– written by Tang Buxi, May 7th 2008
The debate over the Internet lynch mob’s attack of Wang Qianyuan continues. Roland at ESWN brings us this exchange between one of Grace Wang’s supporters at Duke and members of the Chinese community. Grace Wang’s self-stated goal was to help the two sides “communicate”, but the final results show that hasn’t happened.
Unfortunately, many in the West continue to conflate the Internet mob’s behavior with Chinese nationalism at large. The truth is, the two are not directly related. As a proud Chinese nationalist who “defended” the Olympic Torch, I too am absolutely appalled by the Chinese Internet mob.
As far as Wang Qianyuan’s rough treatment being used to criticize those of us who love China… enough is enough. If the verbal attack on Wang Qianyuan suggests something is wrong with Chinese nationalism, then what does the physical attack on Jin Jing in Paris suggest? That something is fundamentally wrong with French liberalism?
The Chinese internet lynch mob doesn’t represent China supporters worldwide, any more than anarchists destroying Starbucks in Seattle represents progressives looking to fight international poverty.
The Chinese internet lynch mob consists largely of emotional, illogical, irrational youths who use the Internet to vent their bile in all directions.
Just this past week, we have the story of the same Internet lynch mob turning on a different victim, although one less attractive and less likely to make it onto the editorial pages of the Washington Post. A young woman (柳的妞) in Shenzhen who organized a campaign of bringing bottled water to traffic police sweating in the heat on May 1st (Labor Day), has been targeted for sharing water with the chengguan (城管) (a government bureau with the thankless job of keeping unlicensed peddlers from selling their wares on Chinese streets). She’s been harassed at work, online, and reportedly her boyfriend has left her. Instead of being rewarded for her benevolent act, she’s been targeted as an enemy. Regardless of how I feel about the chengguan, I personally disagree strongly with those who harassed 柳的妞 directly.
It is the 21st century, and it’s time to eliminate the concept of collective guilt. The tiny minority of Chinese who are part of the Internet lynch mob who virtually assaulted Wang Qianyuan, as well as 柳的妞, are responsible for their own actions. Those of us who support the Beijing Olympics, and those of us who support China, and those of us who happen to be part of the Chinese community at Duke absolutely do not share their guilt by association alone.
I watched the YouTube video of the initial encounter at Duke, by which Wang Qianyuan gained her fame. I saw a passionate, but earnest attempt to discuss the issues. I refuse to uniformly condemn the Chinese who marched on the Duke campus; I applaud their passion and heart. And even Grace Wang herself pointed out that her attackers represent only a minority of those who feel strongly about these issues.
What a lot of people don’t know is that there were many on the Chinese side who supported me and were saying, “Let her talk.” But they were drowned out by the loud minority who had really lost their cool.
I dislike Wang Qianyuan’s methods (especially in the weeks following the original conflict), and I disagree with some of her conclusions. But nonetheless, I support her “one China” beliefs. Since the Western media appears to believe she’s a convenient foil for making statements about Chinese nationalism at large, I prefer to emphasize the aspects of her message that I do support.
For example, an interview from Radio Free Asia:
记者申铧：你觉得西藏是不是中国的一部分？你支持不支持西藏独立？
王 千源：我觉得西藏绝对是中国的一部分，正因为它是中国不可分割的一部分，所以对待它就要像是对待自己的同胞兄弟，要用的方式和对待外人是不一样的。对待外 人，你可以不予理睬、你用比较强硬的手段也好，都可以。但对同胞兄弟的话，是自己的亲人，就要更加理性，要注意情感上的交流。跟藏族讲话更多的是要考虑， 这不是简单地这几年或几十年或奥运会几十天的事情。我们跟他们是几百年、几千年的渊源，并且会不断地继续下去。
Reporter: Do you believe that Tibet is part of China? Do you, or do you not support Tibetan independence?
Wang Qianyuan: I absolutely believe Tibet is part of China. And precisely because it is a part of China that can never be separated, we have to treat Tibet the same way we treat all of our brothers and compatriots. We must treat Tibet differently from how we treat outsiders. When dealing with outsiders, you can ignore them, or even use firmer methods, everything goes. But when dealing with our compatriots, they’re really our relatives, and we have to communicate with them in a more logical, emotional way. We have to think deeper while speaking with the Tibetans; this isn’t a simple issue lasting just these recent years. We have a shared origin stretching back hundreds, even thousands of years, and this will continue into the future without interruption.
