2012-03-06

Chinese Britons Have Put Up With Racism For Too Long

 
Chinese Britons Have Put Up With Racism For Too Long

Many people are shocked to hear the extent of prejudice against the Chinese – is it so surprising when stereotypes still flourish?

  • guardian.co.uk,
  • Elizabeth Chan as Cinderella
    Elizabeth Chan as Cinderella at the Lyric Theatre, Hammersmith in 2008: 'Going to drama school in London was a revelation'. Photograph: Tristram Kenton

    Chinese Britons are often referred to as a "silent" or "hidden" minority. For although we are the fourth-largest minority ethnic group in the UK, we are virtually invisible in public life, principally the arts, media and politics.

    On the surface, the Chinese seem relatively content and well-to-do, with British Chinese pupils regularly outperforming their classmates and Chinese men more likely than any other ethnic group to be in a professional job. Consequently, we are often overlooked in talks on racism and social exclusion.

    But academic and economic successes do not negate feelings of marginalisation. A 2009 study by The Monitoring Group and Hull University suggested that British Chinese are particularly prone to racial violence and harassment, but that the true extent to their victimisation was often overlooked because victims were unwilling to report it.

    Growing up in the north of England in the 80s, I had few role models. Popular culture was dominated by white faces and occasionally black and south Asian, but never east Asian. I'm not sure that much has changed since.

    Shouts of "Jackie Chan!" and kung-fu noises from random strangers continue to greet me in the street, perhaps followed by a "konichiwa!" Just a few days ago, a friend was having a post-hangover drink in a trendy east London pub, only to be accused by the manager of being a DVD pedlar hassling his clients.

    Going to drama school in London was a revelation; I was told I couldn't perform in a scene from a play because it had been written for white people. The scene was two girls sitting on a park bench talking about boys, and the year was 2006. Worse was when it came from my contemporaries; one (white, liberal, highly educated) helpfully suggested I did a monologue from The Good Soul of Szechuan instead, and another rushed up after one performance to tell me how delighted her parents had been that I'd spoken perfect English (I'm from Bradford).

    In hindsight it was good preparation for a profession where, on my first job, the Bafta-winning director chuckled to everyone on set that I'd trained in kung fu, and where any character who speaks in some kind of dodgy east Asian accent is considered hilarious.

    I have friends who are shocked that such things actually happen. They are usually most surprised at the fact that it's happened to me. Why? I suspect mainly because, like them, I am part of the educated middle class, and things like that don't happen to people like us.

    Well, they do, and quite often. And frankly, it isn't surprising that prejudices are rife in a country whose media perpetuates the very images that evoke stereotypes and cultural misunderstandings: Chinese characters rarely appear on our television screens, but when they do, you can bet they'll be DVD sellers, illegal immigrants, spies or, in the case of last year's Sherlock, weird acrobatic ninja types. Many Chinese viewers were outraged at the portrayal of east Asians in this show, but typically, few complained.

    Sadly, the British Chinese are reticent about speaking up for themselves, and simply do not have the numbers to make the same noise the black and south Asian communities do, whose vociferous and galvanising voices have been making waves against racism for decades. Racism is one of those horrendous, soul- and confidence-crushing things that, when faced with, you'd much rather forget or pretend didn't exist. So we tend to brush it off, pretend it never happened, or laugh along with the rest rather than come across as bad sports. We Chinese have become dab hands at this, living up to the stereotype of the smiling but silent Chinaman.

    If we are to make progress in understanding the true extent of racism in this country, we all need to be a lot braver in confronting truths about how we live. It's about swallowing our pride and being less afraid of telling the world how racism affects us and really thinking about the people across Britain who have come to accept racism as a part of life. It's about standing up in classrooms, television studios, offices, pubs and public transport, not just for ourselves, but for friends and strangers, too.

    Denial gets us nowhere. But awareness, thoughtfulness and courage could make millions of lives so much better.

     

    2012-03-03

    Why China Resists Western Intervention In Syria

     
    LOS ANGELES — Intellectual precision is especially vital in times of geopolitical passion. The full totality of evil of the Syrian government is now on display for the entire world to see. The brutality of President Bashar Assad is beyond immense. And so the blame game has begun.
     
