The China-India Comparison with Lots of Facts – Part 1/5

This post was originally a result of a comment on the China Law Blog, which chastised me because, “He wanted me to provide a super-quick summary of The Economist cover story comparing India with China, but it (I) did not,” which was correct then.

Returning to this subject is because of my twelve-part debate with Troy Parfitt. Mr. Parfitt claimed, “Corruption in India isn’t germane to the debate.” In fact, most if not all of the facts and comparisons used during the debate were not relevant according to Mr. Parfitt unless those facts supported his opinions of China.

At one point, Mr. Parfitt mentioned reviews of his book in Publisher’s Weekly in defense of his book not being racisit. He claimed the South China Morning Post didn’t say that. Neither did Publishers Weekly, the Korean Herald, The Vancouver Sun… and none of the Amazon reviewers [that may change].

However, Publisher’s Weekly [PW] did say this of his book, “The result is mostly travelogue told from an outsider’s perspective, contextualized with overviews of major events in Chinese history. Parfitt argues that China will not rule the world, because as a nation it is more interested in the appearance of success than actual substance. He suggests that culturally, China has little to offer…” In addition, PW says, “his book lacks the precise facts and figures that he decries in other books promoting Chinese dominance.”

Basically, this is what the China Law Blog complained of in my post, Comparing India and China’s Economic Engines.

The facts and figures missing from Mr. Parfitt’s “Why China Will Never Rule the World – Travels in the Two Chinas” are important as the China Law Blog says. To judge one country without comparing its government, economy and culture to other countries offers no balance for readers to make informed decisions.

Continued on January 1, 2012 in he China-India Comparison with Lots of Facts – Part 2


Lloyd Lofthouse is the award-winning author of The Concubine Saga. When you love a Chinese woman, you marry her family and culture too. This is the love story Sir Robert Hart did not want the world to discover.

Subscribe to “iLook China”
Sign up for an E-mail Subscription at the top of this page.

About iLook China

Note: This revised and edited post first appeared on October 22, 2010 as India Falling Short

28 Responses to The China-India Comparison with Lots of Facts – Part 1/5

  1. Alessandro says:

    Mr. Lofthouse, I’ve read couple of times the sentence in english (as well as some opinion on it) and it also contained charges for money taken from abroad (NED and others, if I am not mistaken..) for his writings and it’s activities against the state. I also read another document that talked about when Liu was teaching in America, and on his way back to China stopped in Norway, where it seems he helped translating some military documents in chinese on behalf of Nato..unfortunately it was quite sometimes ago, so I’ll have to check, and see if I can find them again….hope it won’t take long 🙂

    • Alessandro,

      No rush. Liu’s taking money from Western sources such as the NED or Norway would not surprise me. In the 1970s, the Dalai Lama admitted to a US Congressional committee that the CIA paid him quite a bit of money each year after he fled China. In addition, there have been stories in the Western media that the CIA was offering support [and may still be doing it] to Islamic fundamentalist insurgents in China’s northwest besides arming some of the Tibetan seperatist groups [I understand there are four groups].

  2. Alessandro says:

    Troy,马桶的口比你的干净得多. 你实在太弱智,弱智得连刚才就让自己丢尽了丑都理解不到。

    Still waiting some answers, my poor english teacher..(by the way,no need to disturb the constitution…Liu Xiaobo is in jail for simple laws regarding taking money from foreign powers to act against the country, the same laws that would have tossed him in jail in USA and many other western countries. On Tiananmen, I see u like to keep on the old propaganda tale that have been long discredited by embassy cables, eyewitness testimony and so on…too bad this is the best u can do…never had a great image of english language teachers abroad, but when it comes to stupidity, u beat them all by a loooooong shot…).

  3. Troy Parfitt says:

    Hey, what did one zealot propagandist say to the other?

    I’m a useful idiot, too.

    Get it?

    (Did you know that though ascribed to Lenin, there’s no evidence he said it? It’s true.)

    Lloyd, I’m disappointed with your posts on this thread. They’re not long enough. I think you need to shoot for several thousand words per post and instead of only one totally unrelated or unprofessional video, go for five. Increasing the length of your posts increases your chances of one of your ideas actually making sense.

