Comments on: Red Guards Against Rednecks http://calpolymbatrip.com/2009/china/red-guards-vs-rednecks/ The MBA Graduate Program at Cal Poly Fri, 10 Feb 2012 23:53:03 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Grant http://calpolymbatrip.com/2009/china/red-guards-vs-rednecks/#comment-24136 Grant Sat, 14 Jan 2012 20:08:05 +0000 http://calpolymbatrip.com/?p=2136#comment-24136 There was a lot of helpful information so it is hard to know where to start. I appreciated him sharing the common dysfunctions and strengths that both countries have. There is so much on which we differ, that it is good to identify some common ground. He makes an interesting point as to how maddening it is to the Chinese to see Americans look at China and condescend the media bias through which the Chinese must function, all the while the American believes he is operating in total objective truth from his own media. It would be the American who was operating out of ignorance when he believes he has a monopoly on the truth, when he is more deceived than the Chinese who knows their media is biased and has an agenda. It is interesting to observe a nation that has never before had a society in which the individual could express a voice sort of come of age, and learn how to do so in a health way. The leadership's concern that they won't do so in a healthy way, and it explodes into something ugly, is arguably justified. Or at least it is justified based on their vision of a unified China. It seems there is a cultural difference that is of huge significance. Westerners largely see themselves as primarily individuals and secondarily as members of a larger community, whereas Chinese have historically seem their primary role as a member of society, with little focus on the individual. This would explain why they don't give so much attention to issues as human rights violations, but do give a lot of attention to national successes, like the olympics, national unity, city building, etc. But the internet is changing that. The internet is letting people have an individual voice, and that is a considerable threat to a regime that doesn't value the individual, but places incredible value on the whole. In China, the whole is worth far more than the sum of the parts, to a greater degree than in the west. This was evidenced by Kuo's comments about how every government official, from the top to the bottom, is afraid of public sentiment. I look forward to being able to see the effects of this paradigm during our visit. There was a lot of helpful information so it is hard to know where to start. I appreciated him sharing the common dysfunctions and strengths that both countries have. There is so much on which we differ, that it is good to identify some common ground.
He makes an interesting point as to how maddening it is to the Chinese to see Americans look at China and condescend the media bias through which the Chinese must function, all the while the American believes he is operating in total objective truth from his own media. It would be the American who was operating out of ignorance when he believes he has a monopoly on the truth, when he is more deceived than the Chinese who knows their media is biased and has an agenda.
It is interesting to observe a nation that has never before had a society in which the individual could express a voice sort of come of age, and learn how to do so in a health way. The leadership’s concern that they won’t do so in a healthy way, and it explodes into something ugly, is arguably justified. Or at least it is justified based on their vision of a unified China.
It seems there is a cultural difference that is of huge significance. Westerners largely see themselves as primarily individuals and secondarily as members of a larger community, whereas Chinese have historically seem their primary role as a member of society, with little focus on the individual. This would explain why they don’t give so much attention to issues as human rights violations, but do give a lot of attention to national successes, like the olympics, national unity, city building, etc. But the internet is changing that. The internet is letting people have an individual voice, and that is a considerable threat to a regime that doesn’t value the individual, but places incredible value on the whole. In China, the whole is worth far more than the sum of the parts, to a greater degree than in the west. This was evidenced by Kuo’s comments about how every government official, from the top to the bottom, is afraid of public sentiment.
I look forward to being able to see the effects of this paradigm during our visit.