Another example, from her original email to the Chinese students at Duke:
西藏既乃我国之领土，岂可随意抛弃抑或给予他人！
Tibet is already part of our country’s territory, how can we abandon her to others?
Frankly, no one else speaking this perspective on Tibet has been given any time in the Western editorial pages.
If she remembers to use the platform that she’s been handed to advocate for the Chinese interests that she claims to support, then perhaps some good will come from this. And in doing so, she would have dealt a valuable lesson to the Internet mob that has hounded her in this way. If she instead sings only the tune that her new “supporters” like to hear, then she will have only proven that her critics had been right all along.
In the mean time, I will continue to love, support, and wish the best for my country, warts and all.
Bing Ma Yong says
she is smarter than her age
Dong Fang Bu Bai says
I would take issue with your comparison between the Jin Jing and Grace Wang incidents.
In the Jin Jing incident the protester was targeting the torch. In the Grace Wang incident the target was Grace Wang. They seem fundamentally different.
I am not defending the torch incident. The protester who attacked the torch in Paris acted quite illegally. I have no idea if they were charged with any crime. They deserved to be though.
THUGs AND GOONs says
The Duke Chronicle article itself is nothing original, just one of those many “Wang vs. the brainwashed CCP drones” you can find all over the western media.
The real gem is buried under the 400+ article comments.
It’s revealed Ms Wang and the article author Scott both seriously misrepresented certain facts. For example, Scott wrote Wang had to take a cab from the airport to Duke Campus by herself on her first day of arrival, but it turned out DCSSA, the Duke Chinese student organization, arraigned the airport pickup by a volunteer member as part of an annual welcoming even for new students.
In her WaPo article, Wang said she lived off campus with 3 Tibetan students from China for 3 weeks, but no Tibetan students on Duke can collaborate that story and nobody knows who are those 3 Tibetan students.
Chris says
Do you believe these Tibetans would like to come out and have their identities discussed on the web?
If you really want to get an idea of the “politics of fear” in Tibet I recommend the following literature:
Yeh, Emily T. “An Open Lhasa Welcomes You. Disciplining the Researcher in Tibet” in Thogersen/Heimer. Doing Fieldwork in China. Copenhagen. 2006
Those who believe that Chinese and Tibetans live together happily in Tibet, except those few splittist elements that have been influenced by evil foreign forces aiming at smearing China, do not need to bother reading something which would make their belief world less coherent.
Bing Ma Yong says
It seems Chris has talked to all Tibetens live in the Greater Tibet
Chris says
Nope, but I have more faith in an independent scholar than in the Chinese media. You might take a look in this piece if you are really interested to understand why many Tibetans probably FEEL oppressed. It does not answer everything, but it gives you an interesting angle.
As I said, if you are only interested to read and hear what you want to believe, don’t bother.
Mick says
“Many in the West continue to conflate the Internet mob’s behavior with Chinese nationalism at large. The truth is, the two are not directly related.”
Well I am one of those in the west who see the internet mobs as being an extreme but representative example of Chinese nationalist behaviour. The atmosphere in places like Duke and in other communities of overseas Chinese around the world does not tolerate any discussion of the issues around Tibet and the Olympics – at least not between Chinese, Tibetans and others (I won’t say westerners because there are many Indians, Japanese etc who have an interest in these issues).
The problem that westerners like me have is that the current wave of Chinese nationalism is characterised by intolerance. Nationalists do not tolerate alternative points of view or those who express them. There can be no middle ground. Chinese who question whether the Tibetan troubles may have been triggered by something other than the “evil Dalai clique” are vilified as traitors.
Even mild dissent by “patriotic” Chinese, like the Southern Weekend editor, result in vilification and getting fired. This is not just a few crazy youths on the net, this is mass intolerance, supported by otherwise moderate students because it is the cornerstone of their nationalism.