    You’ve read the Chinese consitution, have you? Tell me. Which clause or section was ignored when tossing Liu Xiaobo in prison? What sections were disregarded when the PLA rumbled into Beijing June 4, 1989 straifing apartment buildings with bullets and running over people with tanks?

    You’re a mythomaniac, a propagandist, and endorser of one of the most repressive regimes in the world. And your website is a series of disconnected nonsense decorated by retarded videos. You can’t construct an argument to save your life, and the sycophants who show up here saying, ‘Yes, Lloyd, I agree with you,’ belong in Sgt. McGillicuty’s Travelling Nutbar Show.

    Your ideas are an advertisement for how whacky you are, and you’re so whacky, you don’t even realize it. Ever wonder why no one except other crazies post comments here? I’ll tell you: those thousands of viewers read your posts and think, ‘Good god!’

    Not all the bold font on Earth can make you make sense Lloyd. This China business is a lost cause. I suggest you give it up and get some help.

    • MR. Parfitt,

      Now that you have lost control [the anger shows], you have revealed your true nature as a baiter who resorts to ad hominem attacks and the fallacy of Straw Man Arguments to justify and support your biased opinions.

      Yes, I have read the Chinese Constitution and there are clauses that allows China’s police and/or courts to arrest someone such as Xiaobo.

      Article 51: The exercise by citizens of the People’s Republic of China of their freedoms and rights may not infringe upon the interests of the state, of society and of the collective, or upon the lawful freedoms and rights of other citizens.

      Article 53. Citizens of the People’s Republic of China must abide by the constitution and the law, keep state secrets, protect public property and observe labour discipline and public order and respect social ethics.

      Article 54. It is the duty of citizens of the People’s Republic of China to safeguard the security, honour and interests of the motherland; they must not commit acts detrimental to the security, honour and interests of the motherland

      Then of course, there are the Amendments to the Chinese Constitution such as these examples:

      Article 98 which reads “The term of office of the people’s congresses of provinces, municipalities directly under the Central Government and cities divided into districts is five years. The term of office of the people’s congresses of countries, cities not divided into districts, municipal districts, townships, nationality townships and towns is three years,” shall be revised as: “The term of office of the people’s congresses of provinces, municipalities directly under the Central Government, counties, cities and municipal districts is five years. The term of office of the people’s congresses of townships, nationality townships and towns is three years.” [1993]

      The original text of Article 28 of the Constitution is: “The State maintains public order and suppresses treasonable and other counter-revolutionary activities; it penalizes actions that endanger public security and disrupt the socialist economy and other criminal activities, and punishes and reforms criminals.”

      It is revised into: “The State maintains public order and suppresses treasonable and other criminal activities that endanger State security; it penalizes actions that endanger public security and disrupt the socialist economy and other criminal activities, and punishes and reforms criminals. [1999]

      9 The first paragraph of Article 59 is revised to: “The National People’s Congress is composed of deputies elected from the provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities directly under the Central Government and of deputies elected from the armed forces. All the minority nationalities are entitled to appropriate representation.” [2004]

      10 On “State of Emergency”

      Subparagraph 20 of Article 67: “… to decide on the imposition of martial law throughout the country or in particular provinces, autonomous regions, or municipalities directly under the Central Government.”

      Revised to: “… to decide on entering the state of emergency throughout the country or in particular provinces, autonomous regions, or municipalities directly under the Central Government.”

      Article 80: “The President of the People’s Republic of China … proclaims martial law, …”

      Revised to: “… proclaims entering of the state of emergency, …”

      Subparagraph 16 of Article 89: “… to decide on the imposition of martial law in parts of provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities directly under the Central Government…”

      Revised to: “… in accordance with the provisions of law, to decide on entering the state of emergency in parts of provinces, autonomous regions, and municipalities directly under the Central Government…” [2004]

      12 Article 98: “The term of office of people’s congresses of provinces, municipalities directly under the Central Government, counties, cities and municipal districts is five years. The term of office of the people’s congresses of townships, nationality townships and towns is three years.”

      Revised to: “The term of office of the local people’s congresses at various levels is five years.” [2004]


      Let’s see, if we measured the most repressive regimes in the world by the number of people locked up in a country’s prisons, who wins that contest?

