Over the weekend, I finally managed to catch up on the episodes I missed for Taiyo to Umi no Kyoshitsu and a few other drama series. It’s always nolstagic to watch high school related dramas, thinking back to my seishun, the days and nights spent studying, the weird and strange things that a teenager would do, the era where hardly mobile phones were a luxury and dial-up was the norm of the day.

Of particular interest to me is episode 5, where Japanese play-on-words were applied to quotes from literature, maths formulae (eg. finding square and cubic roots) and the periodic table. I remember making up a poem to help me remember the first thirty or so elements of the periodic table:

清害李皮彭谭，旦养芙乃娜美，吕归林留虑亚假，丐抗泰凡各，蒙铁古涅同心，佳者深悉秀客

氢氦锂铍硼碳，氮氧氟氖钠镁，铝硅磷硫氯氩钾，钙钪钛钒铬，锰铁钴镍铜锌，镓锗砷硒溴氪

Even to this day, play-on-words, acronyms and so on still prove useful in all sorts of studying. For now, Ten Zulus Beat My Cat is the key.

Anyway, back to Taiyo, I really hope Hachi does not commit suicide in episode 8 tomorrow. I like this character, and the actor himself (Gakkun was really good in Proposal Daisakusen as well).

On a different note, having been a fan of Japanese dramas for a few years, I think I could perhaps check out a few American drama series as well, starting with House Season I.

Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder

I think I’ve found the name for the condition that my grandma suffered and then “passed on” to her daughter.  It is apparently a PD more commonly seen in men than women, and does seem to have a hereditary element to it. But it is more or less to do with the environment in which OCPDers were brought up in.

This article gives a very indepth description of OCPD – I wish I had come across it earlier. I’m still trying to come to term with this, and learn how to deal with the OCPDers in my family.

It’s been a while since I last wrote anything regarding the random thoughts that come to me during my procrastination sessions. I was surprised to see two more comments waiting for moderation today.

I started this blog to keep track of my own thoughts on the various political, religious, cultural and academic issues, and to keep a collection of articles or extracts which I find interesting or thought-provoking. Nevertheless, it is a pleasure to see that there are people out there taking interest in some of the topics I have posed, particularly in regards to Dalai Lama.

Admittedly, I knew hardly anything about him before this year. The riots in Lhasa earlier this year certainly aroused my attention to the entire Tibet issue and his role in it.

I am not a religious person although I do have great interest in learning about the major religions of the world.  My Chinese heritage certainly plays an important part in my perception and interpretation of the world today, but I do like to think that I have the ‘free mind’ to draw my conclusions based on evidence presented.

I must say that I find much inconsistency in what Dalai Lama preaches and does.  I find him more or less a politician than a pure religious figure.   But I will talk about my thoughts on him another day.

Now back to my random thoughts.

From Jin Yong to Religion

I have been a fan of Mr Jin Yong’s novels since the age of ten.  The first time I came across his work (indirectly) was when the Taiwanese version of Yi Tian Tu Long Ji was shown on TV in the early 1990s.  That was the time when Taiwanese entertainment industry first made its mark in mainland China.  Wuxia (Kungfu) TV series and period dramas (dramas set in ancient times) proved extremely popular. The only non-Wuxia related popular dramas were in fact all romantic love stories by Qiong Yao, another famous novelist from Taiwan. Most of her stories were set in the early 20th century, when the Revolution led by Sun Yat Sen overthrew the Qing Dynasty.

Anyway, although I (in fact, many other students my age) was very much a big fan of all the Wuxia TV series, to the extent that I’d be singing the theme songs during lunch breaks, I did not know of Mr Jin, not did I know of his other works aside from Yi Tian Tu Long Ji.

A few years later, when I left my hometown, I found myself in a foreign place not knowing any English apart from a few simple greeting words. My family was in a very poor status, and we didn’t even have a TV.  Luckily there was a library near our home with a small Chinese section.

It was then that I came across Jin Yong’s other works, starting with Tian Long Ba Bu (which at first I thought to be a Buddhist manuscript). Thanks to that small Chinese section, I managed to maintain the little Chinese that I had learnt in the years before.

For the next few years, I was fortunate enough to finish reading all of Jin Yong’s works, as well as the works of Liang Yu Sheng, Gu Long and, at a later stage, Qiong Yao.  My favourites were none other than Jin Yong’s famous Trilogy, She Diao Ying XIong Zhuan, Shen Diao Xia Lu and Yi Tian Tu Long Ji. It was only then that Yi Tian Tu Long Ji was in fact a part of a series.  Although I have read each of the three books separately, but I never read them together in one go. And in the past week, I finally managed to do so.

In the process of reading, I had a few ideas come to me that I want to write down for future reference.  The first of which is the reference to Persia and certain historical figures from ancient Persia. The Old Man of the Mountain (Shaykh al Jabal) was mentioned briefly in Yi Tian Tu Long Ji . The story of this assassin organisation interested me greatly and I was curious to learn more.

I found a brief introduction to Shaykh al Jabal on wikipedia, but by then, my attention suddenly turned elsewhere.

My interest vary greatly and cover a broad range of topics and I often become distracted by other topics when searching for something. This time, as soon as I saw the name Shaykh al Jabal, my mind clicked, and I thought of the Arabic alphabet that I had been learning for a while earlier this year.

My interest in languages began with my study in French and Japanese at school. I excelled at both but I took a particular liking to Japanese because of its resemblance to the Chinese language which I very much liked.  But in recent years, I began to take interest in many other languages, amongst which are French, Korean and Arabic.  In fact, I find that I am very attracted to all sorts of linguistic issues.

Anyway, I became distracted from the Shaykh and went on to finish learning all the Arabic alphabets. As of now, I can recognise most of them in printed form, although I have trouble pronounciating some.

And when one talks about Arabic, Islam naturally comes to mind. I know very little about Islam, apart from the rhetorics that media often like to use in their portrayal of the “evil Muslims”. In all honesty, sometimes I do find myself agreeing with Richard Dawkin’s ideas with regard to religion, but I do not think the mainstream view of what Islam is about is necessary the truth. To this end, I’d like to find out more about the Islam religion, the Qu’ran, and the different branches of Islam.

In my investigation of Arabic, I also tumbled across Sanskrit, the equivalent of Latin in the East. I know nothing about Sanskrit apart from the fact that it is related to Buddhism. From there, I went into an investigation regarding the two different branches of Buddhism, Mahayana and Theravada. I knew that the majority of buddhists from Southeast Asian countries study Theravada sutras and most buddhists in East Asian countries like China and Japan study Mahayana sutras. Throughout ancient times, there had been conflicts between the two different branches of Buddhism in China, and I’d imagine, in the rest of the world as well. But I think this conflict is no where near as intense as the conflict between Shi’a and Sunni branches of Islam. Anyhow, I always thought that Tibet Buddhism classifies under the Theravada branch, but apparently it is not. But of course, even within these two major classifications, there exist many sub-branches. Take Tibet Buddhism for example, it comprises four major schools.  Dalai Lama comes from one of the four schools but he likes to pose as the speaker on behalf of all Tibetans, and that is part of the reason why I consider him more of a politician than a religious leader.