The reason why Chinese students at Duke are coming in for criticism is because they either actively or passively supported the witch hunt against Ms Wang. Universities are places where ideas and different points of view are discussed, questioned and studied. Maybe there are some “proud Chinese nationalists” who believe in that. I haven’t seen any of them. The Chinese nationalists I see are using their red flags to block the signs of dissent, trying to close down free speech on campus and vilifying those with differing opinions.
That strikes at the values we cherish at a university, so don’t be surprised if there is a backlash.
Oh, and Jin Jing was attacked by a Chinese man, (if Tibet is part of China), not a French liberal.
Buxi says
Chris,
I’m a little weary about bringing in academic material onto this blog, because I’ve found that in many ways that can have the effect of actually “dumbing down” the conversation. But I personally am curious. I too have more faith in an independent scholar than the Chinese media; I’d add that, after the events of the last few months, I have more faith in an independent scholar than the Western media as well.
So, I’m curious in what way her research is relevant to this discussion.
The same author also published: “Exile meets homeland: politics, performance, and authenticity in the Tibetan diaspora”. I’m having a hard time finding a readable version of either article. If you can find an electronic version, that’d be great. If not, do you want to summarize in laymen’s terms?
As far as whether “many Tibetans probably FEEL oppressed”, I’m on your side. I personally believe a significant number of Tibetans, especially religious Tibetans, do feel oppressed. I’d make two observations though:
– Tibetans are only a small percentage of non-Han minorities in China;
– religious Tibetans are only a small percentage of religious believers in China;
But the “oppression” that they feel is more extreme than all the other hundreds of millions of minorities and religious believers in China. Why? Because the Dalai Lama’s actions over the past 50 years have firmly tied a specific political ideology together with religious practice.
As long as the Dalai Lama is unwilling or unable to separate his role as chief advocate of the “Tibetan nation” (a political concept) with his role as spiritual leader, then religious practice in Tibet will suffer.
The Dalai Lama took steps years ago in terms of separating himself from governance, but he’s never followed through. The government-in-exile and at least the “form” of democratic government, for example. If he wanted to create room for religious practice in Tibet, he could have at any time simply start referring all political questions to the “Prime Minister”. Instead, the Prime Minister and the “government” have so far been nothing but window-dressing for his decisions.
As long as he doesn’t distance himself, then the political conflict in Tibet will continue to embroil religious practice.
Buxi says
Chris,
Do you believe these Tibetans would like to come out and have their identities discussed on the web?
We don’t have to know their identities. I’m fine with someone with authority speaking on the Tibetans behalf, and confirming for us that they exist. The dean of student affairs at Duke, for example.
Or, even a local journalist who privately meets with all of the students and Grace Wang. Frankly, if these Tibetans have had such tremendous effect on Grace Wang’s way of seeing the world, their story should also be told.
CLC says
Oh, and Jin Jing was attacked by a Chinese man, (if Tibet is part of China), not a French liberal.
Even if he holds the French or US passport? By this logic, all US citizens with Chinese descent are NOT Americans.
Buxi says
By this logic, all US citizens with Chinese descent are NOT Americans.
Even better… by this logic, I suspect that some of the people who attacked Grace Wang are actually Americans.
Jack says
“Even if he holds the French or US passport? By this logic, all US citizens with Chinese descent are NOT Americans.”
Well, I’d have to say that both the CCP and the media are starting to imply that all Chinese people are or should unequivocally support China regardless of citizenship.
But maybe that’s also my experience when being labeled a race traitor.
Chris says
“I’m having a hard time finding a readable version of either article. If you can find an electronic version, that’d be great. If not, do you want to summarize in laymen’s terms?”
I will – when I find a moment to do this.
Buxi says
Well, I’d have to say that both the CCP and the media are starting to imply that all Chinese people are or should unequivocally support China regardless of citizenship.
But maybe that’s also my experience when being labeled a race traitor.
If you consider yourself a “Chinese person” but you do not “support China”, then I’d certainly call you a race traitor. That’s the most obvious, reasonable definition in the world.
If you consider yourself a “Chinese person” and genuinely have China’s best interests in mind, but simply disagree with government policy (on Tibet or the Olympics)… that doesn’t make you a race traitor. There are plenty of Chinese who disagree with government policy.
