As a Chinese person, I think westerners are more benign.

[mayfly13]

"Although not every westerner is Christian but Westerners grew up in this judah christian culture.

I feel compared to Chinese people, westerners have more benign temper, and straight forward, and easy to deal with.

While Chinese people raised in Chinese culture are more confrontational, competition oriented, and relationship between people are more sophisticated and elusive. Though I feel Western world may not be able to compete with China in long term, but a world dominated by western civilization is more compassionate and caring towards ordinary people."
https://www.reddit.com/r/China/comments/a9swea/as_a_chinese_person_i_think_westerners_are_more/





*** A thread that I recently came across on reddit, in my attempts to learn about a culture that I struggle to understand.
Please discuss.
Do you think that the writer is prejudiced, or does he have a small point?

 

[mayfly13]

The first poster in that thread:

"Many Chinese people believe that low cunning and lying are the clever thing to do because they can achieve quick gains from it.
And they believe westerners are dumb because we try not to lie and play things fairly straight.
But the result is that actually most Chinese people can't trust each other and their working efficiency is very low."


=======



Fuck me...
That was exactly my experience with my 15 years Chinese 'friend', whom I discovered has been hiding his true, derogatory views of us EE's & manipulating us into believing he's so meek and clueless,

To save face and preserve Confucian harmony? Or because it's a two-faced, low in trust culture?

East Asians are far better than South Asians who walk all over you & stab you in your back big time. But their culture feels so incomprehensible - alien..

 

[pecksniff]

From The Problem of China, by Bertrand Russell (1922):

There is a theory among Occidentals that the Chinaman is inscrutable, full of secret thoughts, and impossible for us to understand. It may be that a greater experience of China would have brought me to share this opinion; but I could see nothing to support it during the time when I was working in that country. I talked to the Chinese as I should have talked to English people, and they answered me much as English people would have answered a Chinese whom they considered educated and not wholly unintelligent. I do not believe in the myth of the "Subtle Oriental": I am convinced that in a game of mutual deception an Englishman or American can beat a Chinese nine times out of ten. But as many comparatively poor Chinese have dealings with rich white men, the game is often played only on one side. Then, no doubt, the white man is deceived and swindled; but not more than a Chinese mandarin would be in London.

 

[pecksniff]

Also Russell (Project Gutenberg -- out of copyright):

So far, I have spoken chiefly of the good sides of the Chinese character; but of course China, like every other nation, has its bad sides also. It is disagreeable to me to speak of these, as I experienced so much courtesy and real kindness from the Chinese, that I should prefer to say only nice things about them. But for the sake of China, as well as for the sake of truth, it would be a mistake to conceal what is less admirable. I will only ask the reader to remember that, on the balance, I think the Chinese one of the best nations I have come across, and am prepared to draw up a graver indictment against every one of the Great Powers. Shortly before I left China, an eminent Chinese writer pressed me to say what I considered the chief defects of the Chinese. With some reluctance, I mentioned three: avarice, cowardice and callousness. Strange to say, my interlocutor, instead of getting angry, admitted the justice of my criticism, and proceeded to discuss possible remedies. This is a sample of the intellectual integrity which is one of China's greatest virtues.

The callousness of the Chinese is bound to strike every Anglo-Saxon. They have none of that humanitarian impulse which leads us to devote one per cent. of our energy to mitigating the evils wrought by the other ninety-nine per cent. For instance, we have been forbidding the Austrians to join with Germany, to emigrate, or to obtain the raw materials of industry. Therefore the Viennese have starved, except those whom it has pleased us to keep alive from philanthropy. The Chinese would not have had the energy to starve the Viennese, or the philanthropy to keep some of them alive. While I was in China, millions were dying of famine; men sold their children into slavery for a few dollars, and killed them if this sum was unobtainable. Much was done by white men to relieve the famine, but very little by the Chinese, and that little vitiated by corruption. It must be said, however, that the efforts of the white men were more effective in soothing their own consciences than in helping the Chinese. So long as the present birth-rate and the present methods of agriculture persist, famines are bound to occur periodically; and those whom philanthropy keeps alive through one famine are only too likely to perish in the next.

Famines in China can be permanently cured only by better methods of agriculture combined with emigration or birth-control on a large scale. Educated Chinese realize this, and it makes them indifferent to efforts to keep the present victims alive. A great deal of Chinese callousness has a similar explanation, and is due to perception of the vastness of the problems involved. But there remains a residue which cannot be so explained. If a dog is run over by an automobile and seriously hurt, nine out of ten passers-by will stop to laugh at the poor brute's howls. The spectacle of suffering does not of itself rouse any sympathetic pain in the average Chinaman; in fact, he seems to find it mildly agreeable. Their history, and their penal code before the revolution of 1911, show that they are by no means destitute of the impulse of active cruelty; but of this I did not myself come across any instances. And it must be said that active cruelty is practised by all the great nations, to an extent concealed from us only by our hypocrisy.

Cowardice is prima facie a fault of the Chinese; but I am not sure that they are really lacking in courage. It is true that, in battles between rival tuchuns, both sides run away, and victory rests with the side that first discovers the flight of the other. But this proves only that the Chinese soldier is a rational man. No cause of any importance is involved, and the armies consist of mere mercenaries. When there is a serious issue, as, for instance, in the Tai-Ping rebellion, the Chinese are said to fight well, particularly if they have good officers. Nevertheless, I do not think that, in comparison with the Anglo-Saxons, the French, or the Germans, the Chinese can be considered a courageous people, except in the matter of passive endurance. They will endure torture, and even death, for motives which men of more pugnacious races would find insufficient—for example, to conceal the hiding-place of stolen plunder. In spite of their comparative lack of active courage, they have less fear of death than we have, as is shown by their readiness to commit suicide.