I always wonder how eminent scientists resolve their religious beliefs with their work practices. I personally know of several accomplished scientists who are devoted Christians or Jews, and they all very much seem at peace. But I don’t think I will be joining their ranks any time soon, if ever.

Tit-for-Tat

I think I will have to keep this section short, as I had forgotten many of the ideas I had the day before.  But I remember the inspiration came from Jin Yong’s Trilogy. The stories were very much to do with heroism, the “good” and the “evil”, and human nature.  But the point that I was taking an interest in is to do with survival.

In the stories, there were characters who would never seek revenge or who believed in goodness in everyone, such as the Shaolin monk Kongjian in Yi Tian Tu Long Ji, who offered to take thirteen of Xie Xun‘s lethal blows with no defence in attempt to persuade him to give up seeking revenge from Xie Xun’s master, who attempted to rape his wife and murdered his entire family. At the end of the day, Kongjian died.

There were also characters who would do anything to seek revenge, such as Zhao Min, the Mongolian princess in Yi Tian Tu Long Ji, who openly claimed that if anyone harmed her family in anyway, she’d kill that person and his or her family without a second thought.

In the secular world, some people believe in “an eye for an eye”, but some promote benevolence to all, including the enemy. So in the grand scale of things, which of these two groups would out-live the other?

This reminded me of game theory which I had studied a little bit before. The strategy that came to my mind was Tit-for-Tat (“Equivalent Retaliation”), a highly effective strategy used for the iterated Prisoner’s dilemma. An individual using this strategy will initially cooperate, and then makes decisions based on the opponent’s actions. For example, if the opponent exhibited a history of cooperation, the individual will cooperate; if not, then the individual will not cooperate.  This is said to be similar to reciprocal altruism in biology.

Of course, the Tit-for-Tat strategy is governed by certain conditions, but essentially one treats others with kindness, and only retaliate when betrayed. The individual is also quick to forgive. To me, this appears to be a combination of the “benevolence to all” and “an eye for an eye” approaches that I mentioned before. And in fact, the application of Tit-for-Tat to human society and politics has been discussed in Robert Axelrod’s The Evolution of Cooperation.

From game theory point of view, the all forgiving and non-retaliation approach may not be the way to go if a group or species wish to survive in nature.

Spiked Online

There has been much news regarding China-bashing issue, and I came across this online magazine just yesterday and was surprise to see that it was one of very few organizations in the Western World to take a firm stand against China-bashing organisations and individuls. I also read some of its articles regarding the Russia-Georgia issue, and find myself agreeing with many of the viewpoints.

My guess is many readers of this online magazine will not take a liking to its stance as it is by no means mainstream, but I quite enjoy reading its articles they go to the trouble to substantiate their argument with solid evidence, not like many of the hand-wavy journalism plaguing the american-euro-centric world.

Translation

While investigating Sanskrit, I came across some interesting points on Chinese translations, in particular 欧化中文 (Chinese heavily influenced by European languages). The Chinese language, like most other languages around the world, has its intake of foreign vocabulary. 巧克力 (chiao-ke-lee) for chocolage, 巴士 (ba-shi) for bus, and even borrowed words from Sanskrit, such as 刹那. However, in recent years, the Chinese grammar has also been heavily impacted by foreign languages. To quote a few examples from Wikipedia:

The decline in his income has led to a change in his lifestyle

is translated to 他的收入的减少改变了他的生活方式, when it is in fact more natural to say 他收入减少……。

A translated phrase such as 听众对访问教授作出了十分热烈的反应 could’ve been better written as 听众对访问教授反应十分热烈. And 他是好人 sounds much better than 他是一个好人.

I think when I find time, I’d like to have a read of Mr Si Guo’s （思果） Research on Translation （《翻译研究》）.

偶尔在网上看到的国奥系列文言文……

作者：缺

谭望嵩，蜀地成都人，共和三十六年生，少有大志，尝观蹴鞠，见西人汹汹，国足溃溃，乃怒，击股曰：“朝廷若用我为将，必封狼居胥矣！”乡人皆以为能，不敢侧目，及年长，身高七尺，削肩嬴腹，状清瘦，久习技击，颇精进，喜走江湖，遇辽东人士名郑智者，情意相投，结为兄弟。

智亦习技击，尝与望嵩讲手，望嵩擅腿法，曰“七十二路探裆腿”，智擅搏击，曰“三十六路破面拳”，二人酣战半日，力竭方止。智曰：“贤弟好本事，何 不去疆场搏个功名？”望嵩曰：“早有此意，怎奈没个相识，侯门似海。”智曰：“吾幼习蹴鞠，识得京师教头谢亚龙，贤弟若不弃，兄当引荐。”望嵩拜谢曰： “若恁的，不胜惶恐，有劳兄台！”言罢摆酒款待，二人把盏言欢，不胜快意。

他日，智与望嵩备得厚礼，访亚龙于府上， 亚龙见望嵩瘦削，笑曰：“汝有何能？”望嵩怒，只一腿，踢得亚龙昏沉，左右急救，良久方苏，竟不怒反笑，曰：“吾苦无悍将，今日方得矣！”智见望嵩得宠， 心下恨恨，暗道：“若不露两手，倒显得有他无我！”便也不搭话，反身一肘，正中亚龙下颌，登时闭气，左右慌忙再救，徐徐睁目，问：“何人又伤我？”答 曰：“郑智。” 亚龙曰：“善，刚得猛虎，又来蛟龙，吾并收之！”

自此，望嵩与智皆为亚龙麾下矣。
亚龙有蹴鞠部曲一支，曰“山寨军”，军中有谚：风林火山，战时满场乱舞，却不知绣球何在，此曰“疾如风”；人虽众，却传球不中，跑动乏力，木戳戳不知所 谓，此曰“徐如林”；对方稍一犯边，即前锋惶惶，后卫乱阵，此曰“乱如火”；敌军单刀而入，我军巍然，视球入网而不动，此曰“稳如山”，自望嵩、智入得军 中，三军大振，以望嵩为后军校尉，智为前军校尉。

