It was a Golden State in a Golden Era

‎"What’s needed is not a revolution, but a restoration and a modernization of what California once had."

Good piece by David Brooks today about the "pro-market progressivism" in California that helped the state raise its living standards to the highest in the nation and supported an influential and expansive middle class.

"That kind of government existed for decades right here in California" through the 1960s, with leaders who were "pro-market and pro-business, but also progressive reformers. They rode a great wave of prosperity, and people flocked to the Golden State, but they used the fruits of that prosperity in a disciplined way to lay the groundwork for even more growth. They built an outstanding school and university system. [Which in the 1950s were once the best in the nation.] 

They started a series of gigantic public works projects that today are seen as engineering miracles. These included monumental water projects, harbors and ports, the sprawling highway system and even mental health facilities.

They disdained partisanship. They continually reorganized government to make it more businesslike and cost effective. “Thus,” the historian Kevin Starr has written, “California progressivism contained within itself both liberal and conservative impulses, as judged by the standards of today.”

My one quibble with this piece is the critique about the "environmentalists." There are ways of attaining development while upholding the state's environmental ethic -- ala Oregon and Washington. And it's false to say that only "wealthy" "coastal" people care about environmental standards. Celebrating the outdoors and caring for the natural world are part of California's DNA, alongside entrerpreneurship, agriculture and high-tech innovation.

URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/28/opinion/28brooks.html

There's nationalism everywhere ...

I just had a very enlightening conversation with a couple of Chinese students at Ray's Bar and Grill on campus. We were standing in line to order, and all three of us noticed the following fliers pinned to the message board:

The two Chinese students were actually quite dismayed by this, and expressed surprise that this sort of nationalistic rant would crop up here at Stanford. According to them, the 愤青 "angry youth" phenomenon is really more of a domestic Chinese phenomenon, which takes hold among the "... er ... less well-educated students in China." They have some level of educational attainment, but are not the top students in the country. (Those ones usually end up going overseas). What concerned my fellow diners the most was that these "angry youth" only know a little bit about the issues, and then with this limited, often inaccurate understanding of history and world affairs, they go off on a rampage. "It's just not logical or rational," one sighed. He felt that most well-informed people wouldn't undertake such acts.

I realized suddenly that they were as embarrassed by these ultra-nationalists (so-called 爱国主义者), as we Americans are distressed by our Muslim-hating/Koran-burning/refudiating Tea Party brethren who wave American flags in the name of "patriotism," while they eviscerate the principles of pluralism and religious toleration that our Founding Fathers stood for. It turns out that rabid nationalism, ethnically-motivated anger, hate-filled invective, and poisonous political rhetoric are cause for concern to decent people everywhere who worry about extremist views taking root in their societies.

Now I don't know if this realization should assuage anybody. I cannot, for instance, ascertain how prevalent the view of these two Chinese students really is. And part of me is a little bit apprehensive about asking around, as this could be a really touchy subject. (People have been roundly criticized, even beaten for less). We must recognize that these (so-called) nationalists are a real force. Their discourse impacts society, and as they agitate for discriminatory policies or outright war, we cannot assume their voices will be diminished by other more logical actors. Still, it's encouraging to know that not everybody falls to their knees when someone waves the flag.

Personally, I still want to reiterate a question I raised in an earlier post: When claiming to be patriotic, why do we care about islands, but not about people?

---

Anyhow, the three of us conversed over dinner, which also included some interesting discussion about Mongolia (i.e. the country of Outer Mongolia, which one of them had visited during the summer), and how the economy there is largely based on the extraction of mineral resources. ("Developing countries are definitely not all in the same category," he sighed. "Mongolia is not well developed.") According to him, many products like socks and cups are still largely imported -- largely from Russia, Japan and Korea, as the Mongolians don't appear to like the Chinese much. (Many fruits and vegetables do have to be imported from China, however reluctantly).

"Why don't they like the Chinese?" the other fellow at our table inquired.

"There's a historical narrative that paints China as wanting to take over and dominate its neighbours," the first guy said. "It's in their textbooks. You know the way our textbooks portray Japan and its rapaciousness? Well, that's the way Mongolian textbooks depict the Chinese."

Sometimes tables turn.

---

I don't mean to suggest that all history is simply constructed -- good textbooks should be based in historical truth, though of course there are judgements on what is to be emphasized. But the history on which we can rely should be less of a propaganda tool and more of an educational aid to create thoughtful and discerning citizens.

Indeed, a history based in truth can inoculate a population against discrimination and tyranny, because it strives to uncover cause and effect, while leaving room for ethical understanding. Such texts make it more difficult for demagogues to appeal to the masses, because their tired tropes are recognized for what they are: ideological propositions that radically over-simplify problems.

The text must take a look at the hard parts of history, but need not delve into victim-hood. (For instance, a "century of humiliation.") I do not believe this characterization of China's modern history is healthy. It is a recipe for entitlement and seems to excuse all the petulant and bullying behavior that comes eafter.

Instead, an inspirational story of perseverance and magnanimity under unfair circumstances could ultimately be a healthier and more appropriate reflection of what happened. But then again, that's only if you want balanced, free-thinking citizens who are proud of who they are and what their country stands for -- and who care about humanistic and universal norms -- rather than subjects who are simply grateful for being "rescued" and angry/resentful at the intrusion of outsiders.

In the end, a lot of it comes down to education and the kind of national narrative that is crafted. I'll post more about this topic some other time, but the implications of the different versions of history in textbooks are sometimes pretty worrisome.


BONUS: Video of ninjas and pandas clashing. Via WSJ.

Let's keep our lead!

Protect AB32, California's landmark climate legislation! Now that action has been waylaid at the federal level, it's more important than ever that our states move ahead. As this editorial in The New York Times recounts:

"Four years ago, bipartisan majorities in the California Legislature approved a landmark clean energy bill that many hoped would serve as a template for a national effort to reduce dependence on foreign oil and mitigate the threat of climate change." However, a "well-financed coalition of right-wing ideologues, out-of-state oil and gas companies and climate-change skeptics is seeking to effectively kill that law with an initiative on the November state ballot."

