sovereignty, human rights, bourgeois materialism – did become widely dispersed and absorbed into the indigenous practices of many, many countries around the world, China included. And to the degree that those "universal" ideals create hopes and aspirations in individuals in many different parts of the world, they could provide a kind of soft power resource for those places that are perceived to be permitting their expression to the greatest degree. The "American Dream" can be understood as being consistent with certain globally-dispersed aspirations (thus the large number of people from other countries who seek citizenship in the US to pursue those aspirations). Can the "Chinese Dream" be similarly conceived?
Maybe it can. And that might be possible because China is becoming "universal," at least in a certain sense.
Nine years ago I gave a lecture on this very topic, entitled, "The Return to a Universal China," later condensed into an LA Times piece: "Pop Culture Leads — Freedom Follows" There, I argued that in imperial China there was a sort of universalism:
In imperial times, a universal ideal of Chinese-ness was to be found in the Confucian classics. Anyone, regardless of ethnicity, could learn to live the good life. Qian Long was Manchurian, not Han Chinese, yet he was, in his time, the epitome of Chinese culture. Indeed, the primary means to political power and wealth was cultural attainment, tested by the rigorous bureaucratic examination system. Independent merchants may have made fortunes through their entrepreneurial wiles, but, once successful, they quickly took on the trappings of the Confucian gentleman and made sure their sons studied the classics and practiced the rituals.
The universal civilizational ideal disciplined both politics and economics. This, of course, was lost in the 20th century, with the decline of the Chinese imperial state and the rise of Maoist socialism. The rest of the story is well known:
In communist China, the party monopolized political power and the state controlled how wealth was produced and distributed. The party-state was also in the business of regulating culture. Mao even launched a Cultural Revolution in a desperate effort to destroy any possible challenge to his own preeminence. The Confucian gentleman was dead and the Red loyalist supreme.
China's universalist aspiration was also killed. It seemed, for a fleeting moment, that traditional Sino- centrism might be replaced by socialist internationalism, that China would be a part of a grand global revolutionary project. But nationalism proved the stronger force. Mao was, in the end, much more interested in socialism in one country — his own — than in building a worldwide movement.
By putting "politics in command," Mao rendered a universal China impossible.
Deng Xiaoping's "opening and reform," however, re-calibrated the balance between culture (which was traditionally the realm of Chinese universalism), politics and economics. The Party would hold on to political power but would permit much greater latitude for individuals pursuing self-interest in the economic and cultural spheres. And that has opened the way for new universalist possibilities:
The political liberation of culture and wealth is not unprecedented in Chinese history. In the early decades of the 20th century, the old ways had been discarded and the new was everywhere intoxicating the young. But war destroyed this efflorescence, and communist victory brought back a stricter political regime. Now, however, the openness is even headier. Globalized communications and transportation make virtually any cultural form anywhere available to the Chinese. And they seize the opportunities with passion.
Oddly enough, globalization has also reconstituted a Chinese universalism of sorts. Imperial universalism was founded on the notion that (almost) anyone could become Chinese; now, universalism is a matter of Chinese becoming (almost) anything.
That last paragraph holds up pretty well nine years later.
The issue, however, is that the contemporary cultural transformation of China, the destabilizing openness to a much wider range of expressions of "Chinese-ness," is very much still in process. The Party tries to contain cultural change at the margins, when it threatens to undermine its political hegemony. Many Chinese people, especially older generations, are uncomfortable with the loss of traditional (even if that means "socialist") foundations for meaning and ethics. Problems and tensions abound. But many Chinese embrace the new possibilities. They move forward creatively and happily and ingeniously, re-inventing Chinese-ness and China at every step.
There have been other moments in Chinese history when cultural change and openness shaped identity in new and beautiful ways: the Tang Dynasty. Perhaps that could be a model for a new "Chinese Dream". Kaiser Kuo, who named his metal band "Tang Dynasty," suggested as much a few years ago:
The Useless Tree 
55 responses to “Reply to James Fallows: The Return to a Universal China”
All this talk of imposing or importing outside values on China but there is little talk I hear of importing Chinese values to the west. I believe that the west needs more of Chinese values, especially Confucian values, than China needs western values.
I wonder if that asymmetry has a bit of cultural chauvinism and racism behind it. With the west’s constant invasion, occupation, oppression, and rampant human rights abuses of their own citizens and other people around the world, perhaps it’s time to look within and ask ourselves what we need to change and whether other peoples may supply the corrective for those moral shortcomings.
LikeLike
Just to be clear, I don’t mean to accuse you specifically of that asymmetry, just that it’s far more common to hear that one-sidedness in the western press and among the public. I’m sure the west has plenty to learn from Chinese culture. But why so little discourse about learning from China? What we always hear is China needs to learn about this and that (human rights, democracy, capitalism, western culture, western science, philosophy, etc, etc).
LikeLike
probably because China is “relearning” those values after 60 years of having them stamped into the mud, while concurrently entertaining ideas of becoming (almost) anyone …
so imo we have little to learn from contemporary Chinese society, in terms of values, and much more to gain from allowing Chinese to settle into this new world, in which old Chinese universalism (ie the gentleman) meets the modern world, and then reaping the benefits of that fusion.
LikeLike
That doesn’t really follow. The question isn’t why is there an asymmetry when it comes to contemporary Chinese society though that question itself cannot be glibly dismissed. The question is why the asymmetry when it comes to western values (or culture) vis a vis Chinese values (or culture).
I also believe that the west has something to learn from contemporary Chinese society much as contemporary Chinese society has something to learn from contemporary western societies. But I was asking a much broader question in the first post.
LikeLike
melektaus,
Big question. I just tried to write something but it got too long and involved. Let me just put this out there:
If Confucianism is to become more attractive to Western societies it has to be conceived of as a set of universal values. If it is not universalized, it will remain parochial. And, further, I think that process of universalization requires certain conceptual compromises with liberalism, which I see as an ideology powerfully reinforced by broader economic and social processes of globalized modernity.
