I have to agree with one of the previous letters in that Wasserstrom seems to be an apologist working from the basic theory that if the event has happened before in regards to US or European history, it is OK for the Chinese to do it as well.

I have lived in China for nearly seven years now, and although I think that Western media are quite often over the top with regards to China, I do also feel that an autocratic country like China needs to have that kind of prodding, for without it, they would have little or no stimulus for change. Not to mention the fact that the Chinese media are much heavier-handed when talking about the evils of Washington, Japan and the EU.

I am always awestruck at how foreign professors and dignitaries are so contented after being led around Chinese “Potomkin villages” on their state-sponsored tours of “real” China. I have come to the conclusion that professors like Wasserstrom simply write these types of articles to make sure they can maintain access to archives and visas.

I am curious how the author would argue away the current Chinese intervention at the UN as it pertains to Myanmar (Burma)?

It is every person’s responsibility to hold world leaders responsible for their actions. Just because other US leaders have made grievous mistakes does not mean that we should give all other world powers free reign. In a nation that prizes history as its most important contribution to world civilization, you would think that it would be able to learn from others' mistakes and not repeat them.

Sean Sutton

Billings, MT

What a waste of space! The author seems to be a shill for the Chinese government--a murderous, bloody, genocidal government. Shame, shame, shame. Say NO to the Olympics!!!

Vince Hamon-Enriquez

Los Angeles, CA

I thought this article effectively pointed out a kind of veiled bigotry that sometimes appears in media portrayals of China and, indeed, nearly all "foreign" societies, whether they be domestic ones (non-whites in America, for example) or overseas.

I've often heard conservative Americans use the "saving face" phrase to describe Chinese people in political forums or chatrooms. It appears to be a unique descriptor some conservatives use for Chinese people or other East Asian (read: "mongoloid") cultures. They almost never apply the "saving face" phrase to other groups, which makes me wonder where this particular political trend came about, and why. My initial theory is that it has to do with victory of Communist movements in many of these nations. If the nation is capitalist democratic, it will not be hit with the "saving face" descriptor nearly as often. It's a way to condemn these societies in a way not unlike the way many conservatives have condemned black Americans. Because so many black Americans vote Democrat and not Republican, many conservatives like to describe black culture as a culture of incompetence, or something along those lines. I don't think this tactic is used when the conservatives feel they have a chance of eventually winning over significant numbers of the opposing group. They do it when they feel the opposing group is seen as something of a lost cause. It's done to bolster pride in their own group, to rally their own people to the cause, at that point.

Also, I think it's a popular sentiment amongst some right-wing elements to somehow define the "character of a nation" (or the character of an ethnic group/religion/etc). Right-wingers are much more likely to say what is legitimately part of American culture and what is not than left-wingers. They are also more likely to use the idea of "the West" and compare it to other societies. (And the West, to them, can exclude up to and above 50 percent of North America and Europe's population--they don't think black or Native Americans are Westerners... and the more left-wing a white person becomes, the less Western they are, too.)

I think it's a symptom of their more nationalistic leanings, whereas leftists tend to have a more internationalist/humanist bent. If one is a nationalist, you will desire to define a nation and its "true character," and this extends to minority groups within a nation, too. From that point, you want to figure out which groups are desirable and which are not.

This isn't to say that leftists don't try and define the character of right-wingers, of course. But it's usually devoid of racial or national constraints, since those things are counterproductive to the goal of bringing people into your cause.

Jerry Ku

San Francisco, CA

The points in this article really don't make much sense and are very superficial, I think. Olympics and the recent lead paint scare. This article does allude to an important point, however. (Please keep in mind that obviously China has much to offer, culturally, economically etc.) China is not held accountable (neither is the US) for anything they do. Whether it be no quality control, an almost despotic government, lack of human/civil rights, promotion of profits over all else, the censure and torture of Tibetans and their form of Buddhism, the encroachment of China on neighboring countries' land (e.g., moving into Bhutanese territory)--there are no repercussions from the international community. China holds such an "esteemed" place in our worldview that we do in fact coddle them. They are like the bully that never gets in trouble, despite atrocious human rights and civil rights atrocities. If we really are pro-freedom, our views and relations to China must incorporate reality. I think the fact the China is propping up our economy is very troubling and underlies our behavior.

Anjum Koreishi

Buffalo, NY

This article is absurd. Wasserstrom may travel in China and teach but, if he actually cared about the Chinese people he would realize that this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to direct the world's attention on the Communist government of China, whose people live under that oppressive government everyday. I, too, travel a lot in China and have had the great pleasure of becoming freinds with many people there. When those people are allowed to speak freely, practice religions of their own choice, vote for their leaders and hold them accountable for slaughtering their own people in the streets, use the Internet as we do freely, eat and drink food and water that is not poisoned by shocking pollution then I think the world should normalize relations with China. Just because the world watched like "deer in the headlights" as Hitler held the 1936 Olympics Games does not mean we should be repeating such a grave mistake again. The idea of going to Beijing and celabrating the Olypmics as the image of Mao, the murderer of over 50 million people, hangs off the Gate of Eternal Peace is ridiculous.

Jeffrey, one world, one dream, whose dream are you talking about here?

Diane Gatt

New York City, NY

Horsefeathers! "Isn't it time we finally normalized the way we think and talk about China?" So what Wasserstrom is saying is that because we, the United States are not perfect, China needn't be criticized harshly.

I say BS. Both the United States and China need to be held to account.

All nations need to be held to acccount, by today's standards, not the standards of some bygone era. The only way to move forward is to look forward to a more egalitarian world. Wasserstrom is an apologist for the status quo using yesterday's dirty laundry.

Michael McKinlay

Hercules , CA