共和五十九年，国际有奥林匹亚盛会组织者至京师，邀万国竞技，亚龙 奉朝廷令率军赴前敌讨战，耀武扬威，自夸英勇，万国中有欧罗巴洲曰比利时者，颇为不忿，出兵应战，但见兵势弥天，“山寨军”狼狼大败，球门两番失守，势不 能敌，亚龙哭曰：“天乎？天乎？”望嵩曰：“主公休得惊慌，待俺破敌！”言罢蹂身而上，奋击之，怎奈本学技击，不谙蹴鞠，虽舍身大战，却球毛未碰，不由得 大怒，两股岔气忿忿直冲顶梁，施展“七十二路探裆腿”，一招“鸳鸯撞裆”，只一下，一番将捂裆倒地，二目一翻，三魂渺渺，七魄荡荡，不知生死，场上裁者大 怒，探一支赤色令箭，令望嵩出局，望嵩曰：“吾自幼习武，目中无球，但有人尔，如何怪我？”怀恨而下。

亚龙见望嵩 退，大急曰：“望嵩退军，今番罢了！”郑智曰：“尚有我在，何必惊慌？”话音未落人已飞出，正逢球来，智探腿便踢，怎奈腿功荒疏，三绕两转，不知颠倒，智 恼羞成怒，偏一番将靠其身边，智扬手一记“武老二反臂肘”，正中腋下，登时颓倒，裁者大惊，出赤色令箭一枚，罚智下场，俄顷，“山寨军”败，全军覆没，望 嵩、智谓亚龙曰：“此乃天意，非人力所能挽回也，吾等尽其所能，然不能回天，气数也。”亚龙怅然曰：“尔等已尽力，明知不可为而为之，吾甚感动！”三人抱 头痛哭。

使臣曰：十三亿泱泱，国脉荡荡，竟不敌远洋小国，何也？飞脚拽拳，揪发扯辫，蹴鞠发祥之地，竟以暴力示人， 亦何也？吾有一树，盼其开花结果二十余年矣，施肥莫不勤勉，浇水莫不用心，土质莫不膏腴，日光莫不充裕，然二十年仅开花一次，果实半个也无，而今一看，竟 成腐木，此亦何也？

Liu Xiang, carrying the expectation of 1.3 billion Chinese, took an early exit from the Games today at 11.54am (Beijing local time). He appeared to be suffering from immense pain as he struggled to warm-up and take place at his block. But after a false start at the hurdles, he headed straight off-field, to everyone’s surprise, drawing an end to his Olympic campaign on home soil. It was a sad moment for Bird’s Nest and its 91,000 spectators, as well as billions more watching the event live, at work, at school and at home. Liu became China’s greatest pride when he unexpectedly took China’s first gold on the track at Athens four years ago. Yet, today, Chinese nationals embrace each other with disbelief and in tears. Despite China’s 35 gold medals, leading the US by far, Liu’s retreat come as a heart-blow shock to the host nation.

Olympics: Defending champion Liu Xiang pulls out of 110m hurdles

· Injury forces Chinese favourite out before his first-round heat
· Cuba’s Dayron Robles now favourite for gold

• Andy Bull in Beijing
• guardian.co.uk,
• Monday August 18 2008 05:23 BST
• Article history

This morning China’s Olympic Games lost its biggest star when Liu Xiang, the Olympic 110m hurdle champion and a Chinese national icon, pulled up injured before he had even reached the first hurdle of the opening round of his title defence.

His withdrawal shocked the 90,000 strong crowd into silence. The Bird’s Nest Stadium was filled to capacity in anticipation of Xiang’s race, and across China his many fans are struggling to process the news.

Xiang had suffered a hamstring injury in May, causing him to withdraw from the New York grand prix. It was a new injury that troubled him today though, a combination of damage to the achilles tendon of his right leg and a bone spur on his ankle. Xiang’s right foot is his take-off foot, meaning the ankle joint comes under enormous pressure.

His coach, Sun Haiping, said that the tendon problems had plagued Xiang for “six or seven years, even before he won gold at Athens 2004″. The problem flared up again in training last Saturday, and despite the best efforts of the team and their extensive medical support staff, it could not be cured in time for today’s race.

“When he was in the warm-up area for the race the problem suddenly intensified again, but despite the pain he still exercised fully,” commented the head coach of China’s athletics team, Feng Shuyong, “After more treatment he decided to enter the first round.”

Xiang’s heat was the final race of the morning session. After the gun went, the hurdlers were recalled for a false start. Xiang had already pulled up and, instead of returning to his blocks, he limped off the track.

“We have had three doctors working on Liu’s injury,” Haiping said shortly before he broke down in tears at his press conference, “but no matter what they did nothing could help.”

With the Chinese population certain to be furious in their frustration, Shuyong was keen to emphasise just how much pain Xiang was in. “Liu would never withdraw from a race unless the pain was intolerable, unless he had no other way out. He came into the event with the strongest possible will, and was determined to compete.

“It is a very hard moment for all of us. I have just spoken to Liu outside and he is very depressed. I watched as he was being given a massage on the damaged area last weekend, and he was shivering due to the great pain.”

Asked why he had not made the news of Xiang’s injury public knowledge, Shuyong insisted that the story had appeared in several Sunday newspapers. He added that “after the treatment we didn’t realise how serious the injury was, so we didn’t want to tell people he couldn’t compete.” That defence seemed to contradict his earlier observations about the extent of Xiang’s agony.

It seems likely that it was a combination of Xiang’s own determination and pressure from those around him that led him to appear on the start line at all. When he won the 110m hurdles in Athens he became China’s first ever male gold medallist on the track, and since then he has become a national hero. His face appears on billboards across China, and the public expectation for him to win again was huge.

“Of course the pressure on him was huge,” Shuyong stated, “he doesn’t go out often but when he does he sees his face everywhere. But he has always said that you do not compete against everyone else, you only compete against yourself. He has unique mental strength.”

Today Xiang’s body did get better of him. Shuyong stated that he does not believe Xiang will run again this season, but fully expects him to appear again next year. That will be small consolation for the distraught Chinese public. Xiang’s confrontation with Cuban world record holder Dayron Robles was due to be one of the gala events of the entire Games, but with Xiang out of the competition interest in the athletic contests is likely to wane significantly.

The above report is from The Guardian. It is interesting to note that the author failed to recognise that Chinese names put surname first and first names last. I think the author’s intention was to refer to Liu Xiang and the head coach by their surnames, but ended up calling them respectively Xiang and Shuyong, sounding as though he knew them well in person. This is like referring to Ronaldo as Luis and Phelps as Michael.

It is a sad day for Liu Xiang and Chinese people all over the world, but I can’t help pointing out the strange way of addressing Chinese athletes eminent in this report that seems to make fun of Liu’s early exit, yet exhibits such warmth in addressing him by his single character first name, Xiang (which I’m sure only his family, friends, future girlfriend and wife would use, if they ever choose to).

