GHS208-05 Fall 2019 China and the Islamic Middle East

While reading through a summary of 20th century Chinese history the way Professor Albert M. Craig sees it, I found a few details that struck me as peculiar, considering the absence of citation for particularly crucial details (or any at all).

Right off the bat, I find Craig’s account of Mao’s China intriguing. My personal sticking point with Crag started with his platitudinous remark when ostensibly summarizing the “Cultural Revolution” and “The Great Leap Forward” – “Mao Zedong wanted ‘revolution’ to continue, even under his own government. Millions died as a result.” (160) I found it a tad concerning how no further elaboration occurred on what those deaths were, or how we know they were even causally linked to what Mao decided was revolutionary. The importance of accurately reflecting history cannot be understated, and for us to properly grow from mistakes of the past we must know what went wrong. The unsupported tacking of millions of deaths on Mao’s apparently revolutionary movements seems to miss this goal, preventing us from using his writing to engage critically with Mao’s ideological shortcomings and rather continuing to…just kind of assume that Mao rests with the blood of millions on his hands.

In the same vein, Craig’s format of offering no formal citations or anything we can use to corroborate without seeking out sources independently additionally fails my desire for reckoning with China’s past when he speaks of Deng’s reversal of Mao’s policy – “Deng maintained the dictatorship of the Communist Party, but also introduced many features of a market economy. The result was explosive growth and an export boom, first in southeastern coastal areas, where long-suppressed entrepreneurial abilities surfaced, and then throughout the country. Standards of living rose and the society became freer[…]” (161). It would certainly be critically important for any humanitarian pursuit if this assertion that reversing Mao’s ” ‘socialist’ ” policies resulted in higher standards of living were corroborated by what sources Craig must be drawing from. I find it disappointing that I cannot simply look over his shoulder and note the information that he has aggregated.

That’s nothing to say, of course, of his assertion that Dengist China was NOT totalitarian, though Americans are all too aware of the one incident that did not happen on June 4th, 1989 in Beijing during the Democracy Movement, where there was certainly not a declaration of martial law and subsequent use of armor against the civilian population.

Another unfortunately constrictive practice of Craig’s is to employ vague sourcing for his references to popular response, e.g. “These early years [under “relatively moderate policies”] were sometimes called the era of ‘New Democracy.’ ” (161), and “During the 1950s [as part of the “Great Leap Forward”], intellectuals and universities were singled out as a target for thought reform. The Chinese slang term was “brainwashing.’ (163), and “In 1956, Mao felt that intellectuals had been adequately INDOCTRINATED, and concerned lest creativity be stifled, he said in a speech, ‘Let the hundred flowers bloom’ […] To his surprise, intellectuals responded with a torrent of criticism that did not spare the Communist Party” (164) (emphasis mine), to name the ones I saw within Craig’s summary of Maoist China. Most striking about this is that Craig employs comparatively generous reference to Deng Xiaoping’s writings and speeches (while the only quotes that appear within the section on Mao are the excerpt from “Selected Works of Deng Xiaoping,” the aforementioned note on “letting the flowers bloom,” and particular word choices of the time that Craig personally found inaccurate).

For the sake of keeping this within the length of a reasonable blog post (I think?) and not composing a detailed response to a complete list of Craig’s works, I think the above accurately notes some amount of the mental hooks I encountered when attempting to consume Craig’s works. Ultimately I found Craig to communicate Deng’s China fairly well, but Craig seems to not have found it necessary to include much of Mao or Mao’s works past the excerpt of an excerpt of Mao’s writing (“Mao’s view of China on the eve of the Great Leap Forward”) and the quip on blooming flowers. In order to present an all-encompassing view on recent Chinese history (which certainly must be fresh in Chinese culture?), I personally hold that a more comprehensive analysis of Mao’s shortcomings and the mechanics behind these would deliver a more impactful message, rather than the short notes of Mao’s actions paired with general conclusions.

In the 1950s, China formed an alliance with the Soviet government. China adopted a Soviet model into their Communist government. They did land distribution and collectivization. The Great leap forward ended in disaster. The alliance faded and Xiaoping eventually came into power. He suggested having “socialism with Chinese characteristics” which allowed a market economy with Communist rule. Increasing numbers of people became educated and their economy grew as well. Since China remained isolated during the Cold War, it was not affected and became what it is today.

I think that the situation that occurred in The Bridegroom’s “Saboteur” would be handled very differently in the US. I believe that while we do have corrupt police officers and we by no means have the perfect system, most police officers in the US seem to hold themselves to a higher standard than the two officers in the short story did. I do not think that most officers would use their power and authority to justify throwing tea onto two random citizens’ feet. But, to continue on the ideas we discussed in class that I spent more time thinking about, I believe that Professor McGrath brought up an interesting point that we didn’t dive super deep into: is it okay for police officers who risk their lives for the well being of the people they protect to take some advantage of their authority status? Like for example, speeding on the highway or running a red light just because they can as mentioned in class. To a certain extent, I don’t really think it’s that big of a deal. But, if we think about it more, they are technically breaking the law and where is the line drawn for what may be taking the extra privileges too far. A country has laws for a reason and more often than not we already have a difficult time sorting through the gray areas, so why would we allow our authority figures to add more gray area situations? Like I said, the small things are not my worry necessarily, but who’s to say those small things won’t grow into bigger offenses if they haven’t already.