      As for China not being a Republic, well:

      Merriam-Webster defines a REPUBLIC as:
      a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2): a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government
      a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law
      a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government


      Note: “supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote” does not say everyone. However, the vast majority of Chinese citizens are allowed to vote and elect “officers and representatives responsible to them…” In rural China, about 600,000 villages hold elections for the village chief or mayor of the village and China’s Constituion sets the term as three years before the next election. At the city, provincial and national level, members of the CCP vote according to the langauge of China’s Constitution to elect those people that rule the country and even China’s president, once the responsible body of citizens entitled to vote for him or her decide on who he or she will be, then he or she may be president for two, five year terms and China’s national congress has the power to impeach a president as defined by the Chinese Constitution.

      ___________________________ says
      a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.
      any body of persons viewed as a commonwealth.
      a state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state.


      The Oxford English Dictionary says:
      a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.

      These succinct definitions of what is Democracy and what is a Republic was produced by the US Army in 1928, These definitions have been quietly withdrawn since, soon after.

      A government of the masses.
      Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of “direct” expression.
      Results in mobocracy.
      Attitude toward property is comunistic-negating property rights.
      Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate. whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.
      Results in demagogism license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.
      Democracy is the “direct” rule of the people and has been repeatedly tried without success.
      A certain Professor Alexander Fraser Tytler, nearly two centuries ago, had this to say about Democracy: ” A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of Government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess out of public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that Democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a Dictatorship.”
      A democracy is majority rule and is destructive of liberty because there is no law to prevent the majority from trampling on individual rights. Whatever the majority says goes! A lynch mob is an example of pure democracy in action. There is only one dissenting vote, and that is cast by the person at the end of the rope.

      Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them.
      Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights, and a sensible economic procedure.
      Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences.
      A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass.
      Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.
      Is the “standard form” of government throughout the world.
      A republic is a form of government under a constitution which provides for the election of:
      1. an executive and
      2. a legislative body, who working together in a representative capacity, have all the power of appointment, all power of legislation all power to raise revenue and appropriate expenditures, and are required to create
      3. a judiciary to pass upon the justice and legality of their governmental acts and to recognize
      4. certain inherent individual rights.
      Take away any one or more of those four elements and you are drifting into autocracy. Add one or more to those four elements and you are drifting into democracy.
      Our Constitutional fathers, familiar with the strength and weakness of both autocracy and democracy, with fixed principles definitely in mind, defined a representative republican form of government. They “made a very marked distinction between a republic and a democracy and said repeatedly and emphatically that they had founded a republic.”
      A republic is a government of law under a Constitution. The Constitution holds the government in check and prevents the majority (acting through their government) from violating the rights of the individual. Under this system of government a lynch mob is illegal. The suspected criminal cannot be denied his right to a fair trial even if a majority of the citizenry demands otherwise.



      As far as my wife is concerned, I recall that there is a comparison between your years of teaching ESL in Asia and the books you read of China and how that made you an expert but my being married to a Chinese woman did not count, but it will take me time to find it. I’ll get back to on that when I do. If I don’t find it in 2012, I will apologize on December 31, 2012 and I’m sure you will remind me. That way I have a year to find it.

    • Mr. Parfitt, It takes one to know one and I haven’t called you crazy YET. No one can stop you from having opinions no matter how poorly the facts or lack of facts support them.

      One thing I learned while reading as many of the reviews that I could find about your work is that every reviewer had the opinion that you are a powerful and talented writer no matter your biases and opinions and for that reason, I want to read your work because I truly love good writing even if I don’t agreed with the opinions of the author.

      Too bad you resort to cherry picking, straw man tactics, ad hominem attacks, confirmation bias and allow cultural bias to control your pen.

    • Xiaohu Liu says:

      You’re a class act buddy.

  4. Alessandro says:

    And, btw, I find his pointing out of the fact that someone told him sometime 我们中国人爱我们的国家,不爱我们的政府 (women zhongguoren ai women de guojia, bu ai women de zhengfu) particularly hilarious…(the typical technic of the ideologically biased men like Troy, who turns even the most normal and world-wide common thing into something only peculiar to somewhere, that purportedly should indicate don’t know what terrible thing about China)

    Why hilarious?