I know this puts some of the Hidden Harmonies guys in an uncomfortable position, to the extent that some of you argue against the notion of “universal values.” But if there are no universal values, then there is little chance for Confucianism to gain traction in the West.
I have written, in a somewhat different vein, about how Confucianism is unlikely to serve as a soft power resource for the PRC. It is a rather longish, academicy paper, but you can find it here:
http://uselesstree.typepad.com/useless_tree/2011/09/why-confucianism-will-not-provide-soft-power-to-the-prc.html
LikeLike
Thank for the response Sam,
I think Confucian values are already universal. In fact, I have debated with many of the other posters at HH on this very issue.
http://blog.hiddenharmonies.org/2012/03/throwing-the-baby-out-with-the-bath-water/
http://blog.hiddenharmonies.org/2012/01/human-rights-revisted/
http://blog.hiddenharmonies.org/2012/02/rethinking-democracy/
Furthermore, I don’t even understand much of this “universalism” talk of many people at HH and also of Eric Li. It seems fundamentally confused talk to me.
It shouldn’t be such a big thing to make Confucianism universal because I believe that it already makes universal claims. Just one notable example among many in the Analects, when Confucius talks about a junzi living among barbarians and the barbarians becoming more like the junzi instead of the junzi becoming more like a barbarian.
But my concern is not with Confucianism per se. It’s with an attitude that many in the west have which is why I believe that there is such an asymmetry. Many Chinese are fully aware that they do not know everything and that they have things to learn from people around the world. But i do not see that same attitude in westerners and especially Americans. They are far more likely to be complacent in their own worldview. This is manifest in discourse where I hear much more often talk of why Chinese should adopt this and that and believe this and that but I hear almost no talk of why we should adopt this and that in the west from China’s culture and society.
The west is by no means perfect. In fact, if we look at the last forty years, we see profoundly devastating events from constant foreign wars and internal human rights violations to socio-economic woes.
One may make a good case that China’s culture and society offer insights not available in the discourse which may help to solve or ameliorate these problems.
LikeLike
One should seek to learn constantly. I think restriction to western or Chinese culture is a needless dichotomy. The point is we should incorporate what is useful and avoid what is not, regardless of the source.
That is what one should do for oneself, both on an individual and societal level. On the other hand, it is entirely consistent with western culture to speak up and make unsolicited suggestions, as with the relationship with china; meanwhile, it is contrary to Chinese culture to offer unsolicited opinions. So there should be no surprise that the US tells china what she can do to rectify shortcomings, whereas china does little of this in return. That being said, as with the recent dueling human rights reports, china is starting to speak up about other peoples’ business. The irony is that she becomes more “western” in doing so.
LikeLike
Skc seems to make some very overly broad and down right silly remarks about western and Chinese culture. The Chinese do not see expressing opinions as going contrary. In fact, in my experience, the Chinese are the most opinionated people on earth. Skc seems to be relying on simplistic orientalist stereotypes rather than well thought out and supported claims.
The reason that there is far more US propaganda directed at China than the Chinese propaganda directed at the US is not that the Chinese don’t like to speak out or that it goes “contrary” to Chinese culture.
The explanation is far simpler. There is far more media development in the west than in China. The media in the west has far more experience and far more resources (billions of dollars more in fact) to do their job than Chinese media does.
And this does not even touch on the major issue being discussed and that is whether these criticisms from either side are legit and sincere and whether there should be more symmetric listening as well as the giving of criticisms.
LikeLike
I can’t see how one can say that any one race is the “most opinionated on earth”. It is a pointless, unsubstantiated, and in fact unprovable superlative. And we’re speaking not of merely having an opinion, but expressing it. And we’re also not speaking of expressing an opinion to peers, but across cultures. But if melektaus wants to provide support for his claims, I’d happily read it. Suffice it to say that my experience differs from his. Granted, I don’t live in China; perhaps he does, so perhaps his experience reflects a more contemporary understanding.
Now, I was referring to the exchange of ideas or cultural mores. Not sure how that evolved to “propaganda”. But in that arena, Chinese media being underfunded or ineffective is at best a historical perspective. The PRC has all manner of mouthpieces both at home and abroad, and even on US soil these days. What the Chinese media does (well, some of them at least) that the US can’t even count on from its media is pious parroting of the message, such as with the Chinese report on US human rights to which I earlier alluded, which was dutifully reproduced in China Daily. If China wanted to further project her propaganda to the US, she could. The question is whether it would “take” or not. But if we’re talking about “propaganda” and not merely culture per se, I don’t think the rejecting of propaganda necessarily reflects undue close-mindedness.
One can control what one can control. You can ask for “symmetric” listening, but all you can do for certain is not only to listen but to hear. You can ask for “symmetric” criticism, but all you can do is to ensure the criticism you offer is fair and constructive. Do those things enough, and hopefully both sides will see the benefit of reciprocating for each other. However, my use of “symmetry” does not refer to the volume of traffic in either direction. To insist on a symmetry of traffic assumes that both sides have an identical number of issues of similar gravity deserving of criticism. That may not necessarily be the case.
LikeLike
You’ve seem to have committed the burden of proof fallacy. The burden is on YOU to prove what you said
“On the other hand, it is entirely consistent with western culture to speak up and make unsolicited suggestions, as with the relationship with china; meanwhile, it is contrary to Chinese culture to offer unsolicited opinions.”
Yet you offer no proof for it. It is only your own experiences while my experiences does not support it. In fact, my experiences suggest the opposite that the Chinese are the most opinionated people I have ever met. “Opinionated” usually conveys the meaning of voiced opinions, not just of holding them “inside.”
And yes, I have lived in China. For 7 years. And I am an ethnic Chinese with many ethnic Chinese friends. So your experience which is all that is used to support you claims, is not any more well founded than mine. In fact, it is far less so because I have far more experience with talking to Chinese people.