The harmful measure these polluters are pushing is Proposition 23, which will delay implementation of AB32 until California's unemployment drops to what are nearly historical lows. (According to Kristin Grenfell-Eberhard of NRDC, when these politicos first submitted the bill, they proposed quashing AB32 until the state had a level of unemployment that had never even been attained in California's history! They realized this would just look really obvious (i.e. they just don't want to stop polluting), so they adjusted the number upward by a little bit). As written, Prop 23 effectively guts AB32; climate change legislation might simply never be implemented in our state if these greedy energy companies have their way!

These polluters are trying to scare people by warning of higher energy prices and the loss of jobs, but completely ignore the new jobs that are being created and the clean technology industries whose growth has accelerated. Many of these jobs cannot be exported -- for instance, solar installation on rooftops has to take place in state. And if California becomes a leader in developing clean technologies and innovating low-carbon lifestyles -- in other words, if it it leads the way it does in IT, computers and semiconductors -- then countless employers would stream into our state, attracting talent from around the world.

These oil companies and greedy, out-of-state rich people (from Texas for instance) should not be allowed to drag California down and prevent us from capturing the jobs, economic opportunity and sense of renewal that accompany our state's pioneering effort. It is heartening to see that in response, "AB 32’s many friends — led by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California — have therefore mounted a spirited counterattack in defense of the law. Another respected Republican, George Shultz — a cabinet member in both the Nixon and Reagan administrations — has signed on as a co-chairman of this effort. Mr. Shultz credits AB 32 for an unprecedented “outburst” of technological creativity and investment."

Let's keep our lead! Protect AB32 and promote innovation and green jobs in California! Don't let these oil companies win. Vote NO on PROP 23!

The icing on the cake

On Saturday, "sirens wailed to mark the 79th anniversary of Japan's invasion" and "hundreds of Chinese gathered outside Japanese diplomatic residences across the country" to "protest Japan's seizure of a Chinese fishing boat." Some choice quotes about the 9-18 九一八 protests, via Xinhua:

• In Beijing, dozens of protestors gathered outside the Japanese embassy, unfurling banners and shouting "Japan, get out of the Diaoyu Islands," "Boycott Japanese goods," "Don't forget national humiliation, don't forget Sept. 18" and other slogans. 

• During the protest, a man held a cake -- the icing of which formed the image of the Diaoyu Islands, China's national flag and the message "Japan, get out of the Diaoyu Islands." "As a cake maker, I make such a cake to express my patriotism," said the protester surnamed Wu. "I think every Chinese in every industry should take action."

• "An outstanding nation must be a nation that respects history," said Wang Jinsi, a member with the Chinese Society for Anti-Japanese War History. "To remember history is not to remember hatred, but to prevent the tragedy from recurring," he said. [Really, huh? I would very much agree.]

• In Shenyang, "TV and radio programs will be paused during the three minutes. Drivers on nine main roads and 18 main streets, which symbolize Sept. 18, will stop their vehicles and sound their horns, said the officials."

So as this 九一八 situation unfolds with flags waving, voices hollering, tempers rising, one observation strikes me as to what is so misguided and sad about the situation: We fight over islands, but not for people's lives. Because we just don't give a damn about people.

In the United States, Martin Peretz's recent quote that "frankly, Muslim life is cheap, most notably to Muslims" caused a huge uproar. That statement naturally engenders another question for our discussion: How precious are Chinese lives to Chinese people? Apparently, not very much. In China, individuals act in ways that are completely unethical because they don't value the lives of others. That's why you end up with poisoned milk, and shoddily constructed schools that crush children and teachers. (Furthermore, if you ask for investigations into such things, you are detained).

This state of affairs is simply abhorrent, because the life of a Chinese person is worth as much as the life of any other human being. Each Chinese person should be accorded a basic respect and dignity. After all, isn't that really the "equality" we are seeking? The quest for equal respect that so often motivates China's development mindset ("demanding" respect from the West) is misguided. If pursued in its current form, it will fail.

Real respect is not something that can be demanded; it is inspired. It comes not from fear, but from love or admiration. It comes from the recognition of one's virtue.

If you do not respect yourself and your fellow citizens, how can you ask anyone else to respect you? If you are not proud of who you are, and seek to tear down your heritage (and replace it with somebody else's notions of modernity), how can you expect anyone else to cherish your culture? Conversely, if you are cruel to your own people, for whom you have the greatest responsibility in the world, how can we expect you to be kind to anyone else?

It is urgent that we start behaving with humanity, treating people as living beings instead of as expendable resources to be exploited, manipulated and thrown away in the search for wealth/development/growth i.e. greed. When will people instead of things start to matter?

Indeed, one does not need to "demand" respect from anybody. One should simply strive to act in a virtuous manner, and this merit will be recognized in the natural course of things. If others want to remain ignorant or brutal, that is their problem; as long as we can face ourselves (对得起自己), then that is the right direction in which to travel.

Finally, I shall make one more observation: a quote from today's piece says that "an outstanding nation must be a nation that respects history." The double standard of investigating the history of Japan's atrocities, but ignoring other later crimes, is sorely problematic. After all, in addition to valuing history, an outstanding nation must also be a nation that respects the lives of its people -- not as a political tool, but as an end in itself. When we move toward these more universal notions of justice and affirm the value of life, we become more civilized. Isn't being "civilized" something we ought to strive for?

Just a small comment on an old tale

My friend is writing an article about anti-Japanese protests that may be taking place in China on September 18, the anniversary of the Mukden Incident of 1931 (called 九一八 in Chinese). This event marked the start of Japanese aggression into China's northeast, and six years later, full-scale war would break out.

[UPDATE 9/18/2010: The protests did happen.]

Such "protesting" behavior actually puzzles me. The illegal act by the Japanese was certainly wrong; it is wholly inappropriate to invade another country to grab territory and resources. Thus, it makes sense to condemn this action and recall its consequences.