]]> By: Daniel Fleek http://calpolymbatrip.com/2009/china/red-guards-vs-rednecks/#comment-24135 Daniel Fleek Sat, 14 Jan 2012 00:00:26 +0000 http://calpolymbatrip.com/?p=2136#comment-24135 The article was a good background to the presentation. First I did not know but thought it was interesting that all Chinese school children learn that China has been humiliated by foreign powers and that communism is the only way that the Chinese can avoid such humiliation. In a way, the Chinese were humiliated such as during the Opium war and world war 2. However, I think this is a bad policy by the Chinese government if they want to continue their successful business campaigns with the rest of the world. In fact, it makes sense that this kind of beginning to a child's education would lead to hostile views of the world and America causing them to think that America are attacking Chinese culture when the media publishes articles on the Chinese government or human rights issues. However, I believe this is partially the governments plan all along. For being a long presentation, I thought Kaiser Kuo had great insight into the reasons why Chinese and Americans view each other the way they do. First off, he pointed out a few things that I did not know about the Chinese internet. For example, I was unaware that Chinese internet has been more specifically used for entertainment purposes than for information. In fact, Kuo even makes it a point to say that the Chinese people are able to stay up to date on entertainment news like music. I also did not really know to what extent the Chinese people were being censored. In fact, I was really surprised that Chinese people were able to criticize their own government online and that the government would often listen to these demands if enough people were expressing a certain view. Also, although their are many sites that are censored, I was surprised to learn that it was possible for Chinese people to communicate with the world using internet. This I felt was one of the most interesting parts of the talk. The internet battles that ensue between Americans and Chinese over different views on such matters like human rights and the environment show that each sides citizens need to understand more about the background of why they believe the way they do. In fact to back this up, Kuo makes a mock example of an American criticizing a Chinese person by saying "why don't you chinese hate the govnt as much i think u out to" which I thought was a pretty accurate view of most Americans. However, it is interesting that even with these internet clashes, when meeting in person, the meetings between the two sides are usually civil. In all, I thought Kuo was a good candidate to speak on this subject because of his background and I liked that he ended his speech by listing both common and non-common characteristics between Chinese and Americans that he likes and doesn't like. The article was a good background to the presentation. First I did not know but thought it was interesting that all Chinese school children learn that China has been humiliated by foreign powers and that communism is the only way that the Chinese can avoid such humiliation. In a way, the Chinese were humiliated such as during the Opium war and world war 2. However, I think this is a bad policy by the Chinese government if they want to continue their successful business campaigns with the rest of the world. In fact, it makes sense that this kind of beginning to a child’s education would lead to hostile views of the world and America causing them to think that America are attacking Chinese culture when the media publishes articles on the Chinese government or human rights issues. However, I believe this is partially the governments plan all along.

For being a long presentation, I thought Kaiser Kuo had great insight into the reasons why Chinese and Americans view each other the way they do. First off, he pointed out a few things that I did not know about the Chinese internet. For example, I was unaware that Chinese internet has been more specifically used for entertainment purposes than for information. In fact, Kuo even makes it a point to say that the Chinese people are able to stay up to date on entertainment news like music. I also did not really know to what extent the Chinese people were being censored. In fact, I was really surprised that Chinese people were able to criticize their own government online and that the government would often listen to these demands if enough people were expressing a certain view. Also, although their are many sites that are censored, I was surprised to learn that it was possible for Chinese people to communicate with the world using internet. This I felt was one of the most interesting parts of the talk. The internet battles that ensue between Americans and Chinese over different views on such matters like human rights and the environment show that each sides citizens need to understand more about the background of why they believe the way they do. In fact to back this up, Kuo makes a mock example of an American criticizing a Chinese person by saying “why don’t you chinese hate the govnt as much i think u out to” which I thought was a pretty accurate view of most Americans. However, it is interesting that even with these internet clashes, when meeting in person, the meetings between the two sides are usually civil. In all, I thought Kuo was a good candidate to speak on this subject because of his background and I liked that he ended his speech by listing both common and non-common characteristics between Chinese and Americans that he likes and doesn’t like.

