Kuo worries about what will happen the next time Chinese are attacked but he doesn’t mention that the Chinese embassy was attacked by suicide bombers in Iraq? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCw6XIQSsh4. Where was the uproar?

I desperately wanted to enjoy this video. It’s easy to tell that this is the most meaty video we are asked to watch. Kaiser Kuo (mouth in Chinese) had a lot of important things to say. However, I found the video excruciating to watch. 1.5 hours of a long-winded speech, with nothing but the speaker sitting at podium is a horrible way to convey this knowledge. The 3 other long videos: “Locked Up”, the 3 Brits try to strike it Rich and “TankMan” were much more engaging to watch.

The take away from this video is that your viewpoint comes from your world view. At 53 minutes in, Kuo gives his insights. 1) Don’t’ be condescending. 2) Try to learn about Chinese when their defenses are down and the foreigner is not present. And 3) Read some Chinese history.

He also suggests reading Chinese blogs in Translation. This a good start. A better method would be to learn Chinese.

He mentions that in the Q&A, he’ll give a lot of good sites to read Chinese translated blogs, but alas, the video doesn’t have the Q&A. I’ve written Kuo to see what some of these sites are. I’ll post if he responds.

He pointed out that many Chinese believe that if they let other countries in that chaos will break out. Half of the Chinese people living today have memories of periods of chaos. This transforms people to act in a different way. It reminds me of America after WWI. We became very isolated and we had to be pushed into fighting WWII. But the difference is that our “threats” were external while China’s are internal.

The Internet has allowed China a public sphere where opinions can be shared. We have come so far from information traveling at the speed of a horse. It is great that the internet can be used to keep people in check. It is a vehicle for immediate discussion, but it can also facilitate a spiral of dissent which can lead to public outcry. I think it is easy to point fingers and place all the blame on someone else. But this does not make the problem go away. Constructive dialogue is needed in order to bridge gaps and bring people together.
I liked Kuo’s three points:
1. Don’t condescend, don’t act like they are ignorant or brainwashed. It doesn’t advance anything.
2.Try and learn what Chinese people think when their defenses aren’t up. Just listen without judging. I like how he said that radicals are not representative of all in China, just the same as in America. I would shutter if a Chinese person believed that a racist, bigoted person was an average American.
3. Read some relevant history. So important! China is a country that has deep roots that are visible today.
I liked his discussion on being multicultural. It brought out the fact that both America and China have moments to be proud of and moments to be disgraced by. Neither country is perfect and it is important to keep this in mind, instead of just judging the wrong.

Kaiser Kuo explains a few key differences in the way the Chinese view the internet. For the Chinese, the internet is more of an entertainment superhighway rather than an information superhighway. The Chinese word for “netizen” has an implicit sense of citizenship or belonging to a political community. Perhaps citizens of China incorporate this sense of the internet as a place where they can belong into their definition of a “netizen.” It seems as though Americans use the internet as more of a tool and less of a place to belong. Either way, Kuo suggests three steps for successful interaction with the Chinese on the internet:

Step 1: Don’t condescend.
Step 2: Try and learn what Chinese people actually think when their defenses aren’t up.
Step 3: Read some relevant history.

The approach of olympic games provided a catalyst for communication among individuals from China and America. Each side seemed well prepared to believe the worst about each other. Each side would have benefitted from the three steps Kuo suggested. As Americans, we need to remember that false assumptions exist – for example, the assumption that Chinese people we encounter are hobbled because they live behind the great firewall of China. To end on a light note – we also need to remember that when Chinese Americans such as Kuo see American tourists and Chinese tourists in Europe “[he] is equally embarrassed by both.”

I also thought it was powerful that Kuo observes that both Americans and Chinese view each other in the worst light. And of course the worst of the worst Americans are often found trolling the Internet. This doesn’t bode well for how we are perceived in China.

It will be interesting to see how the Internet evolves in China and how Chinese culture evolves around the Internet. The web allows content to be broadcast instantly to millions of people. It’s no wonder why the CCP wants to keep a lid on free use, any incident in any corner of China might become a rally cry for reform. The bottom line is that there is plenty of reason for the Chinese government to control the Internet and not much for Americans to do but complain about it.