Avarice is, I should say, the gravest defect of the Chinese. Life is hard, and money is not easily obtained. For the sake of money, all except a very few foreign-educated Chinese will be guilty of corruption. For the sake of a few pence, almost any coolie will run an imminent risk of death. The difficulty of combating Japan has arisen mainly from the fact that hardly any Chinese politician can resist Japanese bribes. I think this defect is probably due to the fact that, for many ages, an honest living has been hard to get; in which case it will be lessened as economic conditions improve. I doubt if it is any worse now in China than it was in Europe in the eighteenth century. I have not heard of any Chinese general more corrupt than Marlborough, or of any politician more corrupt than Cardinal Dubois. It is, therefore, quite likely that changed industrial conditions will make the Chinese as honest as we are—which is not saying much.

I have been speaking of the Chinese as they are in ordinary life, when they appear as men of active and sceptical intelligence, but of somewhat sluggish passions. There is, however, another side to them: they are capable of wild excitement, often of a collective kind. I saw little of this myself, but there can be no doubt of the fact. The Boxer rising was a case in point, and one which particularly affected Europeans. But their history is full of more or less analogous disturbances. It is this element in their character that makes them incalculable, and makes it impossible even to guess at their future. One can imagine a section of them becoming fanatically Bolshevist, or anti-Japanese, or Christian, or devoted to some leader who would ultimately declare himself Emperor. I suppose it is this element in their character that makes them, in spite of their habitual caution, the most reckless gamblers in the world. And many emperors have lost their thrones through the force of romantic love, although romantic love is far more despised than it is in the West.

 

[mayfly13]

Thank you so much, pecksniff. You're really affirming & kind.
I am now looking through your links.

The thing is, Chinese feel alien and strange as fuck not just to me, but to most Eastern Europeans too.

Like we had this EE colleague (won't memtion the country) whom most of us EEs despised cause crafty and cunning (ok nice guy otherwise)
yet the Chinese held him in high regard for the same traitswe dispised.

 

[pecksniff]

Thank you so much, pecksniff. You're really affirming & kind.
I am now looking through your links.

It's a very informative book, despite the date. (Russell did a spell teaching philosophy at Beijing University.)

 

[pecksniff]

This is as good a time as any to mention that I am the rightful Emperor of China. My regnal name is Dong Hang Lo. Of the Wang Dynasty. When the monarchists inevitably and soon come to power, then, by Our Vermilion Decree, the new national anthem of the most ancient and illustrious Middle Kingdom shall be, "Mister Wong Has the Biggest Tong in Chinatown." Let all men tremble, respect this, and obey without negligence.

 

[The_Trouvere]

"Although not every westerner is Christian but Westerners grew up in this judah christian culture.

I feel compared to Chinese people, westerners have more benign temper, and straight forward, and easy to deal with.

While Chinese people raised in Chinese culture are more confrontational, competition oriented, and relationship between people are more sophisticated and elusive. Though I feel Western world may not be able to compete with China in long term, but a world dominated by western civilization is more compassionate and caring towards ordinary people."
https://www.reddit.com/r/China/comments/a9swea/as_a_chinese_person_i_think_westerners_are_more/


*** A thread that I recently came across on reddit, in my attempts to learn about a culture that I struggle to understand.
Please discuss.
Do you think that the writer is prejudiced, or does he have a small point?

I have known many Chinese during my life. I do not recognize them in this description of them. The Chinese I have known have been polite and harmonious. Although they have been excellent, they have not been competitive, in that they took no delight from defeating others.

 

[Philthy_Phil]

Nobody likes pakis.

 

[Earthlyone]

Nobody likes pakis.

lol.

 

[Champakian]

"Although not every westerner is Christian but Westerners grew up in this judah christian culture.

I feel compared to Chinese people, westerners have more benign temper, and straight forward, and easy to deal with.

While Chinese people raised in Chinese culture are more confrontational, competition oriented, and relationship between people are more sophisticated and elusive. Though I feel Western world may not be able to compete with China in long term, but a world dominated by western civilization is more compassionate and caring towards ordinary people."
https://www.reddit.com/r/China/comments/a9swea/as_a_chinese_person_i_think_westerners_are_more/


Thank you for the thread and your insights.

China will never be able to compete under Communist rule.

It's just an iron law of economics that people must be free to exchange goods and services.

Feelings mean very little to an economy. Needs are what drives an economy.
An ordered economy can never meet needs because it cannot anticipate the individual.
It might be able to produce enough food in the short term, but it cannot provide for dreams.

 

[Champakian]

I have known many Chinese during my life. I do not recognize them in this description of them. The Chinese I have known have been polite and harmonious. Although they have been excellent, they have not been competitive, in that they took no delight from defeating others.

You have known too few many.

My daughter's godmother is polite but absolutely cutthroat.
Especially when it comes to her business and at that, I assure you, she is competitive
(Cutthroat even).

She earned her degree at the Beijing University.

 

[Champakian]

Why the hell do you think there are so many Chinese takeout joints
if they are not "competitive?"

 

[The_Trouvere]

Nobody likes pakis.

What I mean by "Orientals" are Chinese, and members of nations that learned civilization from China. These are Koreans, Japanese, and Vietnamese.

 

[The_Trouvere]

Why the hell do you think there are so many Chinese takeout joints
if they are not "competitive?"

They are earning a living by providing a desired service.

 

[pecksniff]

Feelings mean very little to an economy. Needs are what drives an economy.
An ordered economy can never meet needs because it cannot anticipate the individual.
It might be able to produce enough food in the short term, but it cannot provide for dreams.

Certainly no state economic planner ever would have thought of fabric softener or the Sony Walkman.

Whether that is an argument against Stalinism or for it is debatable.