I came across this odd report while reading the NYT this morning, concerning the growing number of demonstrations by Chinese immigrant students on college campuses over the past few weeks concerning the issue of 'defamation' - namely the students feel that their homeland is being unjustly persecuted over its human rights violations (which they largely don't see as such), and such demonstrations have at some schools overwhelmed or attacked pro-Tibet and other demonstrations. The climate has gotten so hostile that several Tibetan students interviewed for the story indicated that they had gone into hiding.

I found this really eye-opening, especially some of the quotes, but not that surprising - these students, after all, are overwhelmingly the children of privelege, and come from families and social strata that have seen the best of China's 'authoritarian capitalism' revolution. But the rancor of the demonstrations, as well as some of the quotes, really give you a window into another perspective (as well as the effects of being raised in an authoritarian culture) on the issue, for good or ill:

Some highlights here:


Campuses including Cornell, the University of Washington (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/u/university_of_washington/index.html?inline=nyt-org) in Seattle and the University of California, Irvine, have seen a wave of counterdemonstrations using tactics that seem jarring in the American academic context. At the University of Washington, students fought to limit the Dalai Lama’s address to nonpolitical topics. At Duke, pro-China students surrounded and drowned out a pro-Tibet vigil; a Chinese freshman who tried to mediate received death threats, and her family was forced into hiding.


At the U.S.C. lecture, the Chinese students arrived early to distribute handouts on Tibet and China that contained a jumble of abbreviated history, slogans and maps with little context. A chart showing that infant mortality in Tibet had plummeted since 1951, when the Communist Chinese government asserted control, did not provide any means for comparison with mortality rates in China or other countries.
One photograph showed the Dalai Lama with Heinrich Harrer, author of “Seven Years in Tibet” and a one-time member of the Nazi Party — hence the question about the Dalai Lama’s connection to Hitler, who died when the Dalai Lama was nine.

And here are some of the quotes from the demonstrators themselves:


“Before I came here, I’m very liberal,” said Minna Jia, a graduate student in political science at U.S.C. who encouraged fellow students to attend the monk’s lecture (where he was shouted down and had objects thrown at him). “But after I come here, my professor told me that I’m nationalist.”
“I believe in democracy,” Ms. Jia added, “but I can’t stand for someone to criticize my country using biased ways. You are wearing Chinese clothes and you are using Chinese goods.”

There is a real (and somewhat valid) concern being expressed by these students that they are being tarred by the authoritarian brush while Americans refuse to recognize both the strides China has made (materially) and how much they personally, as well as the Chinese and (willing or not) Tibetans, have benefitted from this, but at the same time, many college campuses, which strive to be impartial centers of public debate, feel that the economic juggernaut that is China, and more importantly fears of offending our largest creditor, have stifled impartial discussion on issues surrounding the country.

Underlying all of this is the fact that almost all of the students have family in, and/or plan to return to, mainland China, and the knowledge that their actions (especially on the Internet) can be and are placed under surveillance by their own government and used against them, gives an additional, somewhat sinister, tone to the whole debate.

Thoughts, anyone?

Regards,
Nydia

Oh, entire article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/education/29student.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5087&em&en=c70b587b17baf321&ex=1209614400

Apparently there is a fair amount of analysis going on internationally with regard to the Chinese brand of 'authoritarian capitalism' and the seeming paradox with regard to human rights. This is from Swiss publication (unfortunately, there isn't a ready English translation of the entire article):


Die Weltwoche 24.04.2008 (Switzerland)

Insurgent Tibetans are separatist troublemakers. Whoever supports them is an enemy of China and merits boycotting. This is not propaganda of the ruling party but the view of the new Chinese bourgeoisie, writes China correspondent Georg Blume. "They think that Beijing is doing its best to create more wealth for everyone. They hope that this wealth will one day lead to democracy. But they are not prepared to sacrifice what has already been achieved for democracy. Their homes and cars are more important to them than suffrage for 700 million farmers who still make up the majority of the population. They do not want this majority to steer policy in China. They are much more concerned that the government should secure their wealth, protect their new property. For them, democracy can wait. But this does not mean that they want to be treated as second-rate world citizens. Their opinions should count on the world's stage just as much as that of western citizens. This is another aspect of the conflict over Tibet and the Olympics."

If it were Americans faced with the same conflict, would we vote our ideals or our self-interest? Perhaps we are already being confronted with this same issue, if one looks at which side of the coin our last administration fell on?

Another view, from an Indian publication (which is available in its entirety in English):


Outlook India 05.05.2008 (India)

Over and out: the West can wave farewell to economic cultural dominance. "The East is the new West" Arun Maira learns from reading "The New Asian Hemisphere - The Irresistible Shift of Global Power to the East" by political scientist Kishore Mahbubani. Mahbubani sees India as a bridge between East and West. And in his view, China is developing an effective counter-model to western values. Maira recapitulates: "China is greatly misunderstood by the West. But this does not mean that its views are wrong. In fact, as Mahbubani explains, the Chinese have a deep understanding of the meaning of human freedom and of basic human wants. What they are bringing about is a huge improvement in the condition of a mass of humanity in their own way, which may not appeal to Western liberals, but which, therefore, should not be judged to be wrong."

Thoughts? Anyone? (yes, I'm both sick and procrastinating deadlines again ;) )

Regards,
Nydia