China the Beautiful

Might I add that most of this type of bragging is done at least partially in jest. It is interesting to note the populations of these states. California does have the most people of any of the 50 states. Alaska has less people than many major cities.

CA - 36,961,664

Tx - 24,782,302

Alaska - 698,473

I like that story orangina - I have heard it before but had my States mixed up. In Australia it is easier to remember order of size as we only have six States. One interesting comparison between US and Australia may be the area of land held by its native peoples. :)

Alaska is largest, then Texas and California is 3rd. Texans are "known" for bragging about largeness, but Alaskans are not....

A Texan is talking to an Alaskan and is telling the Alaskan how big everything is in Texas... the sky, the cars, the cattle, everything is bigger in Texas. The Alaskan gets fed up with all this and finally says, "If you don't shut up we'll cut Alaska in half and make you the third largest state."

Alaska - 1,717,84 KM2

Texas - 696,241 KM2

California - 423,970 KM2

The above is the result of less than a minute on Google searching for land area by state. Texans have egos out of proportion to the facts. California is less than a third of the size of Alaska.

I have personal memories of Americans boasting about the size (area) of their States. I think California is by far the biggest State is it not? But Texans come second? I might have that around the wrong way. And Alaska must be in there somewhere.

Xiaophil

This wasn't a test, but if it was you would get full marks. My belief is that foreigners constantly underestimate the differences between China and the West. What I disagree with most is the line 'ah, but we are all just the same under the skin'. It is under the skin that we are fundamentally different. And I think most foreigners go looking for differences in the wrong place (I am referring to the 'but we are a democracy' arguments.) My post was a thought experiment to provoke some discussion about it. I do think the observations stand (and are intriguing), but they are essentially symbolic. As already asserted above, America is fundamentally individualistic and China is fundamentally collectivist. China is Confucian, the US is not. Much stems from that.

Whether two things are similar or not depends on the criteria used to judge them. Bodawei laid down his criteria in his original post, and provided we don't try to read more into them than he has stated, I think most of them are hard to argue with, especially from the point of an outsider looking in.

I do have to say though, I don't think I have ever heard an American boast about the size of US cities. Considering Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth would be the 2nd, 3rd, 7th and 8th largest US cities respectively if Australia were part of the States, I don't think there is much to boast about. Having said that, Americans do in general have an unnatural obsession with the biggest and best.

I just have time for the 'efficacy' question, I have to run too. Efficacy focuses on the result, it is really silent on the way you get there. Granted the means in China and the US are different. I meant that the leadership ultimately is quite effective, in both countries. Although probably both countries have had a couple of 'duds'.

The strength of the US system is the level of scrutiny - everything gets examined, analysed, debated to death etc. And the West in general has its checks and balances. Although your 'chief executive' has more power than in the Westminster system; I prefer 'our' system. It sits somewhere between the concentration of power vested in the President in the US and the kind of crazy instability you get in places like Italy.

The strength of the Chinese system is the way it rewards merit. Incompetent fools do not get into the Chinese leadership even if they do have good connections (we might have to agree to differ on that point.) Yes, Hu Jintao is unexciting and lacks warmth but his team is pretty good. The system for arriving at leadership seems to work well for this culture (if you accept my 'empire' model they have had plenty of experience with the system.) Although it is slowly evolving, any radically different system would run up against cultural barriers.

Hi Bodawei

Thanks for your reply. I apologize if this response seems rushed. It is rushed. That can't be helped.

First, I'm curious about what you mean by this:

"And the efficacy of the two is not dissimilar."

I really don't get how you can say this? I admit the are both efficacious, but the mode is completely different. I would rather have someone voted by the people represent me than the son of a man who is the son of some other man who had connections to some guy who had power and that is the main reason he has power.

Second, I'm also a bit confused by this:

"This is a 'blind-spot' for most Americans (I am trying to be objective.) After all that has happened in US history most Americans assert that 'anyone' can become President. 'We have a black man as President'. "

Of course the idea that 'anyone' can become president is idealistic. If that were true, anyone who wanted to become president, would be president. But American presidents have different backgrounds, and many of them not money filled. President Obama being one example. Yes, America isn't an ideal place, but it doesn't mean that our system is not among the best.

