Thank you for taking the time to answer these. I agree with you that the U.S. needs to do much more, in good faith, to try to understand China. As you say, China does a lot to attempt to understand America and the West -- learning the languages, translating numerous books into Chinese for those who don't know English, academic exchanges, studying the Western tradition, etc etc. Moreover, I think many Chinese people approach such materials in good faith, with an open mind and in a disinterested way. And yet, because they are also very well grounded in their own culture, Chinese can contemplate and entertain such ideas, and can balance and evaluate them without making rash judgments one way or the other. The best example of this is probably the sheer fact that over the past generation or two there was incredible pressure to liberalize, to open up to the West _on the West's terms_, democratization was pushed and assumed by people who wanted to influence China. Yet, China maintained its composure, its identity, and it carved its own path. Unfortunately, in the West, there is a regrettable combination of ignorance, arrogance, caricaturing and oversimplification of the other side, which is overall not conducive to a dispassionate and deep understanding of another culture. I am writing in generalities, of course, but in broad outline this is what I see.
Underscoring the fact that the U.S. is -- overall -- not making constructive efforts to understand China, The Financial Times just interviewed Chinese political scientist and former Brookings Institute fellow Li Cheng, and the theme of the interview ended up being, to quote him, "American is not in the mood to study China."
Hi Robert. Another excellent piece. Why do you say nationalism should not be diminished? Isn't it a case that some nationalism is good, but too much nationalism is bad? I would think the conventional wisdom is that Nazi Germany, for instance, had too much nationalism.
Because while Nazism is bad, nationalism is necessary for any country to really function as a country, especially a developing one. Because Nazism is so bad, there is a tendency for western elites to look down upon the word “nationalism”, denying the proper role “nationalism” should have played. For example, in US occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, they should have made installing a keen sense of national identity as a main task, because that’s in the best interests of Afghans and Iraqis to have that. But no, guided by liberalism, and fear of a nationalistic rival, CIA and DoD will have none of that. They will only teach the locals of virtues of “freedom and democracy”. But how can you have freedom and democracy if the people in a country don’t share the common identity of one country at all? When the occupying force retreats, chaos immediately ensues.
I appreciate your response, but don't really agree.
Perhaps the tricky issue is what is the "nation" in nationalism?
Was it Czechoslovakia? Or Czechia as opposed to Slovakia?
You mention Iraq. I suppose you would like more Iraqi nationalism, as opposed to Kurdish nationalism. But Saddam Hussein's regime seemed like Iraqi nationalism to me (who knows little about the topic). But didn't that lead him to invade Kuwait because of historical claims to that land? Where does the nation begin and end?
Can't nationalism be used for explansionary invasions like Iraq on Kuwait?
I think we can think of other cases where nationalism was used as an excuse for invasion.
That's why I continue to ask, when is nationalism too much?
It think it becomes too much when the original motive is acquisitive and is essentially about benefiting one ethnicity at the expense of the others, in a zero-sum game. Instead, it should be mainly about composing a common national identity, through non-violent means, that ultimately serves to benefit everyone equally. There may be some soft form of "coercion" involved, inevitably, in nation-building, but it also comes with "carrots" in the form of various benefit programs.
Think of Singapore. It's not natural for Chinese, Malays and Indians living together in a same country. But it is paramount to infuse a strong national consciousness into the minds of Singaporeans. But that national consciousness has to ultimately benefit everyone and every ethnicity. When it doesn't, it becomes bad nationalism.
If Saddam was Lee Kuan Yee, he should have been very careful about respecting minority ethnicity's rights while at the same time demanding a national education program. He would never even think about invading other countries like Iran and Kuwait.
A nation is a people, trying to use land and borders to decide what is a nation can only work in stable agrarian nations which are not at some cross-road of historic invasion paths. This is why the USA, despite it's ideal location, has a lot of demographic fears.
China's investors would do well to remember advise from their old friend, Professor (and ex-Wall Street economist) Michael Hudson in his book“The Destiny of Civilization”: “An industrial economy’s decline usually provides a grab bag of opportunities for financial predators and vulture funds.”
