Re: Non - Linux - But good article

Richard,

You're certainly an eloquent writer; great vocabulary, excellent ability to
express yourself, etc.

All of which covers up the fact that its absolute nonsense; a long string of
half-baked aspersions and impotent self-justifications.  Allow me to throw MY
gloves into the ring.

First, my credentials: I'm Canadian, and have been in China more than 10 years.
 I work specifically in the field of cross-cultural consulting, specifically
addressing the issues that affect communication/efficiency/relationships when
Chinese and foreigners work together.

Second, the issue at hand.  Your initial comments, in response to this article,
were quite uniformly negative, reflecting on the Chinese culture as a whole. 
Let's see -- claims that the emphasis on "face" leads to "rotten apples"; and
comments about the "Chinese penchant for short term planning".

Now, is there any attempt at a balanced and INTELLIGENT discussion of the issues
you've raised?  No.  You simply state your personal beliefs (with no
corroborating evidence), and then the first time someone dares to express that
those beliefs may be incorrect, or expressed in an inappropriate manner, you
bury him under a deluge of beautiful but meaningless prose.

Well, lets ignore for the moment the hubris which apparently makes you think
that not only are dissenting opinions without value, but that your own opinions
need no further substantiation or validation than the fact that 'this is what
Richard said'.

And let's also ignore for the time being that that long, eloquent (yet somewhat
rambling) response of yours was essentially one long personal attack, providing
not ONE SINGLE additional arguement to actually support the statements which you
originally made (and to which Fred was objecting).

Let's ignore your proven propensity (in this post, and in many others) to try to
intimidate others through a superior vocabulary and writing style (while
ignoring the real substance of the argument).

No -- let's ignore all of that.  Hey, I'm a nice guy!

Let's examine the essence of your ORIGINAL statements instead.  

* "I have always noted the Chinese need for 'face'" -- I assume this isn't
intended to be any special revelation; and yes, I will readily grant that the
concept of 'face' is very important within Chinese culture.  However, 'face' is
not a simplistic term that can be used to describe any specific behavior; it is
rather an incredibly complex concept, spanning a wide range of beliefs,
attitudes, and behaviors.  Anyone trying to make such a broad, generalized
statement about 'face' only reveals their ignorance on the subject (in my
opinion).  But hey -- at least you've "noted" it...congratulations!

* "and how it often leads to nice exteriors and poor interiors.  'Rotten Apples'
if you will." -- This is full of SO MANY generalizations that it is hard to
figure out where to start.  First, 'rotten apples' exist in EVERY country and
culture; trying to blame 'face' for this requires a simplicity (perhaps 'lack'
would be a better word) of thought which belies the eloquence of some of your
other posts.  

Second, the apparently implicit assumption that many Chinese suffer from this
affliction -- that since it "often leads" to 'rotten apples', it is therefore an
implicit conclusion that a large number of Chinese are 'rotten apples.  Again, a
claim ENTIRELY unsubstantiated by ANY facts or information.  But hey -- let's
just take Richard's word for it.

Third, the complete failure to discuss the POSITIVE aspects of face.  Face does
NOT implicitly or inevitably lead to corruption or rotten apples.  In fact, in
my work, I've found that those people who naturally tend to be more honest use
face as a POSITIVE force, one which REINFORCES the need for honesty in their
dealings with others, for fear of losing face.  Of course, those who naturally
tend to be more dishonest tend to use face in the manner which you described,
with the results that you describe.

But I'd argue that 'face', by itself, is neither a positive nor a negative
factor; it is entirely neutral, and the results are dependent on how it is used,
and on the motivations of the person using it.  The same could be said, in fact,
for aspects of ANY culture on our planet.

Your extremely superficial discussion and conclusions regarding face reveal an
ignorance and bias which I would argue HARDLY qualifies you to make such
sweeping conclusions.  But lets move on.

* "Anyway combine all that in with the Chinese penchant for short term planning
and decision making" -- Ah, more of those wonderful generalizations.  Again, so
many things to respond to:

1) While this article is referring to Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, and other
such areas BESIDES mainland China, you seem to be constraining yourself purely
to mainland China (so far as I can see).  In fact, in many of the areas listed,
the Chinese have in fact demonstrated a very strong penchant for long-term
planning.  And in regards specifically to the building of sky-scrapers (the main
focus of this article), they are FOLLOWING the lead of the West -- indicating
that such a "penchant" for "short term planning" was in fact inherited/adopted
from that source.  Of course, as we might expect, you make no comments on THAT
aspect at all.

2) I would generally agree that the government in mainland China has a 'penchant
for short term planning'.  In a country which is changing so rapidly, long term
planning seems rather difficult -- by the time you get to that point, everything
has changed, and you have to make new plans anyway.

But in regards to the general Chinese populace, I have met quite a significant
number of Chinese who in fact demonstrate a very strong predilection towards
long-term planning and strategizing.  Of course, as might be expected, we again
have no comments from you on this aspect of the argument.

* "which for me at least I have seen massive changes in the past 4 years" --
I've seen even more massive changes in the past 10 years (which demonstrate in
part the difficulty of long term planning, but that was part of the previous
argument).  So if your 4 years of experience make you some sort of 'expert' (as
you seem to be implying), then that makes me two and a half times MORE 'expert'
than you.

Of course, I'd tend to focus on CONTENT more than LENGTH OF STAY in determining
one's authority on such a subject; but then, you seem rather lacking in BOTH
categories.

* "And I am sure most would agree that one day, who knows when, the dominoes
will all fall over"  -- Ya' know, in my 10+ years here, I've heard people saying
that VERY SAME THING over and over and over again.  And it hasn't happened yet.

Does that mean that I think that China will never experience such a problem? 
No...in fact, I'm sure that China IS going to face some serious crises in the
future.  But then, so has EVERY OTHER COUNTRY ON THE PLANET at one time or
another.  So again, it seems rather vain and pointless to blame this on such a
limited view of Chinese culture.

CONCLUSION -- Yes, China has significant problems which need to be addressed. 
In fact, my work focuses almost exclusively on trying to reconcile those
differences.  However, my work focuses on helping BOTH sides -- Western AND
Chinese -- move towards a more common middle ground.  And that involves change
not only on the Chinese side, but also on the foreign side.  

Of course, any such discussion requires comprehensive knowledge of the issues
being discussed; and a willingness to look at these issues from a fairly neutral
perspective.  

You, on the other hand, sound like the stereotypical 'foreigner' who comes to
China for a few years, has some problems, identifies superficial causes, and
then makes sweeping generalizations and conclusions which have little merit
outside of the rather constricted confines of their own neural networks.

_______________________________________________
blug-general list
[email protected]
http://list.beijinglug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/blug-general