|
¡@
Racial superiority
Monday, Sep 13, 2010, Page 8
Michael Fagan¡¦s response (Letters, Sept. 11, page 8) to my article (¡§Who won
China¡¦s war on fascism?¡¨ Sept. 8, page 8) allows me a further opportunity to
explain the article¡¦s content and to add one more aspect that I couldn¡¦t fit
into the article itself.
First, the article was not an exercise in political theory. Its dual purpose was
to bring back into question the actual role the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)
played in China¡¦s war of resistance against Japan and to compare certain
characteristics of fascism to aspects of China¡¦s contemporary socioeconomic and
sociopolitical environment.
China¡¦s turn to the political right during the late 1970s further adds to this
argument.
Another feature of fascism not mentioned in my article also applies to China¡¦s
contemporary socioeconomic and sociopolitical situation: social Darwinism. In
this sense, fascism is itself closely related to Marxism and Marxist-Leninism.
The difference is that Marxism uses class struggle to delineate and define
stages in socioeconomic development.
Fascism makes use of social Darwinism in a cruder way: Typically fascism
substitutes racial superiority for class struggle as the key driving force
behind social change.
How do these ¡§struggle¡¨ and social Darwinism issues relate to the China of
today? One can look in many places to find vestiges of China¡¦s feelings of
cultural superiority. China dominated Asia through much of its imperial history.
Anyone who believes feelings of cultural superiority are much different from
feelings of racial superiority should go to a Chinese newspaper¡¦s Web site and
check out readers¡¦ comments.
Furthermore, matters that the CCP would have the outside world believe are
merely territorial, and not at all racial, such as the Tibet, Xinjiang, Inner
Mongolia and Taiwan issues, are deeply rooted in the Chinese feeling of racial
and cultural superiority. If this were not the case, then the domination of the
CCP by ethnic Han Chinese in most of these areas and increasingly vocal
insistence that the populations in these areas as well as overseas Chinese and
other groups the CCP considers ¡§Chinese¡¨ are ¡§all Chinese¡¨ would be unnecessary.
It appears that the CCP would argue that Uighur, Mongolian, Tibetan and
Taiwanese are all subsets of the Han Chinese population. Although this umbrella
definition does allow a little wiggle room for ethnic minorities, it ensures
these groups cannot establish any form of identity outside of the Chinese
umbrella. The dominant group defines the identities of other groups. Is this not
a form of racial supremacy?
Nathan Novak
Kaohsiung
¡@
|
