A Modern Atlas of Hurt Feelings

I’m sure you have found links to that map in many places, but it would seem heartless not to take notice.

Here is the original (in Chinese), and here is an English translation listing the countries that have hurt the feelings of the Chinese people.

This is what happens if you dare to (according to Austin Ramzy).

8 Responses to “A Modern Atlas of Hurt Feelings”

  1. JR wrote: “This is what happens if you dare to (according to Austin Ramzy).”

    My friend Ivan has read this blog post and Austin’s at the Time China Blog. This is what he wants to say:

    “For JR and Austin Ramzy: http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=AfZaSmk_lrE Sincerely yours, Ivan.”

    Like

  2. C.A.: Lynching is funny as long as it doesn’t happen. Then again, have you ever tried to write something funny that is already funny? MURDER is actually a good subject for funny stuff. 😉

    Huolong: As for the “hurt feelings” and the consequences you refer to in your post, I’m thinking of this talk as a nice way of stifling undesired debates about real issues. Of course that can only work if all parties involved agree to such a stifling rule. I don’t respect such a rule myself. I won’t make demands on others to “respect my feelings”. The only thing I demand is some civility in debate (because a bit of coolness in the right place helps to stick to the issues). It is for my interlocutor to decide if I hurt his feelings and if there is rapport or if there isn’t. In my view, the “hurt feelings” talk only blurs the borders of individual responsibilities.
    With or without rapport – you can often walk away from personal relationships. In international relations and functions, you usually can’t walk out of the room of global politics without coming back sooner or later.

    Like

  3. Well, stifling debate about real issues…

    I think you are still unable to understand the point I tried to make in my post. I don’t think I was trying to set a rule in discussions.

    Let me make it really simple:

    shangganqing (to have gotten feelings hurt) is a term in everyday Chinese.

    I’ve explained how this term is used between Chinese people in my post. And now, what does it mean when the Chinese government say the Chinese people it represents have gotten their feelings hurt? It means the people are angered.

    In short, it’s a Chinese way of saying someone is disappointed and angered.

    Feelings? Well, “feeling” in this case is not HOW the Chinese people or Government feels. It’s actually WHAT they feel towards someone or some country, e.g. I’ve done everthing to make you happy and well (love felt for you), and you don’t trust me and do things that hurt my happiness and well-being; and we’ve done nothing that hurts your country’s national interests (respect of your interests we have), and you sell weapons to our province Taiwan and meet the Dailai Lama.

    I think this is essentially a problem of translation. We’re not arguing about the same thing. Ganqing is not feeling.

    Like

  4. I’m aware that WHAT people feel about others can be caused by a lot of everyday things just as well as because of global events. But the “hurt feelings” referred to by actosia.com and imagethief.com (links in the post above) are about global events, not about individual feelings. To be clear, I take individual feelings serious enough to think about them. But when I come to the conclusion that respecting the feelings of others would oblige me to do something that I consider wrong, I’ll do what I think is right – also when it hurts the feelings of others. When it is about feelings expressed by a government, I look at it because it carries political weight. But I see no obligation to act in a way that would satisfy the feelings of a government. I think that a government should try to avoid talking about the feelings of “its” people anyway. Not even a government of a country that allows independent opinion polls about the degree of support it enjoys can speak for all its people. A statement like “I think I say this in the name of many people might be practical.
    As for the Dalai Lama, your government can certainly put demands on our officials not to meet him (although I think that such demands are pretty assumptive). In any case, it is for them to decide if they want to meet this demand or not. I think it makes sense to meet the Dalai Lama and to talk with him. I’d also recommend that your government would look at him with a more open mind. But that is up to them, of course.

    Like

  5. The point you talked about is Democracy. Even China is not a democracy by Western standards, no other organization in China can better represent its People than its Government.

    What I can tell you is that when our Government say the country’s people have gotten their feelings hurt, at least 80% of the population will feel the same way, i.e. “their feelings are hurt” or more precisely they are “angered”.

    Dalai Lama’s “personal reps” in talks with Beiing said that they want all