LikeLike
Just as I haven’t met the burden of proof for what I said, it seems neither have you. What I said reflects my experiences while what you said reflects yours. It’s “not any more well-founded” than yours, nor is it less. It’s anecdotal on both sides.
I’m also ethnic Chinese, and also have ethnic Chinese friends. And though it was a while ago, I lived in HK for more than 7 years. So if both of us are basing our claims on our experiences alone, I guess our experiences have simply been different.
LikeLike
The burden of proof is not on me. All I have to do is respond in like manner to your speculative and I would think biased view with my own. the difference is that I actually have extensive experience with real Chinese people.
LikeLike
Alrighty then. Like I said, you have no proof and I have no proof, so we can both happily continue on our merry way. I’ll have my “biased view”, and you can have yours. That’s fine by me.
Considering that I am Chinese and you’re Chinese, and I have Chinese friends just as you have Chinese friends, I’m curious as to how and where you perceive this “difference”. Just sayin’.
LikeLike
This isn’t about who has proof per se but who has the better evidence and who has fulfilled basic obligations of discourse. the burden was on you but since you gave no evidence other than a silly reply based on limited anecdotal evidence, I gave mine which is based on far more experience of actual Chinese people (not ones from a British colony or from the west).
So it’s equally clear which side of the scale judicious judgment ought to fall based on this exchange.
LikeLike
Please refrain here from making assertions about “real” or “actual” Chinese people. I find such categorizations problematic, exclusionary, and politically biased. The view of this blog is that “Chinese-ness” is more than any particular political grouping in the PRC. People in Hong Kong can be Chinese (though not all people there so identify); people in Taiwan can be Chinese (again, not all people there so identify); People in the US can be Chinese (obviously proportionately few people here so identify); Liu Xiaobo is Chinese; Chen Guangcheng is Chinese. Chiang Kai-shek was Chinese; the Qianlong emperor was Chinese; Zheng He was Chinese. It’s a big, complex, marvelous universe…..
LikeLike
If you had specified from the outset that your reference to “Chinese” was in the nationality/citizenship sense, rather than the ethnic/cultural sense, you could’ve saved both of us a lot of time. I think many people from HK and elsewhere would be surprised to find that they aren’t “actual Chinese people”…either that, or they may simply choose to give your “opinion” short shrift, as I have done.
That you seem satisfied with your limited anecdotal evidence is your prerogative, and I’m happy for you.
On a minimally related note, here is some more limited anecdotal evidence of how some Chinese people might speak to and interact differently with fellow Chinese people as opposed to foreigners (and to boot, in your parlance, I think these are “actual Chinese people”):
http://tealeafnation.com/2012/06/netizens-ask-why-do-we-fawn-on-foreigners-and-spurn-ourselves/
LikeLike
If you had paid attention to the context of the original post and my response, you’d have noticed that it’s not about “ethnic Chinese” wherever they may be but about culturally Chinese people. In fact, you yourself said that
“On the other hand, it is entirely consistent with western culture to speak up and make unsolicited suggestions, as with the relationship with china; meanwhile, it is contrary to Chinese culture to offer unsolicited opinions”
So my experience is appropriate and it has the evidential weight and you have still yet to provide any evidence for your ridiculous orientalist claims. That’s all that has been demonstrated.
LikeLike
“Please refrain here from making assertions about “real” or “actual” Chinese people. I find such categorizations problematic, exclusionary, and politically biased.”
The point is that skc made some cultural claims about “the Chinese” which he has not supported other than with innuendo and anecdote. The point is that I disagreed and supplied my own anecdotes which i argued are more relevant. The point is not about which is “ultimately” or “real” or “actual” Chinese whatever that even means.
LikeLike
If it’s about “culturally Chinese people”, then Chinese people in “the west”, and better yet Chinese people in HK, can’t be discounted out of hand, simply based on their location. You’re the one who made that distinction, not me. One wonders why.
If the point “is not about which is “ultimately” or “real” or “actual” Chinese”, then again why wonders why you had to bring it up.
I have never suggested that your experience is in any way inappropriate. Your anecdotes have the “evidential weight” befitting of…well…anecdotes. Your anecdotes may well be more relevant to you. To me, not so much.
LikeLike
It’s not about “discounting people out of hand”. Since you haven’t any proof, it’s about preponderance of evidence. Limited HK Chinese are not the same as experience with Chinese Chinese.
What you have said simply isn’t convincing at all, probably based more on preconceptions rather than reality. That’s why I pointed it out for criticism.
LikeLike
“Limited HK Chinese are not the same as experience with Chinese Chinese. ”
—I’m not sure what “limited HK Chinese” means, so I’ll give you a chance to clarify. That notwithstanding, it seems you are still making distinctions about the “Chinese-ness” of a Chinese person based on their location, despite your protestations to the contrary. “The point is not about which is “ultimately” or “real” or “actual” Chinese”, but you seem to repeatedly try to make it one.
My “preconceptions” are based on my anecdotal experience, as I’ve acknowledged. And yours are based on yours. The only difference seems to be that you seem much more keen on laying claim to “reality”, without the benefit of requisite and commensurate evidence.
LikeLike
I meant “limited experience with”.
Of course I am making distinctions. not all ethnic Chinese people in the world are the same, culturally, linguistically and as a matter of values. that should be obvious. What’s more relevant is not what ethnic Chinese people on some small set of islands think and do but what the majority of Chinese people inside China proper think and do because that is far more relevant.
Which is more relevant, what HK people think or what people inside China proper think with regard to the broad and unsubstantiated claims you made of Chinese culture?
LikeLike
Now why would you assume that my experience with HK Chinese is “limited”?
No, not all “ethnic Chinese” the world over are the same. Presumably, a third generation ethnic Chinese person born in the US, or South Africa, or Australia, who doesn’t even speak Chinese, would be quite culturally different than other Chinese people. An HK Chinese might even have been substantially different than a mainland Chinese in 1980. But how fundamentally culturally different is a native mainland Chinese vis-a-vis a native HK Chinese in 2012? Linguistics/dialect are fairly irrelevant to this discussion, but how different would a HKer be compared with someone from Guangdong province? I at least presume that a person who speaks Cantonese is no less Chinese than a Mandarin speaker…but with you I’m beginning to wonder.
