Gratitude 2013

Maybe it is a little late but I wanted to post this. 2013 has been a horrendous year for many people I know. It has been fraught with divorces, health problems, legal issues, employment challenges, parenting issues, issues with parents, and relationship struggles the confluence of which I have not seen among my friends and myself in my lifetime. I'm loathe to attribute too much to providence (or her big brother, God) but the blessings of life have ebbed for much of this year and yet, finally, in this last quarter they have once again begun to flow for myself and others. Here is a list of things that I am grateful for this year. Some are specific and some are obviously purposefully vague to protect those who dare associate with me too closely.

1. My slow cooker (first attempt at Taiwanese 牛肉面 was last night and it was amazing.)


2. That the Navy's newest aircraft carrier is the U.S.S. Ford.


3. My house

4. That I've lived the life that I have and seem on the cusp of the life I've always wanted.


5. That the Star Trek novels are continuing the story in the Prime Universe.

6. That the geeks won the culture war. Now Hollywood makes our movies, Target sells our t-shirts, and beautiful women dress like our adolescent fantasies.


7. For BIC.

8. That there are two Chinese restaurants in Boulder that serve great beef noodles.

9. That I have a stationary bike in front of my TV.

10. For my heroes: Ben Sisko, Malcolm Reynolds, William Adama, and other fictional starship captains.


11. For my health.

12. For my job which allows for flexibility, intellectual curiosity, and personal fulfillment.

13. That certain people are in my life and certain people are not. (That's the most passive aggressive I'll get in a public forum ;)

14. For Chris Traeger and Ron Swanson. If you put them together you have the father figure I hope to be someday.



15. For Rachel Bloom

16. That I'm American. There's a lot of great cultures on Earth, but damn, I love being American.


17. That life is long and course corrections possible.

18. That my car, computer, roommates, and self made it through the 1,000 year flood of 2013.

19. That I have enough going on that Ben Affleck being cast as Batman only ruined three or four days of my year.


20. That I'm male. I love women but my chromosomes were definitely picked correctly.

The Adventure is over; I bought a TV.

In the last seven years I've lived in a half dozen countries. When I would intermittently return to the United States and see friends I was always impressed by the entertainment systems they owned. These wide flat screen TVs far outstripped anything that was available a decade prior and put anything my parents had owned before to horrible shame. Beyond that these televisions were accompanied by game systems that I didn't know existed, spectacular DVD collections, and sound systems that could bombard you from every angle.

They were impressive. I wanted them. They stood in stark contrast to the entertainment centers which I'd had in Taiwan or Mainland China. I didn't have any particular desire to watch TV for hours or own a lot of DVDs, and my interest in video games had seriously waned since I discovered that girls weren't just slightly softer versions of boys. Having the ability to spend that much money on things that were nothing more than luxuries was far beyond my means. My salaries in China and Taiwan paid for my rent, food, Mandarin classes, my train and plane tickets to my destination of the month. Owning expensive things that wouldn't fit into a suitcase and then an overhead compartment made me salivate in spite of myself. In a strange reversal I envied the freedom that their sedentary lifestyles gave them to own such devices.

There was the other side to it as well. I could look at a row of DVDs and picture my two weeks in Thailand during Christmas 2007. That sound system might equal my month of backpacking through southwestern China in 2008. The TV itself was probably worth the entirety of my eighteen months of classes at the Taipei Language Institute (shameless plug.) A TV or Mandarin abilities? I'd like to believe that my answer is obvious, but part of me still wanted the TV. I really don't care about professional sports much but I could be entertained by golf on a screen that wide and clear.

I couldn't fly away from a TV like that. It would be the anchor that kept me in the United States. Eventually I had to flee temptation and not let any of my friends know that I was impressed. I tried instead to engage them in conversation while I was at their apartments or show them picture after picture of my travels. Was I showing them pictures to share my adventures with them or to remind myself of why I couldn't have a flat screen? I dunno.

(The Matsu Archipelago)

So going to the Columbus Day sale at Best Buy with the express purpose of buying a 46 inch flat screen felt like a concession. Picking one out was one part glorious and two parts tragic. I finally had my legitimacy: the ability to purchase a space wasting luxury item. I also was admitting that I wasn't about to strap all my possessions on my back and fly to the Matsu Archipelago or Machu Pichu or some girl I met on facebook in Beijing. (Shout out to you if you're reading this, MB.)

That portion of my adventure is over. I try to tell myself that there will be more excitement to come and it'll be different and appropriate to the stage of life that I'm in. I try to remember that if my entire adult life was about exploring villages on islands off of East Asia that I'd never attain the other things that I want in life. Furthermore the Nick that was doing those things knew that it was a season of his life and that's one of the reasons he did them with great abandon. I have to honor him by going forward and a weird part of that is watching the pros swing their way through the back nine at Pebble Beach.

The Territorial Disputes of Japan - The Northern Territories/Southern Kurils

Disputed islands are always so pretty! Here's what we're looking at:



If you're Russian you call them the Southern Kuriles and if you're Japanese you call them the Northern Territories. These islands were originally split down the middle between the two countries by the 1855 Treaty of Shimoda. These peaceful deliberations would continue in 1875, when Russia agreed to cede the entire Kurile Island chain to Japan in exchange for being the sole claimant on nearby Sakhalin Island (Japan and Russia had divided the island in half in 1855.)

This negotiated give and take would be shattered in 1904 when Japanese and Russian imperial ambitions towards Manchuria and Korea would lead to the first major war of the 20th century. Every battle was either a draw or an outright victory for Japan. The world at large was shocked at Japan's victories as it became the first non-western power to decisively defeat a Western country in war. The long term effects of this change in the regional order would be America encouraging Japan to have a free hand in Asia (documented masterfully in James Bradley's "The Imperial Cruise,") and Japan's continued aggression against its neighbors in the decade preceding World War II. The immediate effect on Russian territory was cession of the southern half of Sakhalin Island.

Japan's ascendancy wouldn't last, as we all know. It bit off far more than it could chew when it declared war on the United States and the British Empire. Although the Soviet Union and Japan remained at peace during virtually all of World War II, the Soviets invaded just as Japan was surrendering to the United States. In the week following the atomic attack on Nagasaki, Soviet soldiers landed in the Kurile Islands. Japan was powerless to prevent all of the islands between the northernmost Japanese home island of Hokkaido and the Russian peninsula of Kamchatka from falling under de facto Soviet control. This status has persisted to this day despite the break up of the Soviet Union, with Russia claiming suzerainty over the area.

Here's a quick breakdown of what the borders looked like at different times:



The Claimants

Russia:

As the successor state to the Soviet Union, Russia claims that agreements between the USSR and the western allies during the war stated that the whole of the Kurile Islands would be administered by the Soviets after Japan's surrender. This claim is somewhat contradicted in the writings of President Truman, who made distinctions between what Roosevelt and Stalin discussed, and what Truman, Stalin, and Churchill actually agreed upon. The Treaty of San Francisco, which ended the war, stated that the Japanese would renounce claims to the Kurile island chain, but did not state that the Soviet Union could have all the islands. This is one of the reasons that the Soviets declined to sign the Treaty, and a formal document of peace between Japan and the USSR/Russia has never been signed.

