A new kind of Chinese nationalism

I have one slight issue with this article I wrote. But I still more or less like it. here

Chinese nationalism: from May 4th to recent anti-foreign sentiment to disaster relief

By Jennifer Haskell

This year’s anniversary of the May 4^th Movement coincidentally fell at a time of resurgent Chinese nationalism in the face of widespread protests of the Olympic torch relay and allegations of anti-Chinese bias in the Western media. Thinking back 89 years, it becomes obvious that Chinese nationalism is nothing new and has deep roots in modern Chinese history. Many commentators have compared the recent events to the 1999 protests after the United States accidentally bombed the Chinese Belgrade embassy and 2005 protests of Japanese textbooks that gloss over history. Yet, today’s “angry youth” (fen qing) who have demonstrated in front of and called for a boycott of Carrefour also have forbearers in the early twentieth century, though unlike their May 4^th predecessors, they lack much of a motivating ideology that goes beyond love of country.

On May 4, 1919, students protested in Tiananmen Square against the Treaty of Versailles, which had been completed in April and gave Germany’s concession in Shandong to the Japanese instead of back to China. The students undoubtedly thought of themselves as patriots. They were indignant at foreign countries for taking advantage of and ignoring China’s interests and also at the new Chinese government for not daring to stand up to such encroachments. In anger, demonstrators burnt down the house of Cao Rulin, the Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs and part of the Chinese delegation at the Paris Peace Conference. Growing support for the student-led movement forced the government to release arrested students, refuse to sign the Treaty of Versailles, and fire three targeted officials including Cao Rulin. The May 4^th demonstrations also promoted a rather effective boycott of Japanese goods in protest of Japan’s aggression against China.

Today’s nationalism has certainly taken a different, more modern face; much of it is expressed online in BBS forums and by attaching “[heart] China” to MSN screennames, and it has also spread to overseas Chinese who have demonstrated against the West’s treatment of their homeland. Different in form, much of the general sentiment is the same as the May 4 protesters’ almost 90 years ago. Chinese patriots again have a sense of being wronged by foreign countries, both in the biased and outright incorrect reporting on the March riots in Lhasa and the disruption of the torch relay by “Free Tibet” protesters in Western countries. Similar to other anti-foreign protests in the past – including the May 4^th movement – today’s nationalists have called for boycotts of foreign businesses, focusing on the French supermarket chain Carrefour, which has alleged but unsubstantiated ties to the Dalai Lama. Unlike in 1919, enthusiasm for the boycott died down quickly as some small protests occurred at stores throughout the country, but most people continued to shop.

Recent nationalism has focused more on wrongdoings by foreign countries, but it has also taken on Chinese citizens who are seen as “traitors” to the nation. Nationalist netizens have targeted Duke University student, Grace Wang, who urged dialogue with “Free Tibet” protesters and former heroine and handicapped torchbearer Jin Jing who opposed the Carrefour boycott. Wang, especially, has become an object of netizens’ anger, as the lives of her and her family members have been threatened, their home vandalized, and her high school diploma revoked. Today’s nationalists, unlike their 1919 predecessors, for the most part, have not targeted the government. The CCP has become rather adept at allowing Chinese citizens to vent through nationalism while not letting it get out of hand, both for the sake of foreign relations and the stability of the government. Xinhua and other media published a slew of articles condemning biased reporting in the West and the inflammatory remarks made by CNN’s Jack Cafferty, thereby proving the government's nationalist credentials. Yet when calls for a boycott strengthened, the government quickly attempted to dampen anti-foreign sentiment for fear it would become uncontrollable. The May 4^th Movement was a clear demonstration of dissatisfaction with the Nationalist government's handling of foreign affairs, and today, the CCP is quite attune to how quickly nationalism could turn against the Party.

Yet, the May 4^th Movement represents much more than pure anti-foreign, nationalist sentiment. It is inextricably intertwined with the New Culture Movement of the same period. The New Culture Movement, led by Chinese intellectuals including Chen Duxiu and Hu Shi, advocated the adoption of Western ideas – the most iconic of which were Science and Democracy – in order to modernize and compete with the West. On the anniversary in 2006, while speaking at Beijing Normal University, Premier Wen Jiabao emphasized Science and Democracy as the main themes of the May 4th Movement, which should continue to be applied today, even going so far as to say that democracy includes criticism and oversight of government.

Still, the meaning of May 4^th, the New Culture Movement, and the ties between the two are up for debate. While some claim that the New Culture Movement represented not a revival of culture as Hu Shi claimed but a total destruction of traditional Chinese culture, while others assert that it was not a renunciation of all traditional culture but was more of a search for ideas that worked. Others argue that May 4^th and the New Culture Movement should not be conflated, and Hu Shi himself saw the two as very separate. Instead, the CCP created the idea of a close connection between the two, utilizing the legacy of May 4 for its own purposes and defining the movement in a way that has set up the Party as the movement's natural successor. Still, even if one sees the May 4^th Movement in isolation from the New Culture Movement, there is no doubt that May 4 and the spirit it represented helped push forward new intellectual thought in the early twentieth century and that it remains a symbol of “Science and Democracy” in the consciousness of the PRC. An article in the Beijing Daily described the May 4th Movement as a search for a new direction, something which definitely applies to the New Culture Movement as well. At the time, China was in a state of flux and seeking the appropriate response to changes thrust upon the country as well as its own place in the world.

There is no doubt that contemporary China is also in the midst of great change, as the Chinese people once again are trying to figure out where they stand. The paradox of both standing up to the West while at the same time utilizing Western ideas was certainly not reconciled in 1919, and today's young nationalists represent a similar paradox. Despite resentment towards the West, it is unlikely that many Chinese today would wish to return to the isolation of the Cultural Revolution. Their lifestyles demonstrate that they have benefited from Reform and Opening, but they do not see Western ideas, least of all democracy, as a panacea. In fact, the “angry youth” come across as distinctly undemocratic, as their treatment of dissenting opinions makes clear. In addition to vilifying Grace Wang, they have also attacked Chang Ping, former deputy editor in chief at Southern Weekend, for arguing for a freer media to counter Western media bias as well as a re-thinking of the Dalai Lama, likely causing him to be demoted. So, other than doubt of the West, what do today's young nationalists stand for? An article in the Southern Metropolis Daily asked this question and concluded that today's youth, unlike previous generations of nationalists, do not have any unifying ideology. While today's “angry youth” are definitely searching for a new direction for China, just as their May 4^th predecessors were, they have not provided many answers as to what that direction could be. If not “Democracy and Science,” then what? To stand for nothing, beyond support for one's country right or wrong, is dangerous and could justify Western worries about the future nature of China's rise.

In a recent op-ed in the International Herald Tribune, David Shambaugh discussed the existence of two types of nationalism in China – “aggrieved, defensive nationalism” and “confident and proud nationalism.” The violence that occurred on May 4 certainly exemplified defensive nationalism, as did the branding of traitors during this year's controversy. In 1919, patriotic Chinese had good reason to be angry after years of exploitation and abuse by foreign powers. However, China today, after many years of stunning economic growth and increasing international influence, has many more reasons to be confident in its nationalism. Furthermore, it is more likely that proud, not defensive, nationalism will achieve the international respect that is sought. After the recent devastating earthquake in Sichuan, the Chinese people are displaying such proud, confident nationalism. The outpouring of support and grief for those affected by the disaster, in the form of volunteering, donations, and expressions of solidarity, from Chinese all over the country – especially from students – has been impressive. The response to the disaster has done nothing if not demonstrate how nationalism, in its proud, confident form, can help a country come together to overcome adversity in a constructive, positive way.