|
|
May 19, 2013
|
|
The Two Faces of ChinaPosted on Dec 1, 2011
BEIJING—Don’t hold your breath waiting for any kind of Occupy Beijing movement to set up camp. Visitors to Tiananmen Square must pass through airport-style security checkpoints, and nobody is likely to try smuggling in a protest sign, much less a tent. The vast, wind-whipped plaza is a quiet place. China’s leaders intend to keep it that way. Walk away from the square in any direction, however, and soon you find yourself amid a raucous riot of commerce. Whatever you’ve read about the speed and scale of development here, you have no idea until you see it with your own eyes. The contrast between China’s uninhibited economic life and its repressed political life could not be more stark. The iconic portrait of Chairman Mao that looks out over Tiananmen seems anachronistic. At least in the urban centers, today’s China has abandoned communism in favor of a kind of hyper-capitalism. Even officials acknowledge Mao’s mistakes, especially the ruinous Cultural Revolution. Yet Mao’s portrait remains. The government has essentially rebranded him as a nationalist who put a definitive end to centuries of imperial decadence and foreign domination, elevating a sovereign China to its rightful status as a great power. “We have been very candid,” said Hong Lei, the spokesman for the Foreign Ministry. “We admit that he made serious problems for the country. But we never give a 100 percent disavowal of Chairman Mao’s accomplishments.” Advertisement It makes sense that a government seeking to maintain the monopoly of power that Mao established would want to keep the chairman’s legacy alive. But many of the sightseers at Tiananmen on Thursday afternoon were recent arrivals from the hinterlands—among millions of migrants who leave the countryside to flock to China’s cities this year—and they seemed to gaze upon Mao’s visage with a sense of awe, not of irony. It was a reminder that for all the sophistication of the big cities, most of China remains rural and poor. Living in a communist country without communism requires a finely tuned sense of what is permissible and what is not. Journalists acknowledge they practice self-censorship and, when necessary, toe the party line. A businessman will reach the brink of explicitly denouncing a government policy but not take the leap, instead lapsing into awkward silence. Commentators know they can criticize officials by name for incompetence or corruption, but only up to a certain level; an expert on the Chinese media said that such attacks against the president, the premier or other top-rank officials would be unthinkable. “We have a red line,” said Hong. “No media can violate the basic laws and constitution.” He said this meant that “the basic political system should be kept. You cannot overthrow the government.” To me, there’s an obvious difference between criticizing any official, even a head of state, and advocating a new revolution. A Chinese journalist might see the distinction, too—but might be ill-advised to assert it. Still, history does matter. I had dinner one night at the home of Hao Jiang Tian, an acclaimed opera singer who performs at the Metropolitan Opera and other great venues around the world. He is in his 50s, and it was fascinating—and harrowing—to hear him and several of his contemporaries describe how they survived the years of the Cultural Revolution. They were of high-school age, but instead of being able to continue their educations they were sent to menial jobs in construction, or forced to join the army, or banished to toil in the countryside. They were hungry, exhausted, always fearful. When the nightmarish upheaval finally ended, they had to rebuild their lives from scratch. I heard these stories while we sat around a table groaning with exquisite food. Tian’s large and elegant apartment is in a new high-rise—all the high-rises in Beijing are new—that has the distinction of being one of the city’s few “green” buildings, making innovative use of geothermal energy. Among our company were two prominent architects, who also live in the building, and a famous artist. No, China isn’t free. But yes, it has changed.
Previous item: The Sayings of Chairman Barney Next item: Celebrating the End of Kids’ Wall Street Dreams New and Improved CommentsIf you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy. |
By blogdog, December 4, 2011 at 1:25 am Link to this comment
“students who rebelled at Tienenman” could never have ‘won’ - could they have
sparked something like a civil war - not likely - but it was the original ‘color
revolution’, as heavily influenced by foreign intelligence where those in the
Balkans, former Soviet Republics and the Arab Spring
- some analysts see it as the experimental prototype toward the color revolution -
Report thiswe’re now seeing the color revolution endgame: Libya and Syria - 50+K perished
in the former… curious as to whether Vegas odds makers are taking bets on the
death toll of the later - as for TPTB, it’s a no-sum game - the goal: failed states,
as many as possible
By Dieter Heymann, December 3, 2011 at 12:06 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
“The contrast between China’s uninhibited economic life and its repressed political life could not be more stark”.
Report thisPoor, poor Eugene Robinson. The true and only contrast is between a defenseless China at the mercy of plunderers from the West in the 19th and 20th centuries and a China fully capable of defending itself today. That transformation was not brought about by the semi-democratic bumbling Sun let alone by the dictatorial Tsjiang but by the communist party. If the students who rebelled at Tiananmen had “won” they would have been unable to govern China and would have plunged the country into a disastrous civil war again.
By oddsox, December 3, 2011 at 8:26 am Link to this comment
“We admit that he made serious problems for the country.”
—Hong Lei
This caption, beneath a picture of 60,000,000 corpses, would make for a great Mr. Fish cartoon.
Report thisBy prisnersdilema, December 2, 2011 at 10:18 pm Link to this comment
This is not journalism it’s rationalization…
It’s as if Eugene is attempting to give lessons to the American people of how being
occupied by a foreign power really can be fun, once you get over your initial fear of
losing your civil rights….
But, that’s just what we have back home, a country occupied by a power, that doesn’t
consider itself to have anything in common with its fellow country men. That power
being Wall street.
Its on par with the prose featured in Maggies vegetable cravings…or a map of the stars
Report thishome..with quotes from Chinese citizens he just happens to meet who just happen to
work for the politburo…
By Inherit The Wind, December 2, 2011 at 4:40 pm Link to this comment
China would shoot the OWS folks. Of course, the GOP and right-wing Wall Streeters probably want to do the same, but cannot figure out how to get away with it.
Report thisBy balkas, December 2, 2011 at 9:57 am Link to this comment
well, personal supremacists are always fearful in any asupremacist rule
Report thisand a communist is always fearful living in a region/empire—oops,
country, like u.s or countries like poland, turkey, iraq, palestina.
and china may be two-faced, robinson one-faced [for an eternity looking
at the picture of a $ or franklin], and i five-faced! so what? what is that
mean?
it means, i suggest, that onefaced u.s—oops, onefaced robinson, is
facing in great peril twofaced china and twofaced, as we all know, means
being dishonest.
and i am now laughing at my own joke and people [onefaced, of course]
telling me that that is a no no.
ok, maybe i’ll get more serious with robinson the next time i read his
piece and stop laughing at what he says. tnx
By Robespierre115, December 2, 2011 at 2:04 am Link to this comment
China won’t have an Occupy movement, China will probably have a mass eruption like the Boxer Rebellion of 1900.
Report this