Japan:

The Japanese position is that some of the islands between Hokkaido and Kamchatka are not part of the Kurile Island chain, but rather they are offshore islands of Hokkaido. Specifically four islands/collection of rocks are not a part of the Kuriles. Japan can point out that historically the islands closest to Hokkaido were never claimed by Russia and never under Russian control (pre-1945), therefore the Japanese did not take them by force from anyone during any war. This is an important point because the Treaty of San Francisco was meant to strip Japan of territories acquired due to "violence or greed;" it was never meant to permanently dismember parts of Japan itself.

Recent events

For most of the time since the war the Soviets/Russians were uninterested in antagonizing the Japanese and did not make a big show of their possession of the disputed islands. This changed in the recent past as former President Medvedev visited the islands and Russian jets have been begun flying near them and Japanese airspace. This has resulted in nationalist protests in Japan, which has never accepted that Russia should control the islands closest to the Japanese home islands.

WAR?

Compared to the risk of conflict between China and Japan, even an accidental military clash seems nearly impossible. Even though the Russians have been reinforcing and modernizing their far Eastern Forces, their goal appears to be to maintain military parody with Chinese, rather than protecting a chain of sparsely populated and relatively unimportant islands. The Japanese, even with nationalist sentiment rising, still have a pacifist constitution that prohibits them using war as a means of attaining political goals. That could change, but it won't change soon.

Still, if it was up to this guy...



America

It takes a little bit of digging to find the American position on the dispute, but according to the State Department's website, the United States supports Japan's claim to the Northern Territories (http://www.state.gov/outofdate/bgn/japan/10834.htm.) This is the really the least America can do, since it prevented the Soviets and Japanese from signing a peace treaty in the 60's which would have returned some of the islands to Japan.

The Territorial Disputes of Japan - The Senkakus

Pretty, huh?

As a return to blogging I’ll be doing a three part series on the territorial disputes of Japan. The most widely discussed dispute involves the Senkaku island chain, which is claimed by China, Japan, and Taiwan.

Part 1- The Senkakus

The Senkakus are located just to the north of Taiwan and to the south of the Ryuku Island Chain. Over the last several years various nationalist groups from each of the rival claimants have made pilgrimages to the islands to bolster their claims. The recent uptick in rhetoric has been partially caused by the Japanese government purchasing the islands from their private owners.



The Claimants:

Japan: Either Japan or the United States has had de-facto control over the islands since 1895. In that year Japan wrested Taiwan away from China, reduced Korea to unofficial colony status, and took possession of the disputed islands after conducting an historical survey and determining that no other government had claimed the Senkakus. After the Treaty of San Francisco, which ended World War II, the United States assumed control over the islands as well as over Okinawa. These territories were returned to Japanese control in 1972.

China: China has made inconsistent claims to the islands, but has recently stated that they have been a part of China since “ancient times.” While the Japanese have stated that the incorporation of the Senkakus is a different matter than the conquest of Taiwan in 1895, the Chinese view the issues as linked, both due to geographic proximity of Taiwan and the Senkakus and the similar dates of their incorporation into Japan. However, China’s stance on the issue is understandably complicated. Chiang Kai Shek was not in the position to challenge the Japanese claim to the islands as he required continued support from the United States. On the other hand, Mao Ze Dong’s China was shut out of the international system until the late 70’s and was completely internally focused.

Taiwan: Taiwan’s claims rest on the same historical basis as China’s. This is one of the few international issues that China and Taiwan agree upon- whomever the islands eventually are controlled by, the government should represent Chinese people. This interest may reflect a desire to raise Taiwan’s international profile during a time when its international profile is receding behind that of Mainland China.

Recent events: In the last several years expeditions from Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan, and Mainland China have sailed to islands, harassed the ships of the other claimants, or attempted to make landfall. In most cases the Japanese Coast Guard has turned the ships away, or the crews arrested. This led to a tense several weeks in 2010 where it appears the Chinese government cut off shipments of valuable natural resources to Japan in response to the arrests.
Of course money is involved: Surveys in the 1960’s and 70’s revealed the likely presence of natural gas and oil near the islands. Obviously, all of the claimants would like the rights to harvest these natural resources.

WAR: Neither Japan or China wants war with the other, and Taiwan would be incapable of prosecuting one against Japan. However, wars between powers that have mutually beneficial economic relationships typically occur due to miscalculation rather than intent. The dangers of a midair collision between Japanese and Chinese fighters, which would then lead to nationalistic responses from both populations should not be underestimated. Additionally the ethnic disdain that both sides have expressed for the other could lead the commanders directly involved in the patrols to underestimate the other side’s potential. The lack of transparency by the Chinese military regarding its capabilities only enhances the risks.



America: Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has stated that the United States makes no ruling on who should control the islands. However she also stated that in any conflict over the islands the United States would come to the defense of Japan… meaning the USA has an opinion on who does control the islands.

The Washington Apple Commission

A brief case study on the creation of the Washington Apple Commission and the subsequent "Washington Apples" brand.

Formation

The Washington Apple industry had undergone difficult times during the 1920's and 1930's. The depression had hit Washington hard and mitigated the attempts of an advertising association of apple farmers that had some success prior to the ripples of Black Tuesday reaching the Pacific states.

All the while worm controls had required the use of a costly pesticide that could only be cleaned by using expensive washing methods. This method also sharply reduced the longevity of apples, making the marketing season shorter and shipping cross-country even more difficult.

Into this situation stepped a horticulturalist, Ralph Sundquist, who realized that the apple growers of Washington must work together to seize a share of the apple market. He and other businessmen created a pilot program, using assessments leveled upon participating farmers to pay for an advertising campaign. The program was a success and demands for a permanent organization were being heard from across the state.

Shortly thereafter the Washington Apple Commission was formed and the legislature passed laws requiring participation from all apple growers. The legislation, and the commission, was almost nixed by a powerful State Senator, but he relented once an amendment was added to the bill that only producers of fresh apples had to participate, and those who made apples for processed products, a la applesauce, were exempt.

Once the compromise was made all Apple Growers paid a 1 cent per 42 lbs box. This assessment fluctuated to being as high as 40 cents per box before returning to its present level of 3.5 cents per box.

Structure

The Washington Apple Commission was designed to represent all of the apple growers in the state. Its leadership consists of a 14 member Board of Directors. Nine of the board members are elected by the farmers themselves and an additional four are elected by the apple shippers and marketers of the state. Each of these commissioners serves a three year term. The final member, who has a largely ceremonial supervision of the board, is the state director of agriculture. Despite the presence of a state official, the Commission is under the control of the growers as they pay the assessment fees which fund the Commission’s activities. The Commission also has full time employees in a variety of departments. They have ranged in number from the current 14 employees to over 80.