    Well, because, first it doesn’t prove anything at all…in 1.3 billion people, finding people that states to love the country but not the government is nothing but completely NORMAL (it would be anormal the opposite situation…and, anyway, what does “love the government” mean, does anybody in the world actually “love” a government??…U can be satisfied with it, u can respect it, admire it, trust it and so on..but love???)…

    Second, cause he would find way many more people that not only “do not love the government”, but really hate it – including every other politicians – in the USA, in a great number of european countries, in Japan, in Australia, Canada and so on…But probably he’d say that “this fact isn’t germane to the issue at hand”…..

    Intellectual emptiness…pure Troy’s “thinking”…

  5. Alessandro says:

    Mr. Lofthouse, I for one am still pretty dubious about Troy’s “proficiency” in chinese language….Other than 2 simplest sentences, (written in pinyin, by the way) he never said anything at all…I may be mistaken, but I sense that his “knowledge” of chinese language is one of his usual non-sense (after all, 95% of what he wrote in his comments here was devoid of any factual basis whatsoever).

    As for why he never answered to that comment of mine (and to many others as well), is because he doesn’t know how, and once his ignorance of the issue has been exposed, he finds easier and, probably, thinks it’s intelligent to create some chaos personally attacking people, in the hope his evident “inconsistency” will be soon forgot…

  6. Alessandro says:

    Troy, as for propaganda (and ignorance) u have no need for teachers….
    It’s never too late to study some history (AT LEAST)…

  7. Troy Parfitt says:

    You’re welcome Lloyd. Keep the propaganda machine going.

    • Mr. Parfitt,

      You may believe any opinions you want to believe, but that does not mean your opinions will stand when all the facts are examined and weighed.

      Your opinion of my Blog being a propaganda machine that does not support most or all of your biased opinions is noted. However, disagreeing with Troy Parfitt’s opinions of China [often supported with selective facts cherry-picked to exclusively support his opinions] does not make this Blog a propaganda machine.

      In addition, Troy Parfitt may reject any facts [even from someone with the stature of a Henry Kissinger or Amy Chua] that do not support his opinions, but that does not make Mr. Parfitt right or the ultimate expert or judge of China and its culture.

  8. Alessandro says:

    And with this last hyperbolic racist nothingness, I’d suggest we leave Troy to his own delusions.

    I wanted to believe that, though completely devoid of any insight and intellectual honesty, other than respect for the others and plain and simple education, he was simply ignorant and unable really exercise rational thinking.

    His true colors are instead those of a guy full of ideological hatred and inner fear for something that he used to earn a living when couldn’t accomplish anything else, but that has never truly considered worthy at least of some respect (racism). He’s so full of arrogance, so afraid that his ignorance (historical, social, cultural, economic, philosophic and political), plain racism, and the emptiness of his talks could be revealed and exposed through simple facts and datas, that he reacts furiously and violently when it happens.

    I frankly think it’s pointless to try and have any intelligent discussion or confrontation with guys like him, cause they are simply incapable -and not interested – to have them.

    “China’s history has been dominated by warlordism, tribalism, warfare, oppression, lawlessness, authoritarianism, poverty, misery, chaos, corruption, etc” …how to comment such statements, that in so many ways just depicts western (and human) history as well.

    • Alessandro,

      “And with this last hyperbolic racist nothingness, I’d suggest we leave Troy to his own delusions.”

      I agree. I suspect that Mr. Parfitt is a very angry man [something must have happened to him in Taiwan on a personal level that caused him to declare war on China and its culture] and he wraps his anger around claims of being a China expert because he worked there for a decade and read many books on China. Oh, yes, and he learned the language but forgot most of it since returning to Canada where he now teaches in some college or university.

      I wonder why he never responded to your description of how the Party works comment you made that agrees with what I have learned about the Party.

      I suspect the reason Mr. Parfitt often ignores certain responses such as yours on how the Party works and then turns the conversation into a personal off-topic attack through focused questions is because those types of responses such as the comment you wrote on the Party sit outside his area of China expertise and they do not fit the personal, limited, politically correct and biased image he has constructed of China.

      During the debate, when he asked how many books I had read on China, he never responded to my reply because my answer did not fit what he probably wanted to hear after I revealed how expensive my library on China was and my knowledge of China.

