Grace Wang's Essay in Washington Post

(New  York Times)  Chinese Student in U.S. Is Caught in Confrontation.  By Shaila Dewan.  April 17, 2008.

On the day the Olympic torch was carried through San Francisco last week, Grace Wang, a Chinese freshman at Duke University, came out of her dining hall to find a handful of students gathered for a pro-Tibet vigil facing off with a much larger pro-China counterdemonstration.

Ms. Wang, who had friends on both sides, tried to get the two groups to talk, participants said. She began traversing what she called “the middle ground,” asking the groups’ leaders to meet and making bargains. She said she agreed to write “Free Tibet, Save Tibet” on one student’s back only if he would speak with pro-Chinese demonstrators. She pleaded and lectured. In one photo, she is walking toward a phalanx of Chinese flags and banners, her arms overhead in a “timeout” T.

But the would-be referee went unheeded. With Chinese anger stoked by disruption of the Olympic torch relays and criticism of government policy toward Tibet, what was once a favorite campus cause — the Dalai Lama’s people — had become a dangerous flash point, as Ms. Wang was soon to find out.

The next day, a photo appeared on an Internet forum for Chinese students with a photo of Ms. Wang and the words “traitor to your country” emblazoned in Chinese across her forehead. Ms. Wang’s Chinese name, identification number and contact information were posted, along with directions to her parents’ apartment in Qingdao, a Chinese port city.

Salted with ugly rumors and manipulated photographs, the story of the young woman who was said to have taken sides with Tibet spread through China’s most popular Web sites, at each stop generating hundreds or thousands of raging, derogatory posts, some even suggesting that Ms. Wang — a slight, rosy 20-year-old — be burned in oil. Someone posted a photo of what was purported to be a bucket of feces emptied on the doorstep of her parents, who had gone into hiding.

“If you return to China, your dead corpse will be chopped into 10,000 pieces,” one person wrote in an e-mail message to Ms. Wang. “Call the human flesh search engines!” another threatened, using an Internet phrase that implies physical, as opposed to virtual, action.

In an interview Wednesday, Ms. Wang said she had been needlessly vilified.

“If traitors are people who want to harm China, then I’m not part of it,” she said. “Those people who attack me so severely were the ones who hurt China’s image even more.”

She added: “They don’t know what do they mean by ‘loving China.’ It’s not depriving others of their right to speak; it’s not asking me or other people to shut up.”

In a flattering profile in 2006, Ms. Wang was described in a Qingdao newspaper as believing she was “born for politics.” She writes poetry in classical Chinese, plays a traditional string instrument called the guzheng, and participated in democracy discussion boards back home, she said.

Ms. Wang said she was not in favor of Tibetan independence, but she said problems could be reduced if the two sides understood each other better.

Since riots in Tibet broke out last month, campuses including Cornell, the University of Washington and the University of California, Irvine, have seen a wave of counterdemonstrations.

When Ms. Wang encountered the two demonstrations last week, the Chinese students seemed to expect her to join them, she said. But she hesitated.

“They were really shocked to see that I was deciding, because the Chinese side thought I shouldn’t even decide at all,” she said. “In the end I decided not to be on either side, because they were too extreme.”

Daniel R. Cordero, a member of the Duke Human Rights Coalition and an organizer of the pro-Tibet vigil, said he was handing out literature when Ms. Wang came up and pointed to the counterprotesters.

“She was like, ‘Why are you focusing on the Duke students? Let’s have a dialogue with these people,’ ” he said. “And I’m thinking, oh come on, seriously, that’s not going to help anything.”

Some of Ms. Wang’s efforts to mediate were met by insults and obscenities from the Chinese students.

“She stood her ground; she’s a really brave girl,” said Adam Weiss, the student on whose back Ms. Wang wrote “Free Tibet.” “You have 200 of your own fellow nationalists yelling at you and calling you a traitor and even threatening to kill you.”

At Ms. Wang’s behest, he ultimately spoke to some of the Chinese contingent, finding, he said, that “we could compromise and say we all wanted increased human rights for all Chinese, and especially for Tibetans.”

Sherry, a Chinese graduate student who declined to give her last name for fear of being harassed, had a less heroic view.

“She claimed she wanted to make communications between both sides, but actually she did nothing before that night. She didn’t communicate with any organizers and actually was just performing,” Sherry said. But she called the backlash against Ms. Wang “horrible.”

“There are a few students that are very angry at her,” she said, “but there are many others who try to protect her, try to speak for her. Actually, the majority didn’t think she did so wrong to be treated like that.”

She said Ms. Wang had squandered some sympathy when, in an article in The Duke Chronicle, she blamed the Duke Chinese Students and Scholars Association for helping to release her information through its e-mail list.

This week, three officers of the association explained in an open letter that the mailing list was public and called the verbal attacks on Ms. Wang “troubling and heinous.” Her personal information and other offensive posts were removed “once they were brought to our attention,” the letter said. Student groups criticized the association for allowing them to be posted at all.

Zhizong Li, the president of the association, referred most questions to the university but said that only about a third of the pro-China demonstrators were association members. Duke has just over 500 Chinese students.

Ms. Wang, who has retained a lawyer, said pulling her personal information off the Web was not enough. “I will be seen as a traitor forever, and they can still harm my parents,” she said.

But for a woman under threat of dismemberment, she seemed remarkably sanguine — even upbeat.

“My parents are very tolerant to me,” she explained. “They were really disappointed in me for a long time, and I persuaded them to think differently.

“If I can change my parents, I can probably change others.”

(Washington Post)  New Freedom, and Peril, in Online Criticism of China.  By Ariana Eunjung Cha and Jill Drew.  April 17, 2008.

Wang Qianyuan did not realize she would cause such a frenzy last week when she ran into a group of American students, Tibetan flags tied over their shoulders, getting ready for a vigil at Duke University to support human rights.

She used blue body paint to write "Save Tibet" slogans on the bare back of one of the organizers but did not join their demonstration.

Wang, a Chinese national, knew she was treading on sensitive territory. "But human rights are above everything," she said later in a telephone interview. Even national pride.

Before long, a video of the 20-year-old freshman, seen standing between pro-Tibet activists and Chinese counterprotesters, was posted on the Internet. Within hours, an angry mob gathered online, calling her a "traitor" who should be punished.

