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?
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.
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.
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/
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.
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.
“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.
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
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?
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Wow thats very profound i had no understanding of this. Thanks 4 taking the time to discuss
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.