As I said earlier, if you are making distinctions, then I wonder why you bothered with protestations to the contrary when Sam called you on it on June 1.
Ironically, the onus now is on you to prove that mainland Chinese are culturally fundamentally different than HK Chinese. That is a prerequisite if you hope to suggest that the cultural mores of HK Chinese are irrelevant and non-generalizable to the broader “Chinese culture”.
LikeLike
Even extensive experience with HK Chinese is not proof. The point which you keep avoiding is that it is a fallacy to ask for proof when you are the one that made the unsupported statement in the first place only to be countered with more relevant experience. That is a burden of proof fallacy. Also, just because someone is ethnically Chinese does not mean that they will behave in culturally Chinese ways.
I really don;t think you understand the mistakes you are making because the rest of what you have said is simply irrelevant.
Wrong, the onus is still on you (simply because you have never discharged that onus) in proving that Chinese are not opinionated as westerners.
Remember this was started when you made that unsubstantiated claim. I claim that my experience (which is more relevant than yours because it deals with people inside China and not some ex British colony) suggest otherwise. You then asked for proof thus violatin the burden of proof fallacy.
You continue to make that fallacy as you still have not provided anything even close to proof. The onus is not on me. I only have to match or surpass your claims, which I’ve already done, to put your silly claim into doubt.
That much is obvious to anyone who has seen this discussion evolve so far…
It’s time for you to fess up and simply say that you have no more grounds to base your assertion than mere personal experiences with HK Chinese. I will accept that qualification and simply say that from my experience with Chinese Chinese, that’s not true and moreover, I believe your claim to be based more on orientalist stereotypes than actual reality.
LikeLike
“The point which you keep avoiding is that it is a fallacy to ask for proof when you are the one that made the unsupported statement in the first place only to be countered with more relevant experience”
—I already acknowledged that I don’t have proof, as early as May 31 0738PM(“Just as I haven’t met the burden of proof for what I said, it seems neither have you”). So I have no idea what you’re talking about. If you had simply said that you disagree with my opinion because there is no proof of its veracity, I would’ve left it at that. But you’ve also made several unsubstantiated counter-claims (“the Chinese are the most opinionated people on earth”; “What’s more relevant is not what ethnic Chinese people on some small set of islands think and do but what the majority of Chinese people inside China proper think and do because that is far more relevant” — the latter point assuming that mainland Chinese are fundamentally different culturally from HK Chinese simply by virtue of location, in 2012). And you seem to have difficulty acknowledging that you have no proof for those either.
“just because someone is ethnically Chinese does not mean that they will behave in culturally Chinese ways.”
—true. But you also can’t assume that they WON’T behave in culturally CHinese ways either. This is the part where you lack proof for your claim.
“which is more relevant than yours because it deals with people inside China and not some ex British colony”
—and what is the basis for suggesting that yours is more relevant. You are again assuming that HK CHinese are fundamentally culturally different from mainland CHinese, which you haven’t proven.
“I only have to match or surpass your claims, which I’ve already done, to put your silly claim into doubt.”
—and by making your own claims, you’ve just invited the burden of proof upon yourself. Which you haven’t met…and which you’ve clearly failed to realize.
“It’s time for you to fess up and simply say that you have no more grounds to base your assertion than mere personal experiences with HK Chinese.”
—see May 31. If you’ve actually been paying attention, you’ll realize you’re about 5 days behind the times.
But hey, good manners goes both ways. So I’ll repeat that my opinion is based on my experience with HK CHinese, for which I have no scientific proof. Now it’s time for you to acknowledge that your opinion is based on your experience with mainland Chinese, for which you have no scientific proof either, and I will gladly accept that qualification. And I’m not sure where you get “orientalist stereotypes” from experience with HK CHinese, but I’m beginning to think you don’t really know from where you get a lot of your stuff.
LikeLike
Exactly, you don’t have proof yet you demand proof from others as early as May 31 when you aid
“It is a pointless, unsubstantiated, and in fact unprovable superlative.”
You seem wholly oblivious that what you claimed is even more “unsubstantiated” than what I have counter claimed in response to you.
So again, it is YOU that have committed the burden of proof fallacy. You criticize other for lack of proof when all they have done is supply evidence (in this case even more relevant evidence) to counter what you have claimed which you also have not supplied proof but mere anecdote. That is by definition, a textbook case of a burden of proof fallacy.
“And you seem to have difficulty acknowledging that you have no proof for those either.”
Wrong. On several occasions I mentioned that my experiences do not constitute proof per se. rather it is simply more relevant evidence (than the evidence you supplied).
Hong Kong has been a British colony for 100+ years. It needs no proof (it’s common sense) that it is less representative of Chinese cultural influence than the Chinese mainland.
It’s a matter of degree. But that degree does not fall into your favor.
LikeLike
Again, burden of proof fallacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof
“When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a positive claim.”
Since you have assertive the positive claim i.e., that the Chinese as a group or Chinese culture does not value expressing criticisms or opinions, it is you that need to prove it. I have offered the criticisms in response to your claim (a “negative” claim) and am thus not burdened with proof. But in fact, I have provided the more relevant evidence so I have in fact gone more than minimum required to put into doubt your silly assertion.
LikeLike
“you don’t have proof yet you demand proof from others”
—and when you pointed it out, I acknowledged that I don’t have proof. That in no way precludes me from asking for proof when you say something unsubstantiated. You seem to be operating under the notion that, because I couldn’t prove my claims, you then get to make any number of freebie claims that you want. The further irony is that, while you keep harping on burden of proof for me, you fail to apply the same burden onto yourself.
“what you claimed is even more “unsubstantiated” ”
—how is it “more” unsubstantiated? Mine was unsubstantiated, and yours was unsubstantiated.