      I recall that there was also an attempt to discredit me as an expert [of any kind] on China, because I was only married to a Chinese woman and that I did not speak the language as he claims he does.

      However, he may have no idea who my Chinese wife [or he knows and is ignoring the fact] is and that she knows more about China than he will ever know in ten lifetimes, since she is considered a China expert in her own right and her work has been published in more than thirty languages and has sold millions of copies. My wife’s experience growing up in China during the Mao era and her research on the country, its history and its culture are extensive.

      Her first book was a New York Times Notable Book of the year about twenty years ago, won the Carl Sandburg Award for literature and is required reading in Asian Studies programs at Western universities around the world. When I don’t know something, I ask her and she either teaches me or points me in the right direction. I also edit her work, after she finishes a rough draft, before it goes to her agent or publisher or to a newspaper or magazine such as the New York Times or New Yorker. My wife came to the US in her mid twenties, and after learning English earned a BA and then an MFA while living in Chicago.

      I must say this. Thanks to Mr. Parfitt’s shotgun approach to debating without facts to support many of his opinions, he provided me with more topics to write about and pointed me in new directions. For that, I thank him.

      • Troy Parfitt says:

        I never mentioned your wife Lloyd. You’re making stuff up or going senile.

      • Technically, you are correct. You never directly mentioned my wife using the word wife or by her name [in fact, I have never mentioned her name], but at one point and maybe more than once you did make it clear that someone just married to a Chinese woman could in no way be as much of an expert of China as you were since you worked in Taiwan for more than ten years teaching ESL, learned to speak some Mandarin and read many books on China and then traveled through seventeen of China’s provinces as “more than a tourist” [I think those were your words].

        Then when you challenged me to see how much I have read about China and after I replied to that question, you never followed up with a comment about the books I have read of China and my extensive library. In fact, you often [but not always] ignored any responses to your questions from anyone in the debate that did not support your biased opinions of China and would then often throw our more questions often in an attempt to divert the topic in another direction by using the Straw Man approach.

        As for your insinuation that I might be going senile. Impossible. With the genes I inherited from my mother and father and my whole foods diet, I doubt that will happen any time between now and my 90s if I make it that far. There is no history of senility on either side of my family so ha, ha. In addition, we eat blueberries–lots of blueberries.

  9. Troy Parfitt says:

    Is the Golden Apple Award anything like Buckeye News Hawk Award?

    The great Other. Here, great means “large” or “vast” like it does in the great unknown. Great doesn’t mean superior. Look it up.
    How can one engage in an ad hominem attack by asking questions? I’m simply trying to get the root of your ideology. What, besides being delusional, would cause someone to come to such conclusions? There had to be an event. If it’s not Vietnam or something to do with teaching (i.e. a lack of respect), it’s got to be something. Something regarding racism, perhaps?
    Martin Jacques, another member of the converted, has views informed by an awareness or theory of racism. A lot of Sinophiles do; just like a lot of Sinophiles have views built on a hatred for Western or capitalistic societies (Norman Bethune) or inspired by the love of a woman (Joseph Needham). Martin Jacques betrays the underpinnings of his ideas about China (it’s going to rule the world because it’s so amazing) by saying, in effect, the United States is a racist nation, which you have said. On p. 367 of When China Rules the World, Jacques says, “American supremacy has been associated with the global dominance of the white race and, by implication, the subordination and subjugation of other races in an informal hierarchy of race.” Even if it were true, that has nothing to do with China.