The key is what I said above: whether you genuinely have China’s best interests in mind. As long as you do, even if your opinion differs from the vast majority of other Chinese who also have China’s best interests in mind, you should still have the confidence to explain why you hold a different opinion, why what you advocate is a better option for advancing Chinese interests.
NOTE: I don’t try to define the terms “Chinese person” and “China” above. Let your own conscience guide your definition of those two terms.
overseaschinese says
“If you consider yourself a “Chinese person” but you do not “support China”… If you consider yourself a “Chinese person”…but simply disagree with government policy (on Tibet or the Olympics)… ”
You fail to recognize that in official discourse supporting China equals agreeing with government policy on Tibet and the Olympics. And, I believe that your blog is feeding into that idea, despite your careful attempts to present it otherwise.
In China, I can’t disagree about Tibet and the Olympics. You think I can have a pro-Tibet protest in shanghai tomorrow? Give me a break! I’d literally be lynched by nationalist madmen. Look at Chang Ping from Nanfang Dushi Bao. Is his treatment anything to be proud of? You wanna criticize Gitmo? I’ll agree with you. But please understand that PRC society is a giant gitmo! Perhaps you’ve lived overseas too long.
We Chinese people need to stop worrying about an unscripted comment made by Jack Cafferty on live television that was clearly solely directed at the chinese government, and begin worrying about the red guard mentality in today’s nationalists. You can say you respect others’ opinions, but when you dismiss Yang Jianli, who honestly served 5 years in jail for no fundamental reason other than his different point of view, and fail to protect people like Wang Qianyuan and Chang Ping, then I can only say that it is you who are the race traitors.
CLC says
PRC society is a giant gitmo! Perhaps you’ve lived overseas too long.
Apparently you have never lived in Gitmo. And perhaps you have lived outside PRC too long. 😉
Backchat says
Hi. I am trying to get in touch with Tang Buxi. Please contact me at [email protected].
Many thanks
Hugh
S.K. Cheung says
To Buxi and CLC:
It is interesting that you have left “chinese person” and “china” purposely vague. Is the former defined by DNA, place of birth, place of upbringing, place of residence? With any given individual, which of those features should take precedence? Does the latter refer to geography, multi-mellenia history, or current geopolitical reality? I think a distinction is necessary as a basis for any discussion. I have spent many a post suggesting that a person regardless of ethnicity can wish prosperity for PRC citizens while finding the CCP distasteful, only to be countered by many a respondent that a “chinese person” should support “china” without equivocation. The latter position simply makes no sense to me.
CLC says
@ SKC,
I’d let Buxi speak for himself if he so chooses. For me, the terms of “Chinese person” and “China” are clear. However, I don’t think forcing a “definition” on those terms would necessary be helpful. If you look at the debate on abortion, you will find to define a seemly simple term “human life” is the most controversial issue. When does a human life begin? The moment a sperm and an egg meet? An embryo forms? At birth?
I think Buxi has made clear that supporting China does not equal agreeing with government policy. Of course a Chinese person can support China but against the CCP. In fact, If someone, Chinese or not, genuinely believes that Tibet independence or boycotting Beijing Olympics is beneficial to Chinese citizens, and presents his/her argument in a respectful and constructive way, I would consider this person as supporting/helping China.
S.K. Cheung says
To CLC:
thanks for your response. I appreciate your comparison. I do have a clear definition personally in the latter debate, but that is irrelevant here.
I agree with your second point, and only wish that others could have a similarly open mind. In my blogging travels on this topic, you are one of the first commentators to acknowledge such a possibility.
Buxi says
S.K. Cheung,
I think CLC put it very well above.
Let me be the second behind CLC to acknowledge the same, regarding the theoretical possibility of someone supporting Tibetan independence or boycotting the Beijing Olympics while “helping” China. However, I have yet to come across any such individual.
I don’t think an absolute standard of what it means to be Chinese exists. 100 years ago, the definition would have been easy. But in the 21st century, those with Chinese DNA (or upbringing) do have the realistic option of being something else. In my eyes, being “Chinese” has often become a voluntary definition.
