The Longbow Papers

Link to Main Blog Page

Thursday, July 06, 2006

Chinapol, Shove it! In Defense of Philip Cunningham

12:26 PM

I am not sure whom I detest more, plain old elitists or American academic elitists. Both types I stomach about as well as I do cauliflower. While I have one leg or so tenuously planted in academia by way of my employment at one of Beijing's better universities to teach American-style journalism, I am anything but an academic.

(It must be noted that I am a product of Mississippi, the poorest state in America, and its public schools and universities; I grew up in a tiny coastal town that most folks had never heard of before Katrina. I'm a "countryside" boy with a "public" education, whose father came to America from Italy when he was 13 speaking not a word of English, and became something quite special.)

I was invited as a "Foreign Expert" to teach journalism at Beijing Foreign Studies University for the same reason I was invited to teach "Writing the Nonfiction Book" at the U.C.L.A. Writers Program in America during the late 90s: Because that is what I do for a living--writing book length investigative journalism and occasional magazine articles (with a screenplay or two thrown in to keep the wolf always at the door somewhat at bay).

Why in blue blazes am I wading so indignantly into this here and now? There is an interesting brouhaha--a ganged up witch hunt is more of an appropriate description to my taste--in place over at my very good friend Jeremy Goldkorn's invaluable blog Danwei. It is all about Philip Cunningham, a widely published fellow freelance author and journalist, being kicked off of an American-based, invitation only, listserv called Chinapol, which is ostensibly a place for serious sinologists to gather and share their wisdom on things Chinese via e-mail. That is, when they are not glad handing one another or backstabbing one another.

For purpose of perspective only, I will note that Chinapol, a privately owned endeavor of U.C.L.A. Professor Rick Baum, does not allow mainland, native Chinese scholars into their exalted company. I am serious. That is not a typo. A group whose purpose is to better understand China and its place in the community of nations will not allow Chinese to join!

I don't have the time, space, civility nor objectivity to go into the full spectrum of vitriol caused by Phil being tossed out of this academic circle-jerk, and his impassioned response to it, other than to say that he has some very strong feelings about how his native land, America, is behaving both at home and abroad under this administration. I will also say that, like it or not, what Phil is saying about American atrocities committed in various parts of our world is true.

Should he appear to be so apologetic regarding Chinese "atrocities" past and present? Perhaps not, but you read his argument and decide for yourself. However, this much I understand completely: when so many people constantly push you up against a wall with knee-jerk "America-good, China-bad" balderdash without a lot of real life experience in a country one has come to love deeply, one gets defensive. It is also an undeniable fact that the majority of American press coverage of China is negative.

For the whole story--and it is revelatory, well worth a look-see--please go to Danwei for conflicting and strong views on the matter from a lot of people, some of whom you will recognize as readers and commenters in these pages. I will add a caveat, Phil and I do not always agree on some of his views of America and its larger designs upon the world--by larger, I mean, after Bush, whom I believe at present is capable of completely destroying the idea of the American Ideal for all whom do not yet have it. I mostly believe that we and the world will survive Bush, but I cannot guarantee it.

In truth, Phil hasn't been too happy with any recent administration in residence at the White House. In further truth, as was so eloquently said only the other day by my closest friend in life, whom I will not identify at this point, "Joseph, Phil is so far left of you, you're almost a centrist," by comparison.

Now, that is damn hard to do! I mean, get to the left of me. But, I suppose there is a germ of truth in the statement. Philip Cunningham is indeed far to the left of the prevailing winds in the United States these dark and frightening days. Most would assume that's why I respect Phil so much. But to do so would be a mistake. I don't choose my friends--or family, for that matter, all of whom are Republican Bush supporters, yet my love for them is unconditional--by their political persuasion.

I mostly choose the people I spend friendship time with for four reasons: they are smarter than I am; they don't spit on me or in my food; their sense of humanity and its value regardless of race, place or class; and loyalty. That last one is a real biggie--the countryside boy in me. If you'll get in my fox-hole when the rounds start whistling, I will get in yours and ask no questions other than which way to shoot.