I would agree that geography is important. However, I think there is one big difference. There are many more Chinese, and most of them live much closer to each other than Americans. I really do believe that this cannot be overlooked. That said, I do agree that both countries like 'big', but in different ways. I personally thought that the Olympic ceremony in China was way overboard, and I doubt Americans would ever want to pay for something such as that. Just one quick example.

Wish I had time for more. Got stuff to do. Thanks for the thought provoking post.

Hi Xiaophil

I don't think I am bashing the US, consciously or unconsciously. I am a bit of an amateur social anthropologist, with emphasis on the amateur. I write about what I see (mainly China in the last few years.) At times I draw comparisons with Australia, my homeland, because I see us as diametrically opposed on a number of dimensions of culture. In doing this I have thought about how the US is also quite different to Australia; in fact it has more in common with China than with us in important ways. (The ways I have indicated above, mock-seriously, half-joking.) I guess, though, in response to your challenge, I do bash, or more accurately mock, American imperialism, that is quite a different thing.

The most serious likeness I identify above you say you don't understand - see Tvan's comments above.

The size 'not important' - see Orangina's comments, for example. I think that our geography does influence our behaviour, our culture. I know it does for Australians. It is an important part of our myths, but it also goes deeper.

The writing - I was just referring to 汉字。 I love Mark Twain's writings.

We all accommodate what we deem as 'normal' but for some societies the range of behaviours deemed normal is quite narrow. In the US the range is broad (helped maybe be its immigrant culture and multiculturalism policies). China is conventionally deemed narrow by the West (read Han) - I am challenging that view. I think by virture of its great size, and history of tribal communities, China does incorporate a diverse range of behaviours. (I think you have to live here a while, and travel a fair bit, to see this in China. Ordinary Chinese people themselves under-estimate this diversity. Because most still do not travel.) Just forget Government in this analysis - I am generally uninterested in Government structures in this argument. Government structures are important symbolically but it doesn't go very deep.

But while on Government - I am simply saying that both voting processes are fundamentally opaque to the rest of the world. I am not saying that they are the same. Or though there are similarities. :) And the efficacy of the two is not dissimilar. This is a 'blind-spot' for most Americans (I am trying to be objective.) After all that has happened in US history most Americans assert that 'anyone' can become President. 'We have a black man as President'. The pool of likely candidates for President is narrower than for that for Prime Minister in Australia. And we always have well-educated, successful, white males asserting religious beliefs as Prime Minister. Enough said.

You don't eat rice that often. That is a non-sequitur Xiaophil my friend. I am not talking about rice. This one is probably not Earth-shattering. It is just that we don't eat much corn in Australia. And you are what you eat. No?

Fat kids - America undoubtedly leads the world by a fair margin, and in China there are also a lot of fat kids. (But remember I say 'what's wrong with that?' I seriously don't know - I am just making an observation). In China at least they do a lot of physical education, right into university years. In China I wonder how the change in diet will play out, not only in obesity. In Japan it lead to enormous increases in stature apparently. I live in short-arse territory in China and I am amazed at how tall the younger generation is.

Health care - you forget that it is changing in China as well. On the question of equity in health service delivery - China and the US are like Tweedledum and Tweedledee in this respect, even assuming Obama's new system bedded down. Correcting for the lower average individual income in China (the most relevant predictor of health standards), China probably has a more effective system. More kick for the kuai (bang for the buck in 美国话). Maybe the biggest factor is the willingness of Chinese doctors to accept modest incomes - even after hongbao are taken into account. Big topic.

