Now I'm glad, because the book wasn't the sonic boom of insights and revelations I thought it would be. That said, I've told all my friends in America to read it, it's a good place to start. The "explanation" of the parade is perfect. It's also another excellent read for folks unfamiliar with China.
My very modest understanding of Chinese culture is the desire of following the ‘way’ to maintain order and balance. You’ve provided an excellent foundational juxtaposition for understanding the society of each culture. So, what’s next?
Funnily enough, the Dutch have a similar rationale to explain our consensus-driven style of politics: the so-called 'polder model'. Because the country is extremely prone to flooding, and everyone is affected by this, we need to be pragmatic, overcome differences and work together towards the common goal of building dykes and preserving our 'polders', the tracts of lands that lie below sea-level.
It should be food for thought that a similar problem can supposedly explain two completely different political systems. I personally consider the 'polder model' more of an origin myth: not so much an explanation as a widely accepted, and therefore powerful rationalization.
You've done it again Robert, an elegant parsimony. Your explanations of the origins of the respective cultures was gold to me. The Chinese parade explanations and accompanying beautiful image were like a crepuscular light show. Thank you.
A few years ago, I had a conversation with a reporter from one of the US mainstream tv networks in Beijing. I suggested he could do an interesting story about entrepreneurs in China. he responded, “We are not allowed to do positive stories about China.”
I've read 1000 commentaries and this is the best most insightful interpretation of both parade and Breakneck. I'm so grateful that you're writing this substack.
RE: China being used as a reference for America. I would note that references to China, such as writings done by Caleb Cushing, a Jacksonian Democrat envoy to China in the 1840s, filtered into mid 19th century American Democratic discourse. Descriptions of Chinese provincial administration and local commerce were sometimes referenced by Democrats to argue that decentralized, locally sustained orders could be incredibly durable
A great use of reviews. It's become my habit, since Goodreads and other sites averages are so close between IMO bad and good books, that I use several review authors individual reviews to help to pick out books worth the time, and to glean the value from those that are not. You've put a spin on it that might serve me better, which is to synthesise the reviews. Thanks.
Separately, IMHO "the American system is all about how to promote freedom" might be better put as "the American system is all about how to promote individualism among the masses (and order among the elites)".
This creates a controlled chaos, where a thousand flowers bloom, but only those that promote the welfare of the elites get watered. They usually don't need to trample the other flowers, just leave them where they either do little harm and slowly go away or can eventually be converted into something useful. (Why did Mao feel out of control vs. the old money elites in America tending their garden with water, sunshine, and an occasional use of herbicide is a deep difference worth study). This is why USA labour unions, socialist parties, etc. are all subjected to being either corrupted or crushed, because they bring about a common ground to the masses. The problem comes about when so many elites evolve that their internal competition breaks down their order and they no longer exploit the cattle for the long term, but rather for a mass orgy of advancement. https://peterturchin.com/book/end-times/
“In the past, China was only a niche topic in the US. For Americans, China was no more than a curiosity. I don’t think it has to do with ‘discrimination’. Nor do I think there is any real ‘smearing抹黑’ like what China’s state media often claimed. No. It’s just nonchalance. Neglect. China is just a small news item, curious, alien, and sometimes even grotesque, flashing by every now and then. America didn’t really care about China.”
Wu offers a profoundly good account of cultural distance as a basis for governance divergence. Yet here I diverge. America did not care for China in the sense of curiosity alone. It cared enough to legislate exclusion with overwhelming majorities, again and again.
The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 passed the House 201–37 and the Senate 32–15. The Geary Act of 1892 renewed it; in 1902 Congress made exclusion permanent. The Johnson–Reed Immigration Act of 1924 extended the racial bar to all Asians (House 323–71, Senate 69–9). Wartime optics produced the Magnuson Act of 1943, repealing Exclusion but limiting Chinese visas to 105 per year (House 288–147, Senate 73–14). The McCarran–Walter Act of 1952 ended racial bars in naturalization yet preserved the quota—overriding Truman’s veto (House 278–113, Senate 57–26). Only the Hart–Celler Act of 1965 dismantled the system (House 320–70, Senate 76–18).
The pattern is clear: Americans may have been nonchalant about China as a civilization, but they “cared” enough to enforce racial exclusion through law.
Others have said it, but explaining about the River and the parade was indeed helpful for understanding why a society might emphasize order as China does.
A foreigner who has lived in China for decades only understands China through phrases like "In calligraphy, you have freedom within strict square rules"—he can't even distinguish between writing and calligraphy, perhaps intentionally. So it's not surprising that a self-proclaimed objective Chinese media personality claims the US has never smeared China.