Indeed, the issue of Japan's war crimes has not yet been put to rest. Many victims throughout Asia remain upset that, to this day, the Japanese government has not fully admitted its wrong-doings. Commentators have observed that the Japanese government has not unequivocally acknowledged and apologized for its illegal actions and the subsequent atrocities. Even in the cases where statements have been issued, the "official apologies are widely viewed as inadequate or only a symbolic exchange by many of the survivors of such crimes or the families of dead victims." (Wiki) Historians and historical memory groups continue to press for the Japanese government to release all information related to this period, to allow for a full accounting of events, and to prevent (elected) right-wing politicians in Japan from issuing denials.

So this begs the question: if we are mad about this white-washing of history, then what about other tragedies experienced in Modern China? Don't they warrant the same treatment: transparency, academic study and open discussion; assumption of responsibility by those who gave orders to kill; public apology and contrition from the perpetrators; recognition and remembrance by all people? Where are the demonstrations and protests about these events? Where are the calls for proper treatment of the innocent victims and a full historical accounting?

FYI the people who perpetrated 九一八 are out of power. (So maybe we should call it '旧尾巴' instead.) We kind of kicked their a** during WWII. And yet we are still protesting about it. Meanwhile, the people responsible for certain other "incidents" remain in power and continue to benefit from their positions -- but we don't say anything about them?! Doesn't that seem a little cowardly?

These so-called hyper-nationalists in China don't seem to care about their own people -- friends, neighbors and fellow citizens who were mowed down. So tell me please, what are they defending? Where is the moral basis for their action? On whose behalf are they protesting? Narrow-minded nationalism can be pretty ugly, and often descends into ethnic chauvinism. (Isn't that chauvinism the story behind Japan's war crimes in World War II? How do you think they justified their invasion and colonization of Asia? Because they saw themselves as a superior race. Race-thinking, so prevalent in those days.)

For a cause to resonate, it must appeal to universal principles. Protests are most powerful when they unite peoples and transcend race -- when they educate and warn against the common danger of inhumanity. We don't criticize the Japanese simply because they are Japanese and we are otherwise. We criticize them for their actions -- because the cruelty and violence carried out by the leaders and rank-and-file soldiers were abhorrent and wrong! Such actions violated fundamental tenets of human decency, and all people of good conscience would oppose them. Yet these "hyper-nationalists" who protest in China today are conspicuously silent when it comes to decrying the oppression visited upon their fellow human beings in more recent times.

If our real goal is to prevent these human tragedies from happening again, instead of scoring cheap political points, we must see with clear eyes. We should memorialize the victims, examine the conditions that led to acts of such cruelty, and share with future generations the lessons we have learned, in order to inoculate them from further hatred and prevent more suffering.

It should not be about nationalism, but about humanity. Yet even today, we see people grabbing that old tail of 旧尾巴 and waving it like a cudgel. But one day, perhaps we will also begin to gather the traces of history that remain with us -- maybe we can call these '留丝', strands of the past that still merit our attention -- and weave a better future.

I Love My State

Two nice pieces on how Republicans in California have to tread carefully when discussing climate change legislation, because two-thirds of voters (including over 70% of independents) support AB32, our state's pioneering climate change bill.

Global warming bill a lose-lose issue for GOP candidates (Los Angeles Times)
"Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina have wavered on Proposition 23, trying to appease their conservative base without alienating independent voters ... Those voters tend to be fiscally conservative but socially and environmentally liberal"

In California, Climate Politics Are Tricky... For Republicans (The New Republic)
"Republicans are actually getting into trouble for opposing the state's climate law"

P.S. Remember to vote against Proposition 23, the naked attempt by oil companies (primarily Valero Energy Corp and Tesoro Corp) to gut AB32 and avoid paying for their pollution. I'll post a couple of editorials on that soon.

Luckily, other businesses are not lining up behind them. Indeed, "a number of well-funded tech companies in Silicon Valley want AB32 to go forward—they have a lot invested in the state's burgeoning renewable and efficiency industries." Even the California Chamber of Commerce has "said it will remain neutral, and the Bay Area Council and the Silicon Valley Leadership Group both oppose Prop 23."

Go California!

Maybe it’s about values.

I just returned from Beijing yesterday morning, feeling joyous and deeply grateful with every breath of fresh air. I dearly love this country and am glad to have returned home. But a sense of gnawing discomfort has been growing in me all summer as I read about the political turmoil, poisonous rhetoric and growing intolerance in America. That such rhetoric (read: naked political opportunism) could take hold and animate the electorate was disturbing, indicative of some worrisome trends.

We face challenging times ahead, yet instead of standing up for reform, people are buying into a self-indulgent narrative, where any attempt at change is deemed an “un-American,” an attack on our rights that must be resisted. For instance, revenues and profits (and by analogy, salaries and lifestyles) are seen as deserved, rather than earned. This all fits into a larger national complacency, the idea that we’re simply the best—always have been, always will be—and therefore never need to improve. Our education system? Superb. Our health care? Never better. People assume that the United States is simply the pinnacle of human achievement, when in fact, if you look at the statistics (on educational achievement, on health, even on economic competitiveness), we’re not at the top, and in some cases getting worse!

National malaise and self-congratulation is a serious mismatch. So what gives? In a recent piece about America’s apparent decline in the world, Thomas Friedman decries the “national epidemic of get-rich-quickism and something-for-nothingism,” noting that:

China and India have been catching up to America not only via cheap labor and currencies. They are catching us because they now have free markets like we do, education like we do, access to capital and technology like we do, but, most importantly, values like our Greatest Generation had. That is, a willingness to postpone gratification, invest for the future, work harder than the next guy and hold their kids to the highest expectations.

In a flat world where everyone has access to everything, values matter more than ever. Right now the Hindus and Confucians have more Protestant ethics than we do.

Hm… and maybe that's why, as the Wall Street Journal reports:

High school students' performance on the SAT college-entrance exam remained mostly unchanged from last year, except for notable gains by Asian-Americans, who continue to outperform all other test takers. [Oh, snap!]