Here, I am going to address my respect for, and friendship with, Phil Cunningham on three of those points. I think the second one speaks for itself.

One. Other than my deceased father, and that very best friend whom I am still not ready to identify in this context, Philip Cunningham is the smartest guy I've ever come in contact with. And in my some five plus decades of a colorful and well-traveled life, I've met more than a few smart people. Phil speaks, reads and writes--professionally!--in just about every major language other than Martian. And while he is at this moment holed up in a beautiful, hallowed cottage in northern Japan, he might be working on that one too.

Two. Phil Cunningham has a sense of human justice that is hard to find in really smart folks any longer. He loves human beings of all stripes and colors. He hates it when they are murdered, tortured, or imprisoned anywhere (for reasons that are not just). Phil has been in China for a whole lot of years. He was in the square that awful day in the summer of 1989, and I have heard him condemn what happened there in every form possible.

Now, is he likely at the same time to bring up Kent State, or Chicago in 1968, or My Lai? Yepper. And why not? While relativism is very much out of fashion, I still hold to its importance dearly: comparing different varieties of oranges at an orange growers' convention makes a lot of sense to me. Nothing in history happens in a vacuum. It is all one big continuum--life, history and politics. If we don't compare things, how in the hell are we ever going to weigh their relative value or significance in the larger view?

As a crime writer working mostly the murder beat, relativism was crucial for my sanity--and my job performance--when spending dozens and sometimes hundreds of hours in small, windowless rooms with convicted murderers. If I dwelt only in the absolute, I could never have achieved the human bond that allowed me to get heinous criminals to sometimes tell me their deepest secrets, which was why I was there. I learned how to truly love and befriend men who had committed acts of barbarism that would otherwise empty a nauseous belly in a Yankee goddamn minute.

Three. I first met Phil Cunningham within only days of my arrival in Beijing three years ago from Xiamen. I was teaching a ridiculous course called "Media and Foreign Policy" to prospective diplomats and party functionaries at the China Foreign Affairs University. It was on the set of "Dialogue," the CCTV International talk show hosted by Yang Rui. I would go on to appear on the show almost weekly that first year because Yang Rui and his producers thought I was an International Relations expert because of what and where I was teaching. (There was another reason, but that has to do with my best friend that I cannot identify here.)

At the end of that year, Yang Rui, as a celebrity guest, came to see a live television extravaganza I produced at the Beijing Broadcasting Institute--it is called something else these days, but what escapes me at the moment--and as we sat and chatted he learned, apparently for the first time, that I was only a journalist and author, not an IR specialist. It is instructive, and amusing, to note that I have appeared on "Dialogue" only a half-dozen times or so in the intervening two years.

But, back to that first appearance with Phil. Here was a guy who had been in China since god was a pup, yet after the show he warmly invited me to have a Scotch or two and took the time to teach rudimentary "New China" history to a dummy with patience and respect. For that alone, he was a hero in my eyes.

I believe the last time I saw Phil in person was two or three months ago when we were the only "foreigners" at a unique, private forum with representatives of every major state-owned and controlled media entity in China and the deans of the less than a handful of Chinese universities that have real English language J-schools. Like all of the other get-togethers in between it was a valuable learning experience and a personal pleasure to jawbone with Phil.

However, the last time I had the pleasure of hearing from him is surely the reason I will defend him and his humanity until the end of my days. You see, Phil has a family, a full family, with children, and it is tough to make ends meet as a freelance journalist in China. He needed a steady job. Unbeknownst to me, he was offered mine. He turned it down! And promptly let me know about it--not his turning it down, he was too modest for that, but that my position was perhaps precarious. The full truth came from that best friend I cannot identify.

The job probably would not have paid enough to keep him from accepting a much better position teaching in Japan. I do know that certain members of his family would have preferred that he give it a try rather than moving them to another country, a country quite alien to them.