I for one learnt a ton of interesting stuff from Breakneck. Here are the ideas from Dan Wang I found the most interesting (maybe they were obvious to you, but I found them genuinely quite surprising):
Despite all the conflict between China and the US, Chinese people and American people are actually quite similar. Both are ambitious, materialistic, and want to “get rich”; both are stereotyped as brash, loud and obnoxious; both are exceptionalist and patriotic, and believe their own country is unique and special.
Some Chinese people got rich due to being ‘carried along’ by the economic boom. E.g. people born in 1959 could go to university just as they were being reopened, get allocated an apartment that would rise massively in value, and start a company just as China was entering the WTO.
The US is simply incapable of building infrastructure these days. E.g. the San Francisco to Los Angeles Railway was approved in 2008, but is now estimated to open in 2030-33. The Beijing–Shanghai railway, on the other hand, also started in 2008, and was completed within 3 years.
China’s obsession with building is influenced by Leninism. The current generation of Chinese leaders think that production is a noble communist deed, whereas consumption is an ignoble, wasteful capitalist evil.
China and the US are economically dependent on each other. America has got away with its industrial base disappearing because it can get everything it needs from China, whereas the CCP has made no effort to increase Chinese consumers’ spending because it can be sure US consumers will buy its goods.
Technology is not like a secret recipe; it’s the ‘process knowledge’ within an organisation. Dan Wang said it very nicely: ‘technology lives inside the hands and heads of the workforce’.
US investors are averse to physical manufacturers; they prefer to invest in ‘lean’, capital-light businesses like Uber. This is a factor in the US’s manufacturing decline.
Xi Jinping has a ‘completionist’ view of manufacturing. He wants China to manufacture everything, from shoes to planes. If successful, this would harm poorer developing countries, who would typically move into the shoe niche as soon as China moved out.
Xi Jinping is removing women from political leadership in China. There was traditionally at least one woman in the 25-member Politburo, and they did a good job, e.g. Wu Yi negotiated China’s entry to the WTO. But in 2022, Xi Jinping reduced the Politburo to 24 people, removing the ‘woman slot’.
The one-child policy was never necessary. Chinese people were tricked into supporting it by seeing shortages everywhere, which made them think, “ah yes, we do need fewer people”. But in fact, it was the socialist planned economy that was exacerbating these shortages. Under a market system, they would not have occurred, because there would have been a profit incentive to produce more of whatever the market needed (e.g. cooking oil). Mao was correct when he said “even if the population multiplies many times”, there can still be a solution, and “that solution is production”.
Blindly ‘following the science’ is no way to run a government. You have to keep ethical principles in mind. Even eugenics was based on the ‘science’ of its day. The worst excesses of the zero-covid policy were caused by ‘following the science’ to its logical conclusion. Winston Churchill was right to say that scientists should be ‘on tap but not on top’.
Chinese companies are very deferential to the government. When American companies get cracked down upon by regulatory bodies, they say the decision is wrong and vow to fight it. When Didi, the taxi company, got cracked down on for ‘privacy concerns’, they said they “sincerely thank the relevant authorities for their inspection and guidance”!
China is obsessed with technological supremacy for historical reasons. The ‘century of humiliation’ was caused by China falling behind the West in technology, and so now they are determined to catch up for the sake of national pride.
The US’s approach of trying to cut off technology to China was foolish. Previously, Chinese companies always bought American chips because they were better, despite the government urging them to buy domestic. But now, thanks to Trump, they have a reason to fear that US chip supplies might be cut off altogether. And so they have an incentive to find a way to manufacture those chips domestically. By trying to squeeze the technological chokepoints, the US has ensured that they will no longer control any technological chokepoints at all. This approach is borne out of arrogance, thinking that China cannot match America’s ingenuity, but it can!
Digital industries & finance are not the most productive place for talented youth to be, and the Chinese government recognises this. That’s why they’ve been using the state firepower to channel them into strategic industries instead, while discouraging them from going into finance jobs (e.g. by placing a $400k salary cap). Meanwhile in the USA, science PhD graduates usually get a hefty offer to go to tech giants or hedge funds.
Do you agree with these? Do you think any of them are misunderstandings by Dan Wang? Or did you know them all already? Would be interested to get your thoughts.
Caocao来了 is golden.
his profile reminded me of this classic joke on the HSK exam:
Q1: 刘备，关羽二人在谈论张飞。说着说着，二弟突然说：哟，说曹操曹操就到了。
问：谁来了？
A)刘备
B)关羽
C)张飞
D)二弟
E)曹操
C
lol
Now I'm glad, because the book wasn't the sonic boom of insights and revelations I thought it would be. That said, I've told all my friends in America to read it, it's a good place to start. The "explanation" of the parade is perfect. It's also another excellent read for folks unfamiliar with China.