In short, values matter, and it’s not confined to China and India alone. People with those values in the US—people with greater commitment to education and a willingness to work hard—do have success. They create it. Of course, certain basic social conditions are needed for success to arise—things like human security, political stability, and free markets. But once those are in place, then it's up to individuals and communities to make a go at it.

This summer, I visited Suzhou and Singapore, both of which were incredibly dynamic. Both places were in the midst of rapid growth, with many new projects breaking ground, while still remaining grounded in fundamental ideas of what makes a workable, livable society. The sharp contrast between what I see in East Asia—a spirit of modernization and renewal, a willingness to embrace new things—with what I see at home in the US, is deeply worrisome. We Americans have decided that we are the world's greatest country, and therefore don’t have to look outward for anything. Yet looking inward has not been a source of introspection or strength, but rather of self-inflation: we are the best and nothing ever needs to be changed.  (Note: I understand that Suzhou is not typical of much of China. It is a particularly forward-looking city, and in some ways more balanced. But the example still stands. And as Singapore shows, one can still hold fast to ideals and modernize at the same time; these things are not incompatible.)

Now, in response to Friedman, I do have to point out that "get-rich-quicki-ism" and "something-for-nothing-ism" also exist in China in spades. Because the whole country seems to be rising, everyone wants to grab a piece of the economic pie for themselves, often with no moral constraints. Hence you get poisoned milk, shoddy construction and tainted crayfish as par for the course. So while the Confucian focus on education is clearly back in force, the moral aspect of his teachings was terribly weakened by sixty years of Communist rule, leaving major openings for unscrupulous actors who just want to make a quick buck, with no consideration for the lives or interests of others.

But to return to the issue of our own country, I’m definitely beginning to think that it’s a values issue here in America—and I don't mean the values issues touted by the right-wing. (Statistically speaking, it’s not the East and West Coasts that are in trouble. We’re still the ones generating a lot of the GDP, you know).

Today, Americans are coming across as fat, greedy, and ignorant, preferring to indulge in whining and blame, instead of picking up the mantle of reform. We would rather accuse others of mistreating us and giving us our due, instead of standing up, taking action, and making our own success. Historically, America was number one because its citizens were willing to work and sacrifice and strive to improve their own lives. Unfortunately, if you just sit around on your (increasingly obese) a-s, don’t expect to keep the top spot for long.

I believe America can turn itself around, but not if we buy into the narrative that, “We’re the greatest, and we always will be, just because we are.” That’s a recipe for stagnation and at some point, disaster. The country may be "going in the wrong direction", but it's not because we've taken a few tentative steps toward reform; it's because we refuse to admit the need for greater introspection and more sustained self-improvement.

UPDATE (9/14/2010)

Related post came out this evening in the International Herald Tribune.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/15/opinion/15iht-edroach.html

I keep humming this song

And thinking of Singapore ...

Reprinting

I really like this poem and hope it can reside in the public domain. I'm not sure of its status, because it's been posted online, as well as printed in a literary magazine. If this is not allowed, please e-mail me and I'll take it down.

歸來

陳義芝

是風問還是人在問
你好不好？
夜來坐看跨岸的橋影
迅速落過妳脖頸的一抹月光
驀然聞到甘蔗香的蓮霧
我說好，不是風
是心底的聲音

你好不好？沒有答案
我問或是妳問都是一樣
一樣在水邊
夏日轟轟的聲音已沈寂
微光透過窗 枝葉因風而猶疑
帶上門，長廊在窺看
電梯不等人

你好就是我
我好也會是你
不管季節有情無
風如何來來去去
灌滿警示水深的巷弄
不管應桃紅了，或唇冷了
記憶總在白花花的縐摺裡翻湧

沒有人像你
也沒有人像我
當日曆一天天的換裝，一年又過
鮮麗的容顏用小陰的雨挲染
日常的語言用小晴的雲勾描
手指梳理發燙的身體
亂髮飄盪頑皮的呼吸

一千零一夜的故事
一千零一個晚上怎說的完
除非夜夜向蒼穹的盡頭張望
銀河的車窗全開著
祈願的香頭全部點燃
越過重山後我們又歸來
水岸的燈火仍搖晃著

Homecoming
I-Chih CHEN
translated by Chris Wen-Chao Li

Was it the wind or was it someone
asking, How have you been?
As night dawns, sitting there watching the bridge's reflection cast across the river,
a sliver of moonlight dashing across your neck,
then suddenly the scent of bellapple mixed with sweet sugarcane.
Fine, I said. That was no wind,
but a voice deep from the heart.


How have you been? Then no answer
coming from you or me.
At the water's edge also,
the din of summer had died down,
a glimmer of light shining through; the leaves were wavering, swayed by the wind,
which shut the door behind it. As if the corridors were spying;
like an elevator which waits for no one.


I'm fine if you are
and you're fine if I am,
whether or not the seasons show mercy,
as storms come and go,
flooding the back alleys to alert level,
whether it's cherries bright red or lips turned cold,
memories of you will forever toss and turn, dancing between those shimmering white
folds.


No one's quite like you
and no one's quite like me.
Pages torn from the calendar each day tell of another year gone by:
your glamorous face wet-brushed by the drizzle of weather overcast,
our daily exchanges set against the bright clouds of sunny skies,
fingers combing through the warmth of your body,
frazzled hair dancing to your playful breathing.


Are a thousand and one nights sufficient
to tell the tales of nights a thousand and one?
Not unless we gaze nightly towards the sky's edge,
roll down the windows to the universe
and set every prayer candle ablaze.
Over the hills and through the woods, we've come back full circle,
the lights across the shore still flickering.

---

Originally published/原載於民國九十五年二月十六日《聯合報》副刊。
Translation published in the Chinese PEN (Summer 2007).

QIXI 七喜

Isn't that some kind of soft drink? 嘻嘻夕~

Just kidding. Happy Chinese Valentine's Day everybody. ♥

Oh, and while you're still feeling sappy, did anyone notice that Qi-Xi would be pronounced like "chee - zee" in English? Just sayin' ... =P

Tea Party wha?