S.K. Cheung says
To Buxi and CLC:
Thanks for your replies. WRT Tibetan independence, some Tibetans seek it, presumably as they see it to be to their benefit. PRC opposes it, as they see it as a detriment. I would like to explore the second part. I’ve read the historical justifications for Tibet being within China, such as the territorial relationship dating back hundreds of years at least. There’s also the point that the PLA moved in to liberate Tibetan serfs and slaves. In moving forward, the principle of “One China” drives policy. My questions are the following:
1. If a majority of the residents of present day Tibet do not want to remain in China (I realize that is a major assumption, and the act of accurately determining that ie a referendum is not a realistic option for the CCP circa 2008), how does it benefit China to keep this territory in the fold? It’s like keeping a bad apple employee within a company: wouldn’t company performance, and the morale of remaining employees, improve by removing said bad apple, such that all who remain truly want to be there, and are willing to wholeheartedly contribute to the “business” of improving China?
2. “One China” is a euphemism I don’t understand. There was, is, and ever will be only one China. The question is what geographical parts you include. Does a region that at one time was considered part of China, need to forever remain so, for the present and future benefit of the whole?
Buxi says
S.K. Cheung,
I take a shot at answering your interesting questions on a different blog entry:
https://hiddenharmonies.org/?p=83
Qrs says
In response to SKC #22- and other posts that deal with Tibet and ‘One China’-
Stupid question #1:
Isn’t it the case that Tibet is NOT a province 省 in China but an ‘Autonomous Region’ 自治区? Just curious… where’s the autonomy? Is it just too laughable to think seriously about meaningful or significant autonomy? I at least have to wonder what would happen if real substance was added to the name of ‘自治区’. If Tibet had a meaningful degree of autonomy (you know, something less or equal to a ‘one country, two/three systems’) then would a) Tibetans might FEEL (as mentioned above) less oppressed and b) under such conditions might they favor being part of ‘One China’ more? What would change for the better, what would not?
Stupid question #2:
It seems that the equation of CCP = The State is clear, and few would disagree that The People = China. Many netizens (and the Party of course) equate CCP = China. The Party also favors CCP = the People (as in the CNN / Cafferty / ‘goons and thugs’ incident) But I don’t see anyone (openly) saying that the People = the Party. Why not? Is is just possible that the narrowness of political enfranchisement might be at the root of the problems discussed here? Just a thought…
党 = 国家； (中华)人民 = 中国，祖国；党 = 中国； 党 = 人民(的代表），中华人民（共和国）；为什么人民 ≠ 党？
Stupid question #3:
Following up on that last thought… With so many patriots around various forums these days, why don’t I see netizens posting about how they want to join the Party in order to support China and/or make it better? Why don’t I see people posting about how they want to join the Party to make the Party better? Or is that what (L) CHINA on MSN *really* means? 😉
Curious,
Qrs
Buxi says
@Qrs,
Not sure why you brought this old thread to the forefront to discuss Tibet. There are several more recent options. Just to quickly address your stupid questions:
#1 – the Tibet Autonomous Region does have a significant degree of autonomy. China is otherwise very centralized, with all province-level policies set within the national framework. The TAR can implement its own policies without seeking Beijing approval. The TAR also invests heavily in Tibetan language media (TV + newspapers), Tibetan language education… the legal and political system allows Tibetans to exist without knowing a word of Chinese.
Can the level or form of “autonomy” in Tibet be improved? Perhaps. There are probably lessons we can learn from Europe on that account. Should Tibet have a “high degree” of autonomy similar to that of Hong Kong? The autonomy granted for Hong Kong is intended to end in another 40 years; it’s not meant to be a permanent solution. Furthermore, no country in Europe offers that level of autonomy on the basis of race and skin color; I don’t think China should either.
#2: This question, sad to say, is rather stupid. I don’t want to insult my intelligence or anyone else’s intelligence by trying to follow the logic any further than the first equation, that “party = country”.
#3: Chinese nationalism predates the Communist Party, and it will be here long after the Communist Party. The oldest political party in China, and the current ruling party in Taiwan, is the Nationalist Party. The Communist Party is a relic of history, and I personally suspect it will be gone (or heavily reformed) in another few decades. But China will still be here, and we will continue to love her and uphold her interests.
somebody says
To Buxi:
I really hope so, because sometime I fell really fearful when the government supress informations, because it kind of a feeling that there is no way to know if some diseaster happen.
