33 Comments Add your own

• 1. Li Peng  |  August 25th, 2010 at 9:39 pm

  “A China Apologist (i.e., Panda Hugger), A Dragon Slayer, A Centrist, Or You Don’t Know?”

  Nice choice. However I think you should add “Wombadan” to the list.
  And “Foreign Devil”.

• 2. Dan N  |  December 13th, 2010 at 3:22 pm

  Wow Chris, you appear to have caught the attention of China’s National People’s Congress. What are the odds that they are the same Li Peng?

  I want to make two points regarding this issue of what qualifies a person to make statements that are either critical of, or in defense of the CCP. First, quality commentary on issues such as this should seek to string together objective facts in a way that leads the reader/listener to make his or her own conclusions. If a commentator intends to make bold statements like this then he must be prepared to back up his opinion with a thorough and complete argument. This is Rein’s biggest mistake. His opinion about foreign relations with North Korea may have been brilliant. However, given the controversy that he must have known it would cause, he would have been better served presenting his opinion using a medium that provided him with the ability to build his case in a logical manner. Introducing his position in an article came across as impulsive and damaged his credibility. Rather then presenting the evidence in a manner that caused his readers to think about the issue and reach the same conclusion that he had, Reign tells his readers what to think without adequately explaining why they should think this way.

  Second, It is very tempting to take a position on very meaningful issues such as censorship or human rights in China. However, I believe that one should reserve judgement - regardless of the topic - until one has done the heavy lifting necessary to see the world through the eyes of those who do the same and end up on the other side of the table. I’ve learned from Coget that no matter how confident I am in my thinking my worldview will often prohibit me from seeing the truth.

  With that being said, far too many of us today use this as an excuse to look the other way when our fellow man is being oppressed. We can’t keep on living in our cocoons and saying, “not in my backyard.” We have an obligation as human beings to apply ourselves to understanding the important societal issues of our day so that we are in a position to take qualified stances on them. Am I a Chinese Apologist… I don’t know. But, I am committed to finding out.

• 3. Cassie Bettencourt  |  January 3rd, 2011 at 3:18 pm

  I think that the podcast aligned well with the statement from the blog post about different experiences forming our perceptions of certain concepts. Each of the men in the podcast was opinionated and was speaking from his own beliefs created from his own experience and time in China. It was interesting that they mutually took the Centrist position. As journalists and bloggers, objectivity and perspective are two very significant aspects of success. It makes sense that these speakers would lay along a more “centrist” line (or at least view themselves that way).

  Before listening to the podcast, I had a hazy conception of what a China Apologist was. However, the very simple definition at the beginning of the podcast stated that a China Apologist is a person accused of defending the Chinese government. This helped clarify the topic for me. I thought the ideas of understanding that not everything is black and white, perception is dependent on who’s doing the looking, and people often fall victim to “willful ignorance” were also very interesting. Using the Google controversy as a “gut check” as to where one falls on the Chinese Apologist spectrum also really helped clarify the concept for me. Factoring in pragmatism seems to me to be much more useful than pure idealism. Nuance may be an enemy to PR, but nuance is a part of life, and it is necessary to recognize this to succeed in reform.

• 4. David Hart  |  January 5th, 2011 at 4:26 pm

  This podcast was quite thought provoking. Human nature shows that people tend to believe they are pragmatic and objective. However, often times this is not the case. One of the members of the podcast said essentially that defining what an apologist, etc. is depends on viewpoint of the person doing the defining. I learned a lot about how people tend to look at others and their viewpoints.

  I agree with one of the podcasters notions that says it is important to give credit where credit is due and criticize when necessary. I would agree that being as objective as possible is really important. I also believe there are times when it is necessary to take a stand on an issue, but this should only occur after much reflection and research from all angles.

  With regards to Rein’s article on North Korea, I must admit that I had not given the issue much thought before. I had always simply assumed that sanctions are necessary. However, I appreciate hearing Rein’s point of view. It certainly has caused me to reflect more on this critical issue.

• 5. Robbin Forsyth  |  January 5th, 2011 at 10:29 pm

  To be frank, I have never heard the terms “China Apologist” or “Dragon Slayer” used before. After listening to the discussion the slang terms make sense generally, but I do see them easily being moved on a continuum of perception.
  The term “Apologist” or “Panda Hugger” is the easiest to manipulate.
  If a person defends, promotes (or ignores) the actions of their government are a patriot or apologist? What is your level of acceptance for government actions that you may not agree with? Is your quality of life more important than your beliefs? I would bet that the average American forgets many government misdeeds because of our high stand of living. The Chinese people are experiencing a better material quality of life than ever before. Let them enjoy the prosperity. At what point does this become a bad thing to outsiders?
  I have a hard time living with absolutes and really enjoyed the discussion about the “Curse of the Centrist”. If a journalist strives to remain objective in reporting and/or analyzing a given situation they will always upset somebody. I was happy to hear that these expats were equally at easy with criticism from western and Chinese sources of their work.