It's so cute... I just realized that the British press have to explain what the "Tea Party" is and explain its historical roots, because it's not an automatically understood phrase there. From an article in The Daily Telegraph, a UK newspaper.

Objecting first to Mr Obama's $800 billion stimulus bill and $1 trillion health care reform, the tea party movement took its name from the 1773 protest in Boston against taxes imposed by George III.

Colonial history, huh? Of course, there is a certain POV associated with the newspaper and this article in particular, which may be why they chose to describe Obama's plans and the Tea Party Movement in those terms. Background info, yes, but also a rhetorical device.

Maybe I should also check what The Guardian, The Times and The Independent say. (And is it in news stories or just columns?)

Our Toy Story 3

Toy Story 3. Joyful nostalgia looking back; a sense of new adventure looking forward. Being taken care of, played with, loved. The power and the sheer delight of imagination. The whole gang is back together again! And the circle is now complete. Plus a Totoro cameo, declamation on popular sovereignty, and a thespian hedgehog. ★★★★★

This movie outing was so long delayed, but I'm glad that we finally saw Toy Story 3!

Last night, we almost thought we couldn't find a movie theater in Beijing that was still playing the film, but I persisted in searching, and finally turned up a couple places that still had showings, including one in 中关村. While we were on the subway (a looong subway ride from 永安里) one of our friends who arrived first thought that there weren't any good seats left and suggested we go to another nearby theater. (He neglected to mention that the new place was not playing Toy Story 3). But when the rest of us got to the subway station, we returned to the first theater to double-check the arrangements. It turns out that there were seats -- and in a theater seating only 88 people, the view from the "back row" was actually quite good.

I'm surprised that the movie theater experience in China isn't easier, more popular, grander. Yes, DVDs are available cheaply on the sidewalks, but for an experience that transports you into another world? One could imagine really doing a good job at it, and the whole theater industry being extremely well received as it is elsewhere in the developing world. Too bad the cinema is so controlled -- instead of being about delivering the best possible experience to the audience, or showcasing and sharing the best films in the world, it has become another national tool of propaganda and protectionism. The limited selection of films, plus the stunted state of Chinese film-making both contribute to an apathetic feeling. It's just like the sad state of (CC)TV here -- not all that pleasant; not well-produced; patronizing, propagandizing, and not very original. And still it holds a monopoly. So I don't really watch TV when in Beijing.

Anyhow, back to Toy Story 3:

As Phil noted, this really was a movie for us – for kids of our generation, who watched the very first Toy Story while we were growing up. We were the ones who were introduced to Woody the Sheriff and Buzz Lightyear; who laughed at the antics of Rex, Hamm, and Mr. Potato Head, a stalwart toy we actually owned; who cheered on the Army Men's bravado and Slinky's optimism and good cheer. A few years later (wow, was it 1999? That's over a decade ago...) we were the posse who excitedly showed up at the theater for the sequel, where those characters appeared alongside new ones. We feigned nonchalance at this old cartoon for younger children, but simultaneously bore grins of happy memory.

And now, in 2010, comes this new film. It was like seeing a bunch of old friends and finding out where they are now, a decade later. We're rounding up the gang again! A sense of nostalgia permeates the film, even as the audience's attention is caught by new adventure -- and some novel dangers. Part of it is because Andy is going to college, a time of transition that any adult can identify with, and his toys are facing the prospect of life-after-adolescence. (A note of empty-nest syndrome is also struck near the end of the movie). Part of it is because the colors and scenes of childhood play are particularly evocative, recalling that time in all viewers' lives. But for a particular age of viewer, Toy Story 3 recaptures childhood in a way that 40-year-old critics can't imagine -- it's not only a childhood that is called up, but our childhood that came at the same time as these movies. This was one of our cultural touchstones, and for some of these children, the memories of playtime might even have involved the same toys as featured on-screen. (Thanks, Disney juggernaut! Luckily I didn't have that meta level of nostalgia to deal with.)

It’s hard to think of something we grew up with as a “classic” as opposed to something contemporary and new and simply “us.” Toy Story has always been the “new” cartoon—not exactly Mickey Mouse or Bugs Bunny caliber, but certainly very beloved. But I suppose in the Pantheon of Cartoon Classics, Toy Story (1, 2 and 3) will assume their place -- not only because of their historical role as the first CGI movie to be released, but because of their cultural resonance and their plainly-good story-telling.

One thing I particularly enjoyed were the numerous references to past movies: familiar traits or incidents or characters that brought a knowing chuckle. This was done in a subtle and natural way, unlike the heavy-handed "references" that George Lucas tried to pound into the Star Wars "prequels." (In those movies, the attempt to evoke nostalgia completely flopped, because the milieu, the setting, the very *sense* of the movies was different, and the spark of recognition was too contrived and too forced. Not to mention that it flew in the face of established canon, a universe that fans had read about and populated and created by their participation. Lucas displayed such utter disregard for the fan universe, which is regrettable. Once a concept is out there in the public sphere, it also partly belongs to the users who nurture and expand and grow it, and the releases that you make to support that growth cannot be so easily swept aside for convenience.)

Yet despite the familiar feeling of the Toy Story characters and our delight at seeing old friends once again, there were still surprising new things about characters uncovered in the course of the film. Por ejemplo, Buzz tiene una modalidad española!

Now if we shed the nostalgia for a moment and take it as a movie on its own terms, it was still by all means an excellent movie. Gripping storyline, with scenes of great emotive force. The audience's horror at the toddlers bashing and smashing the toys in the playroom was great; and there was the right kind of magic in Woody's rescue by a new girl and his interaction with a new posse. Alert: Totoro sighting!)

The movie overall is quite a feel-good piece, and while a couple of friends claimed that they almost bawled during the film, I can't say that I was really close to tears. It was just ... very pleasant, very delightful, and emotionally evocative. It's not only a goodbye as the toy chest closes and everyone is sent to the attic, but leaves you with something new, too, as a different child begins the cycle of play again.

Toy Story is pretty complete now—we've really come full circle, with Andy playing, then growing up, then back to play, but handing off the duties and the new years of fun to another fellow traveler.