    The obvious target of global wrath is the hateful Assad. But not far behind on the international hate and blame list is Russia and China. They committed the sin of blocking United Nations Security Council action against Damascus by refusing to vote for resolutions that called for major changes (i.e., Assad must go). But about the use by Moscow and Beijing of the so-called veto, two things must be said.
    The first is that Russia and China come at the issue from different perspectives. Moscow works from strictly defined national interest. Damascus has been a friend that has given it broad and significant access to the strategic Middle East without which Russian influence would be much reduced.
    By contrast, Beijing approaches the issue from a broader perspective of (in effect) geopolitical philosophy. Living in a glass house itself, it is not about to advocate as accepted international practice the throwing stones at anyone else for the manner of their conduct of domestic security. This is to say that its overall foreign policy is grounded in the long-held principle of "non-interference in the internal affairs of other states." The contrasting principle would be the "policeman of the world" approach, the practice of which the United States has sometimes been accused.
    The Russian view, it seems to me, reeks of pure craven power politics — so that little more need be said. But the Chinese view is rooted in more complex thought, emotion and experience. They include a tortured history of centuries of intrusion and invasion by foreign powers eager to run China their own (colonial or neo-colonial or Western) way.
    That view also derives from the Treaty of Westphalia, which way back when in 1648 ushered in the era of sovereign nations. The essence of sovereignty includes the right of countries to rule exactly as they wish as long as they stay within their borders. From the logic of the Chinese perspective, therefore, nothing that has been happening inside Syria should be said to be axiomatically a candidate for international intervention. In fact, it could be argued (though of course I won't) that Damascus is struggling mightily to maintain the territorial integrity of Syria so as to avoid national fragmentation.
    This leads to our second point. In the age of all-seeing and easily transmitted digital technology, the shortcomings of the Westphalian nation-state political philosophy are more evident than ever. The amazing media technology of the 21st century knocks down borders and collapses formerly remote regions of the world into virtual neighboring communities.
    This current world reality has been recognized for years by the United Nations, the lead agency of the international community. For all its many glaring faults, the U.N. has consistently offered itself as one way out of the no-exit nation-state box. Kofi Annan, the previous U.N. secretary general, deserves credit for having insisted on the new global doctrine — "the responsibility to protect" (cleverly: "R2P") — in the wake of the humanitarian disasters of Rwanda, Somalia, Srebrenica and Kosovo. The theory here is that the international community must exercise "the right to humanitarian intervention" when nation-states are visibly pulverizing their own people.
    And so, notwithstanding the Security Council's hostage to the structural impediment of the veto, the U.N. has been carving out an appropriately internationalist R2P role for itself.
    In an interview back in August, I sat across from Annan's able successor, Ban Ki Moon, the eighth U.N. secretary general (and only the second from Asia) as he explained his own unavailing efforts to deflect Assad from the horror he was planning. Remember now — this is in August.
    I asked: "How did your conversations with Assad go? I mean, you pick up the phone and you call him, or he calls you, when he is probably shooting people?"
    Ban answered: "Oh, yes. Of course, I urged him to stop killing your own people. Killing your own people is a dead-end, and a violation of international human rights law and international humanitarian law, and you should listen attentively, and seriously, to the challenges and aspirations of your people — what your people are asking you to do. Please engage in inclusive dialogue, and take bold and decisive reform before it is too late."
    Ban continued with both emotion and logic in this fashion, explaining that "R2P" is now the normative standard in the approach of the U.N. secretary general to such issues of the so-called Arab Spring. Where a nation-state might coldly calibrate its policy toward humanitarian crises in terms of sheer national interest, the world's leading international organization reverts to an international, humanitarian standard.
    The U.N. secretary general believes that "a natural evolution of history" will make the 'see-no-evil, hear-no-evil' Westphalian approach outdated.
    If so, then Beijing might be viewed as being on the wrong side of history. But at least the Chinese tendency is rooted in something other than narrow national interest. This contrasts with the Russian view, which is Westphalian at its worst.
    Tom Plate, the distinguished scholar of Asian and Pacific Affairs at Loyola Marymount University, is author of the "Giants of Asia" series. The veteran U.S. journalist has been interviewing the U.N. secretary general for "Conversations With Ban Ki Moon" — Book Four in the series, to be published in September by Marshall Cavendish Asia.
     