I am now going to fudge a bit and add another reason for my love and admiration of Phil Cunningham. The single smartest man that I have known in my life--including even my father, forgive me Pop, but you know it is true--my best friend in life, who for good and sound reasons, I cannot identify here, also thinks the world of Phil Cunningham.

A final word: Phil, come home if you can, please! That dear friend and I miss you, brother. I still have my job, and get this? Yang Rui's lovely and talented wife is my new dean.

Oh, and you can name-drop Mr. Yang's first name 12 times a week; Yang Rui is a complex, fascinating man whom I both like and admire.

Side note: Raj--and others with the same question--the reason some of us do not virulently condemn the Chinese Central Government publicly is rather elementary: we are employed by it. Would you curse out your employer? Forget the practical matter, is it even good manners? However, if you actually read these pages, and particularly the Journalism and the State series on WOW, I think you might realize why most other folks cannot understand why the government I work for allows me the freedom to do what I do. I will also direct you--and others with your sentiments--to this article I was invited to publish in Quill, the excellent magazine published by the Society of Professional Journalists, of which I am a grateful member.

12:26 PM / Editor / permalink 14 comments

Links to this post:

<\$BlogBacklinkControl\$> <\$BlogBacklinkTitle\$> <\$BlogBacklinkDeleteIcon\$>: <\$BlogBacklinkSnippet\$>
posted by <\$BlogBacklinkAuthor\$> \@ <\$BlogBacklinkDateTime\$>

14 Comments:

While I agree with Joe here I think the entire advertising of this "internal" matter is ridiculous. Flaming and arguments on BBSs, forums and mailing lists happen all the time and to air them in public is juvenile. I do not mean that Joe is juvenile :-) and I don't want a war of words over that, but these things happen all the time and though people are angry and upset, it just shows how children never grow up.

By Anonymous, at 3:12 PM

what a surprise. one yang rui sycophant supporting another. yang rui is without question the worst interviewer.presenter I have encountered in over three decades of whatching broadcast journalism. He wanted to be China's Jeremy Paxman but forgot that to achieve this he would need to possess talent, style and humor. Poor guy has none. I sincerely hope you do not use him as a mdoel for your students, otherwise the future in this country is doomed.

i have not read this thread in full, neither do I need to. I am sure it is full of the usual bosco macho hunter thompson wannabee nonsense. the moment i saw the words yand rui, the integrity of the argument was lost. i couldn't give two hoots about chinapol or waht it says about cunningham, but the link to this blog spoiled my perusal of danwei so I felt compelled to reply

By mike, at 3:26 PM

I politely disagree with Joseph, but respect his opinions, as always. Let me look at just one paragraph:

I don't have the time, space, civility nor objectivity to go into the full spectrum of vitriol caused by Phil being tossed out of this academic circle-jerk, and his impassioned response to it, other than to say that he has some very strong feelings about how his native land, America, is behaving both at home and abroad under this administration. I will also say that, like it or not, what Phil is saying about American atrocities committed in various parts of our world is true.

I only want to ask, if all it is is a "circle jerk," why would anyone want to be part of it, and why, especially, would they care if they were thrown out? And I agree completely with the point about America's atrocities - half my blog is dedicated to chronicling those atrocities. But I believe it is possible to discuss China without always and reflexively bringing up the iniquities of the US. When asked about what went on at Tiananmen Square, responding with a counter-charge about Kent State doesn't cut it for me (especially since all the records on Kent State are open and the nation still agonizes over it, some 40 years later). Like Joseph, I find Philip brilliant and charming. No arguments there. But as long as he keeps diverting discussions about other countries to discussions about America, he can't escape being seen as a man with an agenda.

By richard, at 3:32 PM

Howdy, folks.

Anonymous,

Thank you for making it clear that you do not find me "juvenile," and I am sincere. Your point about airing these kind of Internet cat fights is well-founded, and perhaps I should have left it alone. But, as I say in the piece, loyalty is very important to me. A man who feels the same way was under attack and I chose to defend him.