Play ... In this world, "play" is best expressed when the sense of imagination is alive. He had it. And she has it. That idea of play, beyond just the physical, to mental worlds of creativity, is very much a theme in this film, too.

So now that the circle is complete, I think we can happily end the saga of Toy Story. The tale of Andy's toys does not really need any more telling. Sure, new adventures are always nice, but the life mission of these toys has been fulfilled, and anything new will simply be an interim adventure, the next in a series of adventures. The contours of a toys' life are known -- the potential and the possibilities, explored.

Eventually, the universe might be expanded, if Pixar feels there's another story to tell (or another wave to capitalize on). But at least for now, the frame of a toy's life has been laid out, and we can take our leave from Toy Story with a sense of joy. Thanks to this last film in the trilogy, we can step away from that world, too -- at least until we hand it over to our children.

However, if the franchise were to continue, I suppose they could refresh things by creating new stories of toys somewhere else in the world, like China, with an array of East Asian toys -- some kind of distinct toy experience. Or perhaps an immigrant or refugee story, as a lone toy in a war-torn country is separated, and then seeks to be reunited with his owner in America. So yes, I suppose other stories can be told. But that is for a time in the future.

It's gotta be an ensemble cast!

Olympic Coping

For the 2008 Olympics, Beijing issued guides instructing its own citizens how to behave -- presumably to avoid presenting an embarrassing image to the world. Now, in anticipation of the 2012 Games, a UK tourism body has issued its own cultural guide. It is ostensibly meant to help Britons be better hosts, but it comes across more like a survival guide detailing how to cope with an onslaught of uncouth overseas visitors. (They're not tryingto be oafs! Such behavior isn't rude where these colonials are from. Ah, the burden of noblesse oblige. LOL.)

Or as the Associated Press put it, "Seeking to improve the sometimes frosty welcome on offer to tourists, VisitBritain issued advice Wednesday on how best to handle foreign visitors."

Some gems quoted in the Daily Mail:

INDIA
Avoid physical contact when first meeting someone. Be tolerant if Indians at first seem impolite, noisy and impatient. This is partly the result of living in chaotic cities and environments.

ARGENTINA
Don’t be offended by Argentinian humour, which may mildly attack your clothing or weight

JAPAN
A smiling Japanese person is not necessarily happy. They tend to smile when angry, embarrassed, sad or disappointed.

And the AP:

Brush off coarse jokes from Australians or Argentines.

Canadian tourists are likely to be upset if mistaken for U.S. citizens

Americans won't hesitate to complain when things go wrong.

According to the Daily Mail, the guide (called "Delivering a First Class Welcome") was actually "written by natives of the countries featured who work for VisitBritain." So this isn't necessarily the British perspective of foreigners, per se. In any case, I'm sure the staff had a field day with the caricatures.

Tendrils extend outward

In response to an article on CNET that says that the "long-rumored geolocation 'check-in' feature at Facebook is slated to debut within weeks" -- i.e. Facebook can tell where you are.

>> The takeover is coming.

Facebook's tendrils extend outward

First it's the 户口 household registration system, and then it's the grain rations. Your 单位 work unit will keep track of your housing and benefits -- and don't even think about trying to evade the neighborhood committees. Eventually, The Facebook will eat all public space.

Meanwhile, private space will be continuously converted into public space. Privacy is not allowed you see -- too much risk of plotting by the black classes. After all, why wouldn't you want everything to be public? Where's your revolutionary spirit, don't you want The Facebook to have access to and monitor everything? That way, the internet will be a good experience, on the whole, for the great majority of the people, you see.

What, too much room for abuse? Don't be such a rightist! "Privacy" is just a feudal concept used to oppress the masses. "User rights" are so bourgeois. Resistance is futile, so get with the program, folks.

The Facebook: Vanguard of the Revolution

 

拆！Tear it down!

It is frustrating to be a witness to this ongoing tragedy. What will we say to our children -- that we never cared enough? That we were too short-sighted to realize what we were doing?

China heritage chief says building boom is destroying country's heritage

Heritage boss Shan Jixiang says frenetic development is wasting resources and razing valuable city centre districts to make way for 'superficial' skyscrapers

为什么中国不好好地保护中华民族的传统文化？很多城市以为拆掉「旧」的建筑来盖摩天大楼，就是现代化。其实，他们只是在破坏和不断淡化自己的文化。这种行为非但不重视市民的利益，反而带来了很多现代化的弊端。这不是「以人为本」——目的显然不是让市民的生活更方便，否则按照城市规划的原则会选比较 "人本化"的构造——也不重视文化，只重视金钱。

这不只损害到现在生活的人，也对我们的后代很不负责任。破坏文化遗址是一种很严重的罪过，古建筑是整个社会的遗产，我们应该极力保存它。虽然现在有人觉得文化遗址是可以被忽略的，以为自己的行为叫做「现代化」，其实只是一种很烂的「西方化」（不模仿西方好的，只模仿外表而已 ...... 造成一种最低级的同化、也许可以称「水泥化」）。

现在的我们如果肆无忌惮地破坏这些遗产，后代必定后悔莫及。西方的城市（如巴黎、伦敦等等）都极力保护他们城市的老建筑、为什么所谓“历史最悠久”的国家不能采取适当的措施？那么爱提“五千年的历史”的中国人应该更在意这些，不是吗？

Sigh. Why does China do this to its own culture? Why must it destroy what is unique about the country -- the very things that ought to be cherished and protected and celebrated -- and replace them with poorly-made imitations of "modernity"? What the Chinese currently think is "modern" will ultimately not stand the test of time -- just ask the folks from other major cities.

As relics, historic sites, and people's homes are torn down with gusto, fueled by dreams of cash (for the developers and for the officials who aid them), such short-sightedness and greed seem not only highly irresponsible, but also a bit selfish. It'd be nice if a culture that loves to cite "five thousand years of continuous civilization" took some pride in the past, and acted as a better custodian of its inheritance.