The Brand

The Washington Apple Commission chose to use a two pronged branding strategy. The first aspect was to brand all apples grown in the State of Washington as Washington Apples. Individual growers were still permitted to put their own logos on their apple shipments but the Washington Apple logo, along with a rating system to represent quality, would still be there.

A second prong of the campaign was to associate Washington Apples with health. The fruit had long been assumed to be a part of a healthy lifestyle, but the Apple Commission wanted to be able to prove it scientifically. To accomplish this the Commission gave tens of thousands of dollars in grants to scientists and doctors to research the health benefits of apples. The research proved that apples were of great value health wise, and this became a staple of future advertising campaigns.


Individual growers were still permitted to put their own logos on their apple shipments but the Washington Apple logo, along with a rating system to represent quality, would still be there.

More research went into discovering whether the “hot baths” the apples were subjected to were actually necessary. Originally intended to remove agricultural residue thought to be harmful to the consumer, these baths also robbed the apples of some flavor and damaged their longevity. After several studies it was determined that the “hot baths” were unnecessary and other less damaging cleaning methods were substituted. This discovery led to tastier apples that still protected the health of the consumer.

Success

At the time of the Commission’s founding in 1937, Washington Apples only accounted for 15% of the total apples sold in the United States. By the turn of the century, Washington growers commanded 70% of the domestic market and was selling in 30 different countries. In 2002 the Washington Apple Commission began to exclusively market internationally. Washington now exports 1/3 of its apple crop to countries as varied as Mexico, China, India, and Indonesia.

A continuing legacy of the Commission's lobbying efforts is the shelf design of the produce section of most supermarkets. It remains difficult to walk into any American supermarket without immediately seeing a pile of apples.(Shown below)

I'll miss "Outsourced"

Very few people were surprised when NBC declined to make a second season of "Outsourced." For the uninitiated, it was a sitcom that centered around a naive and overly enthusiastic mid-westerner (Todd) who is sent to India to manage a call center. The series included two stock characters which should be recognizable to any western expat: Charlie, a fellow American call center manager who has done his best to pretend he is still in the US (and is implied to be an alcoholic), and Tonya, a sexually aggressive western woman who isn't afraid to pounce on a man from a similar cultural background as hers. The five remaining characters in the ensemble are all Indian and embody sitcom and cultural stereotypes ranging from an unsuccessful horndog to a hard-ass manager.

When I first saw the commercials for the show I couldn't understand what NBC was thinking. It was entirely possible that it would be entertaining but I couldn't see what the target market was. There was a lot of comedy for people with an expat background and there were lots of situations that could appeal to Indian-Americans but there wouldn't be an emotional connection for the average person (as opposed to shows about working in an office (The Office) or having friends (Friends.) (See what I did there? ;) )

I can't criticize anyone for thinking it wasn't funny or didn't engage them- that's a matter of personal taste. What I was disappointed in was the amount of people who found it offensive because of perceived racism. To date I have yet to find (in real life or on the internet) someone of Indian origin that was offended by it; in fact, I'm pretty sure the parties that took umbrage at the show are largely white, have not lived outside of their own culture for long periods of time, and view "being offended" as their god-given duty to the rest of mankind. If you grew up in Boulder, CO as I did, you probably know the sorts I'm talking about.

The two American characters are largely portrayed as clueless about or uninterested in Indian culture. They make all sorts of cultural faux pas and their ignorance is normally played for laughs. In one exchange, which received an incredible amount of complaints, the main character is surprised to learn that Indians celebrate Valentine's day. This reminded me of an actual exchange from my first few months in East Asia when I learned about Taiwanese Valentine's day.

Nick: Wow, you all have Valentine's day in August?
Taiwanese girl: Yes, but we also have your Valentine's Day, in February.
Taiwanese boy: Yes, it is terrible to be a boyfriend in this country.

The Indian characters, on the other hand, tend to be most familiar with the negative stereotypes of Americans. The perceived promiscuity of Americans is brought up frequently by the Indian characters, as is (more positively) the less hierarchical structure of American society.

We Americans tend to self-flagellate for being nationalistic but our sense of humor is fairly self-deprecating. The Simpsons has become one of the most successful shows of all time, primarily because it is constantly making fun of American culture. That Indians, who are an increasingly visible part of American society, have the same capacity for self-mockery should leave us saying "We're not so different, after all," rather than feeling guilty about taking advantage of another culture. This is especially pronounced given that a majority of "Outsourced" writers were of Indian heritage and many of the East meets West situations came from their personal experiences.

The show had a small natural market (expats and Indian Americans) and the capacity to offend the vocal minority of Americans who calculate their IQ's by tabulating how many times they are offended per week. With those liabilities I was surprised that a full season of the show was made at all. Even if it had been spectacularly funny rather than just "fun," it was a big risk for NBC. Given that, I think the proper response to the show is gratitude for having aired at all rather than disappointment over not being renewed.


Please, please, NBC, find a way to bring Parvesh Cheena into another show!

The Red Menace

I was too young to remember Red Dawn's premiere in 1984 but have seen it several times since. It's a stirring and patriotic film about a group of high schoolers turn guerrillas who resist a Soviet invasion of the US. I was excited to notice that remake has been in the works for a couple years; this time with the Chinese as the villains. China is sort of the obvious choice given the tenor of the moment. Despite the improbability of a Soviet invasion we still watched the original Red Dawn. A Chinese invasion would be similarly impossible but it could still make for good, mindless fun.

I was surprised when I realized that all of the actors portraying Chinese characters were actually Korean- I wasn't sure if this was a result of Chinese actors not wanting to portray China as the bad guy or if it is more of a commentary on the average non-Asians inability to tell the difference between Koreans and Chinese. Either way it was also prescient.

The film has now been retooled (via digital editing) so that the North Koreans have somehow invaded the American homeland. (If I thought China couldn't do it, guess my opinion on the likelihood of a country with a GDP of $19 crossing the Pacific.) This obviously bodes terribly for the film... was it really so unintelligently made that through a few digital edits the villains can be changed from one of our largest trading partners to a country we have all but no contact with?

Either way the reasoning behind this seems to be a desire to get the movie into the (theoretically) lucrative Chinese market. This is unlikely regardless of the geopolitics of the film because the Chinese government only allows in a select few foreign films per year. American films can be bought on pirated DVD (with no money going to the production company) but they are rarely shown in theaters. This trend is unlikely to change as the Chinese government has been increasing its enforcement of anti-free speech laws as of late.

This also highlights another pressing issue for business in China: if the Chinese can build it themselves they won't buy it from us. Many companies have learned the hard way that the Chinese government only gives them preferential treatment in exchange for technology transfers. Once those transfers are made the foreign companies find themselves being treated with much less deference and much less favorable business terms. Hollywood has not picked up on this yet and is keeping its fingers crossed that the Chinese government will spontaneously stop acting the way it has for decades (and declares that it will continue to act). Of course, this means we are unlikely to see a Falun Gong or Tiannanmen Square movie, despite how interesting they would be.

