rss feedKeeping both eyes open: Confucius Institute lands in Seattle to help kids learn Mandarin
When I spotted The Seattle Times story about the Confucius Institute officially opening in Seattle to further Mandarin studies, I perked up. Knowing more languages always opens doors.
The Institute, as the Times reported, has ties to China’s Ministry of Education. But I also thought of a saying in Chinese: One eye open, one eye closed.
The way I interpret it, it means that you keep one eye closed in case, well, things that might be questionable pop up but you still want a long-term relationship. Yes, you look the other way.
You keep one eye open whenever the news, information or financial offer will benefit you.
I have long argued that better relations between the United States and China are needed, that large-scale tensions between the two countries will have an adverse effect and innocent people in both countries will be caught in the middle.
Language is one way to bridge gaps. I know: I studied Mandarin in China and later used it to travel through the country - its big cities, mountainous areas and rural towns.
But these days, especially given the critical thinking skills that is fostered at schools in the West, this relationship needs to be examined in closer detail – what given the Google in China case, the country’s fast and clear rise in the world and the fact that senior Chinese government officials like to achieve their goals.
Chinese government officials these days are fond of talking about “soft power.” But as “soft power” circulates more in global affairs, keep in mind that it’s legitimate to ask questions.
But one lesson that has surfaced: You’ll certainly feel less heat if the Chinese government considers you to be a friend.
That might have been the path that Seattle educational and state leaders took on Monday during a ceremony in Seattle to hail the official opening of the Confucius Institute of the State of Washington.
What I found fascinating, though, in the coverage were some of the comments from officials. They reflected a context from the 1990s.
China’s economy, its cities, purchasing power and growing elite have changed dramatically since then – I would think the comments from U.S. counterparts would have reflected that.
I recognize that the people who were quoted in the Times are probably bright, articulate people. It also might have been the way that the comments were put in context in that article.
Here are two examples of what I’m talking about.
The article quoted Michele Anciaux Aoki of the Washington state Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction.
The institute is ‘about opening up China….It’s a two-way street.’
Arguably, though, when world-famous architect Rem Koolhaus has designed the CCTV building in Beijing, the country is open.
Add to that the Beijing Olympics in 2008, the Expo 2010, held in Shanghai, and that just about every single business around the globe is aware of China’s truly awesome market power and potential.
When Chinese tourists and officials stop off to shop for designer goods in New York City and Paris – and also help spread money across borders – it’s safe to say that China is open.
I understand that not all Chinese can take advantage of China’s open doors. But a large number of Chinese can pursue new opportunities.
And is it a two-way street?
You could probably find an answer to that in Google’s recent experience of discovering hacked accounts, security problems with Google code and Chinese government.
If it was a two-way street, wouldn’t the other 30 estimated companies that reportedly had their software or servers hacked or compromised come forward to publicly say so?
As Google learned, the Chinese government delivered criticism quite fast.
It’s more accurate to say that working in China is a street in which the Chinese government will allow certain actions but is very willing to stop others.
The government also will act in its own interests when it deems necessary. There have been reports of Chinese businesses asking for their Western partners to share technology before a deal goes through.
James McGregor, a China expert who has lived there for decades, an author and a former chairman of the American Chamber of Commerce in China, wrote in January that some international businesspeople in that country felt that they had been “bamboozled by the system.”
Jack Welch, the former chief executive of General Electric, put it in blunt terms on CNBC in March.
Xu Lin, a Chinese education official whose group Hanban operates the Institute, attended the Monday celebration.
She reportedly told Seattle students, who spoke Mandarin:
You will be the pioneers between China and the United States.
If you were a parent, teacher or U.S. government official, that probably sounded like the right thing to say to boost warmer relations.
Even if you can speak fluent Chinese and are from the Seattle area, the better way to be a true pioneer between the two countries would be to understand the thinking of senior Chinese government officials and be on good enough terms to talk about global issues – including sensitive ones – in a constructive manner.
In other words, the issue of U.S.-China relations is beyond the mere teaching of Mandarin and Chinese culture, especially in 2010.
Singing songs in Chinese is a good start – and cute when U.S. kids do it. But very quickly, as many kids in China realize, life can become competitive – and in adulthood, some do whatever it takes to get on top of the heap.
What should be taught to native English speakers studying Mandarin is a deep sense of Chinese history, the ability to negotiate with business or government partners in China and the awareness that senior Chinese government officials enjoy getting what they want.
Tall order for youths?
Well, China has the ability to do that.
Besides, it would be dishonest for teachers in the United States to stress only side of what is expected to become the world’s second-largest economy and not give a full picture.
Equally, it would be dishonest for teachers in the United States to give students a scrubbed version of U.S. history.
Of course, there are many good, honest people in China. There are bad apples – all countries have them.
In the West, we teach kids that poor behavior – lying, cheating, corruption, intimidation and stealing – will not be tolerated, that there are better ways to achieve your goals than to take these shortcuts.
They are deeply rooted in U.S. history, in our sense of ethics, in what communities deem to be right or wrong behavior.
Many economists argue that the market will not reward those who pursue such paths.
This ought to be one of the underlying lessons that U.S. schools should stress to students who are learning Chinese, especially with help from the Confucius Institute.
More people in the United States should study Mandarin. It’s a beautiful language. Chinese characters are an art form.
Knowing Chinese will help people better understand how residents in the world’s most populous country view the world.
As a country, China is gorgeous, kinetic - even though parts are polluted. It has a long history of brilliant scholars.
You can climb a Chinese Buddhist mountain, and if crowds are not there, possibly talk with a monk all by yourself.
But U.S. citizens who can speak Mandarin should not turn their heads – or close their eyes – when something dishonest or harmful to the public falls before them.
In English or Mandarin, they should say something.
Yes, I do have thoughts about Confucius.