Someone posted personal information about Wang on the Internet, including her national identification card number, as well as her parents' address and phone number in China. "Makes us lose so much face. Shoot her where she stands," one anonymous user wrote in a comment posted above Wang's portrait from Qingdao No. 2 Middle School.

In the wake of the violence that has rocked Tibet and the protests over the Olympic torch relay, online bulletin boards in China have erupted with virulent comments rooted in nationalist sentiments. On some sites, emotional Chinese have exchanged personal information about critics and hunted them down. Such situations have become so common that some users refer to the sites as "human flesh search engines."

The verbal onslaughts have been made possible in part by the Chinese government, which has allowed online discussion to progress more freely recently than in the past. With the Olympics nearing, China has gradually allowed some sites that had been left on-again, off-again for years -- BBC, CNN, YouTube and others -- to remain accessible for several weeks now.

Even Wikipedia, blocked for years because of its controversial entries about human rights in China, is accessible and contains a lengthy entry on the "2008 Tibetan unrest." It notes that "Tibetans attacked non-Tibetan ethnic groups" but also contains information that "the violence was fueled by rumors of killings, beatings and detention of monks by security forces in Lhasa."

The number of Internet users in China hit 228.5 million in March -- for the first time surpassing the number of users in the United States, 217.1 million, according to the Beijing-based research firm BDA China.

Almost as soon as the news about the Tibet violence broke in mid-March, the Chinese government's initial response was to do what it had always done in times of crisis: It imposed a news blackout. Foreign news Web sites deemed controversial were blocked and faxes were sent to administrators of online discussion sites requesting that certain postings be deleted.

Then, just as quickly as online news and discussion about Tibet disappeared, it reappeared -- overwhelmingly in support of the Chinese government.

The situation in Tibet and the controversy over the Olympic torch relay is now the most popular discussion topic on Tianya, one of the largest online discussion sites in China, even though the site used to follow a very clear rule: No politics.

"Chinese Internet users very much like to express their opinions, and the environment on the Internet as compared to traditional media is more open to allowing them to do so," said Xing Ming, 39, chief executive of Tianya, which was founded in 1999 in Haikou, a city on an island in southern China.

Xiao Zengjian, founder and editor of another discussion site, KDNet, said that the new openness has done wonders to help China's image domestically. "Our Internet users do not just believe what Xinhua News says," he said, referring to the state-run news service. "They will verify it. The Chinese media wants to cover things up for the sake of China but it backfires. It's better to tell the truth and let people discuss it."

On Tianya, with 20 million registered users one of the largest online discussion sites in China, the conversation about the Olympics is emotional.

"China is in danger," wrote one user. "We should stick together. Even if there is something wrong with the action of the government, we should pull together. Resistance to foreign invasion necessitates internal pacification."

Internet users hailed Jin Jing, the athlete who carried the Olympic torch while in her wheelchair only to be confronted by protesters in Paris; reports say she protected the torch "at the cost of her life." (She was not injured.) Others referred to "stupid Westerners" and compared the Dalai Lama to Hitler.

Postings criticizing the Chinese government or supporting Tibetan independence are rare but prominent -- mostly because they are immediately followed by a storm of angry responses, including ones that call for the "immediate execution" of the authors.

In some cases, the online anger has had real-world consequences.

An Internet mob went after Lobsang Gendun, an ethnic Tibetan who lives in Salt Lake City, after anonymous online posters wrongly identified him as one of Jin's attackers. They posted a Google map of his neighborhood, a photo of his house, and his home phone number, employer and e-mail address. He's gotten thousands of angry e-mails, many he cannot read because his computer does not recognize Chinese characters, and unless he disconnects his phone, it rings through the night. On Tuesday, his boss persuaded him to take his family and move into a hotel until things calm down.

"It's scary," Gendun said in a phone interview. "I replied to some e-mails trying to tell them I'm not the person they saw on the news."

The comments about Wang are mostly unprintable -- they are sexually explicit and violent -- but she is most offended by how online users have targeted her family.

"It's really shocking," Wang said from her dorm room as she looked at an image posted online of her parents' front door in Qingdao, a city on China's east coast. An overturned bucket of excrement is lying in front. "They are directly, physically attacking my parents."

Wang and her mother communicate only though e-mail these days, sending short messages once in the morning and once at night that they are safe. Wang has not telephoned because she fears possible government eavesdropping that could cause more problems for her parents.

Her mother told Wang recently that someone -- she doesn't know who -- installed a video camera outside their apartment. She and Wang's father have moved out.

Wang's father is a Communist Party member. He sent her two long e-mails right after the incident telling her to publicly apologize. "After the opening up and reform, China has made great developments and been steady, so that you and our family have all we have today," her father wrote in Chinese. He said she should concentrate on her studies and stay away from politics. He told her that he and her mom loved her but that she needed to tell people she had chosen the wrong path.

But as Wang describes the events of the April 10 vigil and her involvement, she stands by her actions.

She said that she when she arrived at the vigil, a couple of dozen pro-Tibetan students were facing off with around 400 Chinese students, waving Chinese flags and shouting slogans. She decided to try to mediate between the two groups but found that neither side wanted to listen. The Chinese students surrounded her, shouting insults and peppering her with questions about her national loyalty. She eventually asked a police officer to escort her back to her dorm.

A few hours later, Wang wrote an essay and posted it on a forum run by the Duke Chinese Students and Scholars Association. In it, she explained what she had tried to say at the demonstration: She did not support Tibetan independence but called for tolerance and dialogue.

The forum was soon aflame with critical posts.

Wang says she has gotten hundreds of phone calls and thousands of e-mails, most vilifying her but some that are supportive.

"One-sixth of the population of the world now knows my personal information as detailed as my identity number," Wang said. "I'm not going to let them easily call me a traitor, such a name that can ruin my future forever."

(Washington Post)  My China, My Tibet -- Caught in the Middle, Called a Traitor.  By Grace Wang.  April 20, 2008.

I study languages -- Italian, French and German. And this summer -- now that it looks as though I won't be able to go home to China -- I'll take up Arabic. My goal is to master 10 languages, in addition to Chinese and English, by the time I'm 30.

I want to do this because I believe that language is the bridge to understanding. Take China and Tibet. If more Chinese learned the Tibetan language, and if Tibetans learned more about China, I'm convinced that our two peoples would understand one another better and we could overcome the current crisis between us peacefully. I feel that even more strongly after what happened here at Duke University a little more than a week ago.