So, good Sunday reads all around. Thanks much.
This is great stuff.
My very modest understanding of Chinese culture is the desire of following the ‘way’ to maintain order and balance. You’ve provided an excellent foundational juxtaposition for understanding the society of each culture. So, what’s next?
Funnily enough, the Dutch have a similar rationale to explain our consensus-driven style of politics: the so-called 'polder model'. Because the country is extremely prone to flooding, and everyone is affected by this, we need to be pragmatic, overcome differences and work together towards the common goal of building dykes and preserving our 'polders', the tracts of lands that lie below sea-level.
It should be food for thought that a similar problem can supposedly explain two completely different political systems. I personally consider the 'polder model' more of an origin myth: not so much an explanation as a widely accepted, and therefore powerful rationalization.
You've done it again Robert, an elegant parsimony. Your explanations of the origins of the respective cultures was gold to me. The Chinese parade explanations and accompanying beautiful image were like a crepuscular light show. Thank you.
"Isn’t this wonderful?"
Robert - Maybe. We're only 1/3 of the way through the movie, I'm not quite sure how it's going to turn out yet.
You have really accomplished your goal in today's post of explaining China to the world. I congratulate you.
A few years ago, I had a conversation with a reporter from one of the US mainstream tv networks in Beijing. I suggested he could do an interesting story about entrepreneurs in China. he responded, “We are not allowed to do positive stories about China.”
,
I've read 1000 commentaries and this is the best most insightful interpretation of both parade and Breakneck. I'm so grateful that you're writing this substack.
RE: China being used as a reference for America. I would note that references to China, such as writings done by Caleb Cushing, a Jacksonian Democrat envoy to China in the 1840s, filtered into mid 19th century American Democratic discourse. Descriptions of Chinese provincial administration and local commerce were sometimes referenced by Democrats to argue that decentralized, locally sustained orders could be incredibly durable
A great use of reviews. It's become my habit, since Goodreads and other sites averages are so close between IMO bad and good books, that I use several review authors individual reviews to help to pick out books worth the time, and to glean the value from those that are not. You've put a spin on it that might serve me better, which is to synthesise the reviews. Thanks.
Separately, IMHO "the American system is all about how to promote freedom" might be better put as "the American system is all about how to promote individualism among the masses (and order among the elites)".
This creates a controlled chaos, where a thousand flowers bloom, but only those that promote the welfare of the elites get watered. They usually don't need to trample the other flowers, just leave them where they either do little harm and slowly go away or can eventually be converted into something useful. (Why did Mao feel out of control vs. the old money elites in America tending their garden with water, sunshine, and an occasional use of herbicide is a deep difference worth study). This is why USA labour unions, socialist parties, etc. are all subjected to being either corrupted or crushed, because they bring about a common ground to the masses. The problem comes about when so many elites evolve that their internal competition breaks down their order and they no longer exploit the cattle for the long term, but rather for a mass orgy of advancement. https://peterturchin.com/book/end-times/
Really appreciates this writeup Robert, and the translated Cao Cao piece.
Neglect or Exclusion?
Robert Wu writes:
“In the past, China was only a niche topic in the US. For Americans, China was no more than a curiosity. I don’t think it has to do with ‘discrimination’. Nor do I think there is any real ‘smearing抹黑’ like what China’s state media often claimed. No. It’s just nonchalance. Neglect. China is just a small news item, curious, alien, and sometimes even grotesque, flashing by every now and then. America didn’t really care about China.”
Wu offers a profoundly good account of cultural distance as a basis for governance divergence. Yet here I diverge. America did not care for China in the sense of curiosity alone. It cared enough to legislate exclusion with overwhelming majorities, again and again.
The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 passed the House 201–37 and the Senate 32–15. The Geary Act of 1892 renewed it; in 1902 Congress made exclusion permanent. The Johnson–Reed Immigration Act of 1924 extended the racial bar to all Asians (House 323–71, Senate 69–9). Wartime optics produced the Magnuson Act of 1943, repealing Exclusion but limiting Chinese visas to 105 per year (House 288–147, Senate 73–14). The McCarran–Walter Act of 1952 ended racial bars in naturalization yet preserved the quota—overriding Truman’s veto (House 278–113, Senate 57–26). Only the Hart–Celler Act of 1965 dismantled the system (House 320–70, Senate 76–18).
The pattern is clear: Americans may have been nonchalant about China as a civilization, but they “cared” enough to enforce racial exclusion through law.