Mike,

Hunter passed from this life last year and it was a personal loss, he was a friend of mine. It is no insult to have my name or work associated with him, even in the demeaning manner you do here.

To all other commenters:

Everything I wanted to say about this matter is in the piece. I will not participate in any argument that might develop here. I will delete all personal attacks against anyone--other than against me, insults of me will stay up, just unanswered. I will also delete foul language.

All the very best,

Joseph

By Joseph, at 3:52 PM

Dear Richard,

For you my dear friend, I will respond. Your point is very well made; as always, you write better than most of us ever will.

I do not believe that Phil would characterize Chinapol as a circle-jerk, that is my metaphor for what I have seen all too often in academic "round-tables." I am quite certain he would not have joined it if he felt that way.

I would not join because, while I do have one or two friends that I believe are members, or perhaps were members, I really am not certain, that sort of insular "society" is just not my thing. Which was the same way I felt about fraternities when I was in college way too many decades ago.

I am not sure other than my off-color metaphor what we are disagreeing about. Unless it is my central thrust on relativism, which we have very politely disagreed about before, with Ellen not-so-politely agreeing with you as I recall :)

As you say, we both agree on Phil's stellar personal attributes. I can simply explain that when anyone who has chosen to be my friend comes under personal attack, I will defend him. But then you know that. It has been a troublesome trait of mine since before I had cognitive thought. Also, I was a "minority" in too many ways, for too many years, which somewhat explains that instinct.

Anyway, it's great to have you grace these pages, it's been too long.

All the very best,

Joseph

By Joseph, at 5:18 PM

BBI (Beijing Broadcasting Institute) is called China Media University now: the top school in China for journos and TV anchors. Beiwai is, seriously, where they train the spies.

By Anonymous, at 6:08 PM

Thanks Joseph; I feel the same about my friends - my first inclination is to defend them. It can be a tricky thing, being friends with people who hold such different beliefs from your own on issues that are cose to their hearts. But if Mary Matlin and James Carville can do it, so can we.

By richard, at 6:19 PM

Joseph,

Personally I feel that Cunningham's one-sided criticism of the US through such public mediums as "Dialogue" (if only there was such a thing on it) seeks to help the regime you cannot criticise. There is a difference between not shooting yourself in the foot and pushing an agenda at the cost of helping people that should not be helped.

Cunningham was using a private means of communication that couldn't "get him in trouble". So why was it that he supposedly always seemed to twist the argument to condemn the US? I have critical points of many countries, including my own. When I talk about something, I'm happy to discuss anything. What annoys me about people like him is that they are constantly pushing their POV about one issue. He also lacks perspective - does he really think the US is worse than China overall? Come off it!

He was repeatedly challenged to allow the mailing list to publish his comments, if he was so innocent. The fact he didn't even acknowledge those requests each time they were made indicates the lack of depth to his complaint.

By the way, you work for the Chinese State, but that does not preclude you from talking about any issues inside China, given that many other Chinese academics do. You merely need to structure your points carefully.

By Raj, at 6:34 PM

I don't go to websites about the Iraqi War and say things like "yeah, but look at China!" That wouldn't make any sense. This works both ways.
I'm not concerned about the situation here in China because I am an American that wants to "keep China down." I'm concerned about the situation here because there are a lot of things that happen that are unjust, and that people are unable to talk about in an open manner. Now matter how Yang Rui or P.J. slice it, that's sad, and the only losers are the Chinese people themselves.

By kevin, at 8:55 PM

I agree with kevin 100%.

What's sick is that Cunningham's help to the State's policy of lies and deceit can't ever hurt him, because he toes the line. Whereas ordinary Chinese suffer as a result because there isn't enough pressure to have their problems publicly discussed.