    That imbecilic author you’re fond of quoting – the one who wrote Tiger Mom for the Semi-Illiterate, Misdirected Soul, Amy So-and-So; the one who’s got absolutely nothing to say about China – got the nod from the Guardian, as you pointed out, largely because of Martin Jacques, or so one would think, because it was Jacques who gave her a glowing review. She wrote a book with a thesis that is embryonic, but it has to do with race, and Jacques feels race is not discussed enough. He’s right. It isn’t. But that doesn’t mean her ideas are intelligent. They’re not. My wager is that Jacques liked the book so much because it told him what he already knew: whitey’s a bigot. What a revelation.
    Jacques, blinded by his Marxist and racial beliefs, misses the point. Sure, Caucasians are often quite prejudiced, but times are changing; indeed, they’ve changed quite a lot. You’ve got Obama as president. I think two members of Bush’s cabinet, or whatever you call a cabinet in the US, were black. We, a country that didn’t want to take on Jews prior to WWII (a time when it was fashionable to be anti-Semitic in Canada, even for politicians) now herald a Jewish writer as perhaps our finest (he gets my vote). Plus, we had a governor general who was Chinese, another who was Haitian, etc. Canada’s gone from having something like 2 percent non-whites in 1970 to something like 30 percent presently. Multiculturalism is viewed as a goal, even if it doesn’t always work. Australia, which has a history of racism not unlike Canada’s, has or had a Chinese mayor, for, I think, Melbourne, a man who spoke faltering English, yet is/was liked by the people.
    What Jacques, and other Sinophiles who embrace China and everything about it in part because of white racism, fails to comprehend is that racism is a human trait that transcends the concept of the nation-state. Panda huggers also ignore the fact that English-speaking and/or Western countries have become quite receptive to immigration. Is there still racism? Absolutely. I’ve heard Canadians say the most appallingly racist things. Are they racist in practice? Maybe, maybe not. It’s complicated.
    And speaking of racism, Chinese people can be incredibly racist. I talk about this several times in my book (I also talk about racism toward Chinese people). I was the victim of racism more than once in Taiwan, yet I don’t feel any animosity about it and take it as normal. It’s just tribal human behaviour, the same kind of idiocy I see in Canada. In fact, I thought to be discriminated against was a good experience. Now I know what it feels like.
    So now I’m wondering if your views have anything to do with racism. Hope you don’t think that’s ad hominem attack. It’s merely an inquiry.
    Or maybe I should just ask: what did prompt you to come to these conclusions? Why come to the defence, not just of China and all things Chinese, but of the CCP? And do you realize a lot of Chinese would disagree with your views? Publicly, Chinese people will often repeat official positions, but if you speak to them in private, they’re likely to tell you all kinds of things, for example: Wo men Zhong guo ren ai wo men de guo jia, bu ai wo men de zheng fu. I’ve been told that several time from so-called mainlanders. A lot of older people, especially, are aware their government feeds them a steady diet of nonsense in the “news.” Intellectuals know it. Lots of people do. But people are afraid to talk, or think it’s pointless too. I wonder if you would change your views on, say, Mao, if the Chinese had another revolution, kicked the CCP out, and followed through with something akin to glasnost. Not that I think this will happen anytime soon, but it will likely happen one day, even if it’s hundreds of years down the road. Your views mirror the Party’s views, and millions of Chinese people secretly hate the Party.
    It’s not that the Qing (Chinese when you need them to be, e.g. vis a vis Taiwan; foreign when you need them to be, e.g. corruption and collusion with the West) and the arrival of the Europeans threw a civilized and disciplined China into chaos; China has probably always been a land of chaos. In all likelihood, the last 30 years has been one of the most stable periods in Chinese history, or at least modern Chinese history, and the last 30 years haven’t been very stable. China’s history has been dominated by warlordism, tribalism, warfare, oppression, lawlessness, authoritarianism, poverty, misery, chaos, corruption, etc. It’s pretty bleak. Sure, there are highlights: the written language, poetry, architecture, and a pile of other things I wouldn’t wish to belittle, but we’re talking about a pretty hard luck past. All that peace, harmony, and wisdom you hear of exists mainly in movies and books.
    The Communist Party’s message: China’s past = glorious, whitey came = destructive, CCP took over = mistakes, but not since Deng Xiaoping, etc. has to be simple so that simple people can remember it – and repeat it. Simplicity is the very essence of disinformation.

    • Mr. Parfitt,

      Cherry picking again and using the Straw Man Fallacy, I see, and attempting to sound as if you know something about China with another shotgun blast of half-baked facts and opinions and then you flippantly discredit other authors with name calling such as your ad hominem attack on Amy Chua — you must be jealous of her success or harbor some sense of superiority over women.