Ensconced in anonymity (returning to America)

It's been about a month since I left Taiwan- most of that time has been in Arizona but there was a week long stopover in Tokyo too.

Since then business school has (obviously) absorbed a lot of my free time. That being said I've spared a good amount of thought for thinking about Taiwan and me, the future of this blog, and whether or not I want to go back to Taiwan or the Chinese world in general*- and of course I have yet to come up with any definitive ideas.

There are a few things that I miss dearly- the food, some people, speaking Chinese every day, my scooter, but what I miss most was the ease of travel and the number of places to go. In Taiwan amazing scenery and hikes were only a couple hours away and the public transportation system was great.

Here in Glendale we are in the middle of a desert valley where the strip malls outnumber the clouds. The most interesting place in the city might actually be the Thunderbird Campus. There's not a lot to do within walking or biking distance. It's difficult to not feel stranded in my own temporary home. At least there's a pool.

I did underestimate the number of things I'd become frustrated with in Taiwan. After a week back in the United States I realized that I'd developed a very thick shell in how I dealt with some parts of my daily life. It isn't always pleasant being obviously different in a culture which discourages differences. Many of my friends in Taiwan (local or otherwise) focus on the all the benefits that western looking people receive in East Asia- and there are many benefits, but there were days when I would have traded those benefits for anonymity, for everyone to treat me like I wasn't special. I suppose I could've just moved to Taipei.

That's what I've got here. Anonymity; the state of being in which I could walk into any store or restaurant and have nobody make a fuss over me or argue about who should try to talk to the foreigner. Having spent so much of my life entertaining people (theoretically) I'm surprised at how much I was lusting after just being a face in the crowd.

I'm still unraveling everything I think about the last few years but the experience of being a very visible minority in a somewhat homogeneous population was invaluable and I think we'd be a better country if everyone could have that experience. You don't gain a lot of insights on how to treat "the other" when you've always been in the majority.

As for the blog- I'm not in the ROC anymore so it's raison d'être seems kind of spent. It's still my home on the web though and I'll try to keep updating my six to ten faithful readers about politics in East Asia and anything else that I truly think is blog worthy.



*I'm predicting that I'll have to return to somewhere in the Sinosphere within five years despite being down on it at the moment.

Why would you go to 二水?

I've visited 二水(Ershui) four times since moving to Taiwan. That probably makes it my #2 tourist destination after Taipei. 二水 is mostly known for being the junction between the main Taiwanese rail line and a smaller rail line that was originally used for transporting lumber from the interior. A few of the stops on the small rail line are tourist traps or are cradled by amazing scenery so they get the bulk of the attention; this leaves poor 二水 under appreciated as a number of tourists don't even leave the train station before heading on to the more well known towns further down the line.

Immediately after exiting the train station you can see 二水's bike path which leads you past temples and rice paddies and eventually to a Formosan Macaque protected habitat. After nearly an hour on a rented bike I hiked around the habitat looking for some friendly monkeys but to no avail. The monkeys like mornings and I don't so we missed each other again. There were a lot of work crews throughout the habitat as well- they seemed amused at the solitary foreigner sweating through his shirt looking for monkeys at the wrong time of day. One of them pretended to console me and said that at least I'd brought the jungle mosquitoes a snack. I'm inconsistent with when I reveal that I can understand Chinese but this time I did and after some initial shock we they advised me to wear a brighter colored shirt next time- so the monkeys would be more entertained by my appearance.

Another three hours of biking brought me through a few small villages and past an unusually tall pagoda. My first time through the area we didn't rent bikes at all and instead hiked up a mountain to a village whose sole economic activities seemed to be selling tea and inviting visitors into an expansive temple complex- I'd thought about trying to repeat the hike but decided to save it for next time and with 二水 just an hour away by train there will probably be one more next time before I head home.

I stopped in 彰化 (Zhanghua) on the way home for shrimp, fried rice, and beer with a couple friends. I was exhausted and my face was caked with sweat and dust but 彰化 foreigners are the rural type and don't much care about hygiene.

Catching the last train home allowed me to talk with an obviously inebriated Taiwanese gentleman who complained that too many foreign English teachers were lying about being American. He jokingly commented that because Americans could be white, black, brown, or any other color of skin Taiwanese couldn't always tell if someone was a real American or a 假的 American. It was the first time I'd heard a complaint about America being a racially diverse country that I couldn't dismiss as racism- he was just pointing out that the age old way of figuring out what someone was didn't work anymore and with crooked smile he blamed my people for it.* He hopped off the train at the stop before mine and I spent the rest of the ride reading Oracle Bones by Peter Hessler (review forthcoming).

I'll probably be buying a camera this week so some of my future travel blogs will have some images.

I hope your Sunday were as good as mine!

*For extra commentary on this issue please check out previous blog entry "Who you are and what you do."

Who you are and what you do...

Did your elementary/middle school teachers wax philosophic about American culture demeaning the individual by focusing on occupation? More than one of mine did. Again and again, in school or in Church I would hear people talk about how we should find other ways to describe ourselves outside of our occupations. I won't argue that Americans tend to define themselves by their jobs but it is worth pointing out that other cultures fixate on aspects of a person that are at least as constraining.

In Taiwan it's very common for "get to know you conversations" to include detailed questions about your hometown/homeland and your family background. This stems from the understandable belief that who your parents are greatly influence who you are. This is different from the American emphasis on occupation. In the American perspective the choices you've made with your life are viewed as the most vital information about a person- while in the Taiwanese/Chinese paradigm the most important parts of you (where you grew up/what your parents are like) are outside of your control.

The Taiwanese/Chinese fixation on race as an indicator of who you are stems from this cultural preference. Until a couple hundred years ago (which only seems like a long time to Westerners) where you grew up and what your parents were like was easily guessed based upon your skin tone and hair/eye color. Where do brown skinned people come from? India. What do they eat? Curry. Therefore the brown skinned person in front of me is probably from India and probably likes curry- therefore I should assume she speaks Hindi and needs my help getting to the nearest curry house and I should probably not insult her by offering her Chinese food. You can apply this formula to lots of situations.

A lot of visitors/foreign residents in East Asia get frustrated at this paradigm because it impinges upon our sense of individuality. Sure I'm white, American, and of English descent but if you direct me to the nearest McDonald's (which more than one Taiwanese person has done without me asking for it) I will not respond graciously.

Of course you could find this focus upon family background and hometown in many pre-industrial societies- which is exactly what Taiwan was last century and what much of China still us. What puzzles foreigners is how modern Taiwan can seem on one hand- High Speed Rail, internet everywhere, 2nd tallest building on Earth, etc etc etc, and yet how concerned a person on the street can be about where my grandparents were born. Whether Eastern culture will change to focus on the individual as a result of the surplus options that are being shoveled at them thanks to globalization is anyone's guess.

One of the most rewarding parts of international travel is discovering my own culture. Had I lived in Colorado all my life I may never have seriously considered that large groups of people define themselves in the way many East Asians do. Beyond merely understanding this specific part of my culture I also increasingly appreciate it- I am an American, through and through. When I am getting to know you I will respectfully ask about your hometown- but what I really want to know is what you've chosen to do with your life.

