Everyone outside the imperial core is subjected to the American/European outside observer, the least you can do is return the favor.
Maybe it’ll stop some people from going “China bad this. China bad that” when they haven’t read a single letter from someone who lives there.
Interesting from a journalistic perspective, but the dismissal of “political and civil rights” is bad and dangerous. Obviously having the rights is not itself sufficient–we need to do something with them–but that space is necessary for any popular movement to grow. Necessary but not sufficient.
Also, the author does something many Chinese commentators do, which is explain America as individualistic and weak because it lacks “common purpose” or “communal values” or any number of other euphemisms. These takes invariably remind me of mid-century fascist critique of the U.S.–that we are a state without a “volk.” That’s essentially what the author is complaining about when he says the U.S. doesn’t function because “ethnicity, blood, land, language, culture, and history are not key factors” in its national identity. That argument is not a left critique, and should be offensive to anyone with an internationalist left ideology.
That’s essentially what the author is complaining about when he says the U.S. doesn’t function because “ethnicity, blood, land, language, culture, and history are not key factors” in its national identity.
Why to willfully misinterpret what the author is saying there. This is not a complaint but an observation plainly stated. It’s to draw a contrast between his assertion that US identity is based on “political values” instead of “ethnicity, blood, land, language, culture, and history are not key factors” because it’s a nation of immigrants. You can disagree with him on the claim but you can’t say he is saying that that stuff has to exist because he never says that.
The section is headed “Why Can’t America Criticize Its Own System?”, with the clear argument that the centrality of political values to the system (as opposed to China’s “national identity based more on culture and language”) makes our system of government less effective and unable to respond to crises like COVID-19. That’s a bad take. I believe you don’t need a national identity based on a specific culture and language to create a successful political system capable of systemic self-critique. You’re welcome to disagree, of course, but I encourage you to keep your eyes open against the influence of nationalism in any left movement–Chinese, American, or otherwise.
I don’t think America’s identify is centrally based on political value alone but that’s a point I’m not interested in discussing.
I’m objecting to you quoting the author and misscharacterizing his arguments based on the out of context quotes. The author is writing for a Chinese audience and it’s natural he would emphasis the Chinese situation. It’s also undeniable that the American discourse never entertains a systemic critique and takes the American and by extension the post-WWII Western system of governance a priori as infallible. It’s well within reason to want to interrogate why that is.