• 6. Katie Moeller  |  January 7th, 2011 at 11:59 am

  I had never heard of the word apologist before this blog and podcast. I had a lot to learn. What I did learn is that an apologist is someone who is accused of defending the government. They often talk down to people. They are also responsible for “tweaking” which is altering messages about China to not offend the Chinese government. In the end, an apologist is a benefit for the government.

  The other interesting points of this podcast were discussions about how to push reform. I had not thought about or heard the view from China on how to handle this. It was said that foreigners won’t have a chance in China for reform because China doesn’t trust them. You must be a Chinese citizen.
  I still lack a good understanding of a panda hugger, dragon slayer, and a centrist. However, I do have more of an appreciation for the change that has come about in China in the last decade. There is still room for improvement for North Korea based on the cut-throat mentality in doing well in school or else you will be sent to work in labor camps.

• 7. Brady Haug  |  January 8th, 2011 at 9:03 pm

  Apologisim is a term that I have truthfully never heard. In the podcast it is defined as a defender of the government. Though the narrators mention that it is hard to pin down a definition of an Apologist, through their discussion of Shaun Rein’s stance on the subject of China’s progress, it becomes clear. Apologists were further defined as people who ignore the indefensible and talk down criticism. One narrator (I believe Kaiser Kuo) described himself as a centrist, meaning that he “drew fire from both sides.” I was unaware that in political dealings, journalists and speakers were defined by these terms. This podcast defined and gave clear examples of these terms. Through the discussion, I was able to gain a firm understanding of how these terms could be applied to other political debates.

  Shaun Rein gave a very interesting discussion in regards to the strides China has made. In our recent studies, we have learned a tremendous deal about the progress since the 1989 protests. To the narrators, Rein is considered an apologist towards China. He presents the positive developments in China over the last twenty years. He simply stated that poverty still exists, but that real poverty had been eradicated. There is still heavy censorship but China has loosened it reins on internet control, such as the BBC. He asserts that China’s government should be commended for the progress that has been made. Rein doesn’t consider himself to be an apologist though. He asserted that there needs to be continual reformation in China, but that it must be done through unchallenged government and a delicate hand. I do not feel informed enough to make a stand, but I certainly have more appreciation for the progress that China has made.

• 8. Jessica Shayler  |  January 14th, 2011 at 11:32 am

  I generally ignore anyone who passionately expresses their views with authority but without any modicum of humility. I agree with the the podcaster (forgive me for not knowing his name) who said he is annoyed by those who “talk down to people who make critiques…We know everything is not black and white.” I can also appreciate the podcaster who admitted that at some point or on some things it is good to take a hard line else you risk “slipping so far down the cultural relativism slope that everything blurs into a moral jelly.” Facts are what they are, but what they mean is interpretation. There is no one measuring stick for the appropriateness of someone’s opinion: “Definitions are hard because they are such a subjective thing…dependant on who’s doing the looking.” My favorite comment came towards the end when one podcaster essentially said (not a direct quote, but implied), “I feel I’m walking the true path when I receive hate-mail from both sides.” I think the big lesson is we should be slow to apply labels and express ourselves with humility. Being respected is more important than being right.

• 9. Ashley Ogden  |  February 3rd, 2011 at 9:40 am

  I agree with the Centrist view that not everything is black and white. From what I gathered in the podcast, Centrists may take views from different sides of the spectrum on different issues. They believe that there is not one right answer or view for every issue. On the extreme ends of the spectrum are the Apologists and the Dragon Slayers. An Apologist is a person who is accused of defending the government and is thought to have the government’s interest above the people’s interests. They talk down to people who make critics of the government or the system. Apologists also like to “tweek” messages and ignore the real issues (from what the podcast said). “Tweeking” is when people inside China will alter the messages to not offend the Chinese people and Chinese government. On the other end are the Dragon Slayers, people who are totally anti-government. These people want to put everything in black and white and they want everything to be either right or wrong. Google finally put a stop to the “tweeking” and the podcast said that you can identify yourself as an apologist, dragon slayer, or centrist depending on where you stand on this issue.

• 10. Kristine Spencer  |  February 5th, 2011 at 5:34 pm

  I had also never heard of these terms before the podcast. An apologists is a person who is accused of defending the Chinese government. Someone described an apologist as someone who defends the indefensible, or has slipped too far down the cultural relativism slope. An apologist is likely to justify the Chinese government’s stance on Taiwan by saying, “What about the US and Hawaii or the Native Americans?” A Dragon slayer is someone who is critical or against the Chinese government. I wish that I heard more a of a description about Dragon Slayers, but I do remember that Kuo described Nancy Pelosi as being an avid Dragon Slayer in the “Red Guards Against Red Necks” post. A centrist is someone who is in between the two parties, doesn’t see the cause as being black and white, and often draws fire from both sides. The man who had pre-recorded his statement is a good example of a centrist, and he said that he “criticizes the government, but has to give credit where credit is due.”

  I don’t think that these kinds of terms are very useful for discussing the complex issues in China or anywhere. Labeling someone doesn’t do anyone any good. A label is so subjective and is dependent on the whimsies of anyone who is judging another person or their opinions. All the talk of how someone sees you is not productive at all, but I did appreciate the man’s pre-recorded section where he proposed the complexity of achieving reform in China. In order to label myself as one or the other, I think I will have to see China with my own two eyes.

