Many China "experts" on American TV cannot pronounce the name of the President--usually saying Jee. Of course, there are a few highly qualified experts. But, many have been to Guomao five times without seeing the rest of the country, or even the city.
I understand that many "China" expert professors in the US are now retiring and not being replaced by their universities. Young people don't see a career path there.
Unfortunately, there is an incredible amount of misinformation about China in the US, partly due to ignorance and partly deliberate. I once suggested to an American TV correspondent in Beijing that he/she (to protect identities) do a story on rural e-commerce in China, which is an inspiring story. The response was "We are not allowed to do positive stories about China."
When I was younger, the views of Chinese commentators sounded like ideological cliches, while Americans seemed more forthright and pragmatic. Today, I am surprised at how objective Chinese views sound compared to Americans. It’s like they have changed places.
As a US-trained China specialist working in Beijing, I couldn't agree more. I still publish in US journals, but it's been ages since I felt it necessary to visit a US-based event like the Association for Asian Studies conference.
I think we are seeing just the beginning fallout of the drop in studying in China. That hit roughly six years ago now and has been very very slow to recover. We are going to have a hole on our side from that drop. Need to reinvest in sending students there. https://www.collegetowns.org/p/rednote-shows-americans-need-to-study
Another phenomena, one I see a great deal of on Substack (and apparently infest X), is the mainland version of FILTH (Failed In London, Try (Tried) Hong Kong https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/37060.Old_Filth.
The acronyms for *Failed In Washington/Sidney/Aukland/Paris/Berlin, Oslo, etc. etc, Tried Beijing and Failed There Too* just doesn't have the same ring. Nothing quite poisons and imbitters like failure among success, so a lot of expats who didn't make it return home to find a ready industry, not necessarily well paying, but allowing some of them to survive on funding from the MIC-IMATT MIP-IMATT industrial base (C=Congress/P=Parliament). They pose as experts on China but make their living off of their audience's ignorance of their incompetence and funding from people who do not want China understood. They infect not only the commentariat, but due to slack academic standards and the same funding, have imbedded their kind through the humanities academics to infest think tanks and mass media/publishing. You'll find similar creatures infest a similar industry built on selling Russia as a bogyman from those who failed in Moscow/Eastern Europe in the 1980/1990s.
Unfortunately, the tensions between the US and China are the cause of this issue and the reason it is becoming further entrenched. Prolonged experience in China used to be considered a good thing – especially since opportunities to do so were limited for a long time – for China scholars, analysts, and other China-studies relevant jobs. Not only have those roles significantly decreased since Trump I, but those who have connections to China or even limited periods spent in China are subject to far more complex security clearance processes and more skepticism. Having positive or even lukewarm opinions of China increases hesitation. China studies is most relevant to careers in or related to public service in the US, which means only those with limited China experience are able to start in such roles within a reasonable time. This creates an echo chamber. From what I hear from Chinese colleagues, it sounds like there is similar skepticism towards those who have studied in the West, though I cannot speak to the extent to which these two situations are truly comparable.
Perhaps China could help by being more open to visiting scholars, treating them not as potential spies but rather as a bridge between the nations, helping for better mutual understanding?
Whether Chinese-American studies are broad or specific, both American and Chinese scholars must first be rooted in Chinese history, culture, and heritage. A cursory examination of the Chinese roots is a mistake, and understanding of principles and precepts will be flawed in any area of study. To admire and love the plum blossoms showering the landscape in China, no one would ever cut off the roots of the plum tree for flowers in the spring. Healthy roots must be cared for and tended throughout every season. It is not enough to remember. Constant vigilance to preserve, investigate, and invigorate Chinese history, culture, and heritage is not only valid for an indigenous China but also for the world. Being modern is more than learning a bit about the past to serve the present and future. Learning, developing, and growing are the elements in the soil necessary to weed out ignorance. Never forget.
Many China "experts" on American TV cannot pronounce the name of the President--usually saying Jee. Of course, there are a few highly qualified experts. But, many have been to Guomao five times without seeing the rest of the country, or even the city.
I understand that many "China" expert professors in the US are now retiring and not being replaced by their universities. Young people don't see a career path there.