Trying to mediate between Chinese and pro-Tibetan campus protesters, I was caught in the middle and vilified and threatened by the Chinese. After the protest, the intimidation continued online, and I began receiving threatening phone calls. Then it got worse -- my parents in China were also threatened and forced to go into hiding. And I became persona non grata in my native country.

It has been a frightening and unsettling experience. But I'm determined to speak out, even in the face of threats and abuse. If I stay silent, then the same thing will happen to someone else someday.

So here's my story.

When I first arrived at Duke last August, I was afraid I wouldn't like it. It's in the small town of Durham, N.C., and I'm from Qingdao, a city of 4.3 million. But I eventually adjusted, and now I really love it. It's a diverse environment, with people from all over the world. Over Christmas break, all the American students went home, but that's too expensive for students from China. Since the dorms and the dining halls were closed, I was housed off-campus with four Tibetan classmates for more than three weeks.

I had never really met or talked to a Tibetan before, even though we're from the same country. Every day we cooked together, ate together, played chess and cards. And of course, we talked about our different experiences growing up on opposite sides of the People's Republic of China. It was eye-opening for me.

I'd long been interested in Tibet and had a romantic vision of the Land of Snows, but I'd never been there. Now I learned that the Tibetans have a different way of seeing the world. My classmates were Buddhist and had a strong faith, which inspired me to reflect on my own views about the meaning of life. I had been a materialist, as all Chinese are taught to be, but now I could see that there's something more, that there's a spiritual side to life.

We talked a lot in those three weeks, and of course we spoke in Chinese. The Tibetan language isn't the language of instruction in the better secondary schools there and is in danger of disappearing. Tibetans must be educated in Mandarin Chinese to succeed in our extremely capitalistic culture. This made me sad, and made me want to learn their language as they had learned mine.

I was reminded of all this on the evening of April 9. As I left the cafeteria planning to head to the library to study, I saw people holding Tibetan and Chinese flags facing each other in the middle of the quad. I hadn't heard anything about a protest, so I was curious and went to have a look. I knew people in both groups, and I went back and forth between them, asking their views. It seemed silly to me that they were standing apart, not talking to each other. I know that this is often due to a language barrier, as many Chinese here are scientists and engineers and aren't confident of their English.

I thought I'd try to get the two groups together and initiate some dialogue, try to get everybody thinking from a broader perspective. That's what Lao Tzu, Sun Tzu and Confucius remind us to do. And I'd learned from my dad early on that disagreement is nothing to be afraid of. Unfortunately, there's a strong Chinese view nowadays that critical thinking and dissidence create problems, so everyone should just keep quiet and maintain harmony.

A lot has been made of the fact that I wrote the words "Free Tibet" on the back of the American organizer of the protest, who was someone I knew. But I did this at his request, and only after making him promise that he would talk to the Chinese group. I never dreamed how the Chinese would seize on this innocent action. The leaders of the two groups did at one point try to communicate, but the attempt wasn't very successful.

The Chinese protesters thought that, being Chinese, I should be on their side. The participants on the Tibet side were mostly Americans, who really don't have a good understanding of how complex the situation is. Truthfully, both sides were being quite closed-minded and refusing to consider the other's perspective. I thought I could help try to turn a shouting match into an exchange of ideas. So I stood in the middle and urged both sides to come together in peace and mutual respect. I believe that they have a lot in common and many more similarities than differences.

But the Chinese protesters -- who were much more numerous, maybe 100 or more -- got increasingly emotional and vocal and wouldn't let the other side speak. They pushed the small Tibetan group of just a dozen or so up against the Duke Chapel doors, yelling "Liars, liars, liars!" This upset me. It was so aggressive, and all Chinese know the moral injunction: Junzi dongkou, bu dongshou (The wise person uses his tongue, not his fists).

I was scared. But I believed that I had to try to promote mutual understanding. I went back and forth between the two groups, mostly talking to the Chinese in our language. I kept urging everyone to calm down, but it only seemed to make them angrier. Some young men in the Chinese group -- those we call fen qing (angry youth) -- started yelling and cursing at me.

What a lot of people don't know is that there were many on the Chinese side who supported me and were saying, "Let her talk." But they were drowned out by the loud minority who had really lost their cool.

Some people on the Chinese side started to insult me for speaking English and told me to speak Chinese only. But the Americans didn't understand Chinese. It's strange to me that some Chinese seem to feel as though not speaking English is expressing a kind of national pride. But language is a tool, a way of thinking and communicating.

At the height of the protest, a group of Chinese men surrounded me, pointed at me and, referring to the young woman who led the 1989 student democracy protests in Tiananmen Square, said, "Remember Chai Ling? All Chinese want to burn her in oil, and you look like her." They said that I had mental problems and that I would go to hell. They asked me where I was from and what school I had attended. I told them. I had nothing to hide. But then it started to feel as though an angry mob was about to attack me. Finally, I left the protest with a police escort.

Back in my dorm room, I logged onto the Duke Chinese Students and Scholars Association (DCSSA) Web site and listserv to see what people were saying. Qian Fangzhou, an officer of DCSSA, was gloating, "We really showed them our colors!"

I posted a letter in response, explaining that I don't support Tibetan independence, as some accused me of, but that I do support Tibetan freedom, as well as Chinese freedom. All people should be free and have their basic rights protected, just as the Chinese constitution says. I hoped that the letter would spark some substantive discussion. But people just criticized and ridiculed me more.

The next morning, a storm was raging online. Photographs of me had been posted on the Internet with the words "Traitor to her country!" printed across my forehead. Then I saw something really alarming: Both my parents' citizen ID numbers had been posted. I was shocked, because this information could only have come from the Chinese police.

I saw detailed directions to my parents' home in China, accompanied by calls for people to go there and teach "this shameless dog" a lesson. It was then that I realized how serious this had become. My phone rang with callers making threats against my life. It was ironic: What I had tried so hard to prevent was precisely what had come to pass. And I was the target.

I talked to my mom the next morning, and she said that she and my dad were going into hiding because they were getting death threats, too. She told me that I shouldn't call them. Since then, short e-mail messages have been our only communication. The other day, I saw photos of our apartment online; a bucket of feces had been emptied on the doorstep. More recently I've heard that the windows have been smashed and obscene posters have been hung on the door. Also, I've been told that after convening an assembly to condemn me, my high school revoked my diploma and has reinforced patriotic education.