I can’t help feeling disappointed when I learnt of Liu Xiang’s early exit. I feel very sorry for this great athlete and appreciate very much what he has achieved. But I think it is a great misjudgement to not reveal news of his injury earlier, as media propaganda has led most people to believe that Liu Xiang has a good chance in the 100m hurdles finals. Many people bought scalped tickets costing up to 80,000 RMB to watch him in the finals. Hardly anyone had the faintest clue that he might not even make through the heats. Or if people did have some ideas about the extent of his injury, their knowledge was not made public. I think most of the loathing that has blossomed on the web ever since the news broke out results from the huge difference between the high level of expectation pre-game and such an unexpected outcome.  The general feeling appears to be that, if Liu Xiang’s injury prevents him from having any chance of hurdling properly at all, he should have either withdrawn beforehand, or persist to the end if he does choose to continue with the competition.

My country did not send me to Mexico City to start the race. They sent me here to finish.

This famous quote by Tanzania’s Akhwari,  last place finisher in the marathon at the 1968 Games in Mexico City, is frequently quoted by Chinese netizens in their frustration towards Liu’s pullout. Akhwari finished one hour later than the winner of the race, bandaged and bloody from injury when he crossed the finish line.

Perhaps Liu’s injury was serious enough that he probabaly struggled to walk, and perhaps he felt that he has disappointed his nation and could no longer face the crowd.  He is not Akhwari, and Akhwari can never be him. And Akhwari certainly had not the pressure that’s been plaguing Liu for the past four years, nor the grief that he new suffers on his home ground. Liu’s shock exit today contrasted to all that positive media chanting before the Games would perhaps subject him to controversy and loathe for a long time to come. But finally, people are waking up to the fact that Liu Xiang is not God, he is as human as every single one of us.

Here is a more logical way of ranking countries rather than based on number of gold medals obtained – the 3,2,1 point system:

Gold = 3 points

Silver = 2 points

Bronze = 1 point

And the result based on the medal tally as of 11:21am on August 18th (Beijing local time) is as the following (total points obtained followed by country name):

144 China
124 US
57 Russia
55 Australia
53 Britain
47 Korea
45 Germany
42 France
41 Japan
36 Italy
27 Ukraine
18 Netherlands
17 Romania
14 Spain
13 Poland
13 Cuba
13 Kazakhstan
13 Belarus
12 Czech Republic
12 Canada
11 Slovakia
11 DPR Korea
10 Jamaica
10 New Zealand
9 Switzerland
9 Zimbabwe
9 Azerbaijan
9 Hungary
8 Ethiopia
8 Norway
8 Indonesia
7 Georgia
7 Slovenia
7 Brazil
6 Bulgaria
6 Finland
6 Denmark
6 Sweden
5 Mongolia
5 Kenya
5 Turkey
5 Armenia
4 Austria
4 Greece
3 Cameroon
3 India
3 Thailand
3 Tunisia
3 Algeria
3 Colombia
3 Croatia
3 Kyrgyzstan
3 Serbia
3 Uzbekistan
2 Chile
2 Ecuador
2 Estonia
2 Malaysia
2 Singapore
2 Trinidad/Tobago
2 Vietnam
2 Chinese Taipei
1 ARgentina
1 Egypt
1 Lithuania
1 Mexico
1 Tajikistan
1 Togo

As I am from the land down under, I’d like to hail this ranking system as the REAL thing.

摘自《吴霭仪评金庸》

　　金庸小说多妖女，黄蓉一露面便让郭靖的师父骂称“小妖女”；殷素素是“妖
女”。任盈盈是“魔教妖女”，何铁手、蓝凤凰之流自然更是妖女，连蒙古郡主赵
敏，也被人叫做“小妖女”。

　　金庸小说多妖女，无非是因为金庸小说多美女。美得惊人而又“来路不正”的
女子，活色生香，不肯像淑女那样守本分，太令正人君子抵抗不了，卫道之士就不
能不骂以“妖女”了。从这个角度看，黄蓉当然是“小妖女”。

　　许多人不喜欢黄蓉，特别是《神雕侠侣》中的中年黄蓉，嫌她聪明得过分厉害
，有点近乎阴沉。我却十分欣赏黄蓉，认为是金庸写得最好的女角。特别欣赏他处
理黄蓉从《射雕英雄传》的青春少女到《神雕侠侣》的中年妇人的个性发展。其他
女角大多是形象化的人物，但黄蓉却是活生生的、有优点、有缺点。会长大。会变
。会衰老的真人，音容体态历历在目，思想个性贯彻分明，熟读这两套小说，觉得
了解黄蓉的一生，这是在金庸成功的角色中也不可多得的。

　　写黄蓉的笔触之准确，不像创造一个角色，倒像描述一个作者很熟悉很喜爱的
人。

　　其实，黄蓉没有什么“厉害”；除了特别聪明美丽之外，她只不过是一个寻常
女子。少女时爱玩，遇到了喜欢的少年郎，但愿与他日夜相从、一生厮守，一心要
嫁给他做妻子。

　　结婚之后，又一心助他事业成功，为他养儿育女。她可没有什么胸怀大志，不
过事事以丈夫为重。为儿女操心。

　　即使论聪明才智，黄蓉的聪明才智也只限于心思敏捷。记性特别好而已。诗词
歌赋。对联谜语她过目不忘，武功算术一点即通，但她没有超凡的智慧，一灯大师
的禅机她便茫然不知所对。她不够耐性。缺乏恒心，也不见得特别有同情心，南琴
的凄凉、穆念慈为情所困，她只觉好奇好玩。（金庸说，聪明的人未免缺少同情心
。）直至与郭靖无奈分离，才开始了解愁滋味，是失意苦难强迫黄蓉长大的。

　　但黄蓉就是娱乐性强。特别喜欢她在岳王庙拆穿欧阳锋和杨康在桃花岛杀江南
六怪那段情节，由她在柯镇恶手掌心写：“告我父何人杀我”开始，到逼欧阳锋让
终于明白了内情的柯镇恶走，分析推理，步步洞悉先机，紧张刺激，像看最曲折奇
情的侦探小说。但这段己开始见黄蓉以机智面对凶险。不复只轻松斗智，渐渐踏人
后来《神雕侠侣》的“智者虑”的苦涩境地。

　　精灵娇美的黄蓉，为什么乐意嫁与既笨拙而又不见得长得多俊的郭靖？一个解
释是“萝卜白菜，各有所爱”。这个解释，等于说情之为物没有什么可解释的。有
一个新派解释是，黄蓉就是看中了郭靖笨，容易控制，不怕他闹花样，这又未免太
理性了。