“(in this case even more relevant evidence”
—your “evidence” is just as anecdotal as mine. You should also note that I have not made any more “claims” since my initial one, and it is you who has piled claims one on top of the other, all of which have been equally unsubstantiated and supported only by anecdote. You have also been asked, and failed to prove, how your anecdotal evidence is “more relevant”.
“a textbook case of a burden of proof fallacy.”
—I’ve acknowledged mine. High time for you to come to your senses and acknowledge yours. You seem a bit reticent in copping to your own limitations here.
“On several occasions I mentioned that my experiences do not constitute proof per se.”
—if you replaced “per se” with “at all” in that statement, you’d be close to getting it right.
“Hong Kong has been a British colony for 100+ years.”
—and it hasn’t been for nearly 15. Common sense, it seems, is in the eyes of the beholder, especially in your hands. Especially when those 15 years represent the time during which modern technology (electronic and physical ie travel) allows co-mingling of HK and mainland Chinese more than at any time before it. Your POV would’ve stood the test of “common sense” more robustly in 1980 when HKers indeed harboured many stereotypes of mainland Chinese as a result of years of mutual isolation. Today, not so much.
“I have offered the criticisms in response to your claim (a “negative” claim) and am thus not burdened with proof.”
—are you kidding? A “negative” claim would be if you simply disagreed with me. And btw, this was my claim (“it is contrary to Chinese culture to offer unsolicited opinions”); I said nothing about Chinese culture not valuing expressing criticisms or opinions…I simply said they don’t, with no value judgment whatsoever. A “negative” claim would be if you said it is consistent with/NOT contrary to Chinese culture to offer opinions….which of course is not what you said. Instead, you said “the Chinese are the most opinionated people on earth.”. In no realm of reality is that merely the negative of my claim. You are certainly “not burdened with proof”, but that is not the same as being able to abscond from said burden.
There was grounds for doubt of my assertion simply because I lack proof of same (which has nothing to do with you own silly and unsubstantiated assertions). Of course, the same can be said of yours, but there seems to be something about you that inherently prevents you from owning that fact.
LikeLike
” You seem to be operating under the notion that, because I couldn’t prove my claims, you then get to make any number of freebie claims that you want. ”
Wrong. I “operated” under no such assumption.
Again, you are the one that first brought up the criticism of lack of “proof” despite the fact that I have already supplied evidence more relevant than what you have brought to the table.
You seem to operate under very dichotomous thinking. Either something is “substantiated” or it is “unsubstantiated’. That is not how life works. That’s not how science works. Evidence lies on a spectrum from certainty (or near certainty) to very weak. Since my personal experience seems far more relevant under the circumstances than the ones you have brought to the table, my negative claim had the purpose of bringing doubt to yours was more than sufficient. My experience is more relevant because HK has been under major colonial British influence culturally politically, demographically, even linguistically for over 100 years (and yes, that continues today) while China proper has mainly been uninfluenced until maybe the last 20 years and under far less drastic circumstances (not colonialism). Both are weak evidence but since the burden was on you, it only takes weak evidence to substantially unravel, put under serious epistemic doubt, your claims.
It’s really sad to see you go this far in fallacious gymnastics to avoid the obviousness of what has transpired.
LikeLike
“I have already supplied evidence more relevant than what you have brought to the table.”
—umm, nope. All we both have is anecdotal evidence. You have merely assumed yours to be “more relevant”. That is hardly established…mostly because you’ve done nothing to establish it beyond merely offering yet more of your opinions.
Again, doubt in my claim exists because I don’t have proof for it. Your claim (which wasn’t even a “negative claim” as I’ve already explained several times) added no probative value. And the fact that your claims are in and of themselves open to doubt remains.
Yes, of course HK was politically different, and thankfully she still is. But that is also irrelevant to the discussion. The crux of debate here is whether “”it is contrary to Chinese culture to offer unsolicited opinions” or not. So what does British colonization have to do with that? In fact, what you’re arguing is that British influence artificially lowered the innate Chinese cultural impetus to offer unsolicited opinions among HK Chinese, such that my experience with HK Chinese in this regard underestimates said impetus in “real” Chinese who were free of British influence. Do you have any basis for such a position? Or are we merely talking more of your unsubstantiated opinion?
You are correct. There are grades of evidence. The part that continues to amuse me is that you find your anecdotal evidence to be “better” than my anecdotal evidence, without…um…any evidence for saying so. But as I always say, you do what you gotta do…and I’ll keep pointing it out to you.
LikeLike
You can keep thinking that experience with Chinese in China proper isn’t more relevant than experience with Chinese in Hong Kong but that only makes you look like an unreasonable fool.
you still have yet to accept responsibility for the fact that you were the first one to criticize me on the basis of a lack of “proof”. It is not about proof. It is about the balance of evidence. Why are you not able to understand this? Proof is often not available for cases like this.
Also, not all anecdotal evidence is equal. Some are far more relevant than others. Again, another common sense concept you cannot understand or will not
accept. I will not speculate as to why.
LikeLike
“So what does British colonization have to do with that?”
It’s very easy for anyone with bare minimum common sense to see why that is absolutely relevant. Under 100 years of British colonization and 100+ years of British influence, the Hong Kong local culture is far less a representative sample of Chinese culture as Chinese culture inside China proper.
So when talking about cultural influences on the Chinese people in expressing opinion and opinion strength, those who have experience with Chinese in China proper have far more relevant experience than those who only have experience with Hong Kong Chinese.
It’s clear to me that the reason you cannot see this is because you are so blinded with your own biases and your orientalist preconceptions. What more is obvious?
LikeLike
You are also free to keep thinking that experience with Chinese in China is “more relevant”. But what you haven’t done (despite this being repeatedly pointed out to you) is demonstrate how it is “more relevant” in the specific realm of what’s being discussed here (ie. “it is contrary to Chinese culture to offer unsolicited opinions”). All you’ve offered are vague generalizations and generic platitudes, none of which are substantiated in any way, of course.