     

    2012-03-02

    2012 Long Year Stamp

    2012 Is Year Of Long In Chinese Lunar Calendar. It's Said That The Persons Born In The Long Year Are The Luckiest .
     
    2012 Long Year Commemorative Stamps
     
     
    China

    2012 Long Year Commemorative Stamps --- Windwing

    HongKong
    2012 Long Year Commemorative Stamps --- Windwing

    2012 Long Year Commemorative Stamps --- Windwing
    TaiWan
    2012 Long Year Commemorative Stamps --- Wiudwing
    Macau
    2012 Long Year Commemorative Stamps --- Windwing

    2012 Long Year Commemorative Stamps --- Windwing
    Singapore

    2012 Long Year Commemorative Stamps --- Windwing

    2012 Long Year Commemorative Stamps --- Windwing
    N.Korea

    2012 Long Year Commemorative Stamps --- Windwing

     S.Korea

    2012 Long Year Commemorative Stamps --- Windwing

    2012 Long Year Commemorative Stamps --- Windwing

    Philippines

    2012 Long Year Commemorative Stamps --- Windwing

    2012 Long Year Commemorative Stamps --- Windwing
    Vietnam

    2012 Long Year Commemorative Stamps --- Windwing2012 Long Year Commemorative Stamps --- Windwing

    Japan

    2012 Long Year Commemorative Stamps --- Windwing

    2012 Long Year Commemorative Stamps --- Windwing
    Christmas Island

    2012 Long Year Commemorative Stamps --- Windwing

    New Zealand

    2012 Long Year Commemorative Stamps --- Windwing

    Canada

    2012 Long Year Commemorative Stamps --- Windwing

    USA

    2012 Long Year Commemorative Stamps --- Windwing

    France
    2012 Long Year Commemorative Stamps --- Windwing
    Cote d'Ivoire

    2012 Long Year Commemorative Stamps --- Windwing
    2012 Long Year Commemorative Stamps --- Windwing

    Guinea-Bissau

    2012 Long Year Commemorative Stamps --- Windwing
    2012 Long Year Commemorative Stamps --- Windwing
    Slovenija

    2012 Long Year Commemorative Stamps --- Windwing

    Thailand

    2012 Long Year Commemorative Stamps --- Windwing

    Malaysia

    2012 Long Year Commemorative Stamps --- Windwing 

    Liechtenstein

    2012 Long Year Commemorative Stamps --- Windwing2012 Long Year Commemorative Stamps --- Windwing 

    England

    2012 Long Year Commemorative Stamps --- Windwing 

    Croatia

    2012 Long Year Commemorative Stamps --- Windwing 

    U.N.

    2012 Long Year Commemorative Stamps --- Windwing 

    2012-02-18

    Why China's Political Model Is Superior

    Shanghai

    THIS week the Obama administration is playing host to Xi Jinping, China's vice president and heir apparent. The world's most powerful electoral democracy and its largest one-party state are meeting at a time of political transition for both.

    Many have characterized the competition between these two giants as a clash between democracy and authoritarianism. But this is false. America and China view their political systems in fundamentally different ways: whereas America sees democratic government as an end in itself, China sees its current form of government, or any political system for that matter, merely as a means to achieving larger national ends.

    In the history of human governance, spanning thousands of years, there have been two major experiments in democracy. The first was Athens, which lasted a century and a half; the second is the modern West. If one defines democracy as one citizen one vote, American democracy is only 92 years old. In practice it is only 47 years old, if one begins counting after the Voting Rights Act of 1965 — far more ephemeral than all but a handful of China's dynasties.

    Why, then, do so many boldly claim they have discovered the ideal political system for all mankind and that its success is forever assured?