]]> By: Vladimir http://calpolymbatrip.com/2009/china/red-guards-vs-rednecks/#comment-24098 Vladimir Sun, 25 Dec 2011 04:19:26 +0000 http://calpolymbatrip.com/?p=2136#comment-24098 Kaiser Kuo’s speech stresses the importance of doing one’s research before jumping to conclusions about China. It’s tempting to say that Chinese citizens want to have the same relationship with their government as Americans want to have with theirs. People within the United States itself disagree about the role of government. A society will tend to judge another society by its own measuring stick. Learning Chinese history will give a person insight into the Chinese perspective. It’s a shame that Chinese people take the extremist opinions as being representative of American views, and that there are few constructive dialogs on the internet. Perhaps a blog should require passing a Chinese history test for posting privileges. I agree that a good place to start would be with a book on Chinese history, read with one’s opinions put aside. This would help one put news stories into context. Reading opposing opinion pieces can also be beneficial, but they should come from educated sources. I also see value in Mr. Kuo’s two other recommendations: 1) Don’t condescend when talking to the Chinese on the internet, even if it means they are parroting the party line. This is difficult, because a person’s reaction to someone they think is brainwashed is to say, “Can’t you realize you’ve been brainwashed?” He took the words right out of my mouth when he said Americans think, “Why don’t you Chinese hate your government as much as I think you ought to?” 2) Try to learn what Chinese people think when their defenses aren’t up, when foreigners aren’t a party to the conversation. This is useful advice. We’d probably all like to know what others are thinking when we aren’t pushing their buttons. The Chinese people may disagree with their government more than say to Americans. Nationalism is likely to be enhanced when talking to outsiders. They may disagree with their government to some extent, but may stand with their state in the discussion. “Battling the Information Barbarians” also mentions how many Americans think about Chinese internet censorship. While reading about how the Chinese government says to its people that censorship is necessary to promote Chinese culture, I had a reaction that would probably be common among many Americans: “B.S.” flashed in my head. Although one could say that my reaction is due to a feeling of universality of American Culture, my thought was that a government should not tell its people what their culture is. The article says, “The question, then, for Western companies, as much as for Western governments, is to decide whose side they are on: the Chinese officials who like to define their culture in a paternalistic, authoritarian way, or the large number of Chinese who have their own ideas about freedom.” How large is the number of Chinese who have their own ideas about freedom? I’d like to see a survey of Chinese people on this, but the Chinese government doesn’t. Kaiser Kuo’s speech stresses the importance of doing one’s research before jumping to conclusions about China. It’s tempting to say that Chinese citizens want to have the same relationship with their government as Americans want to have with theirs. People within the United States itself disagree about the role of government. A society will tend to judge another society by its own measuring stick. Learning Chinese history will give a person insight into the Chinese perspective. It’s a shame that Chinese people take the extremist opinions as being representative of American views, and that there are few constructive dialogs on the internet. Perhaps a blog should require passing a Chinese history test for posting privileges.

I agree that a good place to start would be with a book on Chinese history, read with one’s opinions put aside. This would help one put news stories into context. Reading opposing opinion pieces can also be beneficial, but they should come from educated sources.

I also see value in Mr. Kuo’s two other recommendations:

1) Don’t condescend when talking to the Chinese on the internet, even if it means they are parroting the party line.
This is difficult, because a person’s reaction to someone they think is brainwashed is to say, “Can’t you realize you’ve been brainwashed?” He took the words right out of my mouth when he said Americans think, “Why don’t you Chinese hate your government as much as I think you ought to?”

2) Try to learn what Chinese people think when their defenses aren’t up, when foreigners aren’t a party to the conversation. This is useful advice. We’d probably all like to know what others are thinking when we aren’t pushing their buttons. The Chinese people may disagree with their government more than say to Americans. Nationalism is likely to be enhanced when talking to outsiders. They may disagree with their government to some extent, but may stand with their state in the discussion.

“Battling the Information Barbarians” also mentions how many Americans think about Chinese internet censorship. While reading about how the Chinese government says to its people that censorship is necessary to promote Chinese culture, I had a reaction that would probably be common among many Americans: “B.S.” flashed in my head. Although one could say that my reaction is due to a feeling of universality of American Culture, my thought was that a government should not tell its people what their culture is. The article says, “The question, then, for Western companies, as much as for Western governments, is to decide whose side they are on: the Chinese officials who like to define their culture in a paternalistic, authoritarian way, or the large number of Chinese who have their own ideas about freedom.” How large is the number of Chinese who have their own ideas about freedom? I’d like to see a survey of Chinese people on this, but the Chinese government doesn’t.

