James Fallows

This follows my dispatch last weekend on the proper and improper bounds of foreigners finding fault with a big, contradictory, quickly changing, disorderly-but-progressing society.

Reader WSR, who has spent a lot of time in Shanghai, alerted me to this one just now. It's from our old friend The Shanghaiist:

Sidney Rittenberg's The Man Who Stayed Behind (with Amanda Bennett) is a genuinely astonishing book. To be more precise, it is a dramatic account of a genuinely astonishing life.

Rittenberg, who grew up in Charleston, South Carolina in the 1920s, went to China in the 1940s as a language expert with the U.S. Army (right) -- and stayed for decades, as a committed believer in Chinese Communism and the new path being blazed by Chairman Mao. His loyalty to the country and its leaders survived his two long stretches, totaling 16 years, in solitary confirement as a political prisoner there in the early 1950s and again in the late 1960s. He still travels back and forth to China and, in his 90s, is actively involved in US-China affairs.

This evening -- Tuesday, May 14 -- I will have a chance to talk with Sidney Rittenberg about China then and now, at an event in Seattle sponsored by the Washington State China Relations Council. It's at 6pm at the ACT Theater; details here. I understand that C-SPAN intends to film his remarks, but if you're in the vicinity, please consider coming. I have met him before but am tremendously excited to have a chance to ask him about his experiences and views. It is an opportunity to hear about history, first-hand.

I've been thinking quite hard about the amount of negative China articles that have appeared on your blog, usually in the form of links to Western laments about Chinese life and culture, as well as, of course, pictures of Beijing's pollution [1]. This is part of what I view as a general media trend of China-bashing [2]. Clearly, you love China, so I'm not accusing you in any way of being anti-China or malevolent, but I think you would agree there has been a rise/change in tone in coverage of China over the last year and a half.[3]

A prime example is the piece you linked to two days ago, where the author made sweeping generalizations based on singular anecdotes that paint the entire Chinese populace as rude, shallow and sub-human (or at least sub-Western.)[4] In analyzing a country of over a billion people, how can we take seriously someone who can paints with such a biased (and shockingly untruthful, if we were going to compare anecdotal memories) brush? Wouldn't it be similarly possible to write a similar anecdotal and nonfalsifiable story about America? Or any other country? Would we assume a fair appraisal if a Chinese person did the same to us?[5] I doubt it.

So why does this piece get coverage from you and the rest of the internet? I believe it's because it fits a media narrative that has been growing in strength over the last year or year and a half. I would summarize this narrative  as: "News Stories That China is Not As Good As The West."[6] Examples of these stories include the story making the rounds the last week on the quality of lamb in restaurants,[7] ubiquitous reports on various degrees of Chinese corruption and of course, pollution pictures.[8]

Now these are big important stories (except the lamb one,) but the focus on on China as opposed to say, India seems particularly acute. I am assuming that this is due to the news media's need for a rival to the United States in the post Soviet Era.[9] As China actually has some potential to pass the US in GDP (kind of meaningless) and perhaps have a say in regional (and maybe global?) security matters, I guess this is makes for news? I am assuming it's the present version of the Cold War Era "look how long the Soviets had to wait in line for bread" stories.[10] 

 

But at least China is open for Westerners to visit,[11] as opposed to the USSR of the 70s, leading to a particularly annoying narrative: the disgruntled foreigner leaving China because of excess pollution/corruption/hurt feelings. What kills me about this type of article is the total lack of acknowledgement of a huge advantage any Westerner gets when living in China: a five or ten fold increase in purchasing power.[12]

Some small examples from my time there:

• You can ride the Beijing subway, whose frequency and coverage exceeds all American lines with the possible exception of New York, for 30 cents (2 yuan.)
• You can take a taxi for 2 miles (maybe 3 or 4?) for an initial fee of 10 yuan in Beijing, or $1.60.
• You can swing into a hutong restaurant and order enough (incredible) food for 4 easily for 80 yuan, or maybe 3$ a person.
• You can hire a maid for 50/100 yuan to clean your likely cheap apartment. 

So why wouldn't someone expect a tradeoff if they moved to China between prices paid and living standards? And why isn't it explained by China watchers that while Chinese GDP per capita is 1/6th the US? That China is not a developed country, and that it's nowhere close to being one, despite it's massive growth of the last few decades? That Westerners who travel or live there that are expecting the comforts of home are fooling themselves?