I understand why people are so emotional and angry; the events in Tibet have been tragic. But this crucifying of me is unacceptable. I believe that individual Chinese know this. It's when they fire each other up and act like a mob that things get so dangerous.

Now, Duke is providing me with police protection, and the attacks in Chinese cyberspace continue. But contrary to my detractors' expectations, I haven't shriveled up and slunk away. Instead, I've responded by publicizing this shameful incident, both to protect my parents and to get people to reflect on their behavior. I'm no longer afraid, and I'm determined to exercise my right to free speech.

Because language is the bridge to understanding.

(My1510.cn Blog)  An analysis of Grace Wang's essay in The Washington Post.  By 'Chairman Rabbit.'  April 22, 2008.

Grace Wang's essay is worthy of attention, because its publication and her subsequent media interviews (including with certain strongly anti-China media) have escalated the affair.  She has clearly "taken a position."  Her choice could be due to (a) the criticisms within and outside of China driving to her to an even more extreme position; (b) the western media seeking for someone to express a protest; (c) she is politically naïve.

In my view, Grace Wang's essay is political suicide.  In the language of past history (and somewhat ironically here), she has decided to stand diametrically opposite to the Party and the People.  Objectively, one can say that she is a "Public Enemy."

Some people inside and outside of China are sympathetic to her for a couple of reasons.  First, "even if I don't agree with your viewpoint, I will defend your right to speak with my life (that is, your freedom of speech)."  Secondly, people object to the extreme personal attacks such as the disclosure of the private information about her family, the death threats, the dumping of feces at her home, etc.  I think that her essay and subsequent statements have decreased the number of sympathizers in the first category.

I want to make a few points.

(1) First, I think that Grace Wang is wrong.  The negative impact of that essay goes far beyond her imagination.  She has been completely exploited by western media.  Subjectively, she had even worked hard to meet their needs.  I will discuss this point further with respect to her essay.

(2) Next, she adopted a rational and moderate position in her essay.  She characterized herself as a middleman and mediator who wants to serve as a bridge in a rational way in order to resolve conflicts.  This is a lofty position.  Let us not discuss whether she actually accomplished those objectives.  But let us accept Grace Wang's claim that she studied languages in order to promote exchange of viewpoints to resolve the conflict between the Chinese and the Tibetans; at the same time, let us suppose that she wants to learn more languages for more communications and exchanges.  Did she achieve the results?  I don't see it.  I have to look at the overall situation.  Tibet is the focus of the clash between China and the west, and that reflects the clash of political cultures and interests.  What can we see?  However we look at it, the two sides have major problems in exchanging views.

In this affair, the western media have made extremely misleading and selective reports.  They communicated much inaccurate information, they misled the public, they reinforced prejudices and even created hatred.  Over the years, the western media have ignored the viewpoint of China.  Rarely have they examined the rise and development of China in a neutral and objective manner.   On this platform, China does not have its own voice.

If Grace Wang really wanted to solve the problems and if she loves China, she would have asked the western media to report a fuller picture of China as opposed to just satisfying their pre-defined prejudices and imaginations.  That was how she could have helped east-west exchange and even help China to solve the Tibet problem. This was how mediation could have occurred.  Instead, Grace Wang used her unique status in this affair to evoke the sympathy of the western media, satisfy the western prejudices and political needs, reinforce pre-existing western attitudes and biases and magnify the misunderstanding and conflicts between China and the western people. What kind of rational mediation effort is this?

Grace Wang's essay was not just an expression of her personal feelings.  Based upon the content and organization, she has spent a lot of effort on this.  It is a strongly political essay.

I tend to think that she is too young and she is very politically naïve to hold those kinds of views.  She has no idea what she is doing and she does not realize the consequences.

In the following, let us scrutinize her essay.  I feel that the essay was carefully crafted to express her views.  She was not just describing the affair, but she was also expressing her views about China and Tibet.  The political position was obvious.  Precisely because of that crafting, the damage is even bigger.  That is why I cannot help but to comment in detail.

My China, My Tibet -- Caught in the Middle, Called a Traitor

I study languages -- Italian, French and German. And this summer -- now that it looks as though I won't be able to go home to China -- I'll take up Arabic. My goal is to master 10 languages, in addition to Chinese and English, by the time I'm 30.

Comment: This shows that she loves to learn and she has good intentions.  The readers will be sympathetic, and even possibly respectful.

I want to do this because I believe that language is the bridge to understanding. Take China and Tibet. If more Chinese learned the Tibetan language, and if Tibetans learned more about China, I'm convinced that our two peoples would understand one another better and we could overcome the current crisis between us peacefully. I feel that even more strongly after what happened here at Duke University a little more than a week ago.

Comment: This section reinforces the reader's impression that China and Tibet are two different peoples.  They are different in terms of ethnicity, culture and language and they rarely communicate with each other.  The Chinese are ignorant about the Tibetans.  The Tibetans are ignorant about the Chinese, and they rarely speak the Chinese tongue.  But one has to ask: What is the concept of China?  She does not employ the concept of the Chinese people as "the multi-ethnic political entity (consisting of 56 different ethnic groups)" and she does not use the narrative based upon the relationship between the Han and Tibetan groups.  Instead, she spoke of the relationship between "China" and "Tibet" as if China were a single ethnic group outside and independent of Tibet.  What kind of consideration is that?

Trying to mediate between Chinese and pro-Tibetan campus protesters, I was caught in the middle and vilified and threatened by the Chinese. After the protest, the intimidation continued online, and I began receiving threatening phone calls. Then it got worse -- my parents in China were also threatened and forced to go into hiding. And I became persona non grata in my native country.

It has been a frightening and unsettling experience. But I'm determined to speak out, even in the face of threats and abuse. If I stay silent, then the same thing will happen to someone else someday.

Comment:  In this section, she is trying to seize the moral high ground.  This narrative will easily invoke the sympathy of western readers: she represents the value of freedom of speech.  Her position is close to the positions of many western readers, who might think that Grace Wang represents the small minority of people who stand up for truth inside China but unfortunately cannot express their speeches and views due to the threats and oppression from the compatriots.  Such voices are usually oppressed and the west cannot hear them.  But now that she is in the United States, she can speak up.  But if she can speak up as she wishes, then please tell the truth!