]]> By: Kevin K. http://calpolymbatrip.com/2009/china/red-guards-vs-rednecks/#comment-24089 Kevin K. Thu, 22 Dec 2011 22:47:41 +0000 http://calpolymbatrip.com/?p=2136#comment-24089 After listening to Kaiser Kuo and reading the Wall Street Journal article I have a better understanding of how China and the billion-plus Chinese citizens view not just Americans, but Westerners in general. Kaiser did an excellent job acting as mediator between these Western and Eastern ideals -- an apt appointment considering his American and Chinese roots. Kaiser points out that the internet in China is not completely useless, like many Westerners like to assume is the product of the supposedly debilitating "Great Fire Wall." However, Kaiser points out that it is the number one source of entertainment in China and in fact how many outsiders view the internet in China is completely wrong. As both Kaiser and the Wall Street Journal point out, Chinese are skeptical of Western mindsets because of the centuries of attempted imperialism. This Google situation and Westerners' judgements towards China and its internet is viewed as information imperialism. I had never though about it in this way, but I can see how the disconnect between West and Eastern thinking can create this divide. Kaiser stated that Westerners have this supposed monopoly on information and how they view the world as a whole -- leaving China and Eastern trains of thoughts as secondary notions. This is why they may see Google as just another missionary invading their soil, attempting to infiltrate Western ideals into Eastern culture. Thus the term information barbarians. These two works combined offer an enlightening experience; one that is really eye opening in regards to a new point of view. What we view as censorship may be a cultural norm of obedience -- one that Americans don't necessarily share as we battle for net neutrality. So when entering into a dialogue on the subject of censorship it is helpful to be able to see the multiple angles and histories of what has led these two cultures into thinking differently -- rather than assuming one is automatically right and wrong. After listening to Kaiser Kuo and reading the Wall Street Journal article I have a better understanding of how China and the billion-plus Chinese citizens view not just Americans, but Westerners in general. Kaiser did an excellent job acting as mediator between these Western and Eastern ideals — an apt appointment considering his American and Chinese roots.

Kaiser points out that the internet in China is not completely useless, like many Westerners like to assume is the product of the supposedly debilitating “Great Fire Wall.” However, Kaiser points out that it is the number one source of entertainment in China and in fact how many outsiders view the internet in China is completely wrong. As both Kaiser and the Wall Street Journal point out, Chinese are skeptical of Western mindsets because of the centuries of attempted imperialism. This Google situation and Westerners’ judgements towards China and its internet is viewed as information imperialism. I had never though about it in this way, but I can see how the disconnect between West and Eastern thinking can create this divide. Kaiser stated that Westerners have this supposed monopoly on information and how they view the world as a whole — leaving China and Eastern trains of thoughts as secondary notions. This is why they may see Google as just another missionary invading their soil, attempting to infiltrate Western ideals into Eastern culture. Thus the term information barbarians.

These two works combined offer an enlightening experience; one that is really eye opening in regards to a new point of view. What we view as censorship may be a cultural norm of obedience — one that Americans don’t necessarily share as we battle for net neutrality. So when entering into a dialogue on the subject of censorship it is helpful to be able to see the multiple angles and histories of what has led these two cultures into thinking differently — rather than assuming one is automatically right and wrong.