Excuse the rant. I'm not sure why I'm responding to you about this. I think it's my fear that over the coming decades, the US and China will be thrown into an antagonistic relationship that will be an antagonism of choice.[13] And people who do not share the love for China and the Chinese people you and I do, will  look to this rising negative tide for rationalization of fear and hatred of the other. But in doing so, both countries will be turning their backs on incredible places and peoples that offer so much to each other. 

Thanks for listening. And here's hoping you have many future sunny Beijing days. The mountains ARE beautiful when you can seem them.

On the assorted points of disagreement:

• I should probably underscore the context of the "I hate China, and that's because I hate the Chinese people" rant I provided a link for [4]. The initial surprise value is that it comes from a site whose usual tone is "We hate foreigners, and that's because they criticize China." This post, equal in fury though opposite in direction to what normally appears, was from an ethnically Chinese foreigner who was having difficulty in his several months of living here.
  
  The central message of that post was: the Chinese people are worse than their system. As I pointed out in linking to it, my view has been the reverse: "Even though a thousand aspects of modern Chinese life drive me crazy, I still can't help liking the openness, the vim, the life of most of the people I meet here. That is, I find it easier to get along with the people than with the whole system." For instance, see a moment from one of my early visits to the Qingdao Beer Festival, at right.
  
  
• What's the reason for noting harshly critical material like this at all? It is because modern China -- like America, like Israel, like Turkey, like Mexico, like any other place that matters or any topic that deeply engages people -- is the subject of ongoing, passionate debate. People have strong views pro and con; opinions interact with one another and evolve; realities are so complex that many contradictory statements can all be "true" at the same time. I didn't agree with this (pseudonymous) writer or think that he had provided a "fair" [5] overview of everything Chinese. But I thought his venting was worth noting as part of the mix.
  
  
• Anyone, including me, needs to struggle against being defensive when criticized, and I realize that the reader-in-Boston is going out of his way to say that he doesn't think I agree with the ranting guy. But for record, the balance I've tried always to convey, and that I actually believe, is this: China is a society with enormous problems and probably-greater strengths and assets; life in China was, for my wife and me, usually harder than in other places, and usually more rewarding; the relationship between China and America involves very serious disagreements, but much more numerous areas of common interest; and so on. Check out here or here or here for chapter and verse.
  

Skipping past a bunch of other incidentals, here is the big point of agreement: Like the reader in Boston, I think it's possible (1) that the U.S. and China could end up in a snarling position of mutual suspicion and hostility, (2) that if this happened it would be self-induced, since it is not inevitable, (3) that a mainly hostile rather than mainly collaborative US-China relationship  would be bad for people in the two countries and everywhere else, and so therefore (4) it is very important that it not occur.

Where I differ from that reader is on whether "critical" stories about China -- carefully alarming ones, about food safety or pollution, or insanely hostile ones like the "I hate China" rant -- are driving the countries apart. To me, on balance, they suggest a properly realistic portrayal: neither too rosy and credulous, nor too resentful and suspicious. This is why in everything I write and everything I say I urge Americans to "take China seriously, without being afraid of it." Americans understand the realistic mix of goods and bads in our own country. Of course it's easier to maintain that balance about your own self/family/country than to apply it externally. But I think the range of good and bad coverage of China now being presented to the world -- like the mixed goods and bads about America that have long been on display to everyone  -- is in the long run indispensable to, rather than destructive of, a real relationship.

Enough in that vein. The book-length version of the argument above is China Airborne. For the record, specific annotation points:
____

[1] It is worth harping on pollution, because (according to me) "sustainability" in all its aspects is the major threat to China's continued development, and the major challenge China's economic growth poses for the world as a whole.

[2] For the record, I'm against any variant of the term "bashing" to describe international discourse -- Japan-bashing, China-bashing, America-bashing, etc. It assumes, rather that argues, that any criticism reflects prejudice rather than actual grounds for complaint. Saying that America has a Guantanamo problem -- or a social-class-divide problem or a drone-warfare problem -- is not America-bashing. Saying that China has problems of its own is not China-bashing.