　　黄蓉初识郭靖，不过盈盈十五，刁蛮任性，父亲又大有来头，她才不怕被什么
人欺负。而且她不但任性，更是痴情，真的是一往情深。发现郭靖原来已是“金刀
附马”时，她对父亲说，他另娶别人，我也要另嫁别个；他心中只有我，我心中也
只有他，我是你的女儿，别人不高兴也拿我没法，但是他这样对我，我也活不到多
久。黄药师见女儿眼神是缠绵万状，难舍难分，知道情根深种，根本无可挽回，只
能陪她伤心。

　　不是的，黄蓉是真心爱慕依恋郭靖，若要解释，那也毫无难处。一般男以色爱
女，女子爱男子，却是基于道德或本领上的崇拜，郭靖觉得蓉儿“说不出的可爱”
，但黄蓉爱郭靖，是因为“世间上不可能有比他更好的人了”，是因为他是好人，
是君子，是个有清楚原则而严格遵守这些原则的人。

　　甩一点现代心理学的术语说，郭靖是黄蓉的道德范畴，他给黄蓉的，是她一向
匮乏的精神上的安全感，换句话说，郭靖是衔蓉心底渴望的“父亲人物”。黄药师
与女儿的关系，素来是好友的关系多于父女的关系，尤其是妻子早死，女儿便在精
神上代替了妻子的地位；他教她学问武功，与她谈诗论文，但从不以父亲地位管教
她。正因为关系是这样，他才对郭靖诸多不满，其中有许多是喝醋成分，到后来郭
靖黄蓉结婚生子，他更看不入眼，不但与他们疏远，跟杨过谈起黄蓉，还是十分酸
溜溜的。

　　但是黄蓉不是“小东邪”，个性上她只是个寻常女子，跟郭靖过着“正常”的
家庭生活，接受他的道德伦理价值，同时得到社会接受，她十分满足乐意，她要人
间的快乐，不要孤标傲世，黄药师对她失望，那也没有法子。

　　黄蓉为什么跟郭靖好。即使看《射雕英雄传》不明白，看《神雕侠侣》也会明
白。杨过是黄蓉的翻版，这个金庸已多次暗示过，黄蓉自己也再三说了出来，一般
的刁钻古怪，聪明伶俐，痴情任性，一个是娇美无倚，一个是清秀俊俏，所不同的
，是两人的身世。

　　黄蓉初识郭靖时扮成个肮脏褴褛的小叫化，杨过根本就与小叫化差不多。黄蓉
后来约郭靖到湖边相见时，恢复她本来面目，郭靖只觉她宛若仙子下凡，黄蓉说，
她穿这样的衣服，人人都会同她好，但她扮作小叫化的时候他待她好，那才见得是
真心。

　　杨过的小叫化可不是扮的，无怪人人都待他不好，黄蓉与杨过的分别基本是这
样。

　　黄蓉与杨过这样相似的人，为什么一直关系十分差？金庸说成是中央隔了个杨
康的阴影，其实不是的，真正的原因是爱的基础在于信任，而两个心比比干多一窍
的人要互相信任，真是难乎其难。聪明人可以看到一百个怀疑的理由，而信任往往
不是建立在理性的考虑之上。黄蓉与杨过在桃花岛有过一次真情流露的交流，是黄
蓉不知为了什么缘故，对杨过坦白诚恳他说，她知道他有许多事瞒着她，不过她很
了解，因为自己小时也是一般怪僻。杨过大是感动，在她怀里哭了起来。这就是以
爱报信任的自然反应。可惜，信任没支持多久，杨过一见傻姑，逼问出杨康死因，
马上认定黄蓉是杀父仇人，而对他种种好处，都是别有用心。傻姑断续不全的话又
怎信得过？杨过是个聪明人，纵然偏激，也必能问得明白，但是由于一早便对聪明
的黄蓉不信任，所以一想到她存心作假，便坚信已找到答案。

　　聪明人太聪明时，就会草木皆兵，没有人可信任，因此，也没有人可以爱，但
偏是黄蓉杨过都是极需要爱的人，因此碰上一个全心全意爱自己的率直的人、笨人
，因其笨而可信任，便如获救星，一心相爱，到死相随。郭靖是笨人，小龙女是笨
人，杨过爱小龙女而黄蓉爱郭靖，黄蓉与杨过始终不能相亲相爱，就是性格的关系
。

　　数年前看过倪匡先生批评黄蓉，他说，少女时代的黄蓉那么可爱，一到中年就
非常不可爱了。我很不同意，纳闷了几年，老是想翻案，一直想到现在，忽然明白
，原来中年黄蓉果然不可爱。

　　一灯大师赞美中年黄蓉大智大勇，怎样叫做“智”，似乎不必解释了，但是“
勇”是有多种的。不知畏惧的“当头勇”，被萧伯纳在《兵器与军人》之中挖苦得
不成样子，比较值得敬佩的是感到恐惧仍不退缩的勇。郭靖听见都史拉豹子去找拖
雷，要去叫拖雷逃，韩小莹问他怕不怕连他也吃掉，他说：“我怕。”韩小莹问：
“那你去不去？”郭靖答：“我去。”就是这种勇。这种勇气，是感情鼓励之下的
勇气。第三种勇，是经过理性分析策划而后采取行动的勇。

　　黄蓉为了取得仅存的情花解毒丹去救杨过性命，说服裘千尺打她三枚枣核钉，
若然她不闪不避不格接了，裘千尺便把丹药给她。这枣核钉十分厉害，黄蓉虽是策
定计谋，但仍须冒性命之险进行。一灯大师赞她大智大勇，就是指这种勇。

　　另一次是她潜下绝情谷底的寒潭去寻杨过。虽说黄蓉水性最好，但其时她已年
近五十，而潭底有什么凶险，谁也不知，她再三尽力潜至可潜到的最深处，以致上
来时头发也结了薄冰，不可谓不勇敢。

　　这种沉着的勇，并不逊于第一，二种勇，刚相反，把危险看得清清楚楚而全力
以赴，需要的勇气更大。然而，需要最大勇气的勇，也是最没有人感激欣赏的勇。
黄蓉两番舍命救杨过，他何尝感动？又有多少读者感动？倒是傻里傻气的乱打一通
，无端一齐送命，大家都感到敬仰无比。快意无比。

　　说破了。原因也很简单，人心底最害怕的是自己太过渺小无力，居然有人不顾
后果拼命为自己做一件事，那就证明自己重要，有左右别人行动的力量。令人放弃
理智的力量，常常使自己有这种胜利感的人自然十分可爱，黄蓉连面对生死都由理
性控制，当然极“不可爱”了。


一直以来都不喜欢《神雕侠侣》里的黄蓉，所以从来没有连着把《射雕》和《神雕》看完
但事隔数年重温《射雕》后，对黄蓉多了层了解
可是开始没有看出她的“勇“。
这道理真的是很简单，可是一直以来都忽略了。
把危险看得清清楚楚却依旧全力以赴，这才是真正的“勇”。
在这一方面，黄蓉一点都不逊于她的夫君。

For those who have never heard of this lady’s name, she was a missionary who saved many students from Jinling Girls College in Nanjing (aka Nanking) from Japanese atrocities in WWII.