]]> By: Omar Pradhan http://calpolymbatrip.com/2009/china/red-guards-vs-rednecks/#comment-21500 Omar Pradhan Fri, 18 Mar 2011 21:06:11 +0000 http://calpolymbatrip.com/?p=2136#comment-21500 My thoughts after watching this video and listening to the podcast are that Kiaser Kuo is a very gifted observer (and orator) of our shared reality.. Given his bi-cultural upbringing, he is uniquely able to appreciate and hence offer his audience a glimpse into the intersection and cause of variously manipulated China - US (mis)perceptions. The title of his talk drives at his point that the loud voice of the belligerent masses is what we need to be concerned about. His talk made clear to me that, in order to engender a more hopeful shared future, we need to be mindful of how what we say & do could be mischaracterized and manipulated. To analogize, this reminds me of the traveling I did with my undergraduate football team. Before our games, whenever a quote was proffered by the opposing team to local media, our coaching staff wisely tracked it down, photocopied, and posted the offensive, disrespecting, dishonorable attack to each players locker. This certainly had an effect on motivation...and perhaps even unscrupulous "in the trenches" gameplay. Coming back Kuo's China - US observation, I really like how he calls out both sides for their Pastor Beck's, Limbaugh's and Hannity's. The question is, how do we grow our consciousness to cut out these manipulative nonsensical voices and simply go back to the glorious days of playing for the love of the game (if there ever were such times). Kuo hints at the fact that we need to grow our ability to think for ourselves; have better reasons for doing what we do. Unfortunately, growing this capacity is difficult and time consuming for both sides. Moreover, many stakeholders are growing rich from the status quo. I am reminded of Ken Robinson's TED talk about how our current schools kill creativity: http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html Creativity and the independent thought that engenders it are exactly what both sides need moving forward if we are to have any shot at collaboratively solve problems our global environmental, resource, human rights, nuclear-militarization, etc. challenges. My thoughts after watching this video and listening to the podcast are that Kiaser Kuo is a very gifted observer (and orator) of our shared reality.. Given his bi-cultural upbringing, he is uniquely able to appreciate and hence offer his audience a glimpse into the intersection and cause of variously manipulated China - US (mis)perceptions. The title of his talk drives at his point that the loud voice of the belligerent masses is what we need to be concerned about. His talk made clear to me that, in order to engender a more hopeful shared future, we need to be mindful of how what we say & do could be mischaracterized and manipulated. To analogize, this reminds me of the traveling I did with my undergraduate football team. Before our games, whenever a quote was proffered by the opposing team to local media, our coaching staff wisely tracked it down, photocopied, and posted the offensive, disrespecting, dishonorable attack to each players locker. This certainly had an effect on motivation…and perhaps even unscrupulous “in the trenches” gameplay. Coming back Kuo’s China - US observation, I really like how he calls out both sides for their Pastor Beck’s, Limbaugh’s and Hannity’s. The question is, how do we grow our consciousness to cut out these manipulative nonsensical voices and simply go back to the glorious days of playing for the love of the game (if there ever were such times). Kuo hints at the fact that we need to grow our ability to think for ourselves; have better reasons for doing what we do. Unfortunately, growing this capacity is difficult and time consuming for both sides. Moreover, many stakeholders are growing rich from the status quo. I am reminded of Ken Robinson’s TED talk about how our current schools kill creativity: http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html Creativity and the independent thought that engenders it are exactly what both sides need moving forward if we are to have any shot at collaboratively solve problems our global environmental, resource, human rights, nuclear-militarization, etc. challenges.

]]> By: J Vail http://calpolymbatrip.com/2009/china/red-guards-vs-rednecks/#comment-21406 J Vail Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:51:00 +0000 http://calpolymbatrip.com/?p=2136#comment-21406 Great speaker presentation, and very constructive. I read beforehand that it ‘heats up’ towards the end, but I was surprised that Kuo added a lot more emotional vigor in his speech towards the end. His observations were very keen, and hearing him speak made it clear that you have a much higher understanding of international relations when you fully understand the perspectives of both cultures. I felt that he put a lot of American behaviors and opinions in check by understanding why Americans feel obligated to act a certain way and at the same time knowing how the Chinese react to it. Other points of interest for me… I liked the connection Kuo made between the attention to China’s censorship and how Americans hold freedom of speech as our ‘central fiber’. He validated that aspect, but also noted how the existence of the ‘ghost net’ shows that the internet isn’t as tightly controlled as some people think. I also liked the phrase ‘ephemeral celebrity’ and how it is one of the best ways to get notoriety in China, and I feel a lot of Americans try to become this figure and hide behind the façade of the internet. I couldn’t believe that the internet boom in China expanded from 8 million users in 1999 to 338 million in 2009. I would like to know the figures for this year to see the rate of growth over two years, which I’m sure, extends into 8 digits. I also enjoyed hearing Kuo’s summation of the American media coverage on the Beijing Olympics; I remember watching the games how about 1/3 of the commentary was either on Tibet or the Chinese government, which really has no place in Olympic coverage. Great speaker presentation, and very constructive. I read beforehand that it ‘heats up’ towards the end, but I was surprised that Kuo added a lot more emotional vigor in his speech towards the end. His observations were very keen, and hearing him speak made it clear that you have a much higher understanding of international relations when you fully understand the perspectives of both cultures. I felt that he put a lot of American behaviors and opinions in check by understanding why Americans feel obligated to act a certain way and at the same time knowing how the Chinese react to it.

Other points of interest for me…
I liked the connection Kuo made between the attention to China’s censorship and how Americans hold freedom of speech as our ‘central fiber’. He validated that aspect, but also noted how the existence of the ‘ghost net’ shows that the internet isn’t as tightly controlled as some people think. I also liked the phrase ‘ephemeral celebrity’ and how it is one of the best ways to get notoriety in China, and I feel a lot of Americans try to become this figure and hide behind the façade of the internet.