White Men I Love, White Men I Hate by Chuck Snowden

Chuck Snowden (formerly of Casey Middle School and Fairview High School) is one man I will never forget. He was my PE teacher for all three years of Middle School. At the time he was known as the hard gym teacher (there was an alternative who taught PE at the same time) and anyone that wanted to switch into or out of his class was welcome to. I always chose to be in his class because he was one of the only teachers I've ever met who clearly loved his students. He loved his students so much that I was always exhausted from his class and he loved us enough to force us to write weekly reports to him about what was going on in our lives. He would read those reports in class and make comments, appreciative and instructive, right after we handed them to him.

Anyhow, I'm mentioning this story because I just finished his book White Men I Love, White Men I Hate. The prologue has an impassioned warning that the book is about LOVE, LOVE, LOVE and he means it. Despite the title most of the book is about white men, both his friends and historical figures, that he loves and only occasionally will he focus on the ones he hates. Of course every other third story (at least!) involves his wife, May, whom is obviously the primary desire of his over-sized heart.

He delves into history (his field of study) in a sort of uneven manner. It's vital to him to understand America's past and his determination to love people results in some unexpected people of affection. There's not a hint of resentment towards Thomas Jefferson, for instance. Coach Snowden is convinced that the Jefferson loved the slave he fathered a child with and even goes so far to suggest that a great man like Jefferson should be thanked for spreading his genes around. Snowden also heaps praise upon Winston Churchill (for the obvious reason) but doesn't mention any criticism at all of Churchill's questionable post WWII decisions. In Coach Snowden's eyes a man who was great enough to stop Hitler can be forgiven for his other sins. The author calls this kind of judgment the work of a "Wise Barbarian" and I am not about to argue with him.

His writing style is so straightforward I could hear his voice and his message so inclusive that you'd have to be an angry and sullen person to take offense at his observations about white people, black people, and America. He states again and again that he's an unabashed Christian, a lifelong Democrat, and a patriot so unless you're angry atheist Republican who hates America (I know you're out there) there's something in the book for you. I can't recommend it enough.

Despite how horrible Middle School was I can always rely on memories of him and how much he cared to make it seem a little brighter. One of the primary reasons I always opted for his class was because it was the only place in Boulder where my twelve year old self could walk into a gym and have a giant African American bellow out "Hello, Mr. Ford! How are you today?" I was an awkward, Star Trek loving, mid-pubescent*, drama nerd, whose home life was imploding- having a guy like Coach Snowden interested in me nearly every day could be the difference between self-worth and self-pity. That's a debt I can only pay forward.

*Even if little else has changed at least I am done with puberty.

We made the front page of CNN.com!

Recently President Ma of Taiwan made some surprisingly frank statements regarding Taiwan's relationship with the US (article here). He stated that Taiwan would never ask the Americans to fight China for Taiwan. This of course was met with a hail of criticism from pro-Independence Taiwanese groups. Some said this indicated his attention to reunify with China and others simply accused him of damaging relations with the US. I think he did neither- but first a little background.

Taiwan has a celebrated and storied "ambiguous relationship" with the United States. For most of the 20th century America never expressly stated whether it would come to the aid of Taiwan if the Chinese attempted an invasion. George W. Bush was the first American President to say what we would actually do (article here). No points for guessing whether he promised to turn tail and run or stand and fight for our tiny democratic ally. Anyhow, that was just one statement and measured over sixty years of ambiguity it don't amount to much. Plus, when Pres. Bush said that it was before we were in Afghanistan + Iraq x unsustainable debt.

So- as for President Ma... when he mentioned that he was not going to ask the Americans to fight the Chinese he also mentioned that Taiwan was capable of defending itself BUT it required American weapons to do so. The chances of America starting World War III with the Chinese over Taiwan (when a negotiated settlement would be much easier, cheaper, and less bloody) are minute; the chances of the Americans continuing to sell weapons to a tiny island ally whose very existence prevents the Chinese navy from wondering to far into the West Pacific is very high. President Ma was probably just reassuring the leadership in Beijing that he was not out to start World War III and to reassure the Obama administration that the weapon sales are appreciated AND they are worthwhile. A Taiwan that can defend itself well against a Chinese incursion is less likely to need American assistance in the end anyway.

Anyhow- a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would take months to pull off. First the Chinese would have to win an air war. Then they would have to invade Jinmen, Matsu, and Penghu. Then they would have to isolate Taiwan proper. It would take weeks before the troop transports were even loaded (assuming China had enough troop transports for the 70,000 soldiers it would minimally need... and it doesn't have those troop transports because most of its spare steel goes to apartment buildings for its rapidly urbanizing population.)

During those weeks America might decide to get involved regardless of what Pres. Ma says, the Japanese might decide to get involved, but bare minimum China's trade with the outside world would plummet and the possibility of a domestic revolution would dramatically increase. All this to assert political control over an island whose political and economic freedom have actually benefited the mainland via trade with the outside world?

The Chinese government is very savvy, they aren't going to plunge the world or their country into a war they don't need.

Is it always a zero-sum game?

The Chinese media is now portraying the Google vs. China issue as a political plot by the White House!

While this is technically possible it can't be proven- the paper makes a reference to a meeting between Google and State Department officials prior to Google's anti-censorship/Chinese hacking announcement. Of course the paper has no idea what was actually communicated in this meeting (Google was probably giving the government a courtesy heads up imho) so accusing the White House of controlling Google is about as well founded as the "Iraq is responsible for 9/11 meme."

Of course the irony here is that a government controlled Chinese newspaper is accusing Google of being controlled by the American government. This sort of accusation will probably stick with many Chinese readers because of the paradigm China works under- the Communist Party (and therefore Chinese government) CAN stick its fingers into any company and make purely political decisions so why can't the American government?

Plenty of people in China probably already believed that the US government was behind the Google decision- that the Party decided to put it in print is revealing of how seriously they take the Google affair. The Chinese government is undoubtedly aware that stoking nationalism can have unintended results and they usually only do so for threats to Chinese sovereignty.

Of course the implied next move is that the White House can either confirm or deny these allegations. Denying them puts some distance between the White House and Google's free speech rhetoric while confirming that the White House can order Google around (which is incredibly stupid) would play into Chinese nationalist paranoia in which everyone is trying to keep China down. Of course the other option is to ignore the allegations- which is probably the best move for this incredibly China friendly administration.

Taiwan Up? Who owns English anyway?

Over the last week there's been a flurry of controversy over how Taipei chose to illuminate Taipei 101 for New Year's Eve. Taipei 101 is one of the tallest buildings in the world and every New Year's Eve fireworks are set off from it. This year it also had the proudly displayed slogan of "2010 Taiwan Up." I've barely run into a foreigner in the last week who hasn't been condescendingly amused by the poor grammar and I've hit upon several blogs that are severely critical of the incident. To all of them I have but one message: That fireworks show was not made for you.