Bicycles - they are treated as 'sport' in Australia as well. By any measure US citizens live in communities designed around the motor car and their consumption of private transport is well ahead of anywhere else in the world. But China is busy emulating this life style. Fortunately it was never going to succeed and now they are building more than 80 metro lines simultaneously (my estimate). There are 13 cities currently with mass transit and another 18 cities with systems under construction. Lets assume an average of two or three lines each for a start (Beijing I think has 13 lines operating or under construction.) Bikes have for some years never had a chance in China or the US - as it turns out for different reasons. :)

Thanks a lot for your post, This is just one way of learning more about each other. I don't mean to be anti-American. I once spent four months in North America having a look. Still much to explore.

Absolutely right. I hinted at it with my 'level of self-belief' - I do think that the citizens of China and the US are alike in this respect. As an Australian I often feel a little irrelevant - we (or more particularly our fauna) are considered cute, Australia a nice place for a holiday. And a good source of iron ore. The Chinese struggle to recognise us as a model of society. They don't even think that our English accent is worth copying. My students in general, before they enter my class, ignore everything prior to white invasion, and consider us a European community. They leave class educated at least in this respect. The events of the Global Financial Crisis should have challenged American exceptionalists. I think that long term globalization puts a serious dent in claims of exceptionalism.

Changye, there's a lot go be said for "Economic Freedom." The various French philosophers (the basis for U.S. rights) never mentioned it, so it's only an implied right over here. Nevertheless, I think it ranks right up there with freedom of speech and religion.

Based on my unscientific survey of Chinese taxi drivers, it seems that you are pretty much free to complain about the government.

Pax.

The inverted commas were used simply to show that the words inside them were used by you. It was not my intention to offend you, (or to be smug or facetious.) Trust me, when it is my intention to offend, I make it clear. Here, I thought we were merely exchanging views. Some of yours have surprised me, but never mind, I am of course not blaming you or any 'modern' Australian for your history, and it is natural for you to want to see it in the way you do, and to be cross with dissenters. Pax.

Hi Tal

It's not that I don't like John Pilger - I have never met him. I have seen him perform at a demonstration, that's the closest I have been. There was a time when I admired him myself but I feel that his arguments are now not helpful. I am now more interested in what the aborigines themselves say. Of course, all views are welcome and I am sure that he contributes to the debate in some circles.

Unless the culture was articulated how would you know anything about Australian culture?

I didn't say anything is 'blended together in harmony'. There is a good deal of tension between aboriginal and other Australians. Understandably. 'Pre-historic' is I admit jargon - it means 'not written down'. The vast majority of aboriginal history is 'not written down'. It's not that funny. :)

Tal - I am cool, and like our discussions, but your comments on this topic are verging on offending me. :) I am sometimes slow on the uptake but you seem to be saying that I am 'conveniently forgetting about [the history of white invasion]'. The expression aboriginal organisations does not require inverted commas - it is self-explanatory. The inverted commas imply that they are not aboriginal organisations. This message you convey with the inverted commas is smug, possibly mildly amusing, but ultimately misguided.

Oh, I get it, you don't like John Pilger. Actually I've always admired him, but that's beside the point surely? It's what he actually says that should count.

I would suggest that if a culture is 'for real', it doesn't need to be 'articulated', it is simply felt and lived. I find it unbelievable that a decade or two of more liberal views (?), a rejigging of Australia's education system, and a (very) few blokes like yourself helping "aboriginal organisations" means that Australia is now a place where the "prehistoric" (lol - your very use of this word speaks volumes) culture and the modern, historic, neo-European culture are blended together in harmony.

It's OK though, go ahead and be a dreamer, it's the human way. I wouldn't disagree with xiaophil's suggestion (?) that human history is replete with one group of humans displacing and eradicating another, and then conveniently forgetting about it afterwards. We humans have a gift for seeing things as we would like them to be, rather than as they are.

Happy Anzac Day!

Hi Tal

Sighhhh. The Pilge. Yes, we've all heard of him, at least I have (actually, most people in Australia would not know who John Pilger is). An expatriate who wouldn't know an aborigine if he/she hit him in the nuts. So to speak. :) We have a number of 'famous' Australians who spend their lives as far as possible away from Australia making a career out of the country's various shortcomings. Think Germaine Greer, Robert Hughes, etc. although putting John Pilger in this list does exaggerate his status somewhat. I just thought you may have heard of the Female Eunuch and the Famous Fisherman.