I really whish the government can just relax about the talk about democracy and free speech.
FOARP says
@Buxi – Someone cannot be called a ‘traitor’ simply for not supporting something, their may be very good reasons for not supporting your country – pacifism for example. I certainly do not regard those who refused to serve in the armed forces during the world wars due to consciencious objections as traitors. A traitor is someone who actually works against their own country – not someone who does not support it due to reasons of consciencious or simply a failure to see your point of view.
Buxi says
Well, someone can be called something for any reason at all. You might simply disagree.
In this case I’m not sure that we *do* disagree. A pacifist might believe the best way of supporting their country in the long run is to abstain from fighting, I can respect that. But someone who simply doesn’t *care* about their country’s interests… I don’t know if traitor is the right word, but that’s clearly something else.
FOARP says
@Buxi – I can accept that there are those who hold religious or political beliefs or the sympathies of the family above those of country, as long as they do not actively work against their country I do not see how they can be called traitors. I do not see how you can label people who call themselves Chinese who do not support China’s policies in Tibet as ‘race traitors’, Tibet represents a conflict between groups inside China’s current borders – not a conflict between China and another sovereign state. The men who planted the Warrington bombs were murdering bastards, but I’m sure they think of themselves as patriots.
Qrs says
To Buxi:
1. Are you suggesting that Tibet “Autonomous” Region can initiate policy or disobey the CCP Central Committee on questions of policies that affect it? 胡说八道! Give just one example of the TAR overriding the CCP Central Committe. As for allowing Tibetans to exist without knowing Chinese… that’s just… nice. I am sure Tibetans appreciate it.
2. I’m just listing all the formulations I have heard that try to describe the exact relationship between the Party and the People. It’s confusing because there is no logical, much less formal, functional relationship between Party and People that I know of, and that’s the key to this whole discussion. What else did I miss? Looking back in history, I could also mention Sun Zhongshan’s Three Principles of the People, the various Mass Movements of the Mao era from the Hundred Flowers to the Denounce Lin, Criticize Confucius Campaign, to the more recent Three Represents of Jiang to the current Scientific Development and Harmonious Society concepts of Hu.
Aside from the Three Principles (a KMT policy anyway) none of these concepts, theories, or campaigns offers any formal, logical, legal, representative, and it goes without saying- effective- means for the People to seek redress for their grievances. Most of them are barely-defined B.S. I suggest to you that this question underlies a whole series of issues facing China today. That’s why I followed my point by asking, where are the patriots lining up to join the Party? Because unless you join the Party and try to change it from inside (good luck) the only alternative you have is to complain about it online (like here). What else is there?
If it’s Tibetan people rioting in Lhasa, or Han Chinese rioting in Wen’An the cause is clear: the Party allows no public, political dissent or legal and effective means of redress for grievances. People can only take so much misgovernment, and so violence is always just one incident away. Seems like these incidents, large and small, are happening on an increasingly regular basis now. It also seems like the Party is gambling with social stability for the sake of the Party’s best interests, only to call it the nation’s best interests.
I ask you: are the people of Wen’An not patriots? Or does their resort to violence make them ‘splittists’ like those in Tibet? Or are they just average people who deserve better from their hopelessly corrupt, authoritarian, and non-inclusive, non-democratic, and non-representative government? As for ruling out HK-style status for Tibet and ending it in 40 years for HK anyway, why should we see that as a good thing? Why would that be better for the people? And what affect does that have on people in Taiwan? Is that going to entice them to unify with the PRC? It all seems very short-sighted to me, and sadly, only designed to promote Party control as in all issues. But then, that’s the business they’re in.
3. Separating CCP’s interests from the People’s and China’s national interests is of course an excellent idea– but of course the Party actively opposes this. (I indicated as much in #2.) I guess you’re progressive if you see the Party withering away, though. But again you avoid answering the question: what is a patriot to do if he/she wants to improve the country besides join the CCP? Aside from getting online and doing this type of thing, what is there? Take the government to court when you have a serious grievance? Write an email to Hu Jintao?