« The Beauchamp Affair | Main | She's Right, I'm Wrong »

The Captive Mind

07 Aug 2007 10:57 am

While linking to a Jason Steorts dispatch from Tibet, John Derbyshire writes:

One of the most depressing things about the Tibet story is that is shows the power of propaganda. If a totalitarian state tells its people X for half a century, permitting no other point of view, people will end up believing X, however patently false X may be. Ordinary Chinese people are baffled if you suggest that the Chinese authorities give Tibet independence, or at least genuine autonomy. "But Tibet has always been a part of China," they say, genuinely surprised that you don't know this "fact." Obvious ripostes ( e.g. "If Tibet has always been a part of China, how come they don't speak Chinese?") bounce right off.

On a related theme, I was having drinks last week with a journalist who's spent the last five years in China, and he was remarking on the widespread Chinese ignorance of what, exactly, happened at Tiananmen Square. It's something that he's frequently asked about by young Chinese, he said, and when he tells the story, the response often goes something like this: "Well, then it's a really good thing the government covered it up, because otherwise there would have been a revolution."

Of course, given the history of what revolutions have meant for China over the last two centuries, this isn't quite as morally callous as it sounds at first.

Comments (19)

Right. Traditionally, the population of China rapidly expanded to reach a Malthusian peak sustainable only under orderly government. When government breaks down, tens of millions of people die from starvation or disease rather quickly.

"But the US has always been on the side of the angels," they say, genuinely surprised that you don't know this "fact." Obvious ripostes ( e.g. "But what about El Salvador, or supporting Saddam, or the coups in Guatemala, Chile, and Iran?") bounce right off.

Obviously, the US is a much, much, much better place to live than China. But there's no way around the fact that we have done our fair share of bad things, and that we decline to confront them honestly. It's not the result of totalitarianism, but of the instinctive defense of one's own country, as in Russia, Japan, and more or less everywhere else.

i have talked to friends who work in the social sciences who really have developed a distaste for the chinese education or cultural system through their interaction of conventionally brilliant graduate students who still seem unable to think about their gov. or society from "the outside" in a critical manner.

But there's no way around the fact that we have done our fair share of bad things, and that we decline to confront them honestly.

Name a country that either does or has confronted it's "share of bad things" as openly and as thoroughly as the USA.

Germany.

Plus, we're the best country, so we should live up to our highest ideals in everything as much as possible.

And I don't think most people have a good idea about Guatemala and El Salvador, or Iran, or Saddam.

The phenomenon Steve is mentioning was highlighted on a television show on Chinese TV during the late 1980s called "The River Elegy." From what I remember from Chinese history class, the documentary stated that feudal China had been locked into a socioeconomic model of transfers of wealth (in the form of commodities) from the peasantry into the central government, and the government, in turn, used this wealth to repair the damage done by constant river flooding and population pressure (read: farm repair and military suppression) without ever focusing on development of modern technology or education. The failure to change the system left the people over-reliant on the central government and the nation was unable to truly progress, leaving the country weak against ocean-going societies. Reformers during the 1980s used the TV show as a stage from which to mount criticisms of conservatives in the Party-State, resulting in the show and its creators being banned after 1989.

As to the events in the Square, after living in China I've shifted from being sympathetic to the protests and harsh towards Deng and Li to skeptical of the protests, harsh towards Li, but more tolerant of Deng's position. In some ways, I understand and may even agree with the anonymous Chinese who talked to your reporter friend. Had Deng been overthrown, I think we're very likely to have seen bloody factionalization and mass movements in China ala the Cultural Revolution. We see this today on the micro-level in the form of "democracy movement" leaders in exile attacking each other viciously and forming rival cliques. At the macro-level, we've seen this kind of "mass mind" at work in the anti-Japan movement. While Westerners --including bloggers -- interpreted these protests as orchestrated by the central government, in fact, they followed an agenda of their own, often in defiance of state edicts. China has had a long history of spontaneous mass action (e.g. the Boxers) that winds up embarrassing the central government.

Another factor to consider is that anti-Deng forces in 1989 could have just as easily restored Maoism instead of bringing about what we consider to be democracy. While Chinese with higher education tend to like Deng and especially like Zhou Enlai, the lower classes, many of whom were denied education by the Cultural Revolution, revile the corruption that followed Deng's reforms and long for the "clean" government of Chairman Mao. If we could return to 1989 and let the liberals, the Dengists, and the hardliners compete on a level democratic playing field, there's no guarantee the liberals (or a liberal-Dengist alliance) would have won. In fact, the numbers would not be in their favor.

Re: But there's no way around the fact that we have done our fair share of bad things, and that we decline to confront them honestly.

Really? Our history books are fill of the evils of slavery, genocide against Native Americans and the like. I don't think America's historical sins are swept under any carpets. They are aired quite publicly.

While the more obvious negative points of American history such as slavery and genocide of Native Americans appear in the history books, other bad deeds have slipped below the radar.

The CIA toppling the democratically elected prime minister of Iran Mohammad Mosaddeq and propping the Shah, the US supporting Saddam Hussein in the 1980s, the US supplying weapons to the Osama Bin Laden-linked mujahideen in the 1980s, the CIA deposing the democratically elected president of Guatemala, ... the list goes on. From what what I have seen, none of these issues are "aired quite publicly" or confronted "openly and ...thoroughly" in the public schools or in the mainstream media.

buu2:

I think the "we supplied bin Laden's guys" bit was actually pretty widely aired, at least among people who know any history before 1999, in the last few years. It's also a rather ambiguous crime -- reading, say, Wright's THE LOOMING TOWER, you get the feeling that perhaps we were stupid, but unless you think the Soviets were good guys, it's far from clear we were _wicked_.

The more sinister examples of American lies have less to do with the government and more to do with cultural institutions. Weren't you just discussing last week the lie that abortion has nothing to do with eugenics and the lie that progressives line Sanger had nothing to do with nazism?


"my body my choice" was a lie so often repeated while I was growing up that I beleived it for years.


Re: other bad deeds have slipped below the radar.

Some of what you cite is fairly trivial (in the ultimate scheme of things) hardly on the level with what happened to the Native Americans or slavery and Jim Crow. Intigue and manipulation of foreign governments is standard behavior for great powers.(I know that stuff isn't very nice, but it hardly stands out as "evil" either) You might have more of a case if you mentioned our fairly genocidal policies in the Philippines a century ago, something which has slipped off the radar. There also does seem to be a rule the appraisals of evil deeds need to wait at least a generation, sometimes longer, before they start showing up in the history books, which is probably appropriate since perspective and the cooling of political passions is needed before history can be fully understood an analyzed.
Also, the US did not "support" Saddam Hussein the 80s; that claim was unheard of tyill rather recently, but it's fasting becoming a standard leftwing propaganda trope. The US did attempt to woo him into client status (as did the Soviets), but he spurned those offers despite accepting the proferred bribes. Also, our foreign policy was a bit murkier than that since the Reagan administration was also making overtures to Iran. Most likely what they were trying to do was keep both Iran and Iraq in the running in their war so that both were exhaust if not ruin the other and neither would emerge the dominant regional power.

hosting

xanax

xanax

kubis

blodulv

industrial

industrial

industrial