So here's my story.

When I first arrived at Duke last August, I was afraid I wouldn't like it. It's in the small town of Durham, N.C., and I'm from Qingdao, a city of 4.3 million. But I eventually adjusted, and now I really love it. It's a diverse environment, with people from all over the world. Over Christmas break, all the American students went home, but that's too expensive for students from China. Since the dorms and the dining halls were closed, I was housed off-campus with four Tibetan classmates for more than three weeks.

I had never really met or talked to a Tibetan before, even though we're from the same country. Every day we cooked together, ate together, played chess and cards. And of course, we talked about our different experiences growing up on opposite sides of the People's Republic of China. It was eye-opening for me.

I'd long been interested in Tibet and had a romantic vision of the Land of Snows, but I'd never been there. Now I learned that the Tibetans have a different way of seeing the world. My classmates were Buddhist and had a strong faith, which inspired me to reflect on my own views about the meaning of life. I had been a materialist, as all Chinese are taught to be, but now I could see that there's something more, that there's a spiritual side to life.

Comment:  This is the key section.  This is the key for the entire essay.  Here, she is trying to explain (a) the evolution of her thinking process; (b) and she explained her right to speak on this issue compared to the other "ignorant" Chinese people.

The Tibet that she describes here fits the original romantic, Shangri La-like model of Tibet that the west has imagined: it is mysterious, romantic, religious and transcendent.  There is nothing about Tibetan history, society, policies or challenges (such as those about development and poverty alleviation).  The West takes a very partial view on Tibet, with a strong flavor of romanticism.  They emphasize factors such as the mysterious religion and they don't want to talk about the challenges and opportunities of social and economic development.  Grace Wang's narrative enhances those prejudices.  Furthermore, Grace Wang asserted that all Chinese are educated under "materialism" and that is a serious charge.  This creates the impression that there is no freedom of religion in China; that China is a materialistic and vulgar society (when China is one of the countries with the largest Christian and Muslim populations in the world, together with a large number of Buddhists with different degrees of faith).  When Grace Wang might have used "materialism" to refer to the Marxist concept, the term "materialism" means something different and negative in English because it implies the Chinese people have only materialistic goals and zero spiritual values.

This narrative is powerful.  For the reader, a certain person from a secular, vulgar, modern, coarse, totalitarian and spiritually empty society has been converted and elevated by the spiritual culture of Tibet to find a new meaning in life.  The evil force has been overcome by the good force.  For the American reader, this may create a strong resonance (the United States is one of the countries with the strongest religious sentiments and the majority of the people are religious; for most Americans, the word "secular" has a pejorative meaning).

With just a few words, Grace Wang is able to use her personal experience to set up the polar opposition between "Tibet" and "China" that the western world has imagined.

We talked a lot in those three weeks, and of course we spoke in Chinese. The Tibetan language isn't the language of instruction in the better secondary schools there and is in danger of disappearing. Tibetans must be educated in Mandarin Chinese to succeed in our extremely capitalistic culture. This made me sad, and made me want to learn their language as they had learned mine.

Comment:  There are plenty of categorical statements here.  For example, is the Tibetan language close to being extinct?  I think that any serious scholar would have to delve into this issue carefully.  In my personal experience, only the Tibetan exile government and Tibet independence activists would make such a bold assertion.  There are many minority ethnic groups in China, far more than the western world imagined.  Apart from those officially recognized by the state, there are many more "sub-populations" with their own languages.  Are those languages near extinction?

Furthermore, it is a complex matter about Tibetans learning the Han language.  Cantonese-speaking students have to learn putonghua, and they have to answer many complicated questions about putonghua pronunciation in the university entrance examinations.  The Chinese have to learn English for the sake of globalization.  That is an issue of globalized competition for which there is no simple answer that can be reduced and politicized to one about human rights.  Serious observers recognize that these questions deserve careful study.  But those debates are secondary because here we have to see what Grace Wang choose to present.  Are those views full?  Are they biased?  Why did she choose those views and not discuss the full story?  Are those views consistent with the simplified imagination of the West?  I believe that Grace Wang has deepened certain existing prejudices of the West about Tibet to a large degree.  It is irresponsible to express those views to the public in the media.

I was reminded of all this on the evening of April 9. As I left the cafeteria planning to head to the library to study, I saw people holding Tibetan and Chinese flags facing each other in the middle of the quad. I hadn't heard anything about a protest, so I was curious and went to have a look. I knew people in both groups, and I went back and forth between them, asking their views. It seemed silly to me that they were standing apart, not talking to each other. I know that this is often due to a language barrier, as many Chinese here are scientists and engineers and aren't confident of their English.

I thought I'd try to get the two groups together and initiate some dialogue, try to get everybody thinking from a broader perspective. That's what Lao Tzu, Sun Tzu and Confucius remind us to do. And I'd learned from my dad early on that disagreement is nothing to be afraid of. Unfortunately, there's a strong Chinese view nowadays that critical thinking and dissidence create problems, so everyone should just keep quiet and maintain harmony.

Comment:  Here, Grace Wang puts herself into a high point that supersedes the debate between the two sides.  Based upon the previous supposition, most Chinese people (as well as Wang) did not understand Tibet.  Through her personal experience, Grace Wang has now understood Tibet.  She is one of the few people who understand the truth, and therefore she is alert and aware.  Together with her rationality, she can stand out and act as the mediator.  The reader is bound to stand erect out of respect, and understand in a preliminary fashion just how Wang turned out to be a different kind of Chinese person.

Wang also provided a certain portrait of Chinese society and culture; the people are irrational and intolerant about dissident opinions, thus satisfying pre-existing negative western imaginations.  Of course, Wang does not belong to that group of people because she is one of the rare few who are aware and conscious.

Wang also rendered another opinion.  She said that Chinese here are scientists and engineers who are not confident of their English skills.  Thus, she expressed that her English skills are better and therefore she can play the role of mediator.  Thus we see that she repeatedly demeaned others while elevating herself.  This sense of superiority should be clear.  Without doubt, this is going to infuriate many people.

