International pundits chomping at the bit for something provokingly sensational to declare in past years have said that the 21st century would be China’s century. Power-hungry Chinese searching for the wish fulfillment of their dreams will champion this slogan. And even average Chinese long-suffering from their own self-inflicted humiliations will hopefully proclaim that yes, this is their century.
But it isn’t. In an age of global interdependence and instant news messaging, the 21st century belongs to no one, let alone the dreamers of China and their Taiwanese counterparts.
China will certainly self-destruct before it can claim a century. It is in their blood; it is in their upbringing, it is in their culture. They remain a nation of indoctrinated slaves, indoctrinated sheep. In the end, they will remain children of Bo Yang’s (柏楊) soy paste vat mentality mired in stagnant beliefs imposed by hierarchical paradigms. Just when they have a chance at redemption, the soy paste vat mentality will do them in.
What Lu Xun (魯迅) said nearly a century ago still proves true. Chinese history can be divided into two ages: “the age when the Chinese people wanted to be enslaved but couldn’t and the age when they were enslaved.” Which one they are in now, I leave for you to decide.
A half-century later, Bo Ren (伯仁) wrote to Bo Yang, “The Chinese people have never been able to think of themselves as the masters of China and hence have always acted like slaves. The message hidden in the soy paste vat tells them: China belongs to the emperor, the generals, the ministers, the heroes and the warriors; the common people are destined to be slaves.”
The only change that need be made in Bo Ren’s lines is to substitute the words Politburo Standing Committee (PSC) for emperor.
How do the slave mentality and soy paste vat combine to work together? Begin with a non-transparent, unquestioned government, then add the role of national face that both feeds on and feeds off of the slave mentality and thus perpetuates it. This recently played out in China’s hosting of the Olympics. China spent US$43 billion on the Olympics. Was it worth it? The rulers of China will say that it was and the people will accept this willingly. Then in Orwellian fashion the PSC will claim that it was they and only they that gave the nation face.
It is estimated that London will spend some US$12 billion on the 2012 Olympics. How can the British aim to spend some US$30 billion less than China? Does the UK have less face than China? Or is there something more beneath the surface?
Forty-three billion dollars is a hefty price tag for face, especially when an individual’s life is so cheap in China. If this is China’s century, why then does it need to buy face at US$43 billion? Do the people of China accept this price tag? Of course they do; they have been indoctrinated to accept it.
Take a different perspective. Some 70,000 people died in poorly constructed homes and schools in last year’s Sichuan earthquakes. The average family that lost children in such schools received approximately US$9,000. Is this a just compensation package in a country that can spend US$43 billion on face?
In a society that enforces a one-child policy, what satisfaction does US$9,000 bring when the family’s dream and pride is buried in crumbled ruins of construction that some politician got rich from?
RSS