Most Tawainese people have a limited command of English. Many can understand a large amount of basic words, "up" being among them. "Up" was written there to give the idea that Taiwan was going to get better and better. The best translation might have been "Taiwan prospers" but that wouldn't have fit on Taipei 101 and most Taiwanese people wouldn't be sure what it meant. But, seeing the phrase "Taiwan Up" makes good enough sense to most Taiwanese people. It was basically using English words in a Chinese way where the central idea of one word automatically adapts to the context of a sentence or to another word around it.

I agree with many foreigners that official English translations in Taiwan are often terrible. When it comes to maps, emergency information, subway instructions, etc etc etc I think the responsible parties should make sure that their translation is accurate but that is not what Taipei 101 was illuminated for- it was there to make its audience happy... an audience of largely Taiwanese people.

English also imparts a notion of cosmopolitanism. There's a magazine in Taichung which has the slogan "Your gateway to the English lifestyle," meaning the language of commerce and travel and mass culture. Even using English instead of Chinese is rife with symbolism; an English speaking Taiwan feels like an important part of the wider world and not just an isolated island in the shadow of China.

With English being the decidedly dominant language in the world diverse groups of people, many of whom have studied it for decades, will use it in ways that are immediately culturally relevant. We shouldn't be offended by other cultures adapting our language to themselves- it's mostly flattering. But once they have English they are free to use it however they want. Language is like open source coding for software- it's free for people enrich their lives as they see fit.

So, in summation, I agree with the city of Taipei. This year I want nothing more than "Taiwan Up."

Jinmen Dao

Recently I had the great fortune to spend a weekend on Jinmen Island. It's a political oddity in that it an island that is controlled by Taiwan but most people will admit that it is actually a part of Fujian Province in China. Not only that it- at its nearest point Little Jinmen Island (as opposed to large Jinmen Island, see below) is about eight kilometers away from the Chinese Mainland.




The island is a wonderful, near idyllic, place now but that belies its sordid history. During the Cold War Mainland China chose to bombard the islands with hundreds of thousands of artillery shells resulting in thousands of dead islanders and Nationalist troops. One would think that this would engender a fair amount of animosity towards Mainland China (and one would be right) but life is even more complicated than that. The Jinmen Islanders (and the Matsu Islanders to the north) were not active participants in the Chinese civil war. As the KMT army retreated to Taiwan they militarized the peaceful islands and put the inhabitants into the middle of shooting war. The inhabitants are aware of the pawn that they became between the Nationalists and the Communists and chafed under Marshall Law for many decades. I often asked the locals if they thought they were Taiwanese or Mainlander and I received what became a familiar refrain: I am Jinmenese and my parents are Mainlanders. (Translated, obviously.)

That being said Jinmen is now a thriving community. The Taiwanese army has poured money into the islands and they've been serving as an in between point for the Mainlanders who want to do business in Taiwan and vice-versa. It was, without a doubt, the cleanest place I've visited in Taiwan and the its oft noted wide and well maintained roads are very inviting.

Jinmen also enjoys full county status in Taiwan and elects its own representatives to the Taiwanese parliament. In preparation for an approaching election we were treated to a semi constant barrage of campaign advertising. One of the candidates had bleach blond hair but I think he got stiff competition from another candidate who was always pictured next to a giant hamburger. Was he a hamburger mogul or was he using the hamburger to explain his policies? I'll never know but I hope he was the winner. (Bleach blond Asian dudes sort of creep me out.)

While on the island we visited war memorial after war memorial after war memorial. It was cool! We found an amazing beach that was completely empty. It felt more like being on an unpopulated alien planet than a cold war flashpoint. On the beach we found an awesome tank that was covered in barnacles and no island weekend would've been complete without the land mine warning signs. Jinmen is also famous for a peanut candy and a knives made out of artillery shells. I wanted to buy a knife but I just couldn't figure what I would do with it... oh well, just another reason to return to Jinmen- hopefully with someone who looks better in a bathing suit than Sean.

Below is a temple where you pray for good grades at:




Alone:




If we ever start a band this'll be our first album cover:



Awesome:

The linguistic battle of wills

A fascinating socio-linguistic phenomenon to observe is the battle of wills between two people who are each trying to practice the others native language. It can happen in any place, at any time, and to nearly anyone.

You could be at the local 7-11 (ok... one of the local 7-11's) buying a bottle of 酒 and instead of quoting the sales price to you in Chinese the tiny and meek attendant slowly but deliberately says "seventy four dollars, please!" followed by the proudest and toothiest (and in Kaohsiung, the reddest) grin you may ever encounter. It's sweet, it's cute, it's wonderful, and it's one of the most annoying things on the face of the Earth.

The linguistic battle of wills occurs most often between foreigners and natives in Taiwan. Some foreigners come to Taiwan hoping to practice Chinese only to discover that an increasing number Taiwanese people want to practice their English with almost anyone who will talk to them.

Imagine being Taiwanese and spending every single year of your school life learning English! Imagine your parents sending you to an English language tutor nearly every day after school! Now imagine that at long last there is a real live American right in front of you that you can finally speak to!

Now imagine your disappointment that he refuses to speak to you in English and insists upon using sub-standard Chinese to communicate the very simplest of ideas.

Of course there's the opposite disappointment of being from the English speaking world. We say goodbye to our family, friends, and dog, fly all the way to Taiwan, enroll in Chinese classes, go out of our way to make Taiwanese friends only to find that our dream of "total language immersion" is impossible because everyone wants to practice English, the language we are trying to escape from!

There's even another layer to it: Taiwanese culture demands a large amount of courtesy be shown to guests and many Taiwanese feel as though all foreigners are somehow guests in their country. In Taiwan, as in much of Asia, the locals don't want to cause the guest a loss of face by speaking to them in a language the guest can't understand; instead of even trying to speak Chinese it's just safer to speak to the guest in English. In most other ways this courtesy is extremely appreciated.

Although there is no strict rule in the West the general convention is to only use one language in a conversation- and whichever language is spoken first should be the language used to respond. If I start a conversation in Chinese and someone insists upon answering me in English they've actually caused me a loss of face; they've just implied that they don't think my Chinese is very good. There's not even a good way to respond because in American culture it's rude for me to tell you that I'd rather you speak Chinese. My Taiwanese friends tell me that it wouldn't be rude in Taiwan but I'm still not comfortable doing it.

Must we be locked in this ridiculous duel for all time? No, probably not. Following the 4th World War of 2038 the majority of survivors will upload themselves into the technological singularity and all of our conversations will look like this:

0100001001100101011101110110000101110010011001010010000001110100011010000110010100
10000001110101011011100110001101101100011001010110000101101110
0100001001100101011101110110000101110010011001010010000001110100011010000110010100
10000001110101011011100110001101101100011001010110000101101110
0100001001100101011101110110000101110010011001010010000001110100011010000110010100
10000001110101011011100110001101101100011001010110000101101110
0100001001100101011101110110000101110010011001010010000001110100011010000110010100
10000001110101011011100110001101101100011001010110000101101110
0100001001100101011101110110000101110010011001010010000001110100011010000110010100
10000001110101011011100110001101101100011001010110000101101110
0100001001100101011101110110000101110010011001010010000001110100011010000110010100
10000001110101011011100110001101101100011001010110000101101110
0100001001100101011101110110000101110010011001010010000001110100011010000110010100
10000001110101011011100110001101101100011001010110000101101110

(Good luck babelfish.yahoo.com on that one!)