I’ve accepted responsibility for my lack of proof repeatedly. It is you who seems shy about accepting the same responsibility for your own claims which similarly lack proof. But I see that it is no longer about “proof”. I guess you’ve come to realize that harping on “proof” is a non-starter since you have none either. So we’re onto “balance of evidence”. That’s cool. And how does my anecdotal evidence stand in balance against your anecdotal evidence? Yours is better, or so you’d have us believe. And how so? Oh…umm…because you say so. Then it comes down to the “relevance” of that respective anecdotal evidence. And you say yours is more relevant. And again, how so? Oh, because you say so…again. Right. Fabulous opinions. Well colour me convinced…or not.
“the Hong Kong local culture is far less a representative sample of Chinese culture as Chinese culture inside China proper.”
—and you say so because….? Oh, it is because you say it is. Got it. Examples? Like I said, if you were talking about any time before 1980, I’d buy it to some extent. But whatever differences there were have been diminishing in the last 32 years from a combination of political will, technological advances, and the simple physical capacity for exchange.
“So when talking about cultural influences on the Chinese people in expressing opinion and opinion strength, those who have experience with Chinese in China proper have far more relevant experience than those who only have experience with Hong Kong Chinese.”
—once again, you’ve avoided a direct question. In order for your assumption to have any chance of holding true, you also have to assume that “British influence artificially lowered the innate Chinese cultural impetus to offer unsolicited opinions among HK Chinese, such that my experience with HK Chinese in this regard underestimates said impetus in “real” Chinese who were free of British influence.” Do you have any actual factual basis for such an assumption, beyond your usual list of opinions and platitudes? If you do, I’d be interested in seeing it. If you don’t, then the sound you’re hearing is your entire line of “argument” going down the drain.
It seems to me that you are appealing to an authority (the “common sense” adjudication of the supposedly superior “relevance” of your experience) that you don’t have and have yet to demonstrate, your protestations to the contrary of course notwithstanding. And the repeated reliance on “orientalist preconceptions” is rather unbecoming, but again, you do what you gotta do.
LikeLike
Since you are just repeating yourself and have not brought anything further to the discussion, I will simply respond with what I have said above.
The experience with Chinese in China proper is a far more relevant experience to the present context than experience with Hong Kong Chinese due to the last 120 years of colonial British rule. The culture, politics and economy of Hong Kong is not representative of Chinese culture to the same degree as Chinese culture within China proper. Anyone that isn’t blinded by their own biases can see that.
Also, not all anecdotal evidence is weighted the same. Some are stronger forms of evidence than others and more relevant, your assumption not withstanding that all are of equal weight.
Finally, it is you that have committed the burden of proof fallacy when you first started to criticize my anecdotal experiences because it did not constitute “proof” when it was you that made the positive claim which mine was suppose to cast doubt.
Avoiding all this, pretending that you haven’t made serious mistakes which casts serious doubt about your baseless assertion, is a sign of severe intellectual immaturity.
That’s all.
LikeLike
I’ve had to repeat myself because I’ve identified specific questions which you’ve repeatedly failed to address. I see that hasn’t changed.
HK (in its current form) was a colony for 99 years, although parts of it were a colony for longer, so let’s get some facts straight first. No idea where the 120 comes from.
You’ve “claimed” your experience is more relevant. THat is unsubstantiated. Furthermore, as I’ve pointed out several times, you have repeatedly failed to even address how this supposedly “more relevant experience” has any relevance to the specific topic of discussion (ie “it is contrary to Chinese culture to offer unsolicited opinions”). You’ve been reduced to yelling “mine is more relevant mine is more relevant” like a petulant child. Admittedly, it is amusing to watch. But not that helpful to the discussion.
Consequently, you’ve also failed to defend your claim that your supposedly “more relevant experience” gives your anecdotal evidence “greater weight”, apart from repeatedly bellowing of “it has greater weight it has greater weight”. Cue imagery of same petulant child.
And finally, you’ve failed to comprehend, realize, and/or acknowledge that you’ve done much more than simply disagree with my initial claim, but have offered several of your own. I have repeatedly pointed those out in the past number of days. And you’ve repeatedly failed to address your shortcomings. If you can’t see your shortcomings, I’m telling you they’re there and you should look harder. If you can see your shortcomings but can’t bring yourself to acknowledge them, then I suggest you develop a greater depth of character. It’s never too late to improve yourself.
LikeLike
It’s at least 120 years of British rule and major influence. Because you can only carp on these petty issues because it’s clear that you have lost the argument and are acting very childishly, you must avoid at all cost the major issues being discussed.
The balance of evidence is here for all to see.
You can only muster experiences from Hong Kong while my experiences are from Chinese from China and when the issue is Chinese culture, one is far more relevant. You can keep saying that this isn’t relevant but how will that make you look?
It makes you look very very petty. Now you are resorting to ad homs, Again, childish and petty.
LikeLike
Speaking of basic facts, you said
“HK (in its current form) was a colony for 99 years, although parts of it were a colony for longer, so let’s get some facts straight first.”
No, Hong Kong has been a colony for far longer than 99 years. Get your basic facts straight.
The 99 years was an extension of British colonial rule. They had been ruling the place since the 1840s. So British Colonial rule has been in place for about 150 years.
“It was not until 29 August 1842 that the island was formally ceded in perpetuity to the United Kingdom under the Treaty of Nanking. The British established a crown colony with the founding of Victoria City the following year.[66]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong#British_colonial_era
So you don’t even know anything basic about Hong Kong. Yes basic facts.
So not only are you BSing about Chinese and Chinese culture but you can’t even get basic Hong Kong history right. How is anyone to take you seriously?
LikeLike
Good grief, can you not even read and comprehend your own link?
“Hong Kong became a colony of the British Empire after the First Opium War (1839–42). Originally confined to Hong Kong Island, the colony’s boundaries were extended in stages to the Kowloon Peninsula in 1860 and then the New Territories in 1898.”