• 11. Will Moeller  |  February 7th, 2011 at 8:49 am

  The earliest I can effectively weigh in on this and identify myself as anyone of these three would be after the China trip. For as much as I’ve learned from reading so far, identifying my views as falling into any these camps would just be premature. One other factor that clouds my judgement is the order in which I read these blogs, links, books, and watch the videos.

  From the podcast, there were some pretty strong views. First, it’s hard to listen and give credence to anyone who is so strongly set in their beliefs. The drawback of that is that those with the strongest beliefs, the podcast being an example, are able to convey their views most clearly and effectively - making it harder to disregard.

  What I did think was interesting about Shaun Rein is that he does not consider himself an apologist, but others do. At a very basic level he makes some decent points about China’s development and living standards in terms of freedoms.

  In sum, it does seem logical to say that if/when reform continues to happen, it has to come from a tactful guiding hand rather than a zealous and iron-fisted force.

• 12. Sarah Weinzapfel  |  February 12th, 2011 at 11:50 am

  I honestly had never heard of these terms before this post. Are they well known enough to where I should have? I gained a much better understanding of what a China Apologist is from the podcast, but am still a little hazy on the other terms. There were so many different opinions, I’m not sure where to start. Mainly, I agree with the fact that the terms are highly subjective. Like one of the pod casters noted that some of his views might seem apologist-like to Americans, but might seem extremely imperialistic to Chinese. It really just depends on where you’re standing and the angle that you’re looking in.

  I can’t help but to think of the discussions in our OB class with Coget about worldviews and that we need realize and accept that no two people have the same perspective on things and that doesn’t mean they’re wrong and you’re right. And we’ve come across the idea again in negotiations where it calls it naive realism. I think it’s critical to understand this concept and I think it’s critical for journalist to understand that a lot of people don’t understand this concept and should expect criticism. The men during the podcast discussed how you exactly define an apologist. I think some of the descriptions were a little too specific. The definition that I have ultimately come up with from their discussion is basically someone who just refuses to discuss any potentially necessary reform.

  I can’t really see how Rein would be an apologist. I do agree that positives should be praised and reform needs to be encouraged. I also agree that China, although has a long way to go, has come along way within the last decade. As far as Rein’s discussion on sanctions…I’ve never really thought about it. And while the points he make sound sensible, I don’t know that I have enough knowledge to be completely confident in that.

• 13. Anthony Kallioinen  |  February 12th, 2011 at 2:15 pm

  What is a China apologist? What I got from this article is that it is hard to explain because it is a subjective term; ‘it depends on who is doing the looking.’ Someone may be called one even if they do not see themselves as one. The podcast defined a China apologist as someone who is accused of defending the Chinese government. I think the real truth is that China apologist is label that people through around when they are debating against someone who does not feel as strongly about the need for reform in China as they do. People who cannot have a civilized and clear discussion about China (the strengths AND weaknesses of the Chinese government) are someone who could be considered a China apologist. These people tend to patronize anyone who criticizes the government because they believe that the situation is more complicated than someone who criticizes the government can possibly understand.

  Shaun for instance, says that he is not an apologist, but is someone who is only ‘giving credit where credit is due.’ He says that the government has done some really powerful things. Poverty has been largely eradicated in China; this is a really big push forward for the country and it shows how far they have come from only a decade ago. He also makes the point that there is criticism too: the education system needs reform. Lastly, he states that change needs to be done more delicately than the traditional way that America institutes reform – with a big stick. His example of this is that Google did not succeed in breaking into China. China does not trust Google because they think that there are political implications involved. He says that we must push for reform through domestic avenues, such as through Robin Li of Baidu who is also against censorship. Shaun also argues that the Chinese people have more freedoms that they could even think of a decade ago. Life in China is getting better, and this is because of the good work of the government. The government is also showing progress in that they are less fearful of web 1.0. Maybe the great firewall will not be exploded to pieces, but taken down brick by brick.

  I think I now understand more about what a ‘panda hugger’ and a ‘dragon slayer’ are. I feel that a ‘dragon slayer’ is a foreign (to China) business who is tired of trying to make it in China. They are sick of putting up with the difficult business climate and are ready to flex their muscles to make life difficult for China in other ways. A ‘panda hugger’ is more of an apologist and is aware that ‘our time is over and that we need them more than they need us.’ This is the type of person who wants to appease China because they realize this is the future and they want to be on the winning side.

  On a side note:
  I enjoyed Mr. Epstein’s comment about the ‘2 for 1’ special that the Groupon super bowl offered: ‘Offending both Chinese and Tibetan activists.’ I remember seeing this ad during the super bowl and wondering how a coupon website can make fun of this heated situation. Will Moss wrote about the same thing; it’s good to see that there are many who share this concern. Groupon may have made amazing strides over the past year or so, but they failed this time.