Note:
Missing is my obligatory swipe at foreigners who are always complaining that Chinese is impossible to learn. Since most Taiwanese people look around and see 20 million Taiwanese people who managed to learn Chinese (plus another billion people across the strait) they can be forgiven for concluding that foreigners suffer from pigment induced, Chinese specific, aphasia.

簡單 -- Not so simple!

One of my newly arrived friends recently recounted a conversation in one of his adult classes that went something like this:

Adult student 1: What do foreigners think of Taiwanese people?

Teacher: Um... (obvious discomfort) well... I guess lots of different things. Nothing too severe.

Adult student 2: What kind of things? I really want to know.

Teacher: Ok... I guess... maybe sometimes I've heard that some people think that some Taiwanese people can be a little, um, boring?

(The adult students talked among themselves in Chinese for a minute.)

Adult student 1: Yes. That is true. We are very boring.

(Entire class laughs in agreement. American teacher is puzzled and attempts to move on with the lesson.)

After he mentioned this story I began to notice how often I have heard Taiwanese people describe themselves this way. Purely for research purposes I even accessed some Taiwan centric dating websites and was shocked to see how many men and women prefaced their dating profile with "I'm a simple woman with simple dreams looking for a simple man" or something to that effect. (I promise it was mostly, almost, entirely for research purposes.) "Simple," "boring," "ordinary," "pure," or even "naive" seemed to be sought after qualities.

All of the above words are attempts at translating "簡單." It's supposed to communicate a sort of trustworthy ordinariness. When someone describes themselves as "簡單" they are advertising their stability and lack of complications. While both of these qualities can be admirable it is far cry away from what most people boast about back home. In a weird twist many of my adult students all but boast about how little they have to boast about.

Unfortunately "簡單" simply doesn't translate well. When an adult describes themselves as "simple," "naive," "ordinary," or even "pure" the words immediately conjure up an image of a person who is bereft of responsibility and possesses a sort of childlike foolishness- hardly the first impression you want to give.

The best translation I've been able to come up with, accounting for the western cultural preference of exaggerating our uniqueness, is "dependable." Calling yourself "dependable" can emphasize your reliability and implies that you have a routine that you follow- it doesn't mean that you're boring but it does mean that you don't let impulsive flights of fancy disrupt your existence.

I'm afraid cultural differences just don't allow for an exact translation of "簡單" that doesn't make someone sound incredibly boring. Most of my Taiwanese friends don't find "dependable" to be an adequate translation but it's the best I can do. One of my students went so far as to point out, almost passionately, that "You are saying that we shouldn't call ourselves "ordinary" but most of us are ordinary. There aren't very many exceptional people in the world; why should I call myself one when I know that I'm not?" Coming from a westerner I would think that she needed some serious self esteem boosting; here in Taiwan it was an admirable showing of just how "簡單" she thought herself to be.

The S-I War

Way back in 1962 China and India came to blows over a small strip of basically useless territory on the fringe of Tibet called Aksai Chin. China seized the territory and has maintained control of it for the last five decades despite India's occasional protests. To make matters more interesting India still has control of Arunachal Pradesh, an area that the Chinese government claims as well. Neither side has attempted to change the border through anything but diplomacy but, according to at least one Indian Expert, that is about to change.

According to Mr. Verma China is going to attack India no later than 2012 in order to distract its restive population away from deteriorating economic conditions. The war, which would almost certainly end in China's favor, would also serve to put India in its place and show the world that it will be China who leads Asia for the 21st century.

This is, almost obviously and completely, totally preposterous. A Chinese attack on India would confirm the world's worst fears about China: that as its strength grows it will be willing to use it at the expense of other countries. This would destroy all of the sympathy China currently has in the west, it would derail business relationships, and it would force the Indians into the arms of whatever powerful ally might be willing to help them to upgrade their military. At worst it would cement support for an alliance of Asian democracies to stand up to the authoritarian giant.

On top of all that India has a nuclear arsenal. The Chinese arsenal is probably superior to the Indian (after all the Chinese have had nukes since the early sixties while the Indians have only been freely building weapons for the last ten years) but if the Indians can launch a satellite into the moon's orbit they can fling some nukes at China. Even without nukes India could up the ante and interdict China's seaborne oil supplies from the Middle East and put a fast stop on the Chinese economy- forcing the Chinese into far more than a border war but one that would require the neutralization of India's navy.

Perhaps there are some things that Mr. Verma knows that I don't but without a more compelling argument I fear he just wrote his scholarship's epitaph.

Note: The Chinese government has built a 1:150 scale model of Aksai Chin in the northern desert region of Ningxia. Google Earth has show it to be of incredible detail. Awesome!

When is a shrine just a shrine?

Recently the Japanese Prime Minister offered an expensive ($500) potted plant to a shrine in Japan. China. was. pissed. Why? Because leader Hu Jintao bought the exact same plant but hadn't delivered it yet... now he has to get something new.

Well... not really.

The Yasukuni Shrine honors the nearly 2.5 million Japanese who died during Imperial Japan's many wars between 1867 and 1945. Of course a great deal of these Japanese died in the Empire's wars of aggression against Korea and China. During the course of these conflicts the Japanese soldiers and leadership committed some excessively dastardly acts- dastardly by the standards of the time, by the standards of today, and franky, dastardly by an improbable combination of the Klingon, Roman, and Aztec Empires combined. (Aztec might be a step too far but it was bad.) The actions need not be recounted here but a number of the Japanese leaders were convicted of Crimes Against Humanity and branded war criminals. Some of those leaders are also honored at the shrine. Thusly, when a Japanese Prime Minister honors the shrine he can be implicitly seen as honoring Japan's militaristic and, in some cases, downright barbaric actions towards its neighbors.

Were other countries involved this would be a straightforward story of one leader doing something insensitive and another country taking understandable umbrage. But whenever China is involved it's never that simple. China's people adamantly refuse to tolerate foreigners even discussing "internal Chinese affairs." When I was teaching in China I had to answer endless questions about the Torch Relay Protests occurring in the West. When I pointed out that the United States recognizes that Tibet is a part of China even though a few thousand protesters don't I was seriously asked why police didn't open fire on the protesters.