A lot has been made of the fact that I wrote the words "Free Tibet" on the back of the American organizer of the protest, who was someone I knew. But I did this at his request, and only after making him promise that he would talk to the Chinese group. I never dreamed how the Chinese would seize on this innocent action. The leaders of the two groups did at one point try to communicate, but the attempt wasn't very successful.

Comment:  This is obviously a serious matter.  First, since she stated that she understands the proclivities and characteristics of the Chinese youth, then why couldn't she dream what the Chinese would feel about her actions?  This is completely not credible.  Secondly, was the request from the American protestor reasonable?  Was this an offensive provocation?  We believed that Wang wanted to be a "neutral mediator."  The American protestor recognized her role plus the fact that she was Chinese and yet he made that request.  I though that this was a malicious act of provocation.

Let us switch positions.  The Chinese and the Tibetans are having a dialogue.  A Tibetan comes over to say that he wants to mediate.  The pro-China supporters tell him: "You write a slogan 'One China' first or else we won't talk to you."  What would this Tibetan and the other pro-Tibet demonstrators think?  Would they interpret this as an act of provocation?  If this Tibetan person agreed, would there be repercussions among the other pro-Tibet demonstrators?

Thirdly, why would Grace Wang agree to this irrational and offensive request?  Does this show a certain leaning?  This is about an issue of principles.  For the pro-China demonstrators, the act of Grace Wang meant that she had lost the legitimacy as 'mediator.'  I think that their response was normal.

Actually, all this is commonsense.  If Grace Wang is such a smart Chinese person, how could she "never dreamed" of this?  There is just one answer -- she is trying to gloss over this.  Not only is she just glossing over this, but she is being evasive.

The Chinese protesters thought that, being Chinese, I should be on their side. The participants on the Tibet side were mostly Americans, who really don't have a good understanding of how complex the situation is. Truthfully, both sides were being quite closed-minded and refusing to consider the other's perspective. I thought I could help try to turn a shouting match into an exchange of ideas. So I stood in the middle and urged both sides to come together in peace and mutual respect. I believe that they have a lot in common and many more similarities than differences.

But the Chinese protesters -- who were much more numerous, maybe 100 or more -- got increasingly emotional and vocal and wouldn't let the other side speak. They pushed the small Tibetan group of just a dozen or so up against the Duke Chapel doors, yelling "Liars, liars, liars!" This upset me. It was so aggressive, and all Chinese know the moral injunction: Junzi dongkou, bu dongshou (The wise person uses his tongue, not his fists).

Comment: It is up to those who witnessed this incident to judge how accurate her description was.  Her sentiments were obviously on the side of the demonstrators who supported Tibet independence, because they were the "weak."  In truth, in many western nations (including the United States), the number of pro-Tibet demonstrators exceeded the pro-China demonstrators to the point of one-sided superiority.  During the demonstrations (such as the Olympic torch relay), there were violent incidents.  Did she show any sympathy?  That is hard to say.  But should she have elaborated when she described this particular incident?

I was scared. But I believed that I had to try to promote mutual understanding. I went back and forth between the two groups, mostly talking to the Chinese in our language. I kept urging everyone to calm down, but it only seemed to make them angrier. Some young men in the Chinese group -- those we call fen qing (angry youth) -- started yelling and cursing at me.

What a lot of people don't know is that there were many on the Chinese side who supported me and were saying, "Let her talk." But they were drowned out by the loud minority who had really lost their cool.

Comment:  This is a continuation of the denigration of the pro-China demosntrators.  The use of "fenqing" expresses a certain sense of superiority and loftiness.  The angry youth are blind and irrational.  "They" are "fenqing" and "I" am obviously not.  Therefore, I am rational and calm.  Obviously, there is not a single word about how many "angry youth" were among the Americans who support Tibet independence.  We are also not able to read what they said and did in this essay.

Some people on the Chinese side started to insult me for speaking English and told me to speak Chinese only. But the Americans didn't understand Chinese. It's strange to me that some Chinese seem to feel as though not speaking English is expressing a kind of national pride. But language is a tool, a way of thinking and communicating.

Comment:  I believe that this is a secondary issue.  First, in a situation in which there are no foreigners (such as there being no Americans listening to their conversation), she should obviously use Chinese.  I don't know if this was the case.  Secondly, as a Chinese group, if a so-called mediator suddenly emerged within their own camp, they should communicate with her using their own methods in order to figure out her position and background.  It is normal to use Chinese.  Anyway, I feel that this is quite natural.  Yet her characterization of others are partial.  To say that not speaking Chinese cannot express national pride is simplifying the matter down to nationalism and let the readers fell that this group of people are narrow-minded.

At the height of the protest, a group of Chinese men surrounded me, pointed at me and, referring to the young woman who led the 1989 student democracy protests in Tiananmen Square, said, "Remember Chai Ling? All Chinese want to burn her in oil, and you look like her." They said that I had mental problems and that I would go to hell. They asked me where I was from and what school I had attended. I told them. I had nothing to hide. But then it started to feel as though an angry mob was about to attack me. Finally, I left the protest with a police escort.

Comment:  Same as before, so I won't say anything more.

Back in my dorm room, I logged onto the Duke Chinese Students and Scholars Association (DCSSA) Web site and listserv to see what people were saying. Qian Fangzhou, an officer of DCSSA, was gloating, "We really showed them our colors!"

Comment; I think that this forum is either internal or else it is a Chinese-language forum for the Chinese people to distribute information among subscribers.  To a large extent, this determines the style and content.  Does the publication of the information as well as the name of the author require the people's consent.  I suspect not.  Is this respectful of others?  Does this respect the right of others?  At the same time, Grace Wang's quotations also deprive others of speech rights.  What does it mean to "show colors"?  Does that mean some Chinese are coming out to demonstrate?  Or are they going to beat people up?  This is totally unclear.  In conjunction with the preceding and following text, this reader is left to think that the Chinese have assaulted some people and then posted an internal message to celebrate.  Qian Fangzhou could be one of the participants.

I posted a letter in response, explaining that I don't support Tibetan independence, as some accused me of, but that I do support Tibetan freedom, as well as Chinese freedom. All people should be free and have their basic rights protected, just as the Chinese constitution says. I hoped that the letter would spark some substantive discussion. But people just criticized and ridiculed me more.