But I will agree with the primary assertion: most people (in any society) don't know how to articulate their values - they don't know much about their own culture, much less other peoples'. That's why John Pilger has a niche; in a sense he is doing 'our' thinking for us.

You should perhaps be reading the work of Australian aborigines themselves to get a bit of perspective. Australians at large have never really been listening to John Pilger to construct their reality. He maybe has a small following in a couple of inner suburbs of Sydney and Melbourne. (Someone must pay his airfare to Australia every few years for a book launch.) But well away from where any aborigines live. His primary market I imagine is outside Australia. Which I imagine he would interpret as 'a prophet ignored in his own country ..', etc.

Being an Australian today does owe something to our history before white invasion, although many (including myself) would find it difficult to articulate. I find it difficult even though I have lived in the centre and the north for several years (where the majority of aborigines reside) and have worked for an aboriginal organisation. And represented some aboriginal organisations in getting secure title to land. I may be a dreamer as you say. :)

Hi bodawei

My link was an article by John Pilger (I'm sure you've heard of him!) in which he says that "the theft and co-option of Aboriginal humanity, dignity and culture is more subtle now, but the ignorance and prejudice behind it remain granite-hard. For all the changes in education, many Australians are unaware that the names of their streets and towns are from the Aboriginal Dreaming and mark the graveyards of whole communities."

I was rather staggered by your assertion that the "pre-histories" are now "part of" the modern cultures of the neo-Europes. Streets and towns being named from the indigenous myths with the 'new' Australians not even really knowing where the words come from, is that what you meant?

I'm happy to see you acknowledge the 'limitations of markets', so I deduce that your faith in people is the usual faith that all of us who grow up in the fossil-fuel fairy castle have, that 'they' will save us and think of a solution, that 'they' will not let the crash happen.

Hi Tal,

I can't see your 'Nice to dream' link at present so I will have to imagine what it is about.

'markets will always solve everything' - I think you are confusing economists with right wind politicians and business men (usually men) who wear white shoes. :)

I think that people do/will find a solution - it is people rather than markets that I put my faith in. Markets are nothing but a social construct so it comes down to people and institutions designed by people. Although it is true that markets are 'clever' at processing the majority of life's activities, economists {actually I can't speak for all economists so I will just say 'I') understand as well as most people the limitations of markets.

"Also all three countries have a history much longer than the 200 years or so after white invasion - these pre-histories are now very much part of our cultures."

As you said bodawei, it's nice to dream.

Your suggestion that humankind is likely to find a 'solution' to the looming energy crisis doesn't surprise me, economists always seem to think markets will always solve everything.

@tal.xiaophil,tvan et al

You have all pushed the discussion along to another level. I would just like to side with Tal here in the main (after explaining to someone here recently a little tongue in cheek that we 'hate' the Poms and consider the Americans our closest allies) - Tal is taking a cultural perspective that appeals to me. 'Government' is a symbolic reflection of culture, more superficial than underlying values. (Why is it that 'you' Americans like to focus on Government? hee hee.) But Government institutions are prone to change while fundamental values live on. So talking about China's Government being new compared to America's seems to me to be clutching at straws. In my (admittedly unoriginal) view the current reign of the Chinese Government, New China, is an iteration of previous empires, with much more in common with previous empires than differences. It is I think a relatively compassionate version of previous empires and it has picked up and used aspects of the foreign world deemed valuable, but it is an empire all the same. So China can readily claim that its society is around 2,000 years old (the claim looks shaky when you go back earlier than that.)