• 14. Tyler Sereno  |  February 13th, 2011 at 1:56 pm

  Before listening to this podcast, I was not familiar with what the meanings are of the labels “China Apologist”, “Dragon Slayer”, and “Centrist”. I had ideas for what they stood for, but the podcast really helped put things into perspective. They defined a China apologist as someone who defends the Chinese government. It was also mentioned that China apologists usually talk down to those who critique the Chinese government which I found interesting. It is often hard to find the lines that define whether or not someone is a China apologist because it depends on which side is looking at it.

  People who observe China often alter what they saw there so that they don’t offend the Chinese people or government. In the podcast, it was mentioned that both criticism of and credit to the Chinese government are needed. They also mention that a push for reform is necessary but should be done with a delicate hand. When they pushed hard for reform in the Google situation, it backfired. Overall, life is getting better for the Chinese people but reform is still needed.

  On a different note, I wanted to give props to these guys for mentioning Kim Jong II in Team America and how it portrayed how the people in the United States viewed him and North Korea. Team America is a great movie.

• 15. Tara Millard  |  February 13th, 2011 at 8:01 pm

  I found this pod cast to be extremely informative and thought provoking. Prior to watching this I have always seen a definition as black and white. How could a dictionary be published and utilized if this weren’t the case? How naïve I have been.

  The idea that a definition is by no means absolute but rather stems from personal experiences was an obvious yet perplexing idea. This claim makes the fact that each of the men in the pod cast referred to themselves as centrists one of debate. Although they saw themselves as such, the life experiences of others may cause this to be seen as misleading.

  Prior to watching this pod cast, I was unaware of what a “China Apologist” or “Dragon Slayer” was. Although I now have clarity on these terms, I see there relevance as questionable at best. These absolute terms that fall on polar ends of a spectrum are utilized as labels that eliminate any hint of a gray area. I couldn’t help but think of Democrats vs. Republicans in the United States, and the problems that stem from a nearly forced affiliation with one or the other. In reality, each and every individual rarely shares all of the views with the party in which they associate; rather they fall along the spectrum or the gray area. This polar and absolute affiliation fuels much unneeded and misplaced tension.

• 16. j hurley  |  February 16th, 2011 at 11:55 am

  In all honesty I have never heard of any of these terms. That being said, even after listening to the pod cast I feel that I still don’t completely understand where the terms come from or what they mean.

  That being said, from what I gather an apologist is someone who agrees or goes along with the government actions and decisions. It is thought that these apologists are on the opposite side of the Dragon Slayers

  The Dragon Slayers are those who do not agree with China’s government and are either more interested in the people or going against the existing government.

  Somewhere in between these two lies the Centrists who may take opinions and beliefs from both Dragon Slayers and Apologists.

  The “Post Card” defense sent in was very interesting. First off it seemed to me that in his defense against being accused of being an apologist, he only made himself sound more like one. There were also several other interesting topics as he explained that China needs a more of a “gentle hand” approach to help reform and will not succeed with “big stick” methods used by the U.S.

  Just on a side note, the idea that Google is working with the CIA made me feel like I was watching Conspiracy Theory…

• 17. Kyle R.  |  February 18th, 2011 at 10:28 pm

  After listening to this podcast, I now have general understanding of the terms China Apologist, Centrist, and Dragon Slayer. Honestly, I had never heard these terms before in relation to China. It was very interesting to hear each person in the podcast present their view on China and then argue on why it is correct. I don’t think that there is a black and white solution to the problems in China. I found it interesting when Shaun Rein stated that it is important to give credit where credit is due. I agreed with most of what he was saying, but I too would consider him a China apologist, primarily because he is supports some of what has been done there. However, I definitely think his view on the United States’ policy with North Korea which was presented in the Forbes article is skewed. Investing more money in North Korea would definitely help the people of North Korea, but also Kim Jong Il’s regime… which could potentially be more dangerous for our country as well as the world as a whole.

  I’m not sure what category I would fall into when describing my viewpoint on China. I really don’t know much about the country, people, and policy as of now. After our trip, I expect to have a better understanding of what China is like. I believe that a person must have an in-depth understanding of the Chinese history, lifestyle, culture, and policy before casting any judgment on how the government has influenced the quality of life for the people. Based on my learning thus far, it seems as if Shaun is correct in saying that real poverty has been dramatically reduced, but there is still room for improvement.

• 18. Jessie Wilkie  |  February 23rd, 2011 at 7:15 pm

  Rein’s article was really good. I could feel his passion coming through the words on the screen. He definitely had a personal connection with the topic given that he had studied and formed relationships with North Koreans. He has a firsthand sense of empathy for them. I mean these people were his classmates, and he had to see them in all their poverty. He was also left to wonder what became of his classmates-whether or not they went to labor camps when they had the lowest grade… I would feel impassioned if I had North Korean classmates! It would make an issue like sanctioning North Korea more personal. Rein does a great job of letting the passion out in a strong argument that is backed up by historical examples and wit. I applaud him for being both passionate and level-headed. This is a very difficult feat.