It was interesting to hear Kaiser mention some of the views that the Chinese hold of their own censorship. Many of the Chinese believe, from their history, that a unified and moral society is the only society capable of creating great economic growth. It is also believed that, throughout history, western influences were the causes that broke up unity in China. Since there is no Chinese citizen does not agree that economic growth is of the upmost importance, there are many that agree with the government’s efforts to defend unity amongst its citizens. This effort to defend their culture and nation is why many “redcoats” lash back at the rednecks. Both sides are guilty of not fully understanding each other.

I hope that people will take the time to understand the other instead of promoting their own firewalls of self-interest. Kaiser seems well qualified to bridge the gap between eastern and western thinking. His book sounds like it will be a good read.

In regards to the WSJ article, I have to wonder what the situation would be like were the shoe on the other foot. What if there was a major Chinese company that provided a major product or service to us (say, for instance, a major television manufacturer) that refused to provide any more products to us because of something our government was doing to restrict usage of the product. What would happen within our country? What if the Chinese insisted that we get rid of the media that is “brainwashing” us or else we won’t be provided with any more televisions?

My first instinct on this matter is that what Google is doing is right and that the Chinese should not be restricted on what they view on the internet, but that is coming from a Western point of view. In retrospect the Chinese may be correct, some Western people are brainwashed by what they see in the media. We need to understand where each other is coming from (develop that common ground) and as Kaiser said, learn of each other’s history to find out how we got the way we are before we make our judgements.

For being a long presentation, I thought Kaiser Kuo had great insight into the reasons why Chinese and Americans view each other the way they do. First off, he pointed out a few things that I did not know about the Chinese internet. For example, I was unaware that Chinese internet has been more specifically used for entertainment purposes than for information. In fact, Kuo even makes it a point to say that the Chinese people are able to stay up to date on entertainment news like music. I also did not really know to what extent the Chinese people were being censored. In fact, I was really surprised that Chinese people were able to criticize their own government online and that the government would often listen to these demands if enough people were expressing a certain view. Also, although their are many sites that are censored, I was surprised to learn that it was possible for Chinese people to communicate with the world using internet. This I felt was one of the most interesting parts of the talk. The internet battles that ensue between Americans and Chinese over different views on such matters like human rights and the environment show that each sides citizens need to understand more about the background of why they believe the way they do. In fact to back this up, Kuo makes a mock example of an American criticizing a Chinese person by saying “why don’t you chinese hate the govnt as much i think u out to” which I thought was a pretty accurate view of most Americans. However, it is interesting that even with these internet clashes, when meeting in person, the meetings between the two sides are usually civil. In all, I thought Kuo was a good candidate to speak on this subject because of his background and I liked that he ended his speech by listing both common and non-common characteristics between Chinese and Americans that he likes and doesn’t like.

I agree that a good place to start would be with a book on Chinese history, read with one’s opinions put aside. This would help one put news stories into context. Reading opposing opinion pieces can also be beneficial, but they should come from educated sources.

I also see value in Mr. Kuo’s two other recommendations:

1) Don’t condescend when talking to the Chinese on the internet, even if it means they are parroting the party line.
This is difficult, because a person’s reaction to someone they think is brainwashed is to say, “Can’t you realize you’ve been brainwashed?” He took the words right out of my mouth when he said Americans think, “Why don’t you Chinese hate your government as much as I think you ought to?”

2) Try to learn what Chinese people think when their defenses aren’t up, when foreigners aren’t a party to the conversation. This is useful advice. We’d probably all like to know what others are thinking when we aren’t pushing their buttons. The Chinese people may disagree with their government more than say to Americans. Nationalism is likely to be enhanced when talking to outsiders. They may disagree with their government to some extent, but may stand with their state in the discussion.

“Battling the Information Barbarians” also mentions how many Americans think about Chinese internet censorship. While reading about how the Chinese government says to its people that censorship is necessary to promote Chinese culture, I had a reaction that would probably be common among many Americans: “B.S.” flashed in my head. Although one could say that my reaction is due to a feeling of universality of American Culture, my thought was that a government should not tell its people what their culture is. The article says, “The question, then, for Western companies, as much as for Western governments, is to decide whose side they are on: the Chinese officials who like to define their culture in a paternalistic, authoritarian way, or the large number of Chinese who have their own ideas about freedom.” How large is the number of Chinese who have their own ideas about freedom? I’d like to see a survey of Chinese people on this, but the Chinese government doesn’t.