Because You Never Asked

PROPAGANDA AMERICAN STYLE

     (This essay was written in the year 2001. In this writer’s mind, there is no more relevant subject than the ideas embodied in the word “propaganda”. It is the underlying force behind so much of the madness reflected in human behavior. This essay is another attempt in a long bloodline of essays to unmask this nefarious pox on the human condition.)

     That measuring stick in time represented by my annual trip to the Spanish Mediterranean is now upon us. Such geographic shift has inspired the following essay.

     One of the most positive aspects of this yearly visit is a certain Chinese girl with whom I’ve developed a relationship that has become, over a 5 year period, a bit more than friendly. She comes from Shanghai and although she is still a Chinese national, she has lived in Spain for almost 15 years. For much of that time she has run a Chinese restaurant on the island (sweet and sour shrimp, highly recommended).

     When I first started going to her restaurant, I noticed a small picture of Mao Tse Tung hanging inconspicuously behind the bar. It was about the size of a baseball card and reminded me of the pictures of Jesus, or the Virgin, that one might see in an Italian restaurant.

     Two years went by, Mao’s picture continued to hang almost completely unnoticed, and I got to know my lady friend and the 2 other Chinese people who worked there. Although they are intelligent, competent people, none of them are what you’d call “intellectuals”. Politics or ideology do not clutter their everyday existence. Being that they had chosen to make their lives outside of China, I assumed that patriotism was not a driving force in their lives (and really, it’s not).

     One evening, I walked into the restaurant and found a small celebration going on; a glass of champagne, a little music, a toast … The British had handed over Hong Kong to the Chinese that very day. My lady friend showed me a newspaper with a photo of the Royal Yacht sailing out of the harbor. They were very pleased.

     This display of affection for their homeland, which was a side of them I had never seen, caught me somewhat by surprise. Noticing old Mao hanging serenely behind the bar, I decided to ask their opinion of him. Without a great deal of elaboration, and with an understated but sincere show of reverence, it was obvious he was their man. Why, I asked? For them it was simple; in all the time he ruled China, he had never enriched himself. They believed in his sincerity. What about the guys who run the country today? Once again, in that understated mode that seems to characterize Orientals, they lightly shook their heads, as if they were paternally rejecting the latest in adolescent music. No, my lady friend explained, it’s all money now.

     For Chinese people who had left their country and were entrepreneurs themselves, this attitude was somewhat perplexing to me. I wondered whose perception of reality was closer to the truth --- the American one, where Mao’s popularity ranks somewhere between herpes and Mike Tyson, or their Chinese one, undoubtedly forged in a climate of institutional devotion to the “Great Leader”.

     This essay’s story continues a few years later, more specifically, 2 weeks after my arrival to the island this year. At such juncture in time, my ignorance with regard to Major League Baseball became unbearable, thus precipitating my purchase of the International Herald Tribune. Two days after having been informed that the Yankees had surprisingly dropped out of first place, I was further perusing the “Trib” when it became obvious that much of the news was devoted to China. It seems that Congress was about to decide if we should start trading with the sons of Charlie Chan in the same way we do with almost everyone else. Translation: there are an awful lot of slanty-eyed consumers out there and they all need new cars. In addition, they will literally work for “peanuts” if any of our sleeze bag corporations want to take our jobs “over there”. Is this the propitious moment to drop the “human rights” song from the hit parade and start making money off these people?

     Amongst the many articles on China appearing in the Trib that day was one by a Jonathon Mirsky, described as a “China specialist based in London”. The headline of his piece proclaimed that Taiwan‘s “ … Robust Democracy is a Major U.S. Achievement”. Mr. Mirsky’s column was an absurdly pro-Taiwanese view of Chinese affairs, going so far as to state that “Beijing has never ruled Taiwan for a single day …” Now, admittedly, I am no “specialist” on China, but it seems to me, except for the last 50 years of China’s 5000 year history, that Beijing or Peking, or whatever whoever was calling it at the time, had something to do with ruling over Taiwan or Formosa, or whatever whoever was calling it at the time. (You can look it up). Although Mr. Mirsky’s peculiar interpretation of Chinese history lessened my respect for his opinions, he did provide an excellent capsule review of Taiwan’s last 50 years of history:

     Our “specialist” explained that when he first went to Taiwan in 1958 it was “under martial law. There were many political prisoners, a captive press, and a secret police ready to pounce on any native born Taiwanese” (…) who objected to the rule of Chiang Kai Shek and his minions.

     What have we learned here?

     We’ve learned that the losers in China’s civil war took refuge on Taiwan (in1949) and unilaterally, against the will of its native population, took over the place in a classic display of totalitarian (oh, that “T” word) gangsterism. Almost a whole decade later, this state of affairs still existed and, as we shall soon find out, for probably much longer.

     Mr. Mirtz apologizes for the brutality of the regime by saying that “ … over the years, the Kuomintang (Chiang Kai Shek’s political Party), partly as a result of pressure from Washington (who else?), abandoned authoritarianism, encouraging first the shoots and then the full flower of democracy.”

     As we can see, our “specialist” can wax poetic, but he seems to have greatly overstated the case. In fact, judging from the history he himself goes on to explain, I now think his true “specialty” is bullcrap. This great “flowering” of democracy didn’t produce its first elected President until 1996, 47 years after Chiang and his cronies took over Taiwan. (One has to wonder about the “pressure” applied by Washington. “C’mon, how ’bout a little democracy, just a little …?) Although this first elected President was born on the island, he too was a member of the Kuomintang. It wasn’t until the next elections in 2000, more than a half century later, that anyone other than this Party took the reins of power.

     Fine … better late than never I suppose. If Taiwan is now the model democracy our “specialist” claims it is, if there is now freedom of this, freedom of that, and the right to walk down the street with garlic on your breath … I have no quarrel with that. But (cue Steve Martin) …

     “EXCUUUSE ME!”

     Here we are, 51 years after Mao’s revolution created this Chinese bi-polarity and the U.S. Congress is trying to decide if we should freely trade with the entity that represents well over a billion Chinese people. The debate revolves around whether such a nation of totalitarian (ooh, that word again), non democratic, one Party brigands, should be given the magnanimous privilege of experiencing the free pizza delivery life style. Meanwhile, for almost all of those 51 years, the China we supported --- which represents a microscopic percentage of the Chinese people --- had been a one Party police state, lacking free elections, and all that other goulash American violins so tragically weep for. And yet, for all those years, not only did the U.S. trade freely with Taiwan, it was the principle artifice of its economic success and military defense. Upon further review, it becomes obvious that America’s policy towards each China never had anything to do with freedom, democracy, or human rights, and everything to do with which China’s one Party we liked better.

     Down through the years, this consistently inconsistent application of its concepts of morality by the world’s only “super power”, has been the trademark of its foreign policy. To selectively use the morality gambit only when it is convenient for your self interests, is an insult to the idea of “morality” and shows a very tenuous devotion to it.

     Such hypocrisy makes me think there is just as much reason for my Chinese friends to believe in their icons as there is for us Americans to believe in ours. There is probably an equal amount of truth and fraudulence in both forms of cultural inculcation.  

back to the Table of Contents

Email: JerryG@postcman.info