[3] I think there has been both "good" and "bad" coverage (ie, both positive and negative stories) about China in that time. It is inarguable that in 2010 and 2011 China's foreign policy claims (based on its increased economic confidence) provoked reactions in many other Asian countries. Similarly, the Bo Xilai case occurred in this time; pollution levels rose; etc.

[4] Yes, this was a rant, revealing as much about the author as about the subject.

[5] Yes, but people make extreme complaints about America all the time -- I do it myself. For a subject as vast as America, or China, no single assessment can be perfectly "fair." If it tried to be, it would be really boring. You hope that the  flow of info and argument in its entirety will be enlightening and thus "fair" over time.

[6] Speaking personally, I have zero interest in whether China is "better" than America, or vice versa. It's like asking whether a car is better than a baseball game. These are societies with some points of similarity and a lot of points of difference. Even the Cold War-era arguments on whether the "American model" or the "Soviet model" offered a better path to development don't apply here. For reasons of scale, history, geography, and other factors, China and America are each a category-of-one internationally. Neither offers a realistic model for others to apply.

[7] The lamb-meat-or-is-it-rat? stories are important rather than trivial, because they're connected to larger concerns about food-safety that matter to much of the Chinese public.

[8] Again: pollution and the environment constitute Issue Number One.

[9] As I argued in a long story here, during America's era as a world power, it has often projected fears about its own economy or society onto foreign rivals. I think it's a big mistake to do so with China. Whatever is wrong with America now would be just as wrong if China didn't exist. The converse is mainly true for China. The right way to use the Chinese "challenge," in my view, is the way Obama has in some of his big speeches. That is, as a positive challenge: If China can develop wind energy, so can we, etc.

[10] I agree on this. Whether from Americans or Chinese or anyone else, the "well, what about your problems" reflex gets you nowhere. China has pollution problems; to say, "Well, America has too many schoolyard shootings" doesn't get you anywhere. America has violence problems; to say "Well, China is polluted" also does no good.

[11] China is more open than the Soviet Union generally was, and more than it used to be. It is not as fully "open" as it should be. Ask the Western journalists and scholars whose visas are denied or yanked on purely political grounds. (Yes, I know, the US also has a visa problem, but one of different nature and scale.)

[12] For what it's worth, the China-as-bargain-basement angle is, for me, not a significant part of its appeal. Some things are very cheap; others are expensive. Mainly, as noted, it is the life and vividness of the typical day in China that attracts me.

[13] Back to our agreement. From Richard Nixon's through Barack Obama's, an otherwise completely different sequence of American administrations has adopted policies based on the premise that the United States and China need to find ways to work together rather than become enemies. That the relationship between China and America has been as constructive as it has been reflects credit on people on both sides. It's worth working to continue it.

Now preparing for the trek back to the U.S. -- and in the knowledge that the airport from which I begin the trip, Beijing Capital, will be far more convenient, modern, and pleasant than the one where I'll arrive, Washington Dulles. I suppose you could fairly call me a Dulles-basher.

I mentioned two days ago that I had encountered famous Chinese artist Ai Weiwei (and famous Spanish/American chef Jose Andres) in the evening in Beijing. I didn't mention that a few minutes after the picture I used was taken, I had seen Ai Weiwei giving a highly stylized haircut to someone in the courtyard outside a restaurant.

Ai Weiwei, oversized personality that he is, must understand the cult and farce of celebrity and those who would fawn in the face of it. At the risk of reading way too much into this, perhaps that's the wry, mischievous reasoning behind his deliberately woeful haircuts: because he knows you -- you - will appreciate it, since it came from him. It's why you'll wear it for a day, a week, a month after the fact, looking ridiculous because no one else understands the context. You know, however. You got a haircut from Ai Weiwei.

The past week in China has been as packed and enlightening as any comparable span I've spent anywhere, but since I have to get up in a few hours for a very early-morning (China time) muster, I will wait until tomorrow to begin a description.

Watching the Chinese artist Ai Weiwei (center) advise the Spanish/American chef Jose Andres (right) in the flair and nuance of creating iPhone videos, when they crossed paths this evening in Beijing. I have no larger point here -- except to say that I will try to explain later what it was like seeing two such room-filling personalities in the same place at the same time.