—HK, in its “current form”, in case you’re wondering, includes Kowloon and the New Territories. Which is why i said, in its “current form”, it was a colony for 99 years (y’know, 1997-1898…do I need to show you basic arithmetic too?). And yes, parts of HK (HK Island to be exact) were colonized from 1840, which is why I said “although parts of it were a colony for longer”. So yes, I’ve got my basic facts straight whereas you don’t have a clue…and the only thing I hadn’t accounted for was that you evidently can’t read. I hope that will suffice for your reading and arithmetic lesson for today. It’s getting a tad disappointing (though no less amusing).
Since you seem to have trouble reading, perhaps you failed to comprehend the basic yet unanswered questions you have repeatedly avoided. I often find, on blogs such as this, that it is very telling of a particular individual when they fail to address specific questions. Such individuals lack the depth of character to acknowledge when they don’t have the answers. You are showing me more and more than you resemble such individuals.
Here are the questions again:
1.The crux of debate here is whether “”it is contrary to Chinese culture to offer unsolicited opinions” or not. So what does British colonization have to do with that?
2.What you’re arguing is that British influence artificially lowered the innate Chinese cultural impetus to offer unsolicited opinions among HK Chinese, such that my experience with HK Chinese in this regard underestimates said impetus in “real” Chinese who were free of British influence. Do you have any basis for such a position?
We’ll limit your homework to those two questions for now, posed 2 days ago on June 8 at 749PM. Don’t want to overburden your limited faculties.
LikeLike
Ok, just for kicks, here’s a third question. You’re the “expert” on burden of proof, since you provided the wiki link and all that…though I wonder if you read and understood it, based on recent evidence….no matter, let’s assume you did.
“one is far more relevant. You can keep saying that this isn’t relevant”
—sounds like you made the positive claim here. So I’m sure you’ll be familiar with where the burden of proof lies. Well, at least you should be…but who knows…
LikeLike
I am loath to close comments – since my Daoist sensibilities tend toward non-intervention – but this exchange is getting a bit repetitive. If it continues I do hope it strikes out into some new territory…
LikeLike
As we can see again, skc, has to resort to serious verbal manipulation and fallacious thinking to avoid serious loss of face.
I said that Hong Kong has a colonial history of greater than 150 years. That is true. That is a fact. But poor skc must resport to some silly verbal gymnastics and say “well, Hong Kong island is not really Hong Kong.”
Silly and petty. And no, Hong Kong Chinese, whatever your silly arbitrary definition of them may be, are still not representative of Chinese people.
LikeLike
It’s really sad that it’s devolved into this. It’s sad how obviously a fraud this skc has been exposed, how completely desparate he is now to cover his tracks now resorting to silly word games. Now he’s resorted to the downright moronic “Hong Kong island is not really Hong Kong” slight of hand. That’s as stupid as saying that the British had never colonized India because the British never had ruled over all of India in its “current form.” How silly is that? But I suppose that is only slightly sillier than the “My experiences of Hong Kong Chinese is equal weight evidence to your experiences with Chinese in China.” or your idiotic assertion that Hong Kong only has had 99 years of colonial and British influence.
LikeLike
And no, colonial rule doesn’t make people more opinionated. Your baseless assertion that it does for Hong kong Chinese is again, silly and without evidence. It’s unsubtantiated like your other factually uninformed and logically faulty reasoning.
Colonialism, in fact, probably makes colonized people far less opinionated (why? well, you seem my dear skc, because uppity victims of colonization are often not treated very well. Try using some common sense). And under 150 Years of that, I’d imagine the Hong Kong people have been beaten and trampled on so much that they may even have a kind of cultural group Stockholm syndrome (maybe that’s what they call a “colonial mindset”?)
LikeLike
To Sam,
I’m always of the mind that I comment on someone else’s blog at the administrator’s pleasure. So I would naturally abide by your decisions. If this discussion is to venture into new territory, it will require the other guy to start providing some substantiation for his growing litany of claims, for which he has failed to provide since the outset. In fact, we can’t go further until he answers the basic questions I posed at June 10 1116PM and 1118PM with something more than his usual platitudes, generalizations, and opinions.
It seems his latest antic is to attribute quotes to me that I haven’t said, namely “well, Hong Kong island is not really Hong Kong.” I find it amusing that some people need to argue against what I didn’t say, rather than what I did. As I alluded to previously, I find it very telling. And while the odd incident might be excusable, repeated transgressions suggest something more fundamental to be amiss.
His comments at June 11 0609PM and 0622PM, for instance, appear even less useful than his usual. The cherry-picking and inability to read/deliberate mis-reading is also rather unbecoming…or at least it would be for self-respecting individuals.
LikeLike
“And no, colonial rule doesn’t make people more opinionated”
—nor have i said anywhere that it does. Perhaps if you argue against what I say instead of stuff you just make up, we would get somewhere. But if you want to keep making stuff up, I will keep correcting you.
“Colonialism, in fact, probably makes colonized people far less opinionated”
—oh really? Hmm…that sounds like a claim…I wonder if you have anything to back that up. Finally, after much cajoling, you’ve find the inner strength to try to man up and answer a question. Sadly, your answer is all too predictable.
“And under 150 Years of that, I’d imagine the Hong Kong people have been beaten and trampled on so much that they may even have a kind of cultural group Stockholm syndrome (maybe that’s what they call a “colonial mindset”?)”
—LOL. So, your substantiation is based on what you’d “imagine”. Well, forgive me if I don’t find that terribly compelling. And Stockholm syndrome refers to kidnap victims who develop empathy towards their captors…so I have no idea what “cultural group stockholm syndrome” even means, or how that applies to HK Chinese, or how it is in any way relevant to this discussion. Let me guess…you made that phrase up. To sum things up, you seem to support your assertions with your opinions…the veracity of which you are happy to vouch for based on…wait for it…more of your opinions. Yeah, that sounds reliable.