  The podcast was also very good. I had never heard the term China apologist before so I was really glad when they defined it. A China apologist is a person that is accused of defending the government. China apologists are known to patronize people who make critiques of the system. They often counter criticism with sayings like “everything is not black and white.” But how do you determine if someone is a China apologist? Well thats very subjective and the label depends on the labeler.

  Reins is accused by many people of being a China apologist. Once again, however, we must keep in mind that the label depends on the labeler. Reins does a great job articulating his position and views on China in an audio postcard that is played in the podcast. He made his point that he’s not a China apologist. 1) It’s important to criticize China and push for reform in certain areas. It’s also important to give credit where credit is due. Real poverty has been eliminated by Chinese government measures. The education system needs to be reformed. 2) How do you push for reform? He doesn’t take the American way. He says that you need to have a delicate hand from within to push for reform in China. The Google debacle hasn’t helped anyone. It actually hurt reformers within the government. 3) Chinese people enjoy more personal freedoms now then they did a decade ago. The government is less concerned with Web 1.0 now and more worried about Web 2.0.

  I thought that it made the podcast much more interesting to have Reins’ postcard. It made for some great conversation of philosophy: idealism versus pragmatism. This philosophical debate was brought back around to the Google affair in China. Was the Google debacle good or bad for China? The answer might be both. It was good to bring about discussion on censorship. The government needed that discussion because the Internet environment in China is BS (more an idealist point of view). It was bad because it hurt a lot of reformers within the Chinese government who had put their necks on the line for Google (more a pragmatist point of view).

  Overall, I thought that the podcast was very interesting. It was great hearing from a lot of experts in the field. It was also enlightening to learn of the struggles that they face. They claim to be centrists, but they are constantly bombarded. Often times they might even be referred to as apologists for just living in China. It’s fascinating how black and white people can view things.

• 19. Chris Bruns  |  February 25th, 2011 at 3:49 pm

  As some of the other blog comments state, I had never heard of these terms either. The definition of an apologist as a person that is defending the government of China, which helped me understand what was happening during the podcast. I also took from the discussion how they viewed North Korea and how it is changing. The similarities drawn is that it is essentially China, only that there is lacking the trade and openness. I really appreciated the points that one speaker mentioned that we need to give credit where credit is due but also to criticize and reform where it is needed. The point was made that the government will listen to individuals that want see China grow and succeed and do well in the world, and that honestly believe that reform will make things better. I agree with these points and that this is how things will be done in the China market, not through pointing fingers and heavy-handed criticizing.

  Ultimately what I got from the podcast is that hypocrisy and judging really has no place as we try to understand and work with China. In some way, both governments have done things towards people and culture that is not something to be proud of. In China things are getting better for the people, reforms are being made, the government is being less fearful, and things are moving forward. Both the speakers both brought up the point that things need to change and there is always room to improve, but the reforms being pushed needs to be done delicately and in a way that suits China.

• 20. Randy Camat  |  February 26th, 2011 at 3:34 pm

  To be honest, I have never heard of the words Chinese Apologist and Centrist before probably because I was never that into politics. I have heard of Dragon Slayer, but not in a political sense. After listening to the podcasts, I got a sense of what it means to be a Chinese Apologist as someone that is pro-government. I would assume that Dragon Slayers are those that bash on the Chinese government, and Centrists are those in between the two oppositions. So where do I fall among these categories? It depends on how you look at it. Mentioned in the podcast was the saying that even though you can be a Chinese Apologist here in the US, in China you’re viewed as a “Dragon Slayer.” If you ask me, I would probably qualify as a Centrist. I agree with Shuan Rein in saying criticism is good, but “give credit where credit is due.” It seems the theme of the podcast is being misunderstood and labeling people something they’re not.

• 21. Jason Jay Sharma  |  February 26th, 2011 at 5:57 pm

  Before reading this post and listening to the podcast, I wasn’t aware that there were specific titles for the views people have on China. Above all, the term “China Apologist” gains the most attention. The most interesting part about this term was at the end of the podcast; all the commentators discussed how they all may be viewed as a China Apologist depending on who views them and from what country.

  As for Shaun Rein’s and his Forbes article, I have two understandings about him. First, we can’t judge him based on his experiences (particularly growing up in China), but that is what builds his views. Second, labeling anyone in this circle, including Rein, is something that cannot be done so quickly because much of it is based on the views of the labeler. Rein does stand by his “Give credit where credit is due” stance, but at times I believe his giving more credit than is actually due. His ideas seem nice, but as the commentator’s suggest, his correlation of the present situation and WWI and WII doesn’t work that well.

  While these terms are new to me, I find them quite interesting and will keep them in the back of my mind as I read future articles on China–it might help me understand the author’s perspective much more. As for myself, I am far from educated enough on all of China’s history to make title decision for myself. As I read and learn about China more, I will hopefully have a better understanding of where I fall (but ultimately hope that I balance well enough that I will not be pigeon-holed into just one term).

