Chinese Voices in the Wake of "314"

SINGAPORE — "This is war, this is the clash of civilizations." Among the biggest changes in the century or so since the opening up of China ("carving up," the indignant blogger quoted above would say) is surely the Internet. Upon it the Chinese have descended in droves, in the aftermath of "314," their appellation for the climax of March's Tibetan riots, to make their displeasure plain.

Though plain is perhaps not quite the word to use, since these Chinese commenters and bloggers post in Mandarin, effectively making their complaints less obvious to foreigners. The West does not realize how riled up the Chinese really are. The translated quotations in this article, taken from various Chinese forums and blogs, should present a fair idea of their indignation.

The scale of this reaction is unprecedented. Nancy Pelosi, China's "most reviled person," has been accused of "double standards" by state media, while Times correspondent Jane Macartney's article on Tibet ("Tibet monks storm shrine visit in daring protest over Chinese "lies"") drew more than 10,000 comments on a Chinese news aggregator site.

But among the most vocal — and, judging from the demonstrations against Western media in London and Paris, most active — are those members of the Chinese diaspora now residing overseas. Plain, too, would not properly describe the lyricism of some Chinese forum posts, their pithy epithets, their inclination to metaphor. "Of course, business should be done, and friends made; but we must remember that [rapacious] tigers and wolves hold sway in the West."

For the most part, the Chinese are angry because the Beijing Olympics is their big day, their debutante's ball, where they will parade their impressive economic and cultural achievements. 2008 also happens to be the 30th anniversary of China's market-oriented economic reforms. The West, they think, is merely seizing upon the Tibet issue to diminish their accomplishments, to put them down.

Indeed, the Chinese see this as a Western imperialist ploy to deny them their rightful place on the world stage. "Truth-distorting" Western media like the BBC and CNN, in particular, are the targets of spirited vitriol: a website has been set up to repudiate the lies in these "biased" sources, especially the "photos cropped to mislead." Nor is it just the media that are coming under fire. Mentioned in the same breath as the International Tibet Independence Movement (ITIM) or the Tibetan Youth Congress (TYC) (a group often referred to as "terrorists") are the CIA. Talk of foreign funding runs rife; conspiracy theories abound. One such argument comes from one of the most popular Chinese forums, MITBBS, where stickied posts include a "people's Youtube battle" (the modus operandi: "make favorite, comment on and give five stars to favorable videos; mark unfavorable ones as spam").

Originally set up by a Chinese student at MIT to discuss politics without fear of censorship, the forum counts among its members many overseas Chinese. One writer, with about twenty posts to his name, prefaces his thoughts with an admission of profound disillusionment — "at first, many of us Chinese thought, naively, that foreign media were impartial and fair; but from today onwards I'll teach my own son that foreign media are just the slaves of money."

His theory: "The 3/14 riots were meticulously planned and orchestrated... it was all to force the Chinese into an excessive display of force, and into the trap of the Western media... Just who's backing the ITIM?" Their speculation has about it the flavor of the beleaguered, the besieged, the (ironically) oppressed and, quite naturally, neglected. Increasingly the language of war, the polarization into "us versus them" is making itself heard. History weighs heavy on the minds of these Chinese; references to the opium war are common, for example: "200 years ago they traded opium for our riches, Hong Kong, Macau. If we give them another chance, they'll definitely come back to gobble us up."

Neither do the Chinese think that Tibet should be given independence. "Tibet," a poster on another forum argues, "has been part of China for more than 700 years, and was the Tibet Autonomous Region for more than 50 years; for these fifty-plus years, or at least till March this year, Tibetans have been living harmoniously together with us as one beautiful Chinese family." This sentiment, echoed often by state media, is common. An MITBBS poster notes that many Americans have not realized where Tibet is situated (and thus its strategic importance), or how big it is. (It's the second-largest province in China, the size of "4.9 Oregons") The Chinese also fear that should the Tibetans have things their way other minorities like the Uighurs will stir up trouble too. More to the point, they argue, foreign media are already mistakenly biased in their choice of words for the Chinese response, for "the action the China government took against the Tibetans was not a 'crackdown' but the quelling of an internal uprising...if an uprising occurred in any country, that country's government would have to take action." It is not hard to see why the Chinese feel that the Western media has "mixed up truth and falsehood."

Besides, what right does the uppity West, they ask, have to trample on others' freedoms in the name of freedom, to practice this ultimate hypocrisy? "Outsiders should not meddle in our internal affairs," runs a common refrain. As one such poster pointed out, often the West, in the name of democracy, interferes in the workings of, or even invades, other countries. The interests of the many outweigh that of the few, others say. Public safety is more important; they are thankful that the Chinese government has dealt with the "terrorists."

A few Chinese, however, have expressed reservations. "We should win the Dailai Lama's support," argued a journalism student on MITBBS, on April 14, "instead of following the government's heed in demonising him." Identifying astutely the reason for the strong Chinese reaction — they had come to expect too much of the Western media; no media source is entirely impartial — she exhorted her fellow Chinese to cooperate with the Dalai Lama, "who has often publicly rejected violence, and who does not seek independence for Tibet... What we should oppose is the the more radical Tibet Youth Congress." Replies so far range from the moderate — "Yes, we should oppose the TYC instead, they seem to be the masterminds of the violence" and "Of course both sides are in the wrong" — to the strident: "We mustn't bow our heads in submission. Otherwise we'll have to listen obediently to that demon priest."

But too often those who do take a more considered approach are branded "traitors." Take Wang Qianyuan, whose actions at a Chinese protest at Duke have become one of the most fiercely debated topics on Chinese forums. According to Globalvoices.org, she merely crossed over to the Tibetan side to attempt a dialogue. Angry forum users have filled countless pages with invective, even posting her contact details and address. At popular Chinese forum Netease, a poster asking for a more cool-headed response to Wang Qianyuan's actions — while still maintaining that patriotism was necessary, and that independence was impossible for Tibet — was ridiculed by others. At MITBBS, in addition to the usual insults, some posters, wondering if she acted as she did for a green card or fame, sigh that she "doesn't think about her parents." Only one or two users, in a thread with multiple pages, were more neutral: "Why all this vituperation?"

>> Click to see more translated excerpts