O.K., I think that before I even start here I have to make something quite clear. I am not partisan in matters Chinese.
I invariably temper this statement in respect to the person or persons to whom I make it. Thus, I can claim that, being a Libran, I find it impossible to make up my mind on any subject at all from what to wear to international politics. To colleagues I often explain that I am merely being mischievous and playing devil's advocate by presenting a case from the other side. To my students I explain that I am teaching them to expand their horizons by considering differing aspects of a problem, while in academic circles I merely refer to scholastic objectivity.
But for some reason none of this ever plays out when posting a blog. Mentioning a view which deviates from accepted wisdom instantly puts one firmly behind enemy lines. And it seems that whenever I talk about China 99.9% of people come back with accusations of traitorous behaviour, slanders about my research methods, dismissive mutterings about naivete, and claims that I am a pinko/greeny/loonie left/marxist/liberal/intellectually challenged/ inhabitant of ivory towers.
In fact a recent post startlingly revealed me to the world as a CCP plant trained in covert propagandist activities who interrupted my 24 hour internet-surveillance activities merely to disseminate disinformation. I was instantly reminded of a scene from the old musical My Fair Lady where Pygmalion/Eliza was presented at her first soiree . Afterwards her mentor described the scene where a cunning adversary ("oozing charm from every pore, he oiled his way across the floor") suddenly, publicly and - more importantly and hilariously - erroneously unmasked her!
So no, I am none of the things of which I stand accused (well, to be honest, I'm not too sure what the results of an IQ test would reveal about me these days) but simply operate from a position of giving people a fair go. I am, these days, an educator. I wish therefore merely to educate those who are unaware, that there are always two sides to any question.
I read this morning yet another comfy armchair-commentator calling for boycotts on the Games from the standpoint of China being the worlds largest contributor to global pollution.
Now, truthfully, not being an environmentalist, I am unaware of the veracity of this claim. However, as one fifth of the world population lives in China it seems logical. In fact, if the entire world collectively and miraculously reduced all pollution levels to below acceptable levels the Chinese would still be the worlds biggest polluters. There are 1.3 billion people living there, fachrissake! If they all banded together and farted on cue they could probably destroy the world.
But two things other than this rather reductionist claim worry me about the unceasing attacks on China's environmental degradation issues. The first is that industry from all over the world is centred in China. Last year 260 of the companies responsible for unacceptable levels of water pollution in China were multi-nationals, as were 50 of the worst air polluters. The MNC's with the worst pollution records in China are: Pepsi, KFC, Carlsburg, Nestle, GM, Dupont and 3m according to an article in the Worldwatch Institute's newsletter of February 6th.
Now how many people infest blogsites or newspaper columns calling for boycotts which would deprive them of any of the above products? Its much easier to boycott the Games which, for most people, is not going to deprive them personally of anything: - especially the average Aussie who couldn't even rustle up the airfare to Beijing for the family right now, let alone accommodation, tickets and all the rest of the paraphenalia: they're too busy trying to meet their mortgage payments.
The same source on January 21st published the finding that 80% of the 4 to 5 trillion non-biodegradable plastic bags produced annually are used in North America and Europe. They've been banned in China as of June 1st while many of the countries (not pointing any fingers here) who show such concern for China's record are still only discussing and squabbling over whether or not to do so.
And while industrial pollution causes such outrage it seems alarming to me that no outrage is manufactured from anyone other than the odd pinko/lefty/greenie/ non patriot regarding what the US military call "ecocide" - the souped up version of the burnt earth policy famously used in the Anglo-Boer war. Hand in hand with the USA's military forays all over the world the planned policy of ecocide lays waste to thousands of acres of foreign fields from Vietnman to Iraq as part of an acceptable tool in the fight for democracy with little or no comment. Certainly I've never heard of anyone threatening to boycott, say, the NBA play-offs in protest.
The above was the first of the two points which worry me about the current discourse on China. The second is that while the vast majority of experts on China - who seem to be retired old parties who have never actually touched down on Chinese soil themselves or who, if they have done so, did so at some unspecified moment in her fast-evolving history - eagerly provide site after site that back up their comments, the provision of sites that would provide a balance or counter argument is (not unnaturally) not often included.
A kind of round-robin of anti-Chinese propaganda is therefore evolving where journalists or commentators citing lack of transparency as an excuse for lack of rigorous research, borrow heavily from these sites; the resultant copy is added to or quoted in other anti-Chinese polemics, which in turn becomes material proffered in yet another article.
Attempts to question the veracity of the products of these hastily-constructed (China is NEWS, man, news!) articles which are cobbled together from second-hand sources, bias, unchallenged "common knowledge" and the occasional Beijing bar-fly, are thwarted brilliantly: - to provide information from first-hand experience or primary sources is to court accusation of partisanship and to refer to sources emanating from China itself or the Chinese is to invite scorn that one has swallowed CPP propaganda.(Or is actively producing same).
It is little wonder that the students after the Lhasa riots became disillusioned with the Western media (See previous blog). I have been part of it myself for most of my adult life and have few illusions left. I am not calling for anyone to abandon their views in respect of China. What I do wish, however, is that people would spend a little more time in the large grey areas between, rather than jumping hastily and irrevocably into the black or white position. Both are places with reduced visibility.