I couldn’t believe that the internet boom in China expanded from 8 million users in 1999 to 338 million in 2009. I would like to know the figures for this year to see the rate of growth over two years, which I’m sure, extends into 8 digits. I also enjoyed hearing Kuo’s summation of the American media coverage on the Beijing Olympics; I remember watching the games how about 1/3 of the commentary was either on Tibet or the Chinese government, which really has no place in Olympic coverage.

]]> By: Ben Raymond http://calpolymbatrip.com/2009/china/red-guards-vs-rednecks/#comment-21365 Ben Raymond Mon, 14 Mar 2011 02:47:24 +0000 http://calpolymbatrip.com/?p=2136#comment-21365 I thought Kaiser Kuo made some very valid points and did an excellent job allowing listeners to see issues from different perspectives. I have to admit I fall under the category of thinking that the Chinese don't know what they are missing out on. You really have to put yourself in their shoes and listen to their point of view to see where they are coming from. It was very valuable to hear points of view from both sides. I think that it takes someone of Kuo's background to really be able to see these issues and be able to translate them in ways that both sides understand. Some of his most important suggestions included: - Educate yourself on relevant history before making a judgment - Try and learn what the Chinese think when their defenses aren't up - Try not to come across as condescending I thought he did a good job trying to let us know where the Chinese people are coming from. He made it clear that both cultures share a lot of similarities, both positive and negative. I like how he explained what the internet means to both of us and how it could be used more effectively. I think its tough for both sides to really understand each other without having grown up in that culture but with the help of the internet we could make strides in building relationships and a greater understanding. I thought Kaiser Kuo made some very valid points and did an excellent job allowing listeners to see issues from different perspectives. I have to admit I fall under the category of thinking that the Chinese don’t know what they are missing out on. You really have to put yourself in their shoes and listen to their point of view to see where they are coming from. It was very valuable to hear points of view from both sides. I think that it takes someone of Kuo’s background to really be able to see these issues and be able to translate them in ways that both sides understand. Some of his most important suggestions included:

- Educate yourself on relevant history before making a judgment
- Try and learn what the Chinese think when their defenses aren’t up
- Try not to come across as condescending

I thought he did a good job trying to let us know where the Chinese people are coming from. He made it clear that both cultures share a lot of similarities, both positive and negative. I like how he explained what the internet means to both of us and how it could be used more effectively. I think its tough for both sides to really understand each other without having grown up in that culture but with the help of the internet we could make strides in building relationships and a greater understanding.

]]> By: Ashley Ogden http://calpolymbatrip.com/2009/china/red-guards-vs-rednecks/#comment-21359 Ashley Ogden Sun, 13 Mar 2011 21:04:30 +0000 http://calpolymbatrip.com/?p=2136#comment-21359 The topic of Kaiser Kuo’s speech is a topic that we have heard a lot about recently. The censorship on Chinese internet and the most important “bi-lateral” relationship between China and the US are issues that have been all over the news and on everyone’s radar (especially those of us going on this trip). However, Kaiser was able to bring up some good points and brought a fresh perspective to the subject. The Battling the Barbarians was a good complement to his speech in that it gave some perspective and set the scene for his talk. The main take-a-ways I got from this speech were that: 1)The relationship between China and America is not only important at the government level, but perhaps even more important on the people to people level. The internet has made the people to people relationship very common. Chinese and Americans are connecting more than ever via the internet and the things they discuss are seen by everyone. This could have a huge impact on the bi-lateral relationship between the two countries. 2)The internet had become the most important media channel in China for sharing information, getting information, and connecting with others. More people have been learning English and therefore can connect to the English-speaking American and have better discussions. Kaiser argues what is more important is the information on the internet that was written in Chinese then translated to English. This is what the Chinese are saying with the expectation that American won’t read, so you should read it. Each side is prepared to see the worst in the other side, so a complete understanding is necessary to a good relationship. 3)When connecting and discussing the Chinese-American relationships’ and comparing the two powers: know their history and don’t condescend. Those people, who “shout the loudest” via the internet or any other media, are probably not representing the majority’s opinion. Therefore, don’t be quick to judge after only listening to those who are making the most noise. To have a good relationship with someone (or some country) you must really understand their worldview, which is everything that has made them who they are today, i.e. their history. This is especially important to the Chinese as they feel their history is a big part of who they are today. The topic of Kaiser Kuo’s speech is a topic that we have heard a lot about recently. The censorship on Chinese internet and the most important “bi-lateral” relationship between China and the US are issues that have been all over the news and on everyone’s radar (especially those of us going on this trip). However, Kaiser was able to bring up some good points and brought a fresh perspective to the subject. The Battling the Barbarians was a good complement to his speech in that it gave some perspective and set the scene for his talk.