Future generations will not forgive us if we participate in the destruction of our common heritage -- for it not only belongs to those presently alive, but to our children and their children as well. It's just sad that in this of all places, history and tradition are so easily tossed aside. But I suppose one should not be too surprised, as reverence for the past, for tradition, for anything other than "Money money money!" "Mine mine mine!" have been blotted out.

One day we will realize that, in the end, culture may be the thing that persists and that actually matters.

● ● ●

I understand that people deserve better living conditions -- but I think accommodations can be found that not only improve people's circumstances, but simultaneously give the proper respect to our history and preserve our heritage, while also keeping communities -- living, breathing, thriving social networks -- intact. For instance, shipping people off into isolated, far-flung apartment blocks, past the fifth ring road on the outskirts of town, is not an appropriate strategy.

We just have to be creative and a little more thoughtful in coming up with solutions that privilege the things we may value aside from money, such as "a connection to the past" or "a sense of community" or "harmony and ecological balance." The main fear is that things in China are moving so rapidly that we won't have time to give due consideration to these other things, and what you end up with is "growth for growth's sake" simply to enrich a few people.

The projects are couched in the language of "development and improving people's lives", but if they actually were intended to "help the people," then shouldn't we see more human-centered projects instead of massive-but-sterile office buildings and extravagant shopping malls? In this dynamic, developers and local officials set up a false dichotomy, denying that alternatives exist to their plans for construction and "development", when in fact there is a rich and diverse set of possibilities -- we just have use human ingenuity to search for them.

URL: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/04/china-culture-cities-heritage

TUSO 夢

Tsinghua University Symphony Orchestra concert last night at the National Library of China. The program included:

Roman Carnival Overture by Berlioz
http://www.tudou.com/programs/view/5G6hi1KzCeQ/

御风万里 "Riding the Wind"
http://www.tudou.com/programs/view/JlLJF4YcTxs/

Tchaikovsky Symphony No. 5
(III) http://www.tudou.com/programs/view/rXYo4zgIqR0/
(IV) http://www.tudou.com/programs/view/3a1nfkGdDFM/

This past week has seemed like a dream, and it's hard to believe it is over. For now at least, there no more rehearsals, no more cheerful banter in 118室, no more moments with newfound friends and all our smiles and glances. Ah well, I am simply happy knowing that a group like TUSO exists, and glad that I could be part of the family, even if it was only for a short while.

I'll eventually post more on what TUSO is like -- what I saw there and what it was like to play with such an ensemble. In the meantime, 誰要陪我禦風? Who wants to ride the wind with me?

Facebook is Revolutionary

Are you Revolutionary, too? Get with the program, don't be a laggard! Join the movement now! Quiet back there, no questions!

Is it just me, or is Facebook getting kind of big for its britches -- and also kind of mean?

For instance, will it continue to delete references to Quora? Several people liked my "answer" to a "question" regarding the issue of "Quora vs. Facebook Questions", in which I conjectured how the sites could differ because of distinct user behaviors, but then Facebook just removed the whole thing. ("the item no longer exists ...")

In fact, a day after that, all my Facebook Updates that said, "Person X likes your answer" were also wiped clean from the updates bar.

This seems very Microsoft-authoritarian: "We just expunge (和諧, har har) whatever we don't like." What happened to the freedom-of-speech ethos?

It's sad, because people are starting to become suspicious of Facebook and its intentions, and thinking of it as a bully like Microsoft -- quite an accomplishment for a company that hasn't even gone public. Facebook is swaggering around because it think it's become indispensable, and can thus be careless with user-generated content. (For example, in the last round of changes, it forcibly grabbed our profiles and changed everything written in them into the "group page" format. This felt really rude and inappropriate -- it treated our writings like data points to be shoved into categorical boxes, rather than expressions of ourselves. It would be like taking someone's blog and saying, "Ah, this is a blog about cooking!" And then cutting out the content and replacing it with a cooking tag. Perhaps the example is a little hyperbolic, because Facebook profiles don't have as much text as blogs, but the text that was there was carefully crafted and chosen to represent ourselves.)

Maybe Facebook thinks users are an uneducated, stupid mob that need to be told what to do and how to behave. But sometimes, the company's actions feel not only patronizing, but a bit controlling, too. Facebook has pretensions of being a "popular" or "grassroots" movement, but in fact, it's somewhat elitist. It feels like the company looks down on the user, who is presumed to be incapable of choosing properly, because we're ignorant bumpkins.

Now, there's nothing wrong with "elitist" per se -- after all, they are the software experts/programmers (and our fellow classmates from Stanford =P), and have a better idea for what might improve the user experience. (Still, asking consumers what they want is not a bad start, though obviously not always definitive.) Apple keeps tight reins over its products to assure quality, for example. But something feels a little bit off with Facebook these days.

At least with Google, we have "Don't be evil." In contrast, it seems that Facebook doesn't think it's capable of being evil, so it doesn't have even this normative safeguard. So dangerous ...

Ironically, I am typing this from behind the Great Firewall.

Theory: For now, maybe Facebook allows most content online, except for things that threaten its "core interests." Like, for instance, its decision to enter the social question & answer space. Once it's done that, then we have to nix all references to Quora. Innocuous, right? "Q&A is something Facebook is now taking care of -- sorry, no one else is allowed to get involved. After all, who better than Facebook itself to provide the right service, choose the right features, create the right atmosphere, for the user?" A very harmonious atmosphere indeed.

But I suspect those "core interests" will expand over time, to include not only Xinjiang and Tibet, but the Spratly Isl... oops, I mean ... whatever else Facebook fancies itself becoming. Eventually, the site will subsume all public space, and all "public" activities will have to be conducted through the Party ... erm ... through the Facebook platform.

Night Market Rules

Impromptu rules for 夜市 (Night Markets) in Taiwan. Crafted this evening with the help of Sara Maatta.

1. Don't eat dinner beforehand. There are countless stalls selling mouthwatering treats, so you'll want to come with an empty stomach.

2. One order feeds two people. Whether it's 冰 or 餅, an order is more than enough to share. (Plus, instead of filling up on a single item, you'll get to chomp on a variety of goodies).

