Comments on: Are You A China Apologist (i.e., Panda Hugger), A Dragon Slayer, A Centrist, Or You Don’t Know?

By: Keith Cody

Keith Cody — Fri, 16 Mar 2012 12:26:07 +0000

Bejing Review summarizes both sides nicely:
http://www.bjreview.com.cn/eye/txt/2010-08/09/content_289707.htm

First, to clarify: panda huggers are total China advocates—people who feel that the world’s future rests on the country’s massive, burly shoulders, that the Western media gives the Chinese Government a raw deal and that China is simply the most exciting place in the world to be right now. They are in the red corner, as it were.

In the non-red corner, dragon slayers simply don’t believe the hype: China will not be the world’s next superpower because it does not play by fair economic rules, and all the social unrest caused by rural poverty or human rights abuses will eventually cause the country to “do a Soviet Union.”

Forbes has a nice article about the Panda-Hugger v Dragon Slayer debate.

I think I find myself on the Dragon-Slayer side. I general don’t believe the hype, but what else are you going to do. China has some really problems, growth is already slowing, their young population growth in declining and they have serious water issues. Maybe in 10-20 years, China is a hollow shell of what could have been. Like an abandoned Disneyland.

John Searle a noted philosophy professor argues in Minds,Brains and Science that philosophical disagreements really boils down to miscommunication. The same term having different meanings to each debater.

By: Ashley Tyra

Ashley Tyra — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 01:44:52 +0000

Before this post, I had never heard of the terms “panda hugger,” “dragon slayer,” or “centrist.” I would have to say I have the curse of the centrist in this highly polarized situation. One of the men in the podcast said it well, “it is so dependent on who is doing the looking.” As they discussed, it is hard to define who exactly is an apologist. Even though Shaun Rein does not call himself an apologist, his stance on issues like these three suggests that he is:

1 – It is important to give credit to the Chinese government where credit is due.
2 – Push for continued reform driven from within.
3 – Chinese people today enjoy personal freedoms that they could not have expected even a decade ago.

I think knowing the arguments for both sides and being able to ask relevant questions is key. As a centrist, it is good to be able to see where both arguments have validity and to see where each side is coming from.

By: Fred S.

Fred S. — Sat, 10 Mar 2012 20:26:08 +0000

The term apologist is quite subjective. Defining someone as an apologist depends on who is doing the listening/defining. Similar to the experiential dictionary, a person speaking on China can be viewed as apologist from one’s cultural perspective, but not an apologist from another’s perspective. An apologist would be someone radically supports what the Chinese government is doing, sometimes, without even understanding the entire story. A lot of times these apologist try to defend situations that are undefendable be saying such things as “you wouldn’t understand” or “it’s more complicated than that,” without a full understanding themselves.

Shaun defends that he is not an apologist, but “gives credit where credit is due.” He is not apologizing for the Chinese government’s actions on its censorship, but instead understands how the market works in China. My goal from these studies and trip to China is to be neither a dragon slayer nor panda hugger, but to have the wear with all to give credit where credit is due and to be able to call out or support actions I see or hear about in China with a deeper understanding and perspective.

By: Georgia

Georgia — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 23:21:01 +0000

I had not heard about the term ‘Chinese apologist’ before the podcast. I am a skeptical person, who believes that if it sounds too good to be true than it probably is. So being against people who are critical seems you are giving up your rights, unless you are completely subdued. Pertaining to the term, “talk down to critics,” I don’t believe that any government can be completely satisfactory. Even if one group’s needs are completely filled, a different group could be greatly lacking. It definitely reflects the United States. Do not get this confused with the government hearing and fixing their problems though. I think the difference lies in the fact that if a disenfranchised group in America feels overwhelmed, they share their stories with whoever will listen and march or protest. But in China they are not given this right.
Asking the hard questions- “how do you push reform” needs to be asked more. I do agree that life is getting better for the Chinese people. It is hard to think that they used to have to get permission to marry from their work units. Small steps forward still means you are moving forward. I think it is very important to stop judging China by America’s growth and freedoms. We have never been the same country. To simplify it greatly China is an old country (3,800 years according to Andrew Morris) which has been very isolated in their recent history while the United States is a young country that came of age quickly. I’m sure that I could read many books and articles and still not come to a concrete stance, but I don’t believe that I would ever be completely on one side or the other.

By: Charles Dornbush

Charles Dornbush — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 00:18:54 +0000

I wasn’t aware of the terms “Panda Hugger” or “Dragon Slayer” before reading this post, but I did understand their viewpoints. I thought the podcast was very entertaining and sharp at describing the qualities of the “China Apologist”. I agree with the speakers that Shaun Rein is an apologist, with him justifying harsh censorship. I feel I fall into the “Centrist” category. When I talk to friends or roommates about China, I find myself talking them down from their view as an absolute, authoritarian government, like North Korea. One surprising thing I heard from this podcast was the comparison between China and North Korea, from someone who has been to North Korea. He said that there wasn’t much difference between the countries which I have been denying to my friends for the last couple months. On the other hand, I find myself resisting to those who speak of China as it as just as free as America, and that Chinese people enjoy a wealth of freedom. Just like the guys in this podcast, I feel attacked by both sides sometimes.

By: Jeffrey Brown

Jeffrey Brown — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 08:49:54 +0000

I learned quite a bit about North Korea from this and got a better picture of how it relates to China and its freedoms in question. I had never heard of the terms “Apologist”, “Dragon Slayer”, or “Centrist” as far as categorizing groups of people and what they stand for before this. At this point, I do not think I could clearly categorize myself in any of these until I really know the arguments of each party involved. Most likely, I would agree with one side on many issues while agreeing with another on others. Based off of what I know now though, I could see myself as a “Dragon Tamer” - one that does not side with the Apologists but is open to hearing their arguments in hopes of bringing forth reform.

By: Daniel Fleek

Daniel Fleek — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 22:41:20 +0000

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.

By: Grant

Grant — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 21:07:15 +0000

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.

By: Vladimir

Vladimir — Sun, 25 Dec 2011 09:29:43 +0000

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.

By: Kevin K.

Kevin K. — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 23:36:52 +0000

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.