The main take-a-ways I got from this speech were that:

1)The relationship between China and America is not only important at the government level, but perhaps even more important on the people to people level. The internet has made the people to people relationship very common. Chinese and Americans are connecting more than ever via the internet and the things they discuss are seen by everyone. This could have a huge impact on the bi-lateral relationship between the two countries.

2)The internet had become the most important media channel in China for sharing information, getting information, and connecting with others. More people have been learning English and therefore can connect to the English-speaking American and have better discussions. Kaiser argues what is more important is the information on the internet that was written in Chinese then translated to English. This is what the Chinese are saying with the expectation that American won’t read, so you should read it. Each side is prepared to see the worst in the other side, so a complete understanding is necessary to a good relationship.

3)When connecting and discussing the Chinese-American relationships’ and comparing the two powers: know their history and don’t condescend. Those people, who “shout the loudest” via the internet or any other media, are probably not representing the majority’s opinion. Therefore, don’t be quick to judge after only listening to those who are making the most noise. To have a good relationship with someone (or some country) you must really understand their worldview, which is everything that has made them who they are today, i.e. their history. This is especially important to the Chinese as they feel their history is a big part of who they are today.

]]> By: JP Salazar http://calpolymbatrip.com/2009/china/red-guards-vs-rednecks/#comment-21338 JP Salazar Sun, 13 Mar 2011 00:47:25 +0000 http://calpolymbatrip.com/?p=2136#comment-21338 The concept of an experiential dictionary is an interesting one and one that has interested me for quite some time. It has always intrigued me how language works. We define things and associate their characteristics within our own personal experience. As an example, the classifying and naming of colors has always interested me. We all have a sense of what the color green is. It is the color of money, grass, and trees. But our understanding of green comes from our own perceptions of the world around us. We don’t really know what green is, we just know what things look like that we are told are green. Two people looking at the same object will describe its shape and color the same way. But they are not necessarily seeing the same thing. They are just making associations with things they have seen in the past and referencing their learned definitions of what they are seeing. To help explain this, think of someone who is colorblind just to the color red. When they look at a red object, what they see is grey or a void. But their experience has led them to associate that vision with the color red. They are still able to identify the color of the object, because red to them always looks like grey. This is an interesting concept when applied to how people are viewed in relation to their views on China’s government policies. As the speakers identify, these terms are very subjective in nature. While one of the speakers identifies himself as a centralist, he is seen throughout China as an apologist because he goes onto Chinese television. He states that he tries to present some criticisms of the Chinese government in his appearances but has to be careful in how far he goes. But because he is not as critical as some people would like to see, he is seen as a kind of pawn for the government. His purpose is to show how liberal Chinese media has become while not providing any real criticism. This kind of shows some of the defense mechanisms that people on both sides of the debate use. Apologists take on a kind of patronizing attitude when dealing with people who are criticizing their government. They refuse to talk about the real issues, instead focusing on the idea that the concept is more complicated that how it is being presented. This lack of a forum to discuss the real issues goes back to the whole censorship debate. How can thoughtful and effective discussion occur, and solutions to the problems be hashed out, without the availability or determination to do so. If both sides of the debate do not wish to listen to the other side, not to mention not be allowed to communicate on the topic due to government censorship, how can a solution be achieved? Overall, I think this podcast did a good job of relating the three terms to the outlooks of people in China. However, I do not think that they actually defined the terms very well. I would say that at this stage of my understanding of China’s policies that I am a centrist. While I think that many of the Chinese policies are heavy handed, I do not think that China being governed by American ideals is the answer either. China is a country that is very different from where I have spent my entire life. As such, China needs to develop policies that work for them, in their situation. The concept of an experiential dictionary is an interesting one and one that has interested me for quite some time. It has always intrigued me how language works. We define things and associate their characteristics within our own personal experience. As an example, the classifying and naming of colors has always interested me. We all have a sense of what the color green is. It is the color of money, grass, and trees. But our understanding of green comes from our own perceptions of the world around us. We don’t really know what green is, we just know what things look like that we are told are green. Two people looking at the same object will describe its shape and color the same way. But they are not necessarily seeing the same thing. They are just making associations with things they have seen in the past and referencing their learned definitions of what they are seeing. To help explain this, think of someone who is colorblind just to the color red. When they look at a red object, what they see is grey or a void. But their experience has led them to associate that vision with the color red. They are still able to identify the color of the object, because red to them always looks like grey.
This is an interesting concept when applied to how people are viewed in relation to their views on China’s government policies. As the speakers identify, these terms are very subjective in nature. While one of the speakers identifies himself as a centralist, he is seen throughout China as an apologist because he goes onto Chinese television. He states that he tries to present some criticisms of the Chinese government in his appearances but has to be careful in how far he goes. But because he is not as critical as some people would like to see, he is seen as a kind of pawn for the government. His purpose is to show how liberal Chinese media has become while not providing any real criticism. This kind of shows some of the defense mechanisms that people on both sides of the debate use. Apologists take on a kind of patronizing attitude when dealing with people who are criticizing their government. They refuse to talk about the real issues, instead focusing on the idea that the concept is more complicated that how it is being presented. This lack of a forum to discuss the real issues goes back to the whole censorship debate. How can thoughtful and effective discussion occur, and solutions to the problems be hashed out, without the availability or determination to do so. If both sides of the debate do not wish to listen to the other side, not to mention not be allowed to communicate on the topic due to government censorship, how can a solution be achieved?
Overall, I think this podcast did a good job of relating the three terms to the outlooks of people in China. However, I do not think that they actually defined the terms very well. I would say that at this stage of my understanding of China’s policies that I am a centrist. While I think that many of the Chinese policies are heavy handed, I do not think that China being governed by American ideals is the answer either. China is a country that is very different from where I have spent my entire life. As such, China needs to develop policies that work for them, in their situation.