Unfortunately, there is an incredible amount of misinformation about China in the US, partly due to ignorance and partly deliberate. I once suggested to an American TV correspondent in Beijing that he/she (to protect identities) do a story on rural e-commerce in China, which is an inspiring story. The response was "We are not allowed to do positive stories about China."
When I was younger, the views of Chinese commentators sounded like ideological cliches, while Americans seemed more forthright and pragmatic. Today, I am surprised at how objective Chinese views sound compared to Americans. It’s like they have changed places.
As a US-trained China specialist working in Beijing, I couldn't agree more. I still publish in US journals, but it's been ages since I felt it necessary to visit a US-based event like the Association for Asian Studies conference.
I think we are seeing just the beginning fallout of the drop in studying in China. That hit roughly six years ago now and has been very very slow to recover. We are going to have a hole on our side from that drop. Need to reinvest in sending students there. https://www.collegetowns.org/p/rednote-shows-americans-need-to-study
Another phenomena, one I see a great deal of on Substack (and apparently infest X), is the mainland version of FILTH (Failed In London, Try (Tried) Hong Kong https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/37060.Old_Filth.
The acronyms for *Failed In Washington/Sidney/Aukland/Paris/Berlin, Oslo, etc. etc, Tried Beijing and Failed There Too* just doesn't have the same ring. Nothing quite poisons and imbitters like failure among success, so a lot of expats who didn't make it return home to find a ready industry, not necessarily well paying, but allowing some of them to survive on funding from the MIC-IMATT MIP-IMATT industrial base (C=Congress/P=Parliament). They pose as experts on China but make their living off of their audience's ignorance of their incompetence and funding from people who do not want China understood. They infect not only the commentariat, but due to slack academic standards and the same funding, have imbedded their kind through the humanities academics to infest think tanks and mass media/publishing. You'll find similar creatures infest a similar industry built on selling Russia as a bogyman from those who failed in Moscow/Eastern Europe in the 1980/1990s.
Academics in the West has mostly been a money game, old wealth (i.e.. Opium and slavery) use to run it, and they viewed China mostly through the lens of being a market. Now Finance Capital and the Military Industry/Tech Bros are the monied class powering universities https://www.chron.com/culture/article/university-of-austin-staff-exodus-21248040.php (edit: https://substack.com/@arnaudbertrand/note/c-201030766)
Unfortunately, the tensions between the US and China are the cause of this issue and the reason it is becoming further entrenched. Prolonged experience in China used to be considered a good thing – especially since opportunities to do so were limited for a long time – for China scholars, analysts, and other China-studies relevant jobs. Not only have those roles significantly decreased since Trump I, but those who have connections to China or even limited periods spent in China are subject to far more complex security clearance processes and more skepticism. Having positive or even lukewarm opinions of China increases hesitation. China studies is most relevant to careers in or related to public service in the US, which means only those with limited China experience are able to start in such roles within a reasonable time. This creates an echo chamber. From what I hear from Chinese colleagues, it sounds like there is similar skepticism towards those who have studied in the West, though I cannot speak to the extent to which these two situations are truly comparable.
Perhaps China could help by being more open to visiting scholars, treating them not as potential spies but rather as a bridge between the nations, helping for better mutual understanding?
🇮🇳 hello 👋 SIR LOGOO HUWA KYA
Pekingnology: it’s an interesting essay, though the noted political scientist Kevin O’Brian forcefully made a similar case some 15 years ago. See: https://polisci.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/people/u3854/OBrien%20Final.pdf
Whether Chinese-American studies are broad or specific, both American and Chinese scholars must first be rooted in Chinese history, culture, and heritage. A cursory examination of the Chinese roots is a mistake, and understanding of principles and precepts will be flawed in any area of study. To admire and love the plum blossoms showering the landscape in China, no one would ever cut off the roots of the plum tree for flowers in the spring. Healthy roots must be cared for and tended throughout every season. It is not enough to remember. Constant vigilance to preserve, investigate, and invigorate Chinese history, culture, and heritage is not only valid for an indigenous China but also for the world. Being modern is more than learning a bit about the past to serve the present and future. Learning, developing, and growing are the elements in the soil necessary to weed out ignorance. Never forget.