Others have said it, but explaining about the River and the parade was indeed helpful for understanding why a society might emphasize order as China does.
Yes, enlightening and elegantly well put.
A foreigner who has lived in China for decades only understands China through phrases like "In calligraphy, you have freedom within strict square rules"—he can't even distinguish between writing and calligraphy, perhaps intentionally. So it's not surprising that a self-proclaimed objective Chinese media personality claims the US has never smeared China.
I for one learnt a ton of interesting stuff from Breakneck. Here are the ideas from Dan Wang I found the most interesting (maybe they were obvious to you, but I found them genuinely quite surprising):
Despite all the conflict between China and the US, Chinese people and American people are actually quite similar. Both are ambitious, materialistic, and want to “get rich”; both are stereotyped as brash, loud and obnoxious; both are exceptionalist and patriotic, and believe their own country is unique and special.
Some Chinese people got rich due to being ‘carried along’ by the economic boom. E.g. people born in 1959 could go to university just as they were being reopened, get allocated an apartment that would rise massively in value, and start a company just as China was entering the WTO.
The US is simply incapable of building infrastructure these days. E.g. the San Francisco to Los Angeles Railway was approved in 2008, but is now estimated to open in 2030-33. The Beijing–Shanghai railway, on the other hand, also started in 2008, and was completed within 3 years.
China’s obsession with building is influenced by Leninism. The current generation of Chinese leaders think that production is a noble communist deed, whereas consumption is an ignoble, wasteful capitalist evil.
China and the US are economically dependent on each other. America has got away with its industrial base disappearing because it can get everything it needs from China, whereas the CCP has made no effort to increase Chinese consumers’ spending because it can be sure US consumers will buy its goods.
Technology is not like a secret recipe; it’s the ‘process knowledge’ within an organisation. Dan Wang said it very nicely: ‘technology lives inside the hands and heads of the workforce’.
US investors are averse to physical manufacturers; they prefer to invest in ‘lean’, capital-light businesses like Uber. This is a factor in the US’s manufacturing decline.
Xi Jinping has a ‘completionist’ view of manufacturing. He wants China to manufacture everything, from shoes to planes. If successful, this would harm poorer developing countries, who would typically move into the shoe niche as soon as China moved out.
Xi Jinping is removing women from political leadership in China. There was traditionally at least one woman in the 25-member Politburo, and they did a good job, e.g. Wu Yi negotiated China’s entry to the WTO. But in 2022, Xi Jinping reduced the Politburo to 24 people, removing the ‘woman slot’.
The one-child policy was never necessary. Chinese people were tricked into supporting it by seeing shortages everywhere, which made them think, “ah yes, we do need fewer people”. But in fact, it was the socialist planned economy that was exacerbating these shortages. Under a market system, they would not have occurred, because there would have been a profit incentive to produce more of whatever the market needed (e.g. cooking oil). Mao was correct when he said “even if the population multiplies many times”, there can still be a solution, and “that solution is production”.
Blindly ‘following the science’ is no way to run a government. You have to keep ethical principles in mind. Even eugenics was based on the ‘science’ of its day. The worst excesses of the zero-covid policy were caused by ‘following the science’ to its logical conclusion. Winston Churchill was right to say that scientists should be ‘on tap but not on top’.
Chinese companies are very deferential to the government. When American companies get cracked down upon by regulatory bodies, they say the decision is wrong and vow to fight it. When Didi, the taxi company, got cracked down on for ‘privacy concerns’, they said they “sincerely thank the relevant authorities for their inspection and guidance”!
China is obsessed with technological supremacy for historical reasons. The ‘century of humiliation’ was caused by China falling behind the West in technology, and so now they are determined to catch up for the sake of national pride.
The US’s approach of trying to cut off technology to China was foolish. Previously, Chinese companies always bought American chips because they were better, despite the government urging them to buy domestic. But now, thanks to Trump, they have a reason to fear that US chip supplies might be cut off altogether. And so they have an incentive to find a way to manufacture those chips domestically. By trying to squeeze the technological chokepoints, the US has ensured that they will no longer control any technological chokepoints at all. This approach is borne out of arrogance, thinking that China cannot match America’s ingenuity, but it can!
Digital industries & finance are not the most productive place for talented youth to be, and the Chinese government recognises this. That’s why they’ve been using the state firepower to channel them into strategic industries instead, while discouraging them from going into finance jobs (e.g. by placing a $400k salary cap). Meanwhile in the USA, science PhD graduates usually get a hefty offer to go to tech giants or hedge funds.
Do you agree with these? Do you think any of them are misunderstandings by Dan Wang? Or did you know them all already? Would be interested to get your thoughts.