However, I do take issue with the view that the US//Canada/Australia model will 'disintegrate' when oil runs out. This underestimates the capacity of humankind to find solutions - one reason that forecasting is such a precarious profession. Also all three countries have a history much longer than the 200 years or so after white invasion - these pre-histories are now very much part of our cultures. If China can claim 2,000 years of continuous history, Australia can claim a continuous history of aboriginal culture for at least that length of time. Yes, I would steer away from using the word 'primitive' Xiaophil - I don't want to sound too relativist, but a week or two immersing yourself in aboriginal culture can be an enlightening experience. I have written material for one of my economics classes in the science fiction genre which has Australians living in essentially tribal communities about 50 years from now - but in relatively idyllic circumstances, white sand beaches, clean blue-green seas, and lots of beer (and gin and tonic) on tap. It's nice to dream.

呵呵, perhaps a trifle naughty of me to use a phrase like 'playing at being nations', but what I was getting at was really just how incredibly recently it was that the US, Canada, Australia, etc, actually came into being. 200 years is just nothing in terms of 'the big picture', (a phrase I use to express the long-term view of human history which I tend to favor.) Because individually our lives are so brief, I think it's conceptually very difficult for us humans to see this bigger picture.

Part of my point was that the US and the others are fundamentally expressions of European culture, regardless of their current status as individual nations participating in the global culture. If the current world order were to endure for another thousand years or so, (which it can't), perhaps we could indeed compare the development of the US to the rise of (modern) Britain, but I'm sorry phil, after a mere couple of centuries, during which we have seen the US rise to global dominance linked irrevocably with the development of the petro-industrial lifestyle, it takes more than fine words from men in powdered wigs (Jefferson and his pals) to persuade me that the US is anything other than a 'super colony', a neo-Europe.

You might be surprised to learn just how stable the racial identity of Britain has been by the way. History gets written by the winners. The Saxons, the Normans, etc liked to sell us the myth of a remade Britain. The reality is that for the most part, only the ruling families and their hangers-on changed. The real people, as ever, were needed to do the real work, and so continued.

hehe,north qld was talking of seceding recently if daylight savings was introduced.We also have a few micronations here...might start one myself ...looks like fun ;)..hmm,think I'll have two official languages..pidgin Mandarin and pidgin English,will make sure not to be petro-industrial based following tals advice [in fact will make it the antithesis of all that bodawei has posted at the top of this thread] and then when Oz crumbles around me as tal has predicted,mine will rise from the ashes and take over the shop,mwah hah ha...thanks tal ;)

Tal,

I have never heard any American talk of Manifest Destiny as a current concept. I'm sure there are. Nutty patriotic types aren't hard to find if one wants to find them. I remember at least two of my teachers speaking of Manifest Destiny as a flawed concept. I remember none supporting it.

"If you see the big picture of world history, entities like the US, Canada, Australia etc, must surely be regarded as colonies playing at being nations."

I can't see this as true. If these nations are entities are playing at being nations, so is the UK. The island known as the UK was once inhabited by "primitive" societies. (I say primitive for lack of better word. It is hard to find a word that isn't disrespectful to a degree.) Then slowly through the years different tribes/countries/empires have come through and settled or taken over at least parts of the island, e.g. the Romans, the Saxons, the Normans and so on. But even though the UK went through several transformations, it developed an identity that has now lasted for quite some time. America has gone through the same process. The only difference I can see between America and the UK is that the UK started this process much earlier. Oh, one other difference. We Americans and Australians don't have a significant proportion of the country that currently want independence (I'm thinking Scotland and Wales here), although sometimes I suspect some parts of America's south have that potential.

Good quote. Do Americans still believe in "manifest destiny"? Perhaps they do. I thought it was as passé as 'Rule Britannia', but as I said I've never actually visited the States.

As for making predictions, my view tends to be if you want to know what the future looks like, just study the past. For something like 90% of human history, there were no nations. Our ancestors lived mostly as small tribes of hunter gatherers. 10,000 years ago we invented agriculture and civilization, and for a tiny fraction of our history we have been living in the age of the nation state, and for an even tinier fraction we have created the global petro-industrial economy. Based as this is on non-renewable resources which are being consumed at an ever accelerating rate, and seeing as how it's a given that the current levels of human population cannot be sustained once those resources are gone, I think it's a good bet that the long term future of our species will look a lot like the long term past.