    The answer lies in the source of the current democratic experiment. It began with the European Enlightenment. Two fundamental ideas were at its core: the individual is rational, and the individual is endowed with inalienable rights. These two beliefs formed the basis of a secular faith in modernity, of which the ultimate political manifestation is democracy.

    In its early days, democratic ideas in political governance facilitated the industrial revolution and ushered in a period of unprecedented economic prosperity and military power in the Western world. Yet at the very beginning, some of those who led this drive were aware of the fatal flaw embedded in this experiment and sought to contain it.

    The American Federalists made it clear they were establishing a republic, not a democracy, and designed myriad means to constrain the popular will. But as in any religion, faith would prove stronger than rules.

    The political franchise expanded, resulting in a greater number of people participating in more and more decisions. As they say in America, "California is the future." And the future means endless referendums, paralysis and insolvency.

    In Athens, ever-increasing popular participation in politics led to rule by demagogy. And in today's America, money is now the great enabler of demagogy. As the Nobel-winning economist A. Michael Spence has put it, America has gone from "one propertied man, one vote; to one man, one vote; to one person, one vote; trending to one dollar, one vote." By any measure, the United States is a constitutional republic in name only. Elected representatives have no minds of their own and respond only to the whims of public opinion as they seek re-election; special interests manipulate the people into voting for ever-lower taxes and higher government spending, sometimes even supporting self-destructive wars.

    The West's current competition with China is therefore not a face-off between democracy and authoritarianism, but rather the clash of two fundamentally different political outlooks. The modern West sees democracy and human rights as the pinnacle of human development. It is a belief premised on an absolute faith.

    China is on a different path. Its leaders are prepared to allow greater popular participation in political decisions if and when it is conducive to economic development and favorable to the country's national interests, as they have done in the past 10 years.

    However, China's leaders would not hesitate to curtail those freedoms if the conditions and the needs of the nation changed. The 1980s were a time of expanding popular participation in the country's politics that helped loosen the ideological shackles of the destructive Cultural Revolution. But it went too far and led to a vast rebellion at Tiananmen Square.

    That uprising was decisively put down on June 4, 1989. The Chinese nation paid a heavy price for that violent event, but the alternatives would have been far worse.

    The resulting stability ushered in a generation of growth and prosperity that propelled China's economy to its position as the second largest in the world.

    The fundamental difference between Washington's view and Beijing's is whether political rights are considered God-given and therefore absolute or whether they should be seen as privileges to be negotiated based on the needs and conditions of the nation.

    The West seems incapable of becoming less democratic even when its survival may depend on such a shift. In this sense, America today is similar to the old Soviet Union, which also viewed its political system as the ultimate end.

    History does not bode well for the American way. Indeed, faith-based ideological hubris may soon drive democracy over the cliff.

    Eric X. Li is a venture capitalist.

     

    *******************************************************************

     

    America Democracy: "One Propertied Man, One Vote; To One Man, One Vote; To One Person, One Vote; Trending To One Dollar, One Vote."

     

     

     

    2012-01-13

    National Flag Design Of PRC In 1949

    On June 15, 1949, The New Political Consultative Conference In Peking Preparatory Committee Formally Established, Public To Solicit National Flag Design Pattern.From July 14 To August 15 Were Received 3012 Designs, And Then Review Through 38 Patterns.
     

    #NO.32 ZengLianSong's Original Design

     

     

    On October 1, 1949, The Government Of The PRC Was Founded, Accompanied By The Majestic "Volunteers March" , The Bright Five-Starred Red Flag Slowly Went Up Pole The First Time In BeiJing's TianAnMen Square, Marks The Five-Starred Red Flag Become National Flag Of The People's Republic Of China.

    ZengLianSong And His Design Five-Starred Red Flag

     

    It Seems That Most Chinese More Better Like Red And Yellow Color.Perhaps Because That Most Chinese Are Known For Claimed Themselves That The "Descendants Of Yan(Red) And Huang(Yellow) Emperors" .

     

    More>>>Windwing: Flag In China

                 [Windwing]RedFlag Fell: CCCP And Flags