      Parfitt wrote, “That imbecilic author you’re fond of quoting – the one who wrote Tiger Mom for the Semi-Illiterate, Misdirected Soul, Amy So-and-So…”

      An arguer who uses ad hominems attacks the person instead of the argument. Whenever an arguer cannot defend his position with evidence, facts or reason, he or she may resort to attacking an opponent either through: labeling, straw man arguments, name-calling, offensive remarks and anger.

      You are entitled to your opinion of her but considering what Amy Chua has achieved, your ad hominem attack on Chua reveals more than the lack of substance behind your opinions of China but also your jealousy of a woman that has achieved more success than most authors dream of.

      Have you read any of her books? Probably not.

      Amy Chua graduated mangna cum laude with an A. B. in Economics from Harvard College in 1984. She obtained her J. D. cum laude in 1987 from Harvard Law School, where she was an Executive Editor of the Harvard Law Review and is currently the John M. Duff, Jr. Professor of Law at Yale Law School and to Troy Parfitt she is and “imbecilic author“, which reveals more about Troy Parfitt than Amy Chua.

      Chua’s books have landed on the New York Times bestseller list. How about Parfitt’s books? Where have they landed?


      Let’s see what some of Parfitt’s critics and reviewers have to say of his work, “I see more of negative attitude and communication problems than a profound understanding of the supposed problems of Chinese culture. This isn’t so much a book about China’s future standing in the world as the disgruntled traveller’s diary…”



      “He comes across like a China expat on what they somewhat affectionately call a ‘bad China day,’ or as an angry traveler who cannot quite handle the many disappointments and oddities that China throws at the foreigner. His own comment on a casual talk in Xian perfectly encapsulates Troy’s problems: “It was completely normal, and it confused me to no end.” (p. 267)



      “I was appalled at Parfitt’s attitude toward both China and Taiwan. In spite of his finding some things to praise about each, it is more than clear from the very start that he harbors a good deal of contempt toward both countries”.



      “Parfitt’s immediacy and human touch necessarily incorporate his bias into the story. He says in his introduction: ‘In spite of my prejudices, I honestly tried to approach the experience with as open a mind as possible.’

      “Unfortunately, he also sees them as real humans who primarily fail to uphold his Western standards. He wants swift service, smiles all around, and cab drivers who can negotiate Hong Kong streets in English. He wants standards of professionalism that didn’t even exist in the Western world a century ago. And he looks down on Chinese who don’t snap to. Though I can’t call Parfitt racist (he denigrates everyone equally), he certainly sees the world through his own particular lenses.”



      Now, let us compare Parfitt to Chua to see who has achieved more acclaim and success, which may explain why Parfitt is so jealous of her that he resorts to an ad hominem attack.

      Let’s see, Troy Parfitt graduated from the University of New Brunswick with a major in American history and a minor in Canadian political science. He became certified as an ESL instructor and lived for nearly two years in Seoul, South Korea and for more than ten in Taipei, Taiwan. Parfitt has published two books that were not bestsellers.

      In the global university rankings of the top 400, Harvard is listed as number two and Yale is number eleven. I checked the entire list of 400, and the University of New Brunswick didn’t make the list.

      Do you have any idea what it takes for the child of Asian mmigrant parents to qualify to attend Harvard—probably not?


  10. Troy Parfitt says:

    Oh, Lloyd, you’re baiting me. “Ni hen pi a!” Naughty , naughty.

    It’s all because your students wouldn’t show you any respect, isn’t it Lloyd? At first, I thought your views might have had their roots in the cynicism and futility of the Vietnam War, which you fought in, with, perhaps, an awareness the US demonized the North Vietnamese, sacrificed tens of thousands of its own rather than admit the venture was a lost cause, etc. But you say that isn’t so, so I’m wondering if it has to with your job as a teacher. Most “religious conversions” can be traced to some traumatic life event. I’m wondering what yours was.

    Your students got your goat, didn’t they? Seeing humanity at it’s frequent worst (ungrateful kids, ridiculous parents, a corrupted, inefficient, and underfunded system, the futility of trying to make a difference, etc.) caused you to latch on to Confucius’s ideas because you needed something for comfort. Imagine a world in which students – and parents – obeyed and respected teachers. Never mind that such a world doesn’t really exist (many Chinese teachers are militant task masters charged with the responsibility of making sure students get high exam scores), you needed it to exist, and my guess is that things went from there.