1) Recently I mentioned some of the obstacles that might slow China's path to ever-greater prosperity and influence. In a similar vein, consider an essay from Ely Ratner, of the Center for a New American Security, on "China's Victim Complex." Ratner's item examines recent tensions between China and its neighbors in the region, and asks what the episodes teach us about China more generally. Some of the conclusions are parallel to those I offered in this article and this book, especially about the awkwardness China's leaders reveal as they they try to adjust to their country's new prominence. As Ratner puts it:

This is the kind of item I can post while finishing a print-magazine story. A friend in China sends this compare-and-contrast photo:

Over the years I've chronicled the activities of Liam Casey -- an entrepreneur originally from Cork, Ireland; then based in Southern California until he couldn't get a green card; then working since the late 1990s in Shenzhen, southern China, where he has been at the center of the Chinese outsourced-manufacturing boom. Here are two articles about him, from 2007 and last year.

>>A good friend and academic colleague (prof at [a well-known West Coast university]), Chinese citizen with a green card, 28 year resident of the USA, is in the customs line at the Bradley Terminal [international-arrivals area at LAX.]

Asked if he had any cash, he answered 'none'. Then, realizing he had some pocket money, he said, "Oh, I forgot - I have a little. Poquito." (smiling)

"Please step over to that line, sir."

In 'the line you don't want to be in', he was searched carefully. He asked why.

"We have a lot of rich Chinese trying to bring lots of money into the USA these days."

"Do I look like a rich Chinese?"

"Could be, sir."

Upshot was that they confiscated both mobile devices and the laptop. He received the mobile devises several days later, they still have the laptop.

He thinks maybe it was the attempted Spanish that ticked off the Latino officer.<<

Again, for making a joke to a customs agent, a professor coming back to work lost control of the electronic devices through which many people manage their business and personal activities. You can choose how you would like to categorize these reports: under "the way we live now," or "seeing ourselves as others see us." Other possibilities: "life under the sequester." Or, "annals of the security state."

1) Yan Lianke, in the NYT, on "China's State-Sponsored Amnesia." Sample:

[Widespread Chinese ignorance of the "June 4 1989 episode"] reminded me of something another teacher told me. She had asked her students from China if they had heard about the death by starvation of 30 to 40 million people during the so-called "three years of natural disasters" in the early 1960s. Her students responded with stunned silence, as if she, a teacher in Hong Kong, was brazenly fabricating history to attack their mother country.

A few days ago my wife and I took the famed Chinese high-speed train from the Beijing South Station to Shanghai's Hongqiao. Total distance 800+ miles, travel time (including en-route stops) just over 5 hours, average cruising speed 300 kms per hour, or about 180 mph. Yes, you guessed it, that's more than twice as fast as the Amtrak Acela's average 80 mph between New York and Washington. 

On our China Channel, Eli Bildner posted an eloquent appreciation of Henry Winter, an American who had made a big impression in China before his death last year, from a cerebral hemorrhage, at age 43. I mention it now for these reasons:

There's no longer any surprise in noting that China has grave environmental problems. For the record, I am sticking with my claim that the simultaneous degradation of air quality, water quality, water supply, food safety, soil quality, and other environment-related variables is the main challenge to China's continued development. And of course the global effects of China's rise to wealth -- through atmospheric emissions, pressure on natural resources, acceleration of deforestation and over-fishing, market demand for ivory and other body parts of endangered species -- are urgent issue to be resolved with the rest of the world. 

My wife and I have spent the past several nights at a hotel in Beijing, and we've just arrived at one in Shanghai. Both of the hotels are very nice and welcoming, and on check-in each of them provided a special notice about communication problems guests might encounter during their stay. Here are the notices side-by-side. You probably can't read the tiny print, but there is an explanation below.



It's fun to be back in Shanghai. And if you're at the M on the Bund Shanghai Literary Festival tomorrow (Friday), please be sure to see Deborah Fallows at noon. I'll be there on Sunday.

Two days ago I mentioned the venerable and Onion-esque Chinese media practice of featuring various "beautiful journalists" who are covering the big-deal political conferences underway now in Beijing. A sample from this year's installment in People's Daily:


Of course he's right. I'll have to get back in the game.