Since we seem to be slapping opinion on top of opinion, then I’ll just surmise that HK Chinese under British colonial rule simply became more “westernized” over the years compared to their mainland Chinese counterparts. It is also my opinion that “it is entirely consistent with western culture to speak up and make unsolicited suggestions”. So based on that line of unsubstantiated reasoning, HK Chinese (with whom my experience lies) would actually be more prone to express unsolicited opinion than PRC Chinese. For the record, that’s the first time I’ve made such a claim, in contrast to your erroneous suggestions of 0628PM.
Anyway, if you want to start reading properly, to stop making stuff up, and to argue against what I actually say instead of what you hoped I had said, that would be a welcome diversion to what you’ve offered up of late.
LikeLike
Because you cannot substantiate anything you wrote and made obviously fallacious and factually false claims, you are now demanding that others “prove” their claims. Since the burden if not on them to prove anything but merely raise doubts (again, because of your substandard intellectual development and deficient education, this point is beyond your grasp as was shown before). But mere doubts was more than raised when I provided even more relevant and weighted evidence.
Again, to reiterate the issue since skc has now cowardly ran behind the skirts of the administrator because he is being humiliated, the topic is whether Hong Kong Chinese is a good representative of Chinese culture vis a vis Chinese from mainland China. I maintain that they are because of the 150+ years (not 99 years as skc has erroneously claimed but even if true would have made my point not much less sound) of colonialism rule by the British. skc has continued to deny this based on what? The same non existent claims he has used to “establish” in his silly mind that the Chinese culture inhibits the Chinese from expressing opinions.
So this ridiculous and pathetically drawn out display is really just a tantrum. It’s a smoke screen, a way to save whatever face skc has remaining after it has been show so many times in this thread that he had made considerable amounts of fallacious and factually erroneous claims.
LikeLike
“And Stockholm syndrome refers to kidnap victims who develop empathy towards their captors…”
Umm,.. wrong again. Stockholm syndrome refers to specifically hostages. A hostage isn’t necessarily someone that has been kidnapped. Yeah, basic facts. You might want to actually use wikipedia before foolishly criticizing others on “basic facts”.
“In psychology, Stockholm syndrome is a psychological phenomenon in which hostages express empathy and have positive feelings towards their captors, sometimes to the point of defending them.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome
How many times now have I exposed you as a complete fraud?
LikeLike
“I maintain that they are because of the 150+ years…”
Correction, it should be “I maintain they are not because of the 150 years…”
LikeLike
“the topic is whether Hong Kong Chinese is a good representative of Chinese culture vis a vis Chinese from mainland China. I maintain that they are because of the 150+ years (not 99 years as skc has erroneously claimed but even if true would have made my point not much less sound) of colonialism rule by the British. skc has continued to deny this based on what?”
—and you “maintain” this based on what? You’re making the claim; even as you say, I am simply continuing to deny it. The person making the claim owns the burden of proof…that would be you, Einstein. And on what basis do you “maintain” whatever it is you choose to “maintain”? Oh, right, simply more of your opinions. You seem quick to cast the burden of proof onto others, but very shy about accepting it yourself. Typical of someone with the kind of character on display from you thus far.
And again, I haven’t made claims since the very beginning. Your claims since then have included (and this is not an exhaustive list): Chinese are the most opinionated; mainland Chinese are culturally fundamentally different from HK Chinese; something or other about what the Brits did to HKers; colonialism makes people less opinionated; that your experience is somehow more relevant. You have offered zero (0) substantiation for any of those claims besides merely more of your claims/opinions. It’s like 2 for 1 at the flea market with you and your litany of opinions.
Like I’ve said, I made a claim without proof, and I acknowledge that. You could’ve simply pointed that out, and I would’ve acknowledged it (as I have), cuz that’s how I was brought up. Instead, you make a laundry list of claims that you can’t back up, and when repeatedly called on it, the best you’ve got is ‘you did it first’. Usually, among adults, that type of debating style outgrew its usefulness years ago. Yet here you are. Maybe at some point in the future, you will grow a spine and simply accept when it’s only just your opinion, and not try to pass it off as anything more than that. Good luck with that quest.
Even when you misread what I wrote about Hong Kong and the simple fact that Hong Kong as it exists today was a colony for 99 years (which is separate from, and neither confirms nor contradicts, the fact that parts of HK were colonized longer), you need to go on and on about it with totally irrelevant references to India, and arguing against statements that I didn’t make, in order to obfuscate and tangentialize the discussion farther and farther away from the initial topic. Who does that? You, for starters.
My mistake about Stockholm syndrome. Yes, hostages, not kidnap victims. Now, care to show us how that is relevant to HK being a colony, or to the initial topic of discussion? Or do we just have reams and reams of obfuscation to look forward to? If I had a nickel for every question you’ve avoided, and every claim you’ve failed to support, I’d have a lot of nickels.
LikeLike
“–and you “maintain” this based on what? You’re making the claim; even as you say, I am simply continuing to deny it. ”
It’s called “common sense”. Since that is an alien concept to you, you wuill not be convinced of its powers. it’s common sense that a small isolated population that has been colonized for >150 years and has seen major foreign influence is less a representative of some culture than the population from that culture itself which hasn’t seen that level influence.
Anyone that can’t see that is simply a fool.
“And again, I haven’t made claims since the very beginning. ”
The irony here is that this sentence is self contradictory…It is itself a claim. But since you are so severely deficient in basic reasoning skills, it is completely oblivious to you how illogical you sound. But the even more astounding thing is that you then say some lines down
“Like I’ve said, I made a claim without proof, and I acknowledge that.”
Again, contradiction. Contradictions abound in your silly claims “from the beginning.”
You seem very angry now. Have I really made you that upset? Take a deep breadth.
So now you’re completely off your rocker, making self contradictory gibberish whereas before you simply made many perfunctory fallacious statements and erroneous claims. What more evidence does anyone need that you don’t have a clue?
LikeLike