3. Go with a friend. The first two rules indicate that night markets are naturally a team affair. Rally the troops and off you go!

Only violated rule #1 this evening ... oh stomach ...

P.S. I bet any Taiwanese four-year-old could have told us this ... but hey, you live, you learn.

Two Sights

Two interesting sights today.

In the subway this morning, on the way to 沃爾瑪, I sat down on the bench across from a Chinese family -- parents with children. A brother and a sister were playing a lively game of ro-sham-bo (rock, paper, scissors / 剪刀、石頭、 布) and giggling wildly. I didn't think much of it, though I noted that the boy seemed rather 調皮 and the parents weren't saying too much to reprimand him.

As I was watching the little boy and his younger sister rhyming line by line, thrusting out two fingers, or splaying a hand out into an open palm, or raising a clenched fist (all the while giggling uproariously at the results), it suddenly hit me: this is not a sight that is common in China anymore. What would be a normal scene on the DC Metro or the Taipei MRT is really something special.

Elsewhere, one would think nothing of this exchange -- two cute and lively kids messing about while their parents beam at them. But with the One Child Policy in force, fewer and fewer children here will have this kind of experience as they grow up -- the chance to play and laugh and interact and have fun with a sibling. I was privy to something special and walked away with a newfound sense of delight.

The second sight that was rather novel: In the subway on the way to 五道口, I saw a familiar face and a familiar name on a large poster: Demos Chiang's biography was being advertised in the station. Now, for students of Chinese history, I shall simply point out that he is indeed of that Chiang family, and you will understand how different a place China is today than even a couple decades ago.

Demos (蔣友柏) is a great-grandson of Chiang Kai-shek -- the leader of the Nationalists who was president of the Republic of China, who fought Mao Zedong and the Communists, and who fled to Taiwan and ruled there until 1975. During the Cultural Revolution through the 1970s, a simple mention of a Chiang could be disastrous for you and your family. People were dragged into the streets and beaten for having "bourgeois" books, to say nothing of documents with the villain "Chiang" stamped on them.

It's a bit jarring to see his descendant's name splashed across the subway wall. But perhaps it reflects warming cross-Strait ties and the beginnings of a re-evaluation by Mainland China of Chiang's role in Chinese history. One point for historical change, one point for capitalism. (Gotta sell those books you know!) Zero for Maoist persecution.

More on the new biography here and on Demos here and here.

Humanism in China

There may be hope yet. The ideas and language of humanism are slowly gaining purchase in Chinese society today. (Again. The first time was in the early 20th century.)

It seems like this mode of thought ought to be a natural fit -- after all, Confucianism has at its roots a deep sense of humanity. Not all aspects of it are the same as in "Western-style humanism," but there are elements that seem compatible. (However, it may be problematic to claim that China remains "Confucian" today. sigh)

According to an article in the New York Times:

"Western-style humanism flourished in China a century ago, brought over by the Chinese students of Irving Babbitt, a professor of French at Harvard University," who advocated "retaining the good things from the past. He insisted on the importance of the individual, and the study of the humanities."

"Humanism’s gentle, evolutionary approach clashed with the make-it-new passion of many students, intellectuals and politicians grouped around China’s early 20th-century May Fourth Movement. [If only they had known what was coming -- they might have chosen differently.] In 1949, the revolutionaries won the argument when the Communist Party founded the People’s Republic of China. For over three decades, humanism vanished from Chinese thinking. 

And no wonder. Humanism directly challenged the Communist system by valuing the individual over the collective. It rejected blind obedience to authority, whether religious or political. 

Secular, it opposed deification of any kind, including of a leader like Mao Zedong. Its emphasis on human well-being, freedom and dignity threatened the party’s control over its citizens. It was, orthodox Communists said, a bourgeois theory of human nature. 

Today, it’s back, spreading among intellectuals, writers and ordinary people alike in a process that began 30 years ago, following Mao’s death in 1976. Still controversial, it is periodically subject to attacks from a state that fears that it may become the basis of an alternative ethical system that will challenge Communist Party rule. The bumpiness of humanism’s road reflects the challenge in bringing about intellectual and political change in China."

-- "In Search of Modern Humanism in China" (May 14, 2010)

In the article, Gloria Davies, a scholar of Chinese intellectual history at Monash University, observes that “Humanism has quite a lot of purchase now. It’s used in public culture as a way of maintaining some form of integrity in relation to corruption and censorship.” She pointed to [Chinese blogger and public intellectual Han] Han’s declaration “I am just a humanist,” circulating widely on the Internet. “That’s key. Amid tightened censorship, people are looking for more inventive ways to try and keep the public sphere and civil society alive, so they are resorting to words like humanism. They can always use this as some form of criticism.”

The article also notes that "how to live according to core human values like respect, kindness and care for others has deep roots in Chinese thought, written about widely by Confucius and other philosophers." Furthermore, at an event on "Humanism in China" hosted at Harvard this year, Tsinghua Professor Wang Hui expressed a new, urgent concern for what some might call more old-fashioned humanistic values.

The article classifies Wang as part of the "New Left", calling him a "sophisticated theoretician and critic of China’s present model of capitalist development." One thing I really like about this piece and Prof. Wang is his exploration of the writer Lu Xun. He looks at the kinder, deeply human side of Lu Xun -- the one who exists underneath the pointed criticism and mordant satire:

"To make his point, he turned to a little-known 1908 text by Lu Xun, arguably China’s greatest writer of the 20th century, who was appropriated by the Communists. Lu Xun, said Mr. Wang, was actually a humanist. In “Refuting Malevolent Voices,” his major concern was to find “new voices” that spoke from the heart, and spoke the truth. 

A healthy society needs truthful voices. And truthful voices come from truthful people. China sorely lacks that [Wang says.] To solve its problems, it needs more open discussion and more self-critical thinking. “A lot of people say a lot of things, but they don’t believe these things, they are just echoing other people. China is full of noise, but it’s silent. You don’t hear real voices.”

Along with a sense of humanity, this Lu Xun was also dedicated to the truth. Two meaningful things: truth and humanity. They are worth searching for. They are also necessary.