Comment: Grace Wang's actions before and afterwards caused her to lose credibility among the student body.  To put it another way, some people have made up their minds about her.  In this essay of hers, she has other intentions, such as continuing to use words such as "freedom" to excite the western readers in order to gain identification, sympathy and support.  This narrative also creates this other impression: the other Chinese students are disinterested in freedom and they are more supportive of totalitarianism.  This clearly matches certain prejudices among western readers.

The next morning, a storm was raging online. Photographs of me had been posted on the Internet with the words "Traitor to her country!" printed across my forehead. Then I saw something really alarming: Both my parents' citizen ID numbers had been posted. I was shocked, because this information could only have come from the Chinese police.

Comment:  This accusation is more serious, because Grace Wang has dragged the Chinese government in: The Chinese government is the "black hand behind the curtain."

I saw detailed directions to my parents' home in China, accompanied by calls for people to go there and teach "this shameless dog" a lesson. It was then that I realized how serious this had become. My phone rang with callers making threats against my life. It was ironic: What I had tried so hard to prevent was precisely what had come to pass. And I was the target.

I talked to my mom the next morning, and she said that she and my dad were going into hiding because they were getting death threats, too. She told me that I shouldn't call them. Since then, short e-mail messages have been our only communication. The other day, I saw photos of our apartment online; a bucket of feces had been emptied on the doorstep. More recently I've heard that the windows have been smashed and obscene posters have been hung on the door. Also, I've been told that after convening an assembly to condemn me, my high school revoked my diploma and has reinforced patriotic education.

Comment: I thought that these threats about deaths and personal security as well as the feces incident were wrong.  They violate Chinese law.  Unfortunately, the rational patriotism of the Chinese people has never received positive coverage.  It is regrettable that such incidents occur and they become the talk of the western media.  Grace Wang obviously provided invaluable raw material.

Finally, her high school revoking her diploma and reinforcing patriotic education also satisfied the western imagination: "The patriotism of the Chinese youth is the result of the brainwashing propaganda of the totalitarian government."  Was this example the one that the western media tried so hard to capture?

I understand why people are so emotional and angry; the events in Tibet have been tragic. But this crucifying of me is unacceptable. I believe that individual Chinese know this. It's when they fire each other up and act like a mob that things get so dangerous.

Comment:  Here Grace Wang is obviously one of the very few Chinese people who "are independent thinkers" who grasp the truth.

In her narrative, her biases are shocking because there is not a hint about the full picture.  For example, the Tibet incident was an unfortunate thing; the clash between China and the west was an unfortunate thing.  On these issues, she made no attempt to look for anything problematic on the part of the West and then look for a fair assessment.  Instead, she concentrated on a one-sided criticism of China.

On one hand, she chose certain things; on the other side, she did not choose other things.  What do these choices say about her leanings?

Now, Duke is providing me with police protection, and the attacks in Chinese cyberspace continue. But contrary to my detractors' expectations, I haven't shriveled up and slunk away. Instead, I've responded by publicizing this shameful incident, both to protect my parents and to get people to reflect on their behavior. I'm no longer afraid, and I'm determined to exercise my right to free speech.

Comment: The keywords reappear: Freedom of speech.  This will no doubt invoke resonance among the readers.  The reader thinks: No matter what, you are no longer in totalitarian China; here in free America, you have genuine freedom of speech and you can say what you want.

Because language is the bridge to understanding.

Comment:  Language, communication, exchange.  These are her selling points as well as the main themes of her essay.  In front of a group of unreasonable, barbaric and irrational people, these qualities are clearly outstanding.

Conclusions:

The essay of Grace Wang was shocking, either in its biases or structure.

The biases:

(1) The essay did not cite any Chinese views about the Tibet problem whatsoever.  It made not positive reference to anything about how China handled Tibet either in history or practical terms.

(2) The essay made no reference to the clash between China and the West over this issue.  It made no reference or criticism to the prejudices and responsibilities of the west.  It made no positive reference about China.

(3) The essay made no reference about anything that China has done to develop Tibet, and certainly nothing positive.

(4) The essay made no positive reference about the overseas patriotic movement.  It made no positive reference to the patriots.  Instead, the characterization is about their obstinacy, bigotry, irrationality, barbarity and violence.  The pro-China activities of the Chinese students at Duke University were judged negatively.

The one-sidedness of the presentation was stunning.  This goes even far beyond the deeply prejudiced reports from the western media.

Then there is the clever weaving of the logic and structure of the essay.  We know that the communication of information requires the establishment of a powerful polarity in order to create an impact on the reader.  Let us look at the portrait that Grace Wang created.

(1) Tibet versus "China"

Tibet: Romantic, idyllic, mysterious, free, warm, full of spiritual values, satisfying

China: vulgar, materialistic, value-free, naked capitalism, money-grubbing, totalitarian, suppression of freedom of speech, monolithic, singular, boring, brain-washing education, no personal freedom

(2) Tibetans versus "Chinese"

Tibetans: Endearing, friendly, warm, pursuit of spiritual values, content, peaceful, tolerant

Chinese: vulgar, materialistic, ignorant and barbaric towards Tibet

(3) Pro-Tibet demonstrators versus pro-China demonstrators

Pro-Tibet demonstrators: Willing to engage in dialogue, weak, helpless, outnumbered, victims of physical violence; no other bad qualities

Pro-China demonstrators: Reared up in materialism, atheists instilled with patriotism and ignorant about Tibet; irrational, barbaric, violent, intolerant about dissident opinion, representative of totalitarian culture, impossible to hold dialogue with

Is the portray of Grace Wang genuinely responsible and objectively/rationally complete?  Or is she biased?

The narrative of Grace Wang fits the imagination of the western media.  The emergence of Grace Wang is a godsend at the moment of greatest need by the western media.  She provided them with the perfect first-hand raw material that meets the various imaginations that they hold about China.  This also offers the interpretation that they longed for about Chinese nationalism as brain-washing propaganda.

As for Grace Wang herself, she obviously relieved her anger through her moment of fame in the western media.

If anyone was unclear about her position before all this, then I felt that this essay is a clear statement.

No matter how you look at it (whether from the motives or results), this essay by Grace Wang was a mistake.  Objectively from the viewpoint of results, her essay has enhanced the pre-existing prejudices among the western media.  This essay does nothing for mediation and understanding.  It was just another one-sided demonization of China; it only diminishes the minimal speech space of China within the western media.  In the end, it only increases misunderstanding, alienation and conflict about China.