    Seeing the hypocrisy, smugness, decadence, extreme individualism, and all the rest in America caused you to embrace what Western people come to think of as the great Other – the East, or in this case China. For hundreds of years Westerners have criticised China, but you knew they just didn’t understand. They didn’t have faith. But you have faith. Indeed, you’ve become quite zealous in your positive characterizations, not only of China, but of the Chinese Communist Party. People just don’t understand. But you do. You’ve seen the light, and that gives you a kind of solace. You’ve found comfort in your disillusionment and alienation.

    Am I close? I could be wildly wrong, but I’m curious to know just how accurate I am.

    Xin nian kuai le. (In Chinese, Lloyd, that mean’s happy new year.)

    • Mr. Parfitt,

      You are more than wildly wrong on all counts.

      If there is any baiting taking place, it is coming from you, Mr. Parfitt, which I discovered is one of your tactics when your opinions are in danger of being revealed to have little or no merit. You attempt to divert the subject away from its focus by making a personal attack through focused questions for your opponent with the goal of eliciting an emotional response that will result in you looking superior when he or she responds with what others may consider an ad hominem attack.

      Shame on you for using such tactics and tricks.

      You have no clue what kind of relationship I had with my students as a teacher for thirty years. In fact, the relationship doesn’t count as much as the results. Students either respected me or feared me but they seldom stopped me from achieving my goals to teach as many students as possible.

      And, in fact, many of the students I taught in my English classes won awards for student poetry [an annual student state-wide contest in California for poetry] and short stories [a one-time Los Angeles Times short story contest for students—more than ten thousand students participated and several of mine placed in a contest with less than twenty winners].

      In addition, the high school newspaper I was an advisor for earned regional, state, national and international recognition annually for the seven years I was the advisor.

      Then early in my career as a teacher, the school district submitted my name to the California Golden Apple Awards [the winner becomes the teacher of the year for California]. The name of one teacher from each district is submitted for this award each year from California’s 1,600 school districts. I did not win the award that year, but my name was submitted to the state by the district I worked for. That says a lot.

      Near the end of my thirty years as a teacher, the school district held a meeting with the English teachers for the secondary schools where it was pointed out that my students had outperformed all others in the same grade year-after-year in writing and literacy gains on state-standardized tests when compared to all other teachers in the district where I taught.

      The gains in writing came from student essays written by every high school student in the state that were then judged by panels of trained teachers and university graduate students. The results demonstrated that my students out-performed all others in the district by several hundred percent above the district’s average score.

      Even students that earned failing grades in my English classes demonstrated improvements on those standardized tests.

      As an individual, I was never satisfied with anything less than 100% success with all of my students—an impossible goal that I never backed away from no matter how difficult the struggle was.

      Moreover, I do not embrace what you call the “great Other – the East”. I do not see it as greater or superior than the rest of the world.

      However, unlike you, I understand that no matter how different China is, their culture works for them as it has for thousands of years and the odds are that it will work again as it did for so long up until the Opium Wars and the corruption of the Qing Dynasty caused China to fall into anarchy and chaos for about a century.

      Parfitt wrote, “For hundreds of years Westerners have criticized China, but you knew they just didn’t understand.”

      Somewhat correct. Instead of responding to this diversion, I direct readers to “China Threat: Different words, same message”, where Geoffrey Murray does an excellent job explaining how and why the West including Mr. Parfitt gets it wrong about China.

      As for Vietnam, you missed that target 100% too. The fact is that you cannot admit you are wrong about China. Not everyone in the world has to mirror Western civilization to innovate, succeed or survive. What works for North America and Europe may not work for other cultures. However, as China has already demonstrated through thousands of years of history, their culture works.

      Sorry, for disappointing you and your desired goal of eliciting what many would consider an ad hominem attack that might result in you looking superior or as a winner when there can be no winner in a debate such as this. All we can do is attempt to convince others of our individual opinions and we do that with facts—all the facts not attempts to divert the topic and elicit an emotional response from the other person.

      One suggestion, stick to the topic from now on and ditch the diversions.

Comments are welcome — pro or con. However, comments must focus on the topic of the post, be civil and avoid ad hominem attacks.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: