This post is a response to two essays written this past weekend. One on the blog Froogville that in turn sparked a response from Richard at The Peking Duck. Below are my own thoughts, which began as a comment on TPD but ran long and so I’ve decided to post them here.
I don’t think that fenqing can be defined by a particular perspective or viewpoint. Certainly adopting the CCP or Han nationalist worldview doesn’t make one a fenqing. Furthermore, it is far too simplistic to say that just because somebody accepts the CCP worldview on a set of issues this means they are “indoctrinated” or “brainwashed.” But I would suggest that fenqing do share some traits in common with the CCP. The CCP’s information/education environment is not only mono-message but actively hostile to dissenting perspectives. Likewise, for me, the defining characteristic of a fenqing is not strong belief in a particular view, but rather an inability to accept that other valid perspectives might exist.
As with the CCP, a common strategy is to attack the speaker/writer rather than address an argument. For the party, witness the continuing ham-handed attempts to paint the Dalai Lama as a “jackal in monk’s robes,” or the knee-jerk detention and intimidation of dissenters and protesters. On a smaller scale, the fenqing follow the same playbook: Anti-CNN, ad hominem attacks on websites and blogs, Chinese exceptionalism (If you’re not from China, how dare you say…), all attack the messenger with very little said about the message.
The third characteristic reminiscent of the CCP (and the US government for the past eight years) is a consistent tendency to see complex issues in black/white with no room for nuance, complexity, or balance. Fenqing bristle at the mere introduction of complexity into the discussion, so enmeshed are they in the certainty of a worldview cast in anti-intellectual stone fronted by a plaque that reads “New learning need not apply, I have all I will ever need.”
Finally, and this is perhaps of greater importance for historians, debate on history for fenqing, as it is for the CCP, is driven not by the spirit of historical inquiry and research, but by the emotional and political needs of the present. The rich history of the Tibetan people is less important than justifying the PRC’s continued control over the region. Anything that is irrelevant to that goal (or worse, complicates those claims) is attacked and dismissed.
At the same time, it’s easy to overstate the importance of the fenqing. The fenqing are to most patriotic Chinese youth what the meth-riddled KKK rednecks on Jerry Springer are to the Republican party. They are wildly overrepresented on the internet, and the web gives this whacked-out fringe a powerful megaphone that amplifies their voices and adds to their self-importance.
This is hardly scientific, but every once in awhile, if I get the chance, I’ll ask colleagues or friends about fenqing or show them some of the nuttier comments left on sites like The Peking Duck or Blog for China, and ask them their opinion. “Lonely boys” is one of the most common replies, along with “morons,” “people of poor quality,” or “well-intentioned but without culture.” Unscientific to be sure, but telling: I do think most of the fenqing are motivated as much by psychological warps as they are politics. Young men (and there is a heavy gender component to this whole debate as might well be imagined), stuck in dorm rooms in Boston or Paris, socially isolated, sexually frustrated, and confronted with cognitive dissonance caused by the new information environment. They huddle before their computer screens or clasp together in tight monolingual groups and vent. (For that matter, that describes any number of “fenwai” in Beijing as well, but I digress…)
Last year I suggested this potential headline: “Angry Chinese youth finds girlfriend, loses virginity, decides ‘CNN not so bad after all.’”
Nationalism in China, especially online nationalism, is an important trend to watch. While the PRC is an authoritarian government, it is not immune to the pressures of public opinion. There is always the potential that in the event of an international (or domestic) crisis, online opinion, if left unchecked, could run ahead of the government position and so limit the options for a moderate response. But if we are to accept that being a fenqing is less about a particular perspective than a style of debate, then it’s also clear that the fenqing are hardly the totality of the new Chinese patriotism. They are a loud voice, to be sure, that is their modus operandi, but scratch the surface and they are quickly unmasked for who they truly are: lonely boys, bullies hiding behind ridiculous screen names, and anti-intellectual frauds.
Nevertheless, they can be hard to ignore, especially the online trolls that infest sites like The Peking Duck and others, though it’s wise to remember that despite the shrillness of their voices, the fenqing and the troll can best be compared to the short guy in the corner of the bar, whom all the women are ignoring, and so he decides to be as obnoxious as possible in the hope that somebody–anybody–notices him. Frankly, it’s kind of sad, and so, I feel, are the fenqing.
Lonely Boys and Losers: Are we overstating the fenqing phenomenon?: This post is a response to two essays writte.. http://tinyurl.com/bpjkp6
@GraniteStudio good post on fenqing RT http://tinyurl.com/bpjkp6
Granite Studio on China’s hysterical fenqing: http://tinyurl.com/bpjkp6 Insightful, and funny, too.
Lonely Boys and Losers: Are we overstating the fenqing phenomenon? – http://bit.ly/oFVwy excellent, balanced piece on China’s “angry youth”
[...] Jeremiah chimes in, and he’s spot-on as usual. Baked by Richard @ 1:36 pm, Filed under: [...]
You said it all, and beautifully, too. This should be in the Wikipedia definition of fenqing.
Yes. I agree. Beautifully described.
Absolutely, couldn’t agree more with this well written piece!!!
I am sure right now there are many fenqing belling up to their computers, fingers posed over the keys getting ready to fire off some lame attempt to dispute this article right now!
Diane
I think writing them off as a bunch of sexually frustrated young guys belittles their significance and is not particularly accurate.
I personally know of plenty of individuals that I would classify as ‘fenqing’ who are female, and plenty who are in relationships – thus presumably getting some action. I have also observed a disappointing unwillingness among the overseas Chinese community to publicly criticize the worst excesses of the fenqing (i.e. violently assaulting innocent bystanders at protests). It isn’t just the fenqing, patriotism/nationalism trumps rule of law for an awful large number of Chinese, even those living overseas.
It’s all rather disappointing.
“I have also observed a disappointing unwillingness among the overseas Chinese community to publicly criticize the worst excesses of the fenqing”
I myself have noticed the lack of criticisms against Chinese nationalists by other Chinese people. This is in contrast to the many Americans and many British and many French who criticize their own American/British/French nationalists.
I analyzed and documented this decrepancy and my findings I dub as “The Chinese Imbalance of Views Syndrome” which I encourage everyone to read here:
read the comments at any american online newspaper, or god forbid a right wing political site like free republic or little green footballs, and you’ll get much the same tenor of angry wingnuttery. it’s a pretty common online phenomenon in many countries.
as economic times get worse, people will focus their ire, their furious impotence, at whatever or whomever they’re used to hating. it’s likely to be ugly all around.
“a common strategy is to attack the speaker/writer rather than address an argument.”
“meth-riddled KKK rednecks on Jerry Springer”
OK, how is this not attacking the speaker? This is just the pot calling the kettle black.
There’s always a tendency to sneer at your enemies. But sometimes there’s a larger phenomenon at work. George is right, they are merely an extreme manifestation of the deep nationalism in the Chinese psyche.
But now, step back for a bit. What do these reasonable, sexually-experienced, tall, athletic, socially-active people think about the Communist Party? It’s not always rah-rah-rah. Journalists have generally missed the fact that Tibet is an issue of nationalism.
“Jackal in monk’s robes” is actually quite a catchy phrase. I foresee it entering the lexicon, like “Mother of all battles.”
Great post, with two small problems. First, I would think that “socially isolated, sexually frustrated” youths that need a “tight monolingual” environment would visit porn sites rather than political/social commentary blogs, let alone English language blogs. I think fenqins are more genuinely concerned about social/political issues than you have characterized, their specific points of view not withstanding.
Second, the sites you mention are both English language blogs. If you read Chinese language forums and blogs inside China, you’ll immediately see that it’s cool to vent anti-government sentiments, but not pro-government comments, even though both types of comments are often equally full of bigotry rather than sound analysis. As the Hong Kong scholar Gan Yang points out, nowadays in China it takes more courage to express support of the government than to denounce the government. Contrary to what people outside China might imagine, it’s fashionable in today’s China to denounce the Chinese government, at least on the internet.
But I completely agree with you that fenqin should be defined by the “inability to accept that other valid perspectives might exist” rather than by any particular perspective or viewpoint. There are both pro-government and anti-government fenqins. As far as I can tell, inside China there are more anti-government fenqins than pro-government fenqins. Unfortunately, many western media have habitually equated fenqin with nationalism.
Georgie Porgie’s comment is insightful. But I would say it’s not nationalism/patriotism that trumps rule of law. It’s the mob culture that trumps rule of law. Many western media have cheered on the internet vigilante (human flesh searches) in China, as they seem to have exposed many cases of government corruption, but human flesh searches have also been used to for gross violation of privacy and harassment. People (including journalists) need to realize that just because something can be used for anti-government purposes, it doesn’t mean it’s good. For China to establish a well-functioning liberal democracy, you’ve got to first nurture a culture for the respect of the rule of law and contain the mob mentality. The nurturing of such civic culture/norm is more difficult and more important than the establishment of formal political institutions.
It’s beautifully written, but something don’t feel right. After you classify fenqing as someone who target the speaker not the argument, it makes me uncomfortable when you describe them as lonely undersexed losers at the corner. It would be an insult, both to fenqings and young males who are not so lucky in the sex game.
Also, in my experience, if you do a survey in beijing, you may find that the fenqing ratio may be higher in middle aged women and men. Those who spend their youthful ages in Culture Revolution have every reason to be more radical and more cynical. If you’ve talked to cab drivers or have spend a day or two in the office of a SOE , you know what i’m talking about.
Some good comments and I thought I might respond a bit because I see some misunderstandings here of the original article.
Georgie,
This is something we discussed yesterday at brunch, because we all know female ‘fenqing,’ and it’s true not all fenqing are sexually-frustrated losers…but here’s the salient point:
Any number of studies on the subject of nationalism, especially extreme nationalism (and not only in China), note the disproportionate representation of young men, especially young unmarried men, in such movements. It doesn’t take a team of demographers to identify a heavy gender component among the fenqing movement as well.
But I do think overall you make a fair point.
vel,
I think you might have missed the point a bit.
Yes, I am mocking the fenqing a little…but not because of their VIEWS or as way to silence those views. I have no problem with fenqing putting forth their own perspectives on any number of subjects, and allowing those perspectives to compete in the marketplace of ideas.
I am attacking the fenqing for their tactics, specifically attacking the speaker so that ideas are left unexpressed. This is an important distinction which I believe may have escaped your attention.
Finally, the line you cited was written to demonstrate the fringe nature of the fenqing movement and to acquit the saner and more balanced proponents of a “pro-China” perspective.
Wu Ming/Tom,
One could argue that nationalism/patriotism is a continuum, with rational and intelligent debate on one end and the fenqing/American lunatic fringe on the other. Such groups are ever with us, but my larger point is that it’s a mistake to conflate all who fall along this continuum with the extremists.
As I mentioned in the post, nationalism in China is an important trend, worth watching, and the fenqing are certainly a part of that. But only a part.
Politically Incorrect,
Yeah, I like browsing the MIT BBS on which you occasionally see a fenqing flareup but that for the most part contains interesting discussions. And there’s always the “Strong China” board, which ranges from interesting to scary to funny, depending on the day. There are more. Here I was responding to two other posts which dealt rather specifically with English-language blogs and so limited my scope of inquiry accordingly.
Just to repeat: I don’t think every pro-China or pro-government voice is, by definition, fenqing, in fact my point was quite the opposite of that. But I like your take as well, that a fenqing does not, by definition, have to be pro-China.
Two other quick points:
1) I do think the media has a tendency to conflate ‘fenqing’ with ‘Chinese nationalism,’ that’s one of the reasons for this post.
2) I agree about the ‘mob mentality’ being a scary and counterproductive phenomenon. While respecting rule of law is important, I might also suggest that respect for the rights of our fellow human beings is as, or more, important.
nichtech,
I know middle-aged Chinese with strong views on the subject. I live in a small pingfang and a few of my neighbors, especially after a few, will hold forth on a number of topics in a rather boisterous manner.
But if somebody was around during the GPCR, do they still qualify as “qing”? Is there a new word we should use?
In all seriousness though, and to repeat the main point of the article: not all of those who espouse patriotism or even strong nationalist views are fenqing. It’s not the views themselves, I believe, that define the group, but rather a set of behaviors.
Wow, there’s a Wikipedia article on fenqing?! I never thought to check.
Of course, it’s always dangerous to generalise, particularly about a “movement” or social group that is so populous. It’s interesting that one of the common strands perceived in the Wikipedia piece is that fenqing are, in their various ways on various topics, critics of the Chinese government. I guess most of us – foreign bloggers in China, that is – tend to think mainly in terms of the kind of guys who comment on our blogs, who mostly seem to be strongly supportive of ‘the official line’, particularly on questions of foreign policy (although they may think sometimes that the CCP is not extreme enough or vigorous enough); sometimes even to the point where we wonder if they are paid stooges…. or secret policemen on the Internet beat….. or perhaps moonlighting cadres trying to get in some practice for the day when they may have to face the Western media.
I hesitate to conflate fenqing with ‘troll’ – something I consciously refrained from doing in my frivolous little “essay”. Most of the arguably “fenqing” commenters on The Duck, for example – the ones whose comments Richard allows, anyway – although we might not like what they say or how they say it, and although they may have limited ability to actually engage in an argument, are not, I think, simply seeking to disrupt the discussion for the hell of it. And they do from time to time throw up points of some interest.
Pffefer, for example, with whom I was recently jousting over on Stuart’s blog, makes quite a lot of very stimulating points. He just can’t string them together into an argument most of the time. I find ‘troll’ to be a very derogatory term, and I wouldn’t apply it to him.
And that chap Cao Meng De who was on here at ‘Tibet time’ last year was perhaps arguably not fenqing at all, and certainly not a troll: wilfully provocative and extreme in some ways, yes, but overall quite intelligent and reasonable and willing to engage in a conversation.
Most fenqing, I suppose, are active solely in the Chinese-language blogosphere. Many, perhaps, are active in other areas, but not on the Internet at all. If we confine our attention to the fenqing we know and love here and on The Duck and so on, I think it is reasonable to say that adopting a “CCP/Han nationalist worldview” is one of the defining traits (in almost all cases, at any rate); although I would agree with you, J, that the style of argument (or lack of it) is the other key feature.
I take the point that patriotism/nationalism is not a sufficient condition for defining fenqing; but, seriously, how often have you encountered a Chinese nationalist on one of your blogs that was not fenqing? I fear it’s a vanishingly rare phenomenon. Would you hold up Cao Meng De as an example? Anyone else?
Jeremiah,
I was actually referring to forums and blogs inside China such as tianya, netease, and some Chinese luminaries’ blogs, rather than the mitbbs. It varies from site to site, of course, but generally anti-government fenqins are more active than pro-government fenqins.
By the way, I know “brainwashing” is a terribly emotive term, and we should probably try to avoid it when we’re being serious and considered and non-provocative about a topic, but…..
An “information/education environment [that] is not only mono-message but actively hostile to dissenting perspectives”, an environment that induces people to accept a “worldview on a set of issues” and engenders “an inability to accept that other valid perspectives might exist”…… well, that’s one of the best definitions of “brainwashing” I’ve heard. Thanks, J!
PI,
Yeah, that’s what I understood you as writing (hence my crack about “Strong China”), and I think your point about anti-government fenqing is an intriguing one. As I’ve said, I think being a fenqing is less about the stance one takes rather than the tactics or rhetoric one uses in support of that stance.
Except Froog…noting similarities is not the same as arguing causality.
I recommend to the readers to take a look at the long squalid history of “Americanism”. The common features are obvious and needn’t be restated. Let’s call it “Chineseism” and allow that it is a mirror. Both grow out of a fundamental insecurity and fear. Both [along with Russianism, Germanism [though the Germans, as a whole, have damped it down as they learned where can lead] etc.] are virulent and dangerous as they are self-blinding and anti-rational.
Cryptic! What am I missing here? (Haven’t had my morning coffee yet….)
I don’t think I attempted to say anything about causality. I was just curious as to whether you – spending far more time online than me, and in Chinese as well as English – have actually encountered extreme Chinese nationalists who manage not to be fenqing about it?
If you mean, J, that I was implying a causal link between the extreme nationalist views and the behaviours/style of argument – well, no, I didn’t seek to address that.
I think we infer that they usually have a common cause – as you suggest in the article here: the “information/education environment… not only mono-message but actively hostile to dissenting perspectives”.
It might be said that there’s also a connection between the two, a kind of feedback loop. Extreme views tend to engender a reluctance to self-question or to be open to contrary viewpoints; and a weakness in argumentation (and open-mindedness) tends to make views more extreme. I think it probably starts with the Chinese education system, but snowballs from there.
There are many commenters with strong views online who are not fenqing. The key is: do the commenters have strong views AND deny that any other perspective is possible?
Keep in mind too, that your speaking of the online world, which I argue in the post has a tendency to magnify the fenqing yawp.
You mentioned Pfeffer. Now he’s been known to cross the line on some sites, but at least on this one and Stuart’s he expresses, strongly, a particular point of view. At the same time, he’s also perfectly willing to revise his views, admit shades of gray, and even, on occasion, back down as part of a general conversation. That’s NOT fenqing behavior. Moreover, I do believe that he (at least here) comments in the spirit of moving a conversation forward rather than acting in the spirit of intellectual nihilism. Not to pick on Pfeffer, but he’s one of your common foes and so makes a useful point of reference.
The writers of Blog for China are another example. Now that site, even among their stable of writers, does have its wingnut contingent, but many of the posters there, while certainly holding firm views on a variety of subjects, write in a thoughtful way that allows for nuance and complexity in their arguments. That’s not fenqing either.
Ah, well, it seems to me as if you are conceiving of fenqing as being very close to ‘troll’.
For me, it’s more about the vehemence of the views expressed – that will very often lead to troll-like behaviour and “intellectual nihilism”, but not always.
To my mind, Pffefer and his ilk are most definitely fenqing, but not trolls.
I guess I disagree with your fundamental point here. What I understand by fenqing (and the Wikipedia survey largely agrees with me, I think) is defined more by the kind of views adopted and the vociferousness with which they are upheld. The styles of argument you deplore here are a frequent corollary of this – particularly in blog-commenting fenqing – but I do not see them as an essential, defining feature.
And yes, I’ve sometimes seen Chinese commenters write “write in a thoughtful way that allows for nuance and complexity in their arguments” even while “holding firm views on a variety of subjects”; but I don’t think I’ve seen anyone write in such “a thoughtful way” while “holding firm views” on issues of Chinese territory.
Maybe I just don’t get around enough.
Froog,
Yes, we disagree on this point and I am, admittedly, providing my own analysis of the fenqing phenomenon that may differ from, say, Wikipedia. But that’s sort of the point, to separate well-intentioned and sincere expressions of patriotic viewpoints from those on the lunatic fringe who seem to get most of the attention.
When I see the words “lunatic fringe”, I remember how badly I need a haircut.
I think that you over simplified the Chinese feeling about Tibet issue and western media. In my circle of American Chinese, (mostly from mainland and some from Taiwan, they are all with families and jobs), in most social gathering when Tibet issues were mentioned, they all very critical of western media, believing western media deliberately mispresent Tibet issues, such as never once mentioned on CNN that US recongnised Tibet as part of China instead independent country before 1950.
I would say (more seriously) that there is a spectrum here – many, perhaps most online Chinese nationalists are fenqing (because nationalism arouses strong emotions); some fenqing are nothing but trolls (because strong emotions and extreme views tend to lead to anti-intellectualism).
I wouldn’t define fenqing only as ‘nationalist’ or ‘extreme nationalist’, but I wouldn’t define them only as ‘troll’ either. I think there are links between the three terms. Maybe we need a Venn diagram.
Froog,
I agree about the spectrum, I just think you and I disagree about where to draw the line.
Lei,
You almost fell into the trap. You need to read the whole article before simply fixating on the word “Tibet.”
Unless you consider yourself a fenqing, and I’m guessing you don’t, you’ll see that I was using Tibet as an example of a particular style of debate, NOT as a summation of “Chinese feeling.”
I have no doubt that you and your friends have your own perspective on the issue of Tibet and the Western media, just as I’m sure that you and your friends are intelligent and worldly enough to realize that there are also many other valid perspectives on this complicated issue.
The Fenqings are ugly and they are not a fringe in that respect. They need extreme makeovers.
Nels,
New feature for your blog? Extreme Fenqing Makeover?
This is somewhat tangential, I hope you don’t mind, Jeremiah…
I agree Pfeffer et al are not fenqing, but I do resent their unwillingness to address arguments they dislike, instead of holding the commenter in question responsible for policies and actions they are opposed to. Just because I am American does not mean I agree with, much less can be held personally responsible for, the policies and actions of my government. I and other critics of China’s Tibet policy are not hypocritical because we hold our own country to the same standards, and admit it does not reach those standards. Moreover, just because we do not comment on the actions of our countries when our countries are not the topic of discussion does not mean we do nothing in other situations to criticize or change the policies of our countries.
End rant.
“I have no doubt that you and your friends have your own perspective on the issue of Tibet and the Western media”
I think one of the things that characterizes a ‘fenqing’ response is the tendency to reduce broader issues to a single nationalistic argument. Lei’s own reply above betrays this to a degree:
“…such as never once mentioned on CNN that US recongnised Tibet as part of China …”
This typifies the predominant view among Chinese (promoted effectively by their government) that the Tibet ‘issue’ is one of national sovereignty whereby the western media are all trumpeting to the tune of Tibetan independence. This is simply a distortion of reality, effectively moving the debate away from the more common western media reports relating to serious human rights abuses.
The independence part of the Tibetan issue is reported, but not adopted by western media sources. Fenqing have great difficulty getting their heads around the difference, possibly because their own media is a dogmatic reflection of government policy.
Anyway, I see fenqing as not merely the bored and the undersexed venting their narrow minded views, but would also include some very intelligent overseas Chinese who take any semblance of criticism of the Motherland as a cue to express rabid anti-western sentiment.
“Keep in mind too, that your speaking of the online world, which I argue in the post has a tendency to magnify the fenqing yawp.”
I think the online world magnifys many points and that it is the clever writer that doesn’t get overly tempted but that.
… Actually this comment was prompted by my new fondness of the word “yawp” which I have never read it before. The political pup speaks.
Re: Wuming “[read] a right wing political site like free republic or little green footballs, and you’ll get much the same tenor of angry wingnuttery. ”
Have you read the DailyKos or Huffington Post recently (or in the last few years)?
The issues J brought up are not Chinese/foreign, or right/left issues. People who seek out political blogs etc. are naturally the ones that have the strongest feelings about politics. It is natural that responses are emotional rather than rational.
Political sites are, for the most part, natural “toxic” zones, so is it a suprise that fenqing only add to that toxicity?
So I guess I am not a fenqing by Jeremiah’s definition but definitely a fenqing by froog’s definition? Wow, I am flattered.
A couple of things,
(1) froog seems to be suggesting that anybody who agrees with the CCP on certain things and issues ( “supportive of the official line”) is a fenqing. Chinese nationalists are most likely fenqing (feel free to correct me if I am wrong here, froog). Then my question would be, given that “fenqing” is a derogatory term, are we automatically assuming the CCP is evil or at least bad? And are we saying nationalists, at least the Chinese nationalists must be seen in a negative light? If I reject such nonsensical and simplistic views (that the CCP is bad, that Chinese nationalism is bad etc.), does that make me a fenqing? Again feel free to correct me anytime froog, but my understanding of what froog is saying is basically, any Chinese person who doesn’t share his critical views of China, who doesn’t agree with him is a fenqing, even though he or she might not be a “troll”. Correct?
(2) froog mentioned that Wikipedia labels another group of people who are often overlooked, that is those who “in their various ways on various topics, critics of the Chinese government”. I think these people do exist in great numbers and they tend to be what I consider “ultra-nationalists”.
(3) I think PI raised a very good point, which is on Chinese language sites there are equal number of people, if not more, who are very critical of the CCP and its various policies. I see them all the time on various Chinese sites. Has it ever occurred to you that people being defensive might explain why the majority of Chinese commenters who comment on English language blogs are so-called “supportive of the official line”, or at least are “Pro-China”? I have said it once that it is OK for me, my wife to say that my baby is ugly, but for you my neighbor to tell me that my baby is ugly, could be very upsetting. This is hardly an exclusive Chinese trait, I have seen many westerners getting defensive about it when getting grilled by criticism and challenges from foreigners.
(4) By Jeremiah’s definition of fenqing, “an inability to accept that other valid perspectives might exist”, in my opinion some foreigners (authors and commenters alike) in the English language China Blogsphere could be considered fenqing since many of them often dismiss and belittle the opposing view as “brainwashed” and “indoctrined”.
Stuart,
“the Tibet ‘issue’ is one of national sovereignty whereby the western media are all trumpeting to the tune of Tibetan independence. The independence part of the Tibetan issue is reported, but not adopted by western media sources. ”
Western media might not be balantly advocating for Tibetan independence, but they are pretty much sticking to the TGIE party line. I am not talking about those specific sympathetic “reports” that paint a bleak picture of Tibet here, I am talking about those general background info they provide to the readers. I bet 99% of news, news analysis that come out of the western media would mention something to the effect of “China invaded Tibet in 1951, the Dalai Lama led a failed uprising against the Chinese rule in 1958 and fled Tibet”. They made it sound like Tibet was a sovereign country that had absolutely ZERO ties with China and China just invaded it out of the blue for no reason. No historic background info is provided usually.
By the way, folks, a question to you all, what do you call people like nanheyangrouchuan? To me he is a typical fenqing.
I think we’re getting to the point where people are only reading the comments rather than the post before commenting.
Two quick points, Pfeffer….I noted the ‘fenwai’ phenomenon in the original post, you might want to check it out. Yeah, it was tongue in cheek, but obviously such views exist and everybody knows it.
If the baby is ugly, I would restrain myself from saying so (though I might joke about it with mutual friends later, the world being what it is.) But if the wife is beating the child in public, does only the husband have the right to intervene? What if he stands by and watches as the child turns blue? Just wondering.
Somebody from Peking University is just as entitled as I am to blast American society for, say, paying insane bonuses to CEOs while tent cities form in state capitals. I don’t get to say, “Hey, even though you’ve done the research you can’t say that because you’re not an American citizen.” For me to immediately attack or dismiss this fictional researcher as ‘anti-American’ would be to call a play from the fenqing playbook. And who knows, perhaps our PKU friend might have a perspective American economists missed, that’s the wonderful thing about the marketplace of ideas. But that said, not every idea or conclusion is going to boost people’s personal or collective self-esteem, and sometimes things need to be said anyway in order to call attention to problems which require addressing. Another example: The anti-war demonstrations around the world prior to the invasion of Iraq. I know these irked a lot of Americans — especially Fox News — but I thought it was healthy and important to demonstrate to our rather closed-minded president that, in fact, the world was not with him on this.
Pfeffer,
Wouldn’t he be a “fenwai”?
Jeremiah,
I didn’t miss the “fenwai” part in your article, but I thought the term”fenqing” should apply to both Chinese and non-Chinese as “fenqing” is not just a Chinese phenomenon.
The wife is beating the child in public? I am not sure what “in public” means. If she is beating the child inside her house or on her property, do I as a neighbor have the right to barge in and stop her or should I call the police? I would wait, trying to find out what’s going on (maybe it is just a case of parents spanking their kids?), withhold my judgment for a minute. If I deem it a serious situation that warrants intervention, I would call the police, I wouldn’t just break into their house uninvited.
Of course I am entitled to my opinion, I might think that child-beating woman is a moron, but I will definitely refrain from telling her husband that “your wife is a moron”. I would though, politely tell him that he needs to do something to stop it from happening again.
Jeremiah, I understand what you said about your PKU friend. The same can be said of anyone who is commenting on China. Anybody can say whatever he/she wants about anything. You might or might not agree with what your PKU friend says about the US and how you feel about it and how you deal with it is your issue. However, there are people out there who might be vehemently disagree with what your PKU friend says and they might not like what he said. That doesn’t make them fenqing, does it?
In public=not in a private home, does this really require a crib?
Not liking something is not the issue, so let’s not make it the issue. A fenqing would more than dislike it. They would attack the speaker (how dare you! You don’t understand the US! How can you hurt the feelings of 300 million American people!). Then they would refuse to address the argument. “I already KNOW that the US system is the fairest most equitable system in the world. You’re only writing these things because you HATE the US and you want to see it FALL! Don’t you know CHINA is bad, too! Therefore you have NO right to say these things!” And they would return to those themes again and again and again and again with no nuance or movement regardless of the conversation.
I think I’ve been pretty clear where the goal posts are here. Let’s keep the ball on the pitch, shall we?
That last comment is quite funny. If I have time I may steal it for a separate post.