From this angle I can only say that Grace Wang was hypocritical and opportunistic.

As far as the people are concerned, Grace Wang is unlikely ever to rid herself of the "Chinese traitor" label.

Of course, the western media will forget her quickly.  But the Chinese people will remember.

(Los Angeles Times)  Olympic flame shines on one Chinese woman and burns another.  By Ching-ching Ni.  April 28, 2008.

As the Olympic flame continues its tumultuous journey around the world, the lives of two young Chinese women whose brief gestures during the torch relay were captured on video have emerged center stage in the black-and-white world of Chinese public opinion.

One is Jin Jing, a one-legged former fencer in a wheelchair who, with her tiny body, defended the torch from pro-Tibet protesters trying to snatch it from her on the streets of Paris. The images of her action have been disseminated on the Internet, and she has been elevated to national hero status and dubbed an "angel in a wheelchair."

The other is Wang Qianyuan, a newly arrived student from China at Duke University in North Carolina who turned up in the middle of a videotaped shouting match during a pro-Tibet campus rally on the day the torch passed through San Francisco. She is now viewed as a traitor.

The tales of the two women, who have become well known beyond their imagination, illustrate the sweep of cyberspace and the deep emotions here over issues of national pride.

"Chinese people all over the country salute you and thank you Jin Jing! Those who want to split our country will never succeed," reads one Internet chat-room message.

"This traitor hurt the feelings of the entire Chinese nation. She deserves the death penalty!" another chatter wrote, referring to Wang.

In Wang's case, the flaring tempers facilitated by the ease of communication among an Internet-savvy generation have elicited a sort of mob mentality. Even the Communist Party is now trying to curb the outrage for fear it could spiral out of control. But Beijing should not be surprised by what is happening, some observers say.

"This just shows that Chinese people have lived too long in a world with unbalanced information," said Zhou Xiaozheng, a sociologist at People's University in Beijing. "After listening too long to only one side of the story, we have developed zero tolerance for a difference of opinion.

"In this mind-set, you are either on our side or you deserve to be stepped on forever."

For Wang, 20, it has proved a rude awakening. When she moved to North Carolina for her freshman year, she thought she had escaped limits on speech and actions.

"I never expected something like this would happen to me in the States," Wang said in a phone interview. "If they can shut me up, it will be just like another Cultural Revolution. People who try to speak up will be labeled as traitors. It's just a vicious cycle."

So what did the slender, ponytailed woman do to create so many enemies that within hours videos and pictures were posted on the Internet with the word "traitor" across her forehead, along with her telephone and personal identification numbers and directions to her home in China?

According to Wang, she merely sought to encourage dialogue between hundreds of flag-waving Chinese students and a couple of dozen pro-Tibet demonstrators carrying pictures of the Dalai Lama who were shouting at each other.

To critics who believe that Tibet should remain part of China and that the Dalai Lama is bent on splitting off the Himalayan region, Wang was betraying her motherland just by standing on the side of the students holding the Tibetan flag. It didn't help that she also wrote "Save Tibet" on the back of a fellow student. Wang said she did so on condition that the student would talk to the other side.

"I think the Chinese and Tibetan sides were both very emotional," said Wang, who hopes to study psychology and economics. "The Olympics can come and go. Those problems and issues will remain. I just hope people can start to think from a different perspective."

Scott Savitt, a visiting scholar at Duke who had spent many years working in China, said, "I watched her do this and the Chinese part of me is saying this is bad; she should stop.

"Then I thought: She's in America. This is the education process. She's doing what she's supposed to do."

On the other side of the world, Wang's parents are paying the price for their daughter's freedom in America.

Since their personal information was exposed on the Internet, they have gone into hiding. An Internet photo shows what appears to be a bucket of feces on the doorstep of their home in the eastern Chinese city of Qingdao.

Angry netizens even accused Wang of working with the CIA to sell out her country in exchange for a permanent residency card. A strongly worded apology letter, said to be from Wang's father, a Communist Party member, appeared on Chinese websites begging forgiveness. "Wang Qianyuan will always be our daughter," it read. "She wants to tell everybody in this clear-cut political issue she is wrong. . . . Please give her a chance to make amends."

Wang, who has been in touch with her mother by phone, strongly denies the authenticity of the letter.

"My mom said it's definitely not him," Wang said. "My father would never do something like that without consulting me."

Jin, on the other hand, has been bombarded by a different kind of spotlight. Since returning home to Shanghai, she has been treated as a superstar, mobbed by fans and reporters, racing from one public appearance to another.

The 27-year-old lost a leg because of a tumor when she was 9. At 20, she joined the Shanghai wheelchair fencing team, but she no longer competes. She later worked temporarily as a hotel telephone operator but has since struggled to find a job that can accommodate her special needs. Since she returned from Paris a hero, job offers have been pouring in from businesses and government agencies.

"I haven't decided on anything yet," Jin said in a phone interview. "I am not a hero. I am just a protector of the torch."

Yet even in her case, anger has mixed with pride.

Jin's fans have initiated a global hunt for the man believed to have attacked her in Paris and have focused their suspicions on a Tibetan immigrant living in Salt Lake City. The immigrant, who said he was the victim of a case of mistaken identity, said he was not in Paris, but did acknowledge going to San Francisco to support the Tibetan independence camp. He has received death threats, he said, and has moved to a hotel for security reasons.

"Even if he's not the one who attacked Jin Jing, his claim that China lacks freedom of religious and freedom of expression will make him the scapegoat for the real attacker," one chat-room participant wrote.

France is also the subject of fury because the most confrontational and embarrassing leg of the torch relay played out there. Many ordinary Chinese plan to boycott the popular French supermarket chain Carrefour and French-made goods, especially during the coming May Day holiday.

As damage control, French President Nicolas Sarkozy issued a letter of apology to Jin last week and sent a top envoy to China to kiss her hand in public and invite her to return to Paris for a proper visit.

But the French might need to kiss a lot more than one hand to restore public goodwill here.

"Personally I have already stopped using French cosmetics, and I know all the Chinese ladies in my company are doing the same," one Chinese blogger wrote. "I know the boycott thing might be childish and immature, and it does no good to both sides in the long run. But other than that, we have no better way to express our outrage and disgust."