WWII involving the Japanese Imperial Army is one of the topics that I frequently find myself reading about, perhaps because this is a part of history that I have been most exposed to since childhood, and personally feels most strongly about, seeing that many of the problems looming between East Asian nations originated from historical debates surrounding this topic.

As a child, couldn’t believe what there could be people as cruel as the Japanese Imperial soldiers when I read about the war and saw related documentary on TV. I was used to hearing about my maternal grandmother’s sister who lost her life during the bombing of Shanghai by the Japanese army.  The adults in the family told me of how she was so badly hurt that her intestines fell out of her gut. I was horrified.

But even that disgust and hatred did not stop me (and my contemporaries) from becoming a dedicated fan of Ultraman and Seiya, two very popular Japanese shows in China, probably because I was too young to understand the full scale of things that I was exposed to. I recall laughing out heart out when watching a very funny Japanese drama with my mother when I was about 8 or so. It was such a contradition. On one hand, lack of development in mainland Chinese entertainment industry meant that my generation (the so-called post 80s) was exposed to war dramas depicting the fight between courageous Chinese soldiers and ruthless Japanese invaders on a weekly if not daily basis. When we managed to see a movie in cinema once in a millenium, the popular choice was of course “Shining Little Red Star” (the story of a courageous little boy in his fight against Japanese invaders). On the other hand, we, well, at least, I was glued to our TV set every Wednesday for a glimpse of Ultraman. It was such a joy to watch the show and singing along with the theme song (even though the Japanese lyrics at the time made no sense to us Chinese kids) was so much fun. I was so addicted to the show that when I had to leave China for Australia at the age of nine, I burst into tears upon realising that I probably won’t ever get to see the show again.

Little did I know about the complex problems between Japan and China, in fact Japan and rest of Asia.

By chance, I came to master Japanese and became a great fan of modern Japanese culture.  I probabaly invest more of my time in investigating the latest trends in Japan than anything else, be it Chinese or Australian. But one thing has always disturbed me deeply, that is, anything to do with the war seems like something that most Japanese people would prefer not to talk about, or if they do talk about it, it is as though Japan was justified in its actions during wartime. The more time I spent browsing blogs, mixi and 2ch, the more disturbed I became. It is not just that “Japan was forced into submission by the allies but didn’t actually do anything wrong” attitude, but also the deeply rooted rascism, in particularly towards Koreans and Chinese. I can’t say that anti-Japan sentiments do not exist in Korea and China, but such feelings are understandable since the people of both these countries remember (obviously) the atrocities they suffered in WWII (really not that long ago). But the prevailing ideology and sentiments in modern Japanese society, especially amongst the younger generation, suggests that any form of resolution between the  major East Asian countries are unlikely in the near future.

Anyway, back to the point that triggered me to write this entry: Minnie Vautrin’s Diary.

I came across a title on google books called 南京大虐殺と日本人の精神構造 (Nanjing Massacre and Mental Structure of Japanese) by 津田道夫 (Michio Tusda) that explores the psychology of ordinary Japanese nationals during the war period and discusses some of the possible reasons why normally gentle people would turn into worst of the devils when they go onto the field. The version I came across on google books was a Chinese translation of this book, but I think I will try to find an original copy to have a read as I like to read originals whenever I can to avoid missing out on things lost through translation.

I had a look on the web to see if any more information is available (preferably Japanese) on this book or the author of this book, but failed to find much except that his father was a teacher during the war era and he drew upon many of his father’s diary entries when making his discussion points. I suppose this is not a result unexpected, as literature that leans towards the validation of  Nanjing Massacre or encourages admittance of such atrocities are generally waved aside in Japan, either because people are not interested or because patriotic Japanese nationalists deem such work as lies and anti-Japan, and they promote it as such to the general public.

In any case, during my research online, I came across the translated version of Minnie Vautrin’s Diary on the Japanese Amazon site. I was surprised to see that it had a five star rating as this is something rare for books to do with Nanking. I scrolled down the page to take a look at the comments, and I found the following:

By	Hiromi (ロンドン、ＵＫ) – レビューをすべて見る

南京安全区国際委員会の報告書や同委員長ジョン・ラーベの日記などから明らかなように、1937年12月13日の南京陥落前後から、中立のはずの安全区には市民服を着、武器を隠し持った中国軍敗残兵や便衣兵が数万人規模で潜んで敵対・反日宣伝行為に従事していた。
ヴォー トリンはこの点について故意にかどうか、全く触れていないが、当時安全区内に潜んでいた中国将校自身の「夜悪事を働いているのは中国兵」との証言や、女史 や国際委員会も認める日本軍の転進による駐屯兵士数の減少、「安全区外には兵士も難民も殆どいない」状況からしても、女史の言うところの「略奪・放火・強 姦（殺人は滅多に起こっていない）をしている兵士」とは中国兵である可能性が非常に高い。
女史が一番心配して解決に奔走していた「拉致された男達」の問題についても、中国軍の『拉夫』（戦場近辺で市民を誘拐し銃をいきなり持たせて兵士に仕立て上げる）の伝統を知っていれば犯人が誰かは自ずと明らかであろう。
実のところ、実際に女史や他の西洋人達が出会った日本兵や憲兵は、皆揃って「感じの良い」「友好的な」まじめそうな者ばかりであって、悪さをしているところは誰も実際には見ていない。
ヴォートリンや他の西洋人が「見た」という「事件」は、全てが「中国人に連れられて行ってみるとそこに『被害者』がいた」というヤラセの類であった。
また本書には、多くの中国人庶民（老百姓）による（日本兵に）略奪品を売る商売が繁盛していること、日本兵が探していたのは素人の女性でなく「花枯娘（娼婦）」であったこと、などなど、むしろ日本軍側の言い分を傍証する記述が多く見られる。
「客観的」であるが故に「決定的証拠」とされた南京の西洋人達の「目撃証拠」が実は『南京虐殺』の『反証』であるという（『否定派』の研究者がずっと主張してきた）事実を、本書は改めて世に晒した。