@Tal The U.S. certainly lacks a collectivist mindset, though Manifest Destiny seems to share some areas in common with the Nationalistic Chinese mindset that you hint at.

Insofar as longevity, I'll just repeat a quote by one of the better know U.S. philosophers, "It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." (http://www.famous-quotes-and-quotations.com/yogi-berra-quotes.html)

A valid theory. I personally think the US has more staying power than that, but then again, who knows...

Governments come and go, it's culture that persists. My point is that Chinese people tend to identify with a cultural identity of extreme longevity (as human cultures are reckoned), and, as bodawei notes elsewhere, are imbued from a young age with a collectivist mindset that grows out of that history, and will in the long run cause the repetition of that history.

If you see the big picture of world history, entities like the US, Canada, Australia etc, must surely be regarded as colonies playing at being nations. When the petro-industrial age fizzles out (and there's barely a generation or two of life left in it), they will disintegrate. They lack the Chinese collectivist mindset and cannot endure when the conditions that created them are gone.

xiaophil, I think you are pretty much right-on. Most Asian and European governments were toppled either during the 1800's and/or in WWII's aftermath. For all the talk about China being an ancient civilization, its government is only 60 years old. The opposite of the U.S., which has a short history, but the longest-lived (major country) government.

The thing is that in some ways the American government is one of the oldest in the world. How many of today's governments were around when the Constitution of the United States was ratified? China's government, on the other hand, is a relatively new player. But I ask myself, does it really matter? The Chinese government seems to have its game 差不多 figured out. It doesn't matter which one is older, but it is a difference.

In James Clavel's Shogun our hero Blackthorne complains about not being able to speak in an 'open, honest English way' because of both literal walls being too thin and walls of courtesy being too thick. The idea of the 8 fold fence was explained to him... that because people were everywhere and walls were made of paper an individual must build up in themselves internal protective barriers and learn how not to hear what is on the other side of the wall.

It has been a while since I read it (though I have read it many times) so I may have some of the explanation wrong... and it is also clearly a work of fiction... but it got me thinking. Even though this compares Japan and England of 400 years ago it raises an interesting idea about how your physical environment can affect your thinking and behavior on a personal level, and on a cultural level. And after generations of this thinking it could linger long after the facts of your environment change.

You may have something linking the national personality to geography. Canada is even bigger, and in my limited experience they are even more prone to exaggeration and bragging about bigness than those in the US. That could be a kind of inferiority complex, living so close to the Yanks? We in Australia are experts on the inferiority complex. :) Orangina, where did you get this perspective from?

No, I didn't see your first post until just now (it has reappeared!) Catherine - I hope you are listening. Hey thanks for your views, I was hoping you'd come in.

Don't get sucked into the above - I am going for laughs over serious analysis. But I do believe that all of the above points are important one way or another. And I seriously think that there are more similarities (principally those I mention) than some people are willing to admit. Because, in my view, most Americans cannot see past the 'political' - they see a one-party authoritarian state and assume the rest, Just on 'democracy' though, you do have a leadership in China that is incredibly popular too - makes you think. Ask anyone what they think of Wen Jiabao.

Of course America is fundamentally individualistic and China is fundamentally collectivist. China is Confucian, the US is not.

How I Met Your Mother 我没看过，可是我看过'South Park', hee hee. South Park 介绍加拿大人，很可笑。 :)

i had found many interesting things on the topic of"Canada and America" in the tv series how i met your mother.

As an American, the few Canadians I know are annoyed/amused that Americans and others seem to view Canada as the 51st American state. The few Canadians I know seem to view the US as a fun place, souless, or they agree with the saying "what the US aspires to be, Canada is".

I hope that all makes sense....

Actually Canada would also tick off a few of the boxes (except maybe ambitions as a superpower, and definitely the state of the health system?) Actually I think of Canada as Australia with Winters.

I don't know enough about Russia to make fun of it.