Something I’ve been working on throughout our engagement with Ha Jin’s “The Bridegroom” is attempting to separate the author’s view of citizenship and life in China from what in reality goes on there. I find myself necessarily aware of sentiment that flatters Americans’ sense of freedom and independence, which, when spurred by contrast against a supposedly authoritarian, dystopian Other, seems to imbue people with a sense of patriotism and undercurrents of antagonism to various means of governance pursued by other nations, and exaggeration of their shortcomings. I fear taking Ha Jin’s fiction for more than it’s worth when forming a nuanced opinion of the goings-on in a real, living nation on the other side of the Pacific.

In the end, what can we take as representative portrayals of life in any place outside of America? I can’t determine how much I personally can heed of any particular piece of media without avoiding ideologically tainted images of reality. Media that flatters the contemporary centers of power (whose principles are heavily ingrained within the collective American consciousness for reasons I’ll leave up to you) is more likely to be popular within a particular location. With this in mind, can I take this popular work of fiction at face value? Ending with questions is trite, but this is one thing I’ve found myself unable to settle – to what extent is Ha Jin’s apparent emphasis on Chinese material hardship and authoritarianism reliable, and how can I be sure?

I am doing my ICR requirement through the IACA. When I transferred to Butler and learned that I had to complete an ICR requirement in the community, I rolled my eyes and thought what a waste of my time. I am starting the graduate part of my degree and finishing the core curriculum was not something I was looking forward too; however, my China and Islamic Middle East class has been slowly wearing down my resentment and has brought out an appreciation for something I did not think I would have. I was not looking forward to my China and Islamic class, and I was not looking forward to doing my ICR requirement within the Chinese, Islamic community. A few things changed my point of view on the ICR requirement.
First, a group of us went to the Indianapolis Museum of Art where Benny, representative of the Chinese community, took us on a tour. Besides looking at everything in the entire museum, we spent a bulk of our experience in the Asian section on level 2. My first impression was that the art was beautiful. We were able to see the different pottery made. They had art pieces dating from the Shang dynasty to today. Art pieces ranged from bronze, stone, and different raw materials. One art piece from the Tang Dynasty was sculpted of a white man on a camel. Benny explained to us that the Chinese sculpted this because Europeans were coming on camels to China to trade. I thought it was neat to see how cultures influenced one another and it was evident in art. I had a good time at the museum and obtained a new appreciation for a civilization. It was also neat to see how the Shang dynasty used bronze to make art pieces that included various animals. You could see how following dynasties advances in technologies in their art had because the Tang dynasty had copper and iron. I liked being able to see paintings because you could see clothing that ancient Chinese wore.
I felt this experience went along with what we are learning in class. We had just finished learning about Chinese History. These art pieces are from the dynasties we are discussing in class (Shang, Tang, Han, etc). In class we learned about the Silk Road. The Roman women wanted Chinese silk, while the wealthy Chinese wanted Roman glass and gold. Since there was a Silk Road, diseases that were Europe or China would slowly make its way to the other civilization. By learning all this history, I feel I could have conversations with Chinese individuals and be able to understand their background more.

https://ifunny.co/video/e4jAJogn6

Here is the video about littering. How do people respond when someone else does something wrong?

A man in China posed for an internet photo with a small Chinese national flag in one hand and a lighter in the other. In addition, up to seven other people have been arrested for similar offenses. Along with several people burning flags, a man from Hangzhou was arrested for ripping a flag down and urinating on it in public. Many of these acts are being posted online with instigating comments such as “come catch me” and “I live and die with the team.” The Chinese government in return is detaining these individuals under the premise of “making insulting remarks about the national flag.”
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3032044/chinese-houston-rockets-fan-who-taunted-police-threat-burn

In the reading in Ha Jin, the section of “Saboteur” made some really great connections of how our world sadly is today. In the beginning section of this reading it talks about how Mr. Chiu and his bride were eating, and while they were eating a policemen “accidentally” spilled tea all over both of their shoes and getting them all wet. When Mr. Chiu questioned him, the police officer put it on him and said it’s your fault, and he was making the public disturbance then. Sadly, this is something we are seeing on the news way to often, and it’s not what should be happening. Also we see this type of disturbance from police and government use in China with the use of limiting social media and what can get put on the internet. With these restrictions, if something bad was happening, many wouldn’t even know because of how differently the news can spread in China vs here in the states.

We are now transitioning to Modern China. Western culture was expanding and reaching the globe. China was one of the few that did not “respond.” The Opium War took place during from 1839 to 1842. The Opium War, in my opinion, caused the western divide in China. Hong Kong remained in control and influenced by the British, while inland China became Communists. After the Opium War, rebellions took place: Taiping, Nian, and Muslim. Modern China modified Confucian principles to fit into the Communist view like obedience and filial piety.
While western civilization modernized, women could have the same roles as men. In China, women had “inside roles”, while men had “outside roles.” Women are still expected to obey her in laws and has a sense of obedience and duty to them. In the west, children do not live with their parents and a daughter in law owes no duty to her in laws. Their values on family is different than the west.

After reading “Saboteur” and “A Bad Joke” I thought that these stories only described situations in the 1960s and 1970s so I decided to research the current role of the Chinese government in the legal system and I was shocked to find that both stories represent the current situation. I learned about the liuzhi system that is enforced by the CCP as an investigation system. Under the liuzhi system, the Chinese government is able to investigate any communist party member exercising public authority for up to 6 months. Sometimes those that are detained aren’t given access to legal counsel or their families for the 6-month period. One of the most prominent recent investigations is the investigation of former Interpol President Meng Hongwei who was detained in September.