By	ヘブン – レビューをすべて見る

南京事件に関する虐殺派、否定派。
それぞれの根拠はあるにせよ。
ここに現場にいた、そして南京の避難民に直接関わり、奔走した人間の克明な日記がある。

これを読んで、南京では日本軍は虐殺しなかった。強姦は最小限にとどめられた。という見解に依然なるなら、もはや何を読んでもどんな証言を聞いても、その人は虐殺否定の先入観でしか見れないのだと思う。

もし一歩外で殺人と強姦のあれすさぶ危険で制限された環境の中にいて、あなたが克明な詳細な事件の真相を証拠立てることができるか？できないだろう。全部見たのか？見てないだろうと言われたらどう答えるだろう？

たしかにそのとうりかもしれない。

けれどもその時、南京では普通ではない何かが起こっていたのだ。・・・そういうことがこの日記にはしっかり書かれてある。

そしてそのような極限の環境の中で人権と安全のために身を尽くして活動した人々。

一読の価値アリです。

By	pseudo-swicther – レビューをすべて見る

1937年12月から38年にかけての南京事件当時、南京市に踏みとどまって国際難民区の運営に携わったアメリカ人ミニー・ヴォートリンの日記は単なる史 料的価値のみならず大きな現代的意義をもっている。南京攻略戦は大都市への空爆が本格的に行なわれた最も初期の戦闘の一つであり、それゆえこの日記は「空 爆に耐える都市住民」の最も古い証言の一つだということになる。都市への空爆があたりまえとなり非戦闘員の犠牲が常態となった戦争の原型がここで描かれて いる。

また、ヴォートリンを含む第三国人たちが、限られたリソースを総動員して南京市民を守るために奔走する様子には感嘆を禁じえない（残念ながら、 その努力は完全に実を結ぶことはなかったのだが）。本書に日記が収録されている約4ヶ月間、平穏な日はほとんどなかったのである。彼女は中国人による不正 行為も率直に記録しており、他方友好的な日本人の訪問があった際にはきちんとその旨書き残していて、これが日記全体の記述の公平性を物語っている。「いま 南京で起こっていることを、日本の良識ある人びとに知ってもらえさえしたらよいのだが」（60頁）といった趣旨のことばが繰り返し記されている。約70年 遅れではあるが、彼女の願いが成就することを祈りたい。

These guys all appear to conclude that many of the atrocities that occurred in Nanjing were at the hands of Chinese soldiers and emphasised on the kindness of Japanese people present in Nanjing at the time.  They concluded that all the evidences presented by Vautrin proved that there was no Nanjing Massacre.

It is true that even in wartime, there were Japanese nationals who felt that what the Japanese army did was wrong and did what they can to help others. It is also true that the word “massacre” must first of be clearly defined before it is used to describe any single event, and that now forms the basis for many counter-arguments against “Nanking Massacre”.

However, putting these two issues aside, I am just puzzled as to why is it that the conclusions drawn by these Japanese readers from the Japanese version of Vautrin’s Diary appear so different to the conclusions drawn by Chinese nationals and the English-speaking world based on the same diary, except in, respectively, Chinese and English?

A web search of “Minnie Vautrin” in English would return numerous accounts of how this courageous woman did all she could to save the Chinese girls from Japanese atrocities, her witness accounts of the horrendous fate suffered by many of her students and Chinese acquaintances. I am yet to read in detail any of her actual diary entries, but to have two such vastly different reactions to the same set of witness evidences is just bizzarre.

If there has been selective exclusion of parts of her diary or mistranslations of her diary in any of the versions, that the motive by the particular translator is questionable. If this variation stems from cultural background and historical understanding issues that that is also something that should be addressed. But essentially, Vautrin’s diary entries should evoke the same sort of reaction from her readership regardless of what language version they are reading. The fact that this is not the case as of now indicates that something has gone very wrong.

Dalai Lama Fans Clash With Protesters

Source：http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/17/dalai-lama-fans-clash-with-pro-china-protesters/?scp=2&sq=dalai%20lama&s

July 17, 2008,  7:32 pm

By The New York Times

Updated, 11:30 p.m. | As thousands of people, mostly of Tibetan and Nepalese ancestry, streamed out of Radio City Music Hall on Thursday afternoon, where they had gone to hear the Dalai Lama give a lecture on the Four Noble Truths of Buddhism, they found themselves in a chaotic scene on the Avenue of the Americas.

About 200 members of a Buddhist sect, the Western Shugden Society, were outside the hall protesting the Dalai Lama, who they said had persecuted monks who supported the sect. Some among the thousands coming out of the lecture began shouting at the protesters. The crowd began to swell, and eventually thousands were shouting “Long Live Dalai Lama” and waving dollar bills at the protesters, asserting that they had been paid by the Chinese government.

Police officers on horseback, and dozens on the ground, began scrambling to set up barriers and push the crowds off of the streets, but the avenue was closed for about 20 minutes around 5 p.m. Office workers stood at windows along Rockefeller Center’s office buildings, gazing down at the crowds, which grew louder and larger.

Some of the Dalai Lama supporters began approaching the protesters and were shoved away by police.

After his lecture to a sold-out house at Radio City, where some supporters paid as much as $1,000 a ticket, the Dalai Lama took questions that audience members had submitted in advance. The second question was whether he had anything to say about the protesters outside, who had begun setting up long before the Dalai Lama’s lecture began at 2 p.m.

The Dalai Lama said he used to follow their practice, known as Dorje Shugden, from about 1951 until the early 1970s, but that he had given it up because it was intolerant of other Buddhist teachings.

“This is just spirit worship,” he said. “After I read more about it, I realized my mistake and dropped my practice.”

He added: “I think 99 percent of Tibetans follow my practice. Some small portion worship this spirit. I am committed to freedom of speech, freedom of talk. So I say to them, enjoy freedom of talk.”

He also argued that two past Dalai Lamas had restricted the practice, and that he was following tradition.

The Western Shudgen Society asserts that the Dalai Lama has more than a decade “been fostering a campaign of intimidation, humiliation, and ostracism” against practitioners of Dorje Shugden.

Kelsang Pema, a spokeswoman for the Western Shugden Society, said she had flown from England to engage in the protest. More than half of the protesters appeared to be Westerners, although Ms. Pema said 100 Tibetan monks also took part in the protest.

Although the crowd who attended the lecture at Radio City contained a sprinkling of Westerners, most were of Himalayan ancestry and they were the ones shouting at the protesters from across the Avenue of the Americas and from the north side of 50th Street.

The protesters were on the southwest corner of 50th and Sixth, behind police barricades. There did not appear to be any arrests. Ms. Pema said of the Dalai Lama, “He’s a Hollywood monk. If you ask him something serious, he smiles and laughs and pretends he doesn’t know English.” (The Dalai Lama answered the question in English, with some help with words and phrases from a translator seated near him on the stage.)