The Chinese government has used perceived assaults on China to fire up nationalism among the Chinese people (because you're not allowed to comment on the Chinese government without insulting the Chinese people), has attempted to economically punish artists for performing the Taiwanese National Anthem (in Taiwan), and has frequent "news" showing recycled and edited footage designed to make the Taiwanese legislature look like a constant fist fight (it isn't like that all the time) and the United States appear to be a crime infested failed state. I don't necessarily have an issue with one government voicing an opinion (nor do I have an issue with some countries being frustrated at Japanese insensitivity)- it's just that the China doesn't get to demand a "hand's off" policy with foreign powers commenting on its "internal" affairs while simultaneously attempting to control the actions of people in other countries.

The cognitive dissonance involved in China attempting to control the personal/quasi-religious actions of the Japanese Prime Minister while demanding that no one be allowed to comment on Chinese internal politics is hypocrisy and hints at what issues will come to dominate international politics if China is ever the center of the world.*


*China's name implies that it is in the center of the world: 中國 means "Middle Country." I'm not using that as some sort of damning closing argument- it's just that if legions of foreigners get to comment on the effect of cowboy westerns on millions of Americans I think it's fair game to point out that what your country calls itself may have an effect on the national psyche.

America the Dismissive and Europe the Narcissistic

(Reprinted from my previous blog with permission from the author, me.)

March, 2008

Americans, at best, probably can reach a consensus that the Europeans are our distant cousins and then can be surprised at how much of a divide there is between the two sides of the Atlantic. To me the largest component of these differences stem from our disparate responses to the World Wars.

Twice in the 20th century Europe basically tried to commit suicide. Both of the wars did not go according to plan and both of them drew in the United States. At the end of WWII the Europeans could look back on the last forty years (or even the last 150) and say in a near unison chorus that "War doesn't work."

The response to this revelation was to create the supranational agencies that have been instrumental in keeping peace to this day. The ECSC (European Coal and Steel Community) attempted to remove the possibility of a third major war between France and Germany by agreeing to share the energy and building resources that they had been fighting over. It was proposed in 1950 and signed in 1951. In one year more had been accomplished to satisfy both nation's economic and security needs than in 12 years of 20th century warfare.

A turning point had been reached. The Europeans, out of the mutual revulsion to the extremes of the wars, became dedicated to diplomacy as a means to answer all their problems. And it worked. A continent that had almost joyfully been at war with itself since the Roman Empire's collapse has entered a period of peace that will last into the indefinite future... as long as it's up to them.

The experience of the sixty years has shown the Europeans what can be accomplished through diplomacy. Compare that to six centuries of ineffectual warfare and Europe's near grating dedication to being a pacifist community makes perfect sense.

The American response to WWII is very different. The US had little desire to become involved in the wider world until WWII. It was quintessentially isolationist and when one compares its economic potential to its actual armed forces it had the most unrealized amount of military force in history. When Americans think of the World Wars we see our country being dragged into a conflict that we had no hand in starting and little to gain by an all out effort to end. The second thought is of a near religious crusade to completely destroy the perceived aggressors. The second time America got involved it had the benefit of moral clarity. No one could argue that our opponents were acting in self defense. We didn't want to be involved but after we were we unleashed a complete and total and final judgment upon our enemies. (Note: I'm not mentioning the massive Soviet contribution because I'm writing about perception rather than reality.)

At the end of the war the United States found itself convinced that its continued participation was necessary in Europe to prevent a third war or a devastated continent's capitulation to concentrated and determined Soviet aggression. America found itself in the one position it had never desired to be in: a superpower that could never disentangle itself from the world. Through a combination of threats, proxy wars, bluster, and mutually assured destruction the Americans contained the perceived threat from a monolithic communist revolution, something that may never have actually threatened America itself. America paid for European reconstruction out of generosity and based massive armies on the continent to ensure the West's security. By the end of WWII and the Cold War America had risen to be more powerful than any nation had been since the Roman Empire. We learned the opposite lesson from the Europeans: War CAN work. (The Vietnam war, while traumatic, only reversed this belief for a short period of time.)

This nearly brings us to the present day. Despite having more commonalities than any other two distant parts of the world the Europeans and Americans can have profound disagreements on international politics. They can call Americans warmongers and we can call Europeans naive cowards and everyone can feel perfectly comfortable within those judgments.

The different responses to Iraq war followed these beliefs perfectly.

The Europeans can sigh at American willingness to believe that violence, applied correctly, can solve any problem. It's because of they're long history of violence failing to solve very much that the Europeans believe this. Americans can say, on the other hand, "Violence, correctly applied, has a good track record in our history." Both perceptions are correct under the different histories.

The legacy of the 2nd Gulf War, and I don't think the final chapter is by any means known, will be which belief about war is regarded as correct by the succeeding generation of Europeans and most Americans. The Europeans could almost be forgiven for hoping that the Americans withdraw less than victoriously because that would mean America's arguments in favor of the effectiveness of violence had been given a serious setback. If the American goals are met before a general withdrawal it will mean that violence worked... and that will likely beget more violence. That being said, even in the face of a catastrophic American withdrawal there will still be a large number of Americans who, instead of saying that violence doesn't work, will believe that the Bush administration's ham handedness in prosecuting the war is the primary reason for failure. (This administration has had so many major screw ups in Iraq that this will be a difficult argument to silence.)

I dislike dumbing down a current conflict, wherein my own countrymen are still dying, to a dry cultural discussion. Regardless, this how I see it.

This entry is long enough as it is but I should mention an excellent article I just read about Europe's choosing to be irrelevant in global politics. The gist of it is that Europe is enjoying the good life right now and enjoying it on the cheap. It can't be invaded but neither can it be asked to shoulder the burdens that the Anglo-American alliance does. Even though the combined economies of the EU countries is slightly larger than the United States economy their lack of political unity or will means that the massive economic strength will not translate into political or military muscle for the foreseeable future. After all, why would they want to?

With no direct military threat the only danger to Europe is an upset the international trade that it prospers from. The same trading forces that propel their living standards upwards do the same for the Americans, who can be counted on to use their military to enforce freedom of the seas. If the Iranians mine the Straights of Hormuz for short term political gain who will go to bat to remove the mines and enforce free passage? The American (and possibly British) navy. Why should Denmark be concerned? American participation is a given. The US has even gone so far to suggest placing anti-missile systems on European soil to protect against a Iranian threat to its allies. This is the single greatest current resentment that Americans have towards the Europeans: we seem more interested in their security than they do.

The European answer is that American bellicosity is just as likely to help create an apocalyptic threat as to deter it. Who's right? The Europeans can argue that they were more right about Iraq but Americans can cynically make all sorts of points about the world still be here thanks to American brinksmanship and hardheadedness. (That's actually one word!)

I don't know who will win in the long term argument between the Americans and our cousins. I know that I hope the Europeans are right. I'd prefer to live in a world that is like Europe as I've described it here. A community that has found reasonable ways to accommodate different country's desires and created a political framework to ensure peace for the foreseeable future. But I'm not that optimistic. I think there are plainly evil people in the world who can not be accommodated and the best answer to them is our ability to deter them or neutralize them if necessary. I don't like having to believe that and perhaps that makes me a part of the world's problems. Maybe I am as much to blame as aggressors throughout the centuries. But I doubt it.