Thank you for taking the time to answer these. I agree with you that the U.S. needs to do much more, in good faith, to try to understand China. As you say, China does a lot to attempt to understand America and the West -- learning the languages, translating numerous books into Chinese for those who don't know English, academic exchanges, studying the Western tradition, etc etc. Moreover, I think many Chinese people approach such materials in good faith, with an open mind and in a disinterested way. And yet, because they are also very well grounded in their own culture, Chinese can contemplate and entertain such ideas, and can balance and evaluate them without making rash judgments one way or the other. The best example of this is probably the sheer fact that over the past generation or two there was incredible pressure to liberalize, to open up to the West _on the West's terms_, democratization was pushed and assumed by people who wanted to influence China. Yet, China maintained its composure, its identity, and it carved its own path. Unfortunately, in the West, there is a regrettable combination of ignorance, arrogance, caricaturing and oversimplification of the other side, which is overall not conducive to a dispassionate and deep understanding of another culture. I am writing in generalities, of course, but in broad outline this is what I see.
Underscoring the fact that the U.S. is -- overall -- not making constructive efforts to understand China, The Financial Times just interviewed Chinese political scientist and former Brookings Institute fellow Li Cheng, and the theme of the interview ended up being, to quote him, "American is not in the mood to study China."
Available here, with subscription though: https://www.ft.com/content/ad3785cb-ee60-4375-af73-90c009fba234
Yes, I originally planned to quote this article as well but forgot.. It's exactly what I want to express here.
Hi Robert. Another excellent piece. Why do you say nationalism should not be diminished? Isn't it a case that some nationalism is good, but too much nationalism is bad? I would think the conventional wisdom is that Nazi Germany, for instance, had too much nationalism.
Because while Nazism is bad, nationalism is necessary for any country to really function as a country, especially a developing one. Because Nazism is so bad, there is a tendency for western elites to look down upon the word “nationalism”, denying the proper role “nationalism” should have played. For example, in US occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, they should have made installing a keen sense of national identity as a main task, because that’s in the best interests of Afghans and Iraqis to have that. But no, guided by liberalism, and fear of a nationalistic rival, CIA and DoD will have none of that. They will only teach the locals of virtues of “freedom and democracy”. But how can you have freedom and democracy if the people in a country don’t share the common identity of one country at all? When the occupying force retreats, chaos immediately ensues.
I appreciate your response, but don't really agree.
Perhaps the tricky issue is what is the "nation" in nationalism?
Was it Czechoslovakia? Or Czechia as opposed to Slovakia?
You mention Iraq. I suppose you would like more Iraqi nationalism, as opposed to Kurdish nationalism. But Saddam Hussein's regime seemed like Iraqi nationalism to me (who knows little about the topic). But didn't that lead him to invade Kuwait because of historical claims to that land? Where does the nation begin and end?
Can't nationalism be used for explansionary invasions like Iraq on Kuwait?
I think we can think of other cases where nationalism was used as an excuse for invasion.
That's why I continue to ask, when is nationalism too much?
It think it becomes too much when the original motive is acquisitive and is essentially about benefiting one ethnicity at the expense of the others, in a zero-sum game. Instead, it should be mainly about composing a common national identity, through non-violent means, that ultimately serves to benefit everyone equally. There may be some soft form of "coercion" involved, inevitably, in nation-building, but it also comes with "carrots" in the form of various benefit programs.
Think of Singapore. It's not natural for Chinese, Malays and Indians living together in a same country. But it is paramount to infuse a strong national consciousness into the minds of Singaporeans. But that national consciousness has to ultimately benefit everyone and every ethnicity. When it doesn't, it becomes bad nationalism.
If Saddam was Lee Kuan Yee, he should have been very careful about respecting minority ethnicity's rights while at the same time demanding a national education program. He would never even think about invading other countries like Iran and Kuwait.
Excellent points. Thank you Robert. Those are great guidelines.
A nation is a people, trying to use land and borders to decide what is a nation can only work in stable agrarian nations which are not at some cross-road of historic invasion paths. This is why the USA, despite it's ideal location, has a lot of demographic fears.
Great stuff, many thanks for the insightful response!
China's investors would do well to remember advise from their old friend, Professor (and ex-Wall Street economist) Michael Hudson in his book“The Destiny of Civilization”: “An industrial economy’s decline usually provides a grab bag of opportunities for financial predators and vulture funds.”
AI
WuGPT
powered by TwoCat-CPU. Take that, NVidia.