• 22. Ben Raymond  |  March 3rd, 2011 at 11:34 pm

  The terms discussed in the podcast are new to me. I have a much better idea of what an apologist and centrist are and can deduce the meaning of dragon slayer from them. An apologist is someone who defends the Chinese government, a dragon slayer attacks it, and a centrist is somewhere in the middle. Many centrists are viewed as either apologist or dragon slayer by the opposing view.

  I don’t think it is appropriate to label anyone an outright apologist, centrist, or dragon slayer. I think this very much depends on who is doing the labeling and the context it is under. I think peoples views change all the time and I would like to see China for myself before making such subjective judgments.

• 23. Amanda Podesta  |  March 6th, 2011 at 11:59 am

  I think I try to be a Centrist. I don’t know enough about China to be comfortably either a Panda Hugger or Dragon Slayer.
  I’ve heard the case against sanctions before. Rather than lambasting Clinton, Rein fails to put enough import on just how much “footsy” Kim Jong Il had been playing with everything from his nuclear program to his antagonist military procedures against S. Korea that led up to the sanctions. Economic sanctions are diplomatic last resorts… they aren’t imposed lightly, their deleterious impact for both sides are recognized but compared to the alternative isn’t it more civilized than war?
  Rein’s article also fails to look at the larger picture. It’s not surprising that embargoes are hardly ideal. But once in place, the sanctions have to stay implemented until there’s been improvements so that when America’s diplomatic services threaten economic sanctions in other instances, it remains effective. Rein makes no mention of all the times when threats of economic embargoes have made dictators cooperate and brought bickering fractions to the table. So, embargoes: not ideal but better than the alternative.

• 24. Tim Easton  |  March 8th, 2011 at 7:57 pm

  I was not familiar with any of these terms before this blog post. After listening to the podcast I feel like I have a pretty good understanding of all three. An apologist is a person accused of defending the government. An interesting point made about apologists was that they talk down to, or patronize, people who make critiques of the government. The term dragon slayer was not as clearly defined in the podcast, but I would have to assume that it is someone that is opposed to the Chinese government. I found it interesting that all of the people in the podcast considered themselves centrist. A centrist is someone that draws fire from both sides, and changes their view depending on the situation. After learning about the different terms, I found two different topics very helpful. The first was how the messages in the media were slightly tweaked to appease the people. They said that this made the Chinese government uncomfortable, but that it is good for the China to be uncomfortable. The second interesting piece was the view of Kim Jong Il. They said that most people think of him as the puppet from the movie “Team America”, and I would have to agree with this point especially among the younger generation. I would like to listen to more of their podcasts.

• 25. Chris Fung  |  March 8th, 2011 at 11:26 pm

  I am one of those people who did not know what a dragon slayer, panda hugger or a centrist was until now. After this, I believe I am probably in the same boat (or island) as a centrist. There are things where I am willing to give credit to the Chinese government and there are things where I think they have failed miserably and deserve criticism. I agree with many of my classmates –it depends on who is making the labeling on whether a person is a slayer, hugger or centrist. This is due to the fact that everyone looks at issues through different lenses formed from their background and world view. I find it hard, however, for people to be ardent slayers or huggers because I don’t know if you can take a stance without giving some acknowledgement for the view or rational of the other perspective.

  My take on this issue is to be objective as possible. Sure, the Chinese government has had its fair share of mistakes and violations in regards to free speech, freedom of information, human rights, etc. and I am one of those who would agree. But you have to consider what the government has done in bringing about change in terms of a capitalistic economy and the freedoms that many Chinese now that didn’t exist 20 years ago. Sure the heavy-handedness of the government struck down dissent, but it also moved along modernization reforms that have not been paralleled anywhere else. It has helped change the standard of living and bring many of its people out of poverty. But China still has its problems, as do any other nation, developed or developing alike. People say that healthcare and education are a problem that is to be blamed on the government but here in the United State, we do have the same problems – the healthcare bill will not solve all problems and the U.S. education system lags behind many other Asian countries including China. Therefore I don’t think you can claim or label one extreme or another, as in the case of Rein.