By Raj, at 12:20 AM

The glowing asides about Yang Rui keep me from taking this defense seriously. I have never witnessed a more biased interview style than his, and cannot watch more than a few minutes of his show anymore.
It's great that you're loyal to Phil, your friend. But no one on C-pol seems to be attacking him personally. He has simply been asked to leave a privately run BBS list after he disagreed with the moderator about the ground rules for discussion. I might be mistaken, but my impression is that it is Phil C. who has made this a public grudge match that it did not have to be.
There should be room to discuss the biases of Westerners looking at China, but this might be the wrong context for that.

By Anonymous, at 6:03 AM

I also disagree with the use of "left" in this essay. Of course, all such labels are essentially arbitrary and are mainly ways in which people attempt to represent themselves, but I find nothing remotely leftist about appearing on CCTV or hanging out with the Ch-gov.
If I had to attach an arbitrary label to the gov and their supporters or cohorts, it would certainly have to be rightist, given thelack of public services, alliance with big business to suppress people, the cut-throat Darwinist economic system, and monotonous nationalist/ chauvinistic BS that passes for a "press" here.

By kevin, at 9:45 AM

I agree with the posters who say this incident is nothing special and the airing of it in the public domain could be done millions of times a day for millions of forums and mailing lists.

I moderated mailing lists in the past, and sometimes people were kicked off and they took it very personally. As the moderator of these mailing lists I had my own reasons for sometimes kicking people off and it is usually not because of one incident, but the gathering of many incidents over time.

It seems that this Chinapol list is meant for open discussion, so without knowing full the moderator's reasons for kicking this fellow off the list, everybody just sounds juvenile (as one poster rightfully says) trying to argue for/against it.

In the end, while everybody leaps to the rescue of the fellow kicked off the list - I do not know him but I like Joseph's writings so I guess I would like this fellow - it in many ways makes this fellow look bad. Ultimately, the fellow should have walked away from the list and everyone involved with prolonging this entire charade should write aout other things.

Final note - Yang Rui seems smart but is a horrible person to be asking questions on TV.

Charlie

By Charlie, at 10:48 AM

Note: Frank, The Admiral of China Moon http://chinamoon.blogsource.com/ had some problems placing his comment in this thread and asked if I would do it for him--it is my pleasure, sir.

Ahem... I'm sure my opinion will count for naught but...

Though I have not met Mr. 'C', I have read (ohmygod) a lot of the posts, his and commentators, on two specific subjects.

1.) Chinapol- My opinion. He's right. He was wrongly excluded.I belive it is backed by gov't. History (and political NGO newsletters) is written by the victor.No Mainland Chinese equals no local (Note: I did not say informed) opinions about China's political scene. If you don't have ANY of that input, what's point. It just becomes a newsletter full of conjecture, written, subscribed to, and read by a bunch of guys who come here once in a while to buy cheap DVD and score some cheap...ah...massages.

2.) Mr. "C" does seem, as Richard put it, to hold the USA to a higher standard than China, when speaking publicly.
I find, in particular, it could be a little offensive to some Western viewers, for Mr. "C" to slam the US gov't, while mimicking the 3 monkeys when it comes to China's internal political situation.

Having said that, Mr. "C" does in fact fulfill his destiny, and duty, as an American, by speaking his mind, AS he chooses, WHEN he chooses, WITH conviction.

You cannot condem him as anti-American, when he behaves as an American SHOULD, and CAN do, and when given half a chance, WILL do.

You may even want to resort to McCarthyism, by complaining that he is too "nice" to China, and the Chinese government's sensibilities.But folks think about it, all American's know that road is the wrong one to get on. Glass houses...rocks...get the picture?

In the end, as gentlemen and gentlewomen, the only civil thing to do is agree or agree to disagree with Mr. "C". Or we can argue with him. But if you choose the latter, let us do it either in private email, or online with some sense of etiquette (like Richard and others), or even better... Invite the man for dinner or a nice brandy...That my friends, is the civilized way to have an argument...Especially after a a nice meal...

'Nuff said
the Admiral

By Joseph, at 3:59 PM