The New Chinese Empire by Ross Terrill

Author:Ross Terrill [ROSS TERRILL]
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Basic Books
Published: 2012-01-27T16:00:00+00:00

CHINA ESPOUSES a questionable unity that sweeps ethnic differences under the carpet, for the glory of a state constructed from above. This building blocks approach to ruling a diverse society dominates Chinese political thinking. Increasingly, as Marxist ideology recedes, it is a vision of a Han-race-led empire. The minority peoples are caricatured, exoticized, applauded for their culture even as they are kept at arm’s length in decision-making. “Under communism,” quips Anthony Daniels, “all minorities dance.” China, like the Soviet Union before it, hides its nonrespect for the individual by enshrining “diversity” in its formal arrangements.38

An alternative to a “unity of building blocks” is unity won from the allegiance of free individuals. Certainly, this is the only concept of the state that American political science (these days) takes seriously. As Eric Nordlinger writes, “only by making individuals central to the definition [of the state] can Hegelian implications (substantive and metaphysical) be avoided when referring to the state’s preferences.”39 The situation of a “hyphenated” citizen illustrates the difference between a unity of building blocks, where, in the spirit of Hegel, history is destiny, and a unity centered on the individual. China does not acknowledge the existence of individuals such as “Korean-Chinese,” “American- Chinese,” or “Tibetan-Chinese.” Beijing speaks only of “national minorities,” ethnic blocs, whose members are Chinese persons (Zhong-guo minzu). The Chinese media regularly speaks of “Tibet compatriots” (Xizang tongbao), or “Zangbao” for short, which does not seem compatible with calling Tibetans a “nationality” (tongbao literally means “born of the same parents”).40

In addition, the Chinese party-state reaches beyond China to call people of Chinese descent “Overseas Chinese.” They are seldom called “Chinese-Australians” or “Chinese-Singaporeans,” just “Overseas Chinese,” as if they really belong to Beijing. Reporting on Chinese-Koreans in Seoul celebrating the return of Hong Kong to China in 1997, People’s Daily spoke of them as “Overseas Chinese in Korea” (Hanguo huaqiao).41

Late in 2001, I found myself in the delightful new museum in Wuhan that houses the contents of the tomb of Marquis Yi, a statesman of the Warring States era. Among the treasures are a set of sixtyfour bronze bells. Together, they form an orchestra. Struck by a rod, each bell is capable of different sounds depending on where it is struck. Said an official of the Hubei Provincial Museum with pride: “Yo-Yo Ma, the Overseas Chinese cellist, played a replica of the bells at a concert in Hong Kong. It was wonderful.”

“I love the bells,” I said to the guide, “and I am glad Yo-Yo Ma, whom I know, made fine music from them. But Ma is not an Overseas Chinese [hua qiao], he is a Chinese-American [meiguo huaren].” An uncomprehending silence followed, underscoring the powers of indoctrination of the Chinese party-state. Power, of course, can turn illusion into dogma.

One may contrast Taiwan’s usage. “Renowned violinist Lin Cho-liang visited Taipei in December to give performances,” wrote a state-owned weekly in January 2002. “Born in Taiwan, the American musician thrilled audiences and helped bring 2001 to a close with a bang.”42 When

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.