• 26. JP Salazar  |  March 12th, 2011 at 4:56 pm

  The concept of an experiential dictionary is an interesting one and one that has interested me for quite some time. It has always intrigued me how language works. We define things and associate their characteristics within our own personal experience. As an example, the classifying and naming of colors has always interested me. We all have a sense of what the color green is. It is the color of money, grass, and trees. But our understanding of green comes from our own perceptions of the world around us. We don’t really know what green is, we just know what things look like that we are told are green. Two people looking at the same object will describe its shape and color the same way. But they are not necessarily seeing the same thing. They are just making associations with things they have seen in the past and referencing their learned definitions of what they are seeing. To help explain this, think of someone who is colorblind just to the color red. When they look at a red object, what they see is grey or a void. But their experience has led them to associate that vision with the color red. They are still able to identify the color of the object, because red to them always looks like grey.
  This is an interesting concept when applied to how people are viewed in relation to their views on China’s government policies. As the speakers identify, these terms are very subjective in nature. While one of the speakers identifies himself as a centralist, he is seen throughout China as an apologist because he goes onto Chinese television. He states that he tries to present some criticisms of the Chinese government in his appearances but has to be careful in how far he goes. But because he is not as critical as some people would like to see, he is seen as a kind of pawn for the government. His purpose is to show how liberal Chinese media has become while not providing any real criticism. This kind of shows some of the defense mechanisms that people on both sides of the debate use. Apologists take on a kind of patronizing attitude when dealing with people who are criticizing their government. They refuse to talk about the real issues, instead focusing on the idea that the concept is more complicated that how it is being presented. This lack of a forum to discuss the real issues goes back to the whole censorship debate. How can thoughtful and effective discussion occur, and solutions to the problems be hashed out, without the availability or determination to do so. If both sides of the debate do not wish to listen to the other side, not to mention not be allowed to communicate on the topic due to government censorship, how can a solution be achieved?
  Overall, I think this podcast did a good job of relating the three terms to the outlooks of people in China. However, I do not think that they actually defined the terms very well. I would say that at this stage of my understanding of China’s policies that I am a centrist. While I think that many of the Chinese policies are heavy handed, I do not think that China being governed by American ideals is the answer either. China is a country that is very different from where I have spent my entire life. As such, China needs to develop policies that work for them, in their situation.

• 27. Matt Streiter  |  March 13th, 2011 at 3:45 pm

  Prior to listening to this podcast I had no idea what these terms meant, but putting them into context I was able to make assumptions that were affirmed by the podcast. There are a few thoughts I had while listening to them. First China apologists, who talk down or patronize people who question what they are saying or preaching seems counter productive to their purpose. I feel for someone to stick to one of the titles or being characterized as one is too presumptuous or if they do feel radically loyal to one side they will be taking actions that are not completely representative of their beliefs but more of a display of loyalty to an overlying cause.

  For me to categorize myself would be difficult. I don’t feel I have enough knowledge or experience with China to make a legitimate association to one side or the other. Going to China I believe will create a much greater perspective for me being I will have a first hand experience of the country. Realistically I highly doubt that I will have a strong association as an apologist or dragon slayer. Politically China is far leaps away from the United States and to compare them to us is going to display strong nationalism out of the U.S.’s strong loyalty to democracy and capitalism.

• 28. J Vail  |  March 14th, 2011 at 12:50 pm

  It would have been better to actually see this conversation, but I did enjoy listening to a debate that went across nationalities and opinions. Each speaker had a different take on their own experiences in China, but all engaged in a respectful and constructive conversation that showed the complexity of every issue in China. A lot of the conversation remained around the centrist opinion, but the reiteration of certain topics communicated the number of arguments that could be made on every issue.

  I wasn’t entirely clear on all the terms in this podcast, but I took away that an apologist absorbs ‘indefensible’ comments and merely tries to defuse criticism towards it’s government. I felt that there was a parallel to the blog on Chinese sweatshops; there are plenty of American apologists but we feel like that is justified because of our higher, more advanced standard of living. We do not respect the efforts of Chinese apologists because we do not consider their standards of living to be acceptable in our eyes, but in reality we cannot ‘put ourselves in their shoes’ when we do so with our own cultural biases.

• 29. Omar Pradhan  |  March 18th, 2011 at 1:11 pm

  I like the statement made by Shaun Rein: “to be a truthful person you need to be objective and give credit where credit is due…” From this, I would also add that objective truth occurs at multiple levels. Allow me to explain what I mean with a long drawn out analogy. If you are appreciating truth while zipping around on the surface of an electron, objectively, you are moving very fast. If you zoom out your perspective and find yourself as part of an aluminum molecule on a supersonic Concorde jet, objectively, you are still moving very fast but this appreciation of truth is different from before (even though your starting frame is still anchored to the electron). Now if you zoom out by several powers of ten and the entire universe is brought into focus, you are no longer moving very fast. Instead, you are covering very little ground in the grand scheme of things. At many levels of analysis, we can see that the objective truth of our appreciation of speed is a moving target, especially as we zoom through time and space. Similarly, if we are to look at human rights in China versus Saudi Arabia versus North Korea versus Cuba, we as 21st century Americans can appreciate a certain objective truth on the condition of human rights. However, if we slip back a few hundred years and look at these modern countries from a 17th century American standard, we objectively have a very different appreciation (e.g. African Americans were 3/5ths of a person, women could not vote, corporations were not people – wink, wink, etc.). Clearly, context is everything; all measures of objective truth are co-dependent on a contextual reality. I am neither a slayer or a hugger or a centrist. I am but one person making an assessment of what I see of China, as appreciated through the lens of my life experience: a 34 year old American living in the 21st century. When I read / hear Kuo, Goldkorn, Epstein, Moss, Rein or anyone else, I do my best to evaluate truth claims objectively, for myself. We have a regrettable tendency toward expert worship because we are often so busy and don’t set aside the necessary time to think critically, analytically, for ourselves. I guess what I’m trying to say is…if you want my opinion on China, sanctions on N. Korea (I happened to have a front row seat on this history…sat in the UN Security Council during deliberations and final passage of the resolution), inconsistencies with Cuba, etc…grab a cup of coffee cause it’s going to take a while for me to give you my best shot at a nuanced, contextualized perception of what I “think” is going on.