]]> By: Tyler Sereno http://calpolymbatrip.com/2009/china/red-guards-vs-rednecks/#comment-21274 Tyler Sereno Wed, 09 Mar 2011 02:07:30 +0000 http://calpolymbatrip.com/?p=2136#comment-21274 The speech by Kuo was very imformative and he put things into perspective from both China and the United States. He mentions in the beginning that censorship and the Great Firewall are the first things that come to mind when American think of the Internet and China. There is a lot more pressure behind the flood gates with half of the population carrying some sort of device to send pictures or messages. The Chinese government believes that if they open the flood gates, there will be total chaos. Two major changes in China that effect their take on the Internet are the tremendous growth of the Internet, and the expansion of the English language in Chinese schools. When the Olympics came to Beijing, many Chinese were blindsided by the negative English-language reporting online. International incidents also have an effect on the Chinese online freedom. And as more is censored, China will struggle to achieve nationalistic fury. Kuo also mentions that it is expected to have the Chinese and American people on the same page, but not their governments. He then goes on to say that Americans and Chinese are very similar. Both can be ignorant, isolate themselves, and feel singled out as they were there for a reason. Also, both are decent, hard-working people, and believe that people should rise based on good works or merits. This speech was great and I was Able to learn a lot more about China. The speech by Kuo was very imformative and he put things into perspective from both China and the United States. He mentions in the beginning that censorship and the Great Firewall are the first things that come to mind when American think of the Internet and China. There is a lot more pressure behind the flood gates with half of the population carrying some sort of device to send pictures or messages. The Chinese government believes that if they open the flood gates, there will be total chaos. Two major changes in China that effect their take on the Internet are the tremendous growth of the Internet, and the expansion of the English language in Chinese schools. When the Olympics came to Beijing, many Chinese were blindsided by the negative English-language reporting online. International incidents also have an effect on the Chinese online freedom. And as more is censored, China will struggle to achieve nationalistic fury. Kuo also mentions that it is expected to have the Chinese and American people on the same page, but not their governments. He then goes on to say that Americans and Chinese are very similar. Both can be ignorant, isolate themselves, and feel singled out as they were there for a reason. Also, both are decent, hard-working people, and believe that people should rise based on good works or merits. This speech was great and I was Able to learn a lot more about China.

]]>