Ms. Pema said people had come from 18 countries to participate in the protest. She denied that her group had been paid by the Chinese government. “We get no money from the Chinese. They can check our organization. We’re clean.” The protesters handed out literature explaining their position.

143 comments so far…

China Shouldn’t Be Inscrutable

I came across a very interesting piece in Newsweek on the China issue, many of the ideas of which I agree with very much. Given the current global political and economical climate, isolation and bashing of any particular country through multiple means will not contribute to any positive outcome.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/150460

To say that this new China is the same as the old is to be utterly ignorant or ideological—perhaps both.

Published Aug 2, 2008

From the magazine issue dated Aug 11, 2008

With the Beijing Olympics starting at the end of this week, you might think this would be an occasion for serious analysis and reflection about China—how to understand the country and its changing society, how to handle the regime. Instead, we’ve mostly heard a familiar recitation of clichés. Conservatives rail against a “rising autocracy” and exaggerate China’s military strength. Republican Sen. Sam Brownback went to Beijing and discovered—surprise!—that the Chinese government engaged in espionage. He fumed to CNN that the authorities could “listen to anybody and everybody and their communications and their recordings.” One month earlier the senator had enthusiastically voted for the FISA Amendments Act, which allows the U.S. government to do pretty much the same thing.

China bashing is not just a right-wing phenomenon. The New Republic, mostly left of center, ran a cover story last month with the headline, MEET THE NEW CHINA (SAME AS THE OLD). Inside, the magazine thundered that “our ultimate solidarity” should lie not with the “odious government” in Beijing but “the billion long-suffering men and women of the world’s largest dictatorship.”

Except that Chinese people (who, by the way, number 1.3 billion, not 1 billion) seem to disagree. About the same time as The New Republic hit the stands, the Pew Research Center released the findings of its 2008 Global Attitudes Survey. Of the 24 countries surveyed, the Chinese people expressed the highest level of support for the direction in which their country was heading, 86 percent. Nearly two out of three said that the Beijing government was doing a good job on issues that mattered to them. The survey questioned more than 3,212 Chinese, face to face, in 16 dialects across the country. And while Chinese might not always speak freely to pollsters, several indications suggest that these numbers express something real. Such polls have been done for years and the numbers approving of the Chinese government have risen as the economy has grown (which should be expected). Those polled did complain about corruption, environmental degradation and inflation. And these attitudes—general approval of the country’s direction coupled with many specific criticisms—are also the ones reported by most scholars and journalists who have traveled in China.

placeAd2(commercialNode,’bigbox’,false,”)
<a href=”http://ad.doubleclick.net/click%3Bh=v8/3714/3/0/%2a/f%3B205801266%3B0-0%3B0%3B20900160%3B4307-300/250%3B27541257/27559136/1%3B%3B%7Eokv%3D%3Bdir%3Dhomepage%3Bad%3Dbb%3Bsz%3D300x250%3Bdel%3Djs%3Bajax%3Dn%3Btile%3D3%3Bheavy%3Dn%3BpageId%3Dnewsweek-id-150460%3Bpoe%3Dyes%3Bfromrss%3Dn%3B%7Eaopt%3D3/1/f00ff/1%3B%7Esscs%3D%3fhttp://clk.atdmt.com/M0N/go/106647516/direct;wi.300;hi.250/01/” target=”_blank”><img src=”http://view.atdmt.com/M0N/view/106647516/direct;wi.300;hi.250/01/5979143″/></a><noscript><a href=”http://ad.doubleclick.net/click%3Bh=v8/3714/3/0/%2a/f%3B205801266%3B0-0%3B0%3B20900160%3B4307-300/250%3B27541257/27559136/1%3B%3B%7Eokv%3D%3Bdir%3Dhomepage%3Bad%3Dbb%3Bsz%3D300x250%3Bdel%3Djs%3Bajax%3Dn%3Btile%3D3%3Bheavy%3Dn%3BpageId%3Dnewsweek-id-150460%3Bpoe%3Dyes%3Bfromrss%3Dn%3B%7Eaopt%3D3/1/f00ff/1%3B%7Esscs%3D%3fhttp://clk.atdmt.com/M0N/go/106647516/direct;wi.300;hi.250/01/” target=”_blank”><img border=”0″ src=”http://view.atdmt.com/M0N/view/106647516/direct;wi.300;hi.250/01/5979143″ /></a></noscript>

China is a complicated country. It has a closed political system but an open economy and an increasingly vibrant society. It is building up weapons systems at a fast clip, yet is not directly competing against American military power. It has been helpful in the negotiations with North Korea but callous in shielding Robert Mugabe and the Sudanese regime. Capturing these realities is difficult, but still we have to try. To say that this new China is the same as the old (meaning Mao’s totalitarian state) is to be ignorant or ideological, or both. It is not an accident that many ferocious China bashers have rarely visited the country.

This ignorance of today’s China has serious policy consequences. We don’t understand how the country works. We don’t know what to make of the views of the Chinese people (“our true allies” The New Republic tells us), who are more aggressive than their government on many issues, including Taiwan and Tibet, and who often seem more anti-American. A recent essay in The New Yorker by Evan Osnos brilliantly captures the complexity of the rise of nationalism in China—simultaneously Western and anti-Western—through the eyes of one intellectual, an expert in Western philosophy, who is also the creator of a wildly popular nationalist Web video.

The collapse of the Dohatrade round—the first breakdown of global trade talks since the 1930s—is vivid evidence that we have not found a way to partner with newly rising powers like China and India. If this pattern of misunderstandings, disunity and stalemate continues, there will be little progress on all kinds of urgent global issues—energy, food, environment, human rights, security.

There is enough blame to go around for the collapse of Doha. The Indians, Chinese and Americans were too obstinate in protecting their farmers. But the United States and Europe have not adjusted to the new balance of power. The last set of trade talks, in Cancún, was derailed by Brazil. These were blocked largely by India. (Dealing with these democracies has often proved as complex as with the Chinese dictatorship.) Our impulse is to criticize these countries for all their shortcomings, but in fact our goal should be the opposite. We should be making them feel empowered so they see themselves as rule makers, not free riders on the global system.

The greatest failure of Western foreign policy since the cold war ended has been a sin of omission. We have not pursued a foreign policy toward the world’s newly rising powers that aims to create new and enduring relations with them, integrate them into existing structures of power and lay out new rules of the road to secure peace and prosperity. If the emerging countries grow strong outside the old order, they will freelance and be unwilling to help build a new one. The new world might well be the same as the old—the 19th-century world, that is, marked by economic globalization, political nationalism and war.