• 30. Kevin K.  |  December 22nd, 2011 at 3:36 pm

  In terms of the labels “apologist,” “dragon slayer,” or “centrist,” I think the way the guys on the podcast described it through the lens of Google’s situation in China is really appropriate. While if you agree with the Chinese government, you are a sympathizer or an “apologist;” with “dragon slayer” presumably taking Google’s side in this affair, but despite all this I will never understand our country’s infatuation with labels. Leftist, conservative, moderate: all the same when talking about these Chinese terms and political mindsets. But for these three terms — with Panda Hugger being a synonym for apologist and dragon slayer referring to anyone who is ready for the Chinese government to change and open up to businesses and information — taking the middle road seems appropriate.

  For me, I find that being a centrist labels you as having an understanding of both sides of the argument. And while you may lean one way, or think that Google in particular is championing free information, being a centrist means you respect both sides for their points of view, or at least understand why they act how they are. After the previous blog posts where we first heard from Kaiser Kuo, I think he really has the right idea in being a self-labeled centrist, which I’m learning allows you to effectively walk the line between the two sides.

• 31. Vladimir  |  December 25th, 2011 at 1:29 am

  I heard the terms apologist and centrist before, but not panda hugger or dragon slayer. If I were to label myself right now, I’d say I lean toward dragon slayer (As I understand the term, it is the opposite of China apologist). With so little knowledge in an area, I’d like to say “I don’t know” instead of picking from the three choices, but in this case, my view is influenced by my emigrating from the Communist Soviet Union and being raised in America. I was too young when I left the Soviet Union to remember much about life there (though I do remember that my standard of living was lower), but everyone in my family is happier living in the USA. The stronger one feels about something, the less information they need to form an opinion about it. As I learn more about China, I’ll be able to categorize my position more fairly, and it may move toward the center.

  I agree that the label depends on the context. In some circles, saying one positive thing about the Chinese government may brand someone an apologist. I also found that nuance is the enemy of activist organizations. Casting issues in black and white makes it simpler to explain them to followers and build support.

• 32. Grant  |  January 14th, 2012 at 1:07 pm

  I had heard the terms Centralist, Dragon Slayer, and Panda hugger before, but not in specific relationship to what it means to be an Apologist.
  To me, the part of the discussion that was most interesting is the difference between idealism and pragmatism. Generally, when someone is first presented with a less than ideal situation, say poverty in China, it is easy to throw stones and say, “they ought to do ___”, when the more you learn about something, you realize that there is only a certain amount that can actually be done. Often times, idealism is a function of ignorance of the situation, other times, it is simply keeping your eye on the goal.
  The gentleman who was accused of being an apologist was most likely being criticized by folks who were not necessarily more idealistic, but less pragmatic about the situation. Personally, I have found that if I am going to affect some sort of change on the behalf of others, it does no good to be dogmatic about my perspective. Often it is good to concede on a point or two, to give accolades, even if they don’t meet the ideal, in order to achieve positive change. That doesn’t mean that principles have been compromised, but rather, that you are being more pragmatic in reaching your ideals, than simply being pig-headed and refusing to budge.
  If I am ever in a position to do business in China, I would have to lay down my ideals and allow myself to be pragmatic to get anything done. There are all sorts of collateral damage that can come from being overly idealistic, the least of which is simply not being able to get anything accomplished, due to what it will do to relationship building, which is absolutely essential to business anywhere.
  Rare indeed is the thing that is black and white. Most things come in varying shades of gray, that require tact and discernment. It would be a mistake to say that being pragmatic is compromising the ideal. Being pragmatic may be the only way in which one can move toward the ideal.

• 33. Daniel Fleek  |  January 16th, 2012 at 2:41 pm

  Before viewing this podcast, I had never heard of those terms although I had an idea about what they mean. I believe it is important to understand where the people of each of these views come from as this can help us understand certain issues better. That is why I identify mostly as being a centrist. I thought the speech by Kaiser Kuo was an excellent example of a centrist perspective. I liked how whenever he made a statement about something, he would also offer the opposing sides viewpoint. I agree that the Chinese government has done a lot to better their country in the last 30 years by improving its ocitizens overall well being. However, that being said, I also believe there is much more for the government to embark on especially on issues on the environment and on improving the living conditions of the poor. In general though, I believe the stance that one takes depends on the issue itself. For example, many people may side with Google because they agree with Google on the issues of internet censorship. However, the same people may agree that even though there is an internet censorship, the government has helped improve the overall well being of its people. I find it therefore hard to be either a apologist or dragon slayer on all subjects and think that being a centrist will help someone learn more about certain issues than to take a preconceived stance on the subject.

Leave a Comment

Name Required

Email Required, hidden

Url

Comment

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed

The posts, comments and/or views expressed on this trip blog, whether by a Cal Poly student or faculty or an outside guest to the blog, do not necessarily reflect the policies or views of Cal Poly, the Orfalea College of Business (OCOB), any of the OCOB's graduate programs and/or other students who participate in the trip.