It has been the year of the protester and Chinese have done their part.
They are protesting in Wukan, a "village" of 20,000 people. Wukan is located here:
People in Wukan are protesting the corruption of local officials. Specifically, they are protesting the sale of "communal" village land by local officials to developers without the villagers consent, thereby enriching the local officials, providing for the future enrichment of the developers and leaving the villagers with no land and no yuan from the whole deal. This has been going on since 1993 in Wukan. It has also been going on throughout China since Deng Xiaoping proclaimed "to be rich is glorious."
The various human vices get under all peoples' skins but particular vices get under particular peoples' skins. It's street crime in America. In China it is and always has been public corruption. I think that has to do, in part, to the country's Confucian heritage. Confucianism is really an ethical system for the ruled: thou shalt obey, and thou shalt obey in the following 1,000 ways. In return for slavish obedience Confucianism... suggests rule that in some ways can be considered "benevolent"--as long as it ultimately redounds to the stability and longevity of the rulers. It's not quite equality of rule, one distillation of the whole system being "If I (ruler) say it, it's so."
It seems to me Chinese are, in general, okay with this "division of responsibility" between ruler and ruled. Mao got Chinese to believe that they could make steel in their backyards; Mao got Chinese to believe they could grow fruits and vegetables the size of cars. Until near the end if Mao said it could be done, then Chinese believed it could be done.
Chinese obedience to, and faith in, the emperor, royal or red, can in one sense be analogized usefully to religious belief in the West. If pure belief in the face of facts and common sense is characteristic of religions then Chinese are religious. This is what the Western Christian philosopher Soren Kierkegaard termed belief "by virtue of the absurd."* Kierkegaard wrote that religious belief requires "a leap of faith," that is a leap over facts. It seems to me Chinese, in general, have this kind of faith in their rulers in their soul.
In another sense, in the Wukan protest sense, the analogy to Western religious faith, is not useful. An ethical system does not have a transcendent religion's ability to justify by genuflection to an almighty. Acceptance is more susceptible to comparison with earthly results. And the results are not acceptable to the residents of Wukan. At least one person has died and the protests have been going on since September.
*Vaclav Havel termed his country's communist regime, "Absurdistan." He did not believe belief by virtue of the absurd virtuous.
They are protesting in Wukan, a "village" of 20,000 people. Wukan is located here:
People in Wukan are protesting the corruption of local officials. Specifically, they are protesting the sale of "communal" village land by local officials to developers without the villagers consent, thereby enriching the local officials, providing for the future enrichment of the developers and leaving the villagers with no land and no yuan from the whole deal. This has been going on since 1993 in Wukan. It has also been going on throughout China since Deng Xiaoping proclaimed "to be rich is glorious."
The various human vices get under all peoples' skins but particular vices get under particular peoples' skins. It's street crime in America. In China it is and always has been public corruption. I think that has to do, in part, to the country's Confucian heritage. Confucianism is really an ethical system for the ruled: thou shalt obey, and thou shalt obey in the following 1,000 ways. In return for slavish obedience Confucianism... suggests rule that in some ways can be considered "benevolent"--as long as it ultimately redounds to the stability and longevity of the rulers. It's not quite equality of rule, one distillation of the whole system being "If I (ruler) say it, it's so."
It seems to me Chinese are, in general, okay with this "division of responsibility" between ruler and ruled. Mao got Chinese to believe that they could make steel in their backyards; Mao got Chinese to believe they could grow fruits and vegetables the size of cars. Until near the end if Mao said it could be done, then Chinese believed it could be done.
Chinese obedience to, and faith in, the emperor, royal or red, can in one sense be analogized usefully to religious belief in the West. If pure belief in the face of facts and common sense is characteristic of religions then Chinese are religious. This is what the Western Christian philosopher Soren Kierkegaard termed belief "by virtue of the absurd."* Kierkegaard wrote that religious belief requires "a leap of faith," that is a leap over facts. It seems to me Chinese, in general, have this kind of faith in their rulers in their soul.
In another sense, in the Wukan protest sense, the analogy to Western religious faith, is not useful. An ethical system does not have a transcendent religion's ability to justify by genuflection to an almighty. Acceptance is more susceptible to comparison with earthly results. And the results are not acceptable to the residents of Wukan. At least one person has died and the protests have been going on since September.
*Vaclav Havel termed his country's communist regime, "Absurdistan." He did not believe belief by virtue of the absurd virtuous.