I invariably temper this statement in respect to the person or persons to whom I make it. Thus, I can claim that, being a Libran, I find it impossible to make up my mind on any subject at all from what to wear to international politics. To colleagues I often explain that I am merely being mischievous and playing devil's advocate by presenting a case from the other side. To my students I explain that I am teaching them to expand their horizons by considering differing aspects of a problem, while in academic circles I merely refer to scholastic objectivity.
But for some reason none of this ever plays out when posting a blog. Mentioning a view which deviates from accepted wisdom instantly puts one firmly behind enemy lines. And it seems that whenever I talk about China 99.9% of people come back with accusations of traitorous behaviour, slanders about my research methods, dismissive mutterings about naivete, and claims that I am a pinko/greeny/loonie left/marxist/liberal/intellectually challenged/ inhabitant of ivory towers.
In fact a recent post startlingly revealed me to the world as a CCP plant trained in covert propagandist activities who interrupted my 24 hour internet-surveillance activities merely to disseminate disinformation. I was instantly reminded of a scene from the old musical My Fair Lady where Pygmalion/Eliza was presented at her first soiree . Afterwards her mentor described the scene where a cunning adversary ("oozing charm from every pore, he oiled his way across the floor") suddenly, publicly and - more importantly and hilariously - erroneously unmasked her!
So no, I am none of the things of which I stand accused (well, to be honest, I'm not too sure what the results of an IQ test would reveal about me these days) but simply operate from a position of giving people a fair go. I am, these days, an educator. I wish therefore merely to educate those who are unaware, that there are always two sides to any question.
I read this morning yet another comfy armchair-commentator calling for boycotts on the Games from the standpoint of China being the worlds largest contributor to global pollution.
Now, truthfully, not being an environmentalist, I am unaware of the veracity of this claim. However, as one fifth of the world population lives in China it seems logical. In fact, if the entire world collectively and miraculously reduced all pollution levels to below acceptable levels the Chinese would still be the worlds biggest polluters. There are 1.3 billion people living there, fachrissake! If they all banded together and farted on cue they could probably destroy the world.
But two things other than this rather reductionist claim worry me about the unceasing attacks on China's environmental degradation issues. The first is that industry from all over the world is centred in China. Last year 260 of the companies responsible for unacceptable levels of water pollution in China were multi-nationals, as were 50 of the worst air polluters. The MNC's with the worst pollution records in China are: Pepsi, KFC, Carlsburg, Nestle, GM, Dupont and 3m according to an article in the Worldwatch Institute's newsletter of February 6th.
Now how many people infest blogsites or newspaper columns calling for boycotts which would deprive them of any of the above products? Its much easier to boycott the Games which, for most people, is not going to deprive them personally of anything: - especially the average Aussie who couldn't even rustle up the airfare to Beijing for the family right now, let alone accommodation, tickets and all the rest of the paraphenalia: they're too busy trying to meet their mortgage payments.
The same source on January 21st published the finding that 80% of the 4 to 5 trillion non-biodegradable plastic bags produced annually are used in North America and Europe. They've been banned in China as of June 1st while many of the countries (not pointing any fingers here) who show such concern for China's record are still only discussing and squabbling over whether or not to do so.
And while industrial pollution causes such outrage it seems alarming to me that no outrage is manufactured from anyone other than the odd pinko/lefty/greenie/ non patriot regarding what the US military call "ecocide" - the souped up version of the burnt earth policy famously used in the Anglo-Boer war. Hand in hand with the USA's military forays all over the world the planned policy of ecocide lays waste to thousands of acres of foreign fields from Vietnman to Iraq as part of an acceptable tool in the fight for democracy with little or no comment. Certainly I've never heard of anyone threatening to boycott, say, the NBA play-offs in protest.
The above was the first of the two points which worry me about the current discourse on China. The second is that while the vast majority of experts on China - who seem to be retired old parties who have never actually touched down on Chinese soil themselves or who, if they have done so, did so at some unspecified moment in her fast-evolving history - eagerly provide site after site that back up their comments, the provision of sites that would provide a balance or counter argument is (not unnaturally) not often included.
A kind of round-robin of anti-Chinese propaganda is therefore evolving where journalists or commentators citing lack of transparency as an excuse for lack of rigorous research, borrow heavily from these sites; the resultant copy is added to or quoted in other anti-Chinese polemics, which in turn becomes material proffered in yet another article.
Attempts to question the veracity of the products of these hastily-constructed (China is NEWS, man, news!) articles which are cobbled together from second-hand sources, bias, unchallenged "common knowledge" and the occasional Beijing bar-fly, are thwarted brilliantly: - to provide information from first-hand experience or primary sources is to court accusation of partisanship and to refer to sources emanating from China itself or the Chinese is to invite scorn that one has swallowed CPP propaganda.(Or is actively producing same).
It is little wonder that the students after the Lhasa riots became disillusioned with the Western media (See previous blog). I have been part of it myself for most of my adult life and have few illusions left. I am not calling for anyone to abandon their views in respect of China. What I do wish, however, is that people would spend a little more time in the large grey areas between, rather than jumping hastily and irrevocably into the black or white position. Both are places with reduced visibility.
1 comment:
Now how many people infest blogsites or newspaper columns calling for boycotts which would deprive them of any of the above products?
What an excellent question. I hope someone I know suggests we should boycott the games soon so I can counter with this brilliant riposte.
I thought the PM was pretty good on this issue when he was there — saying, in essence, that if we don't like what they're doing, we need to be talking to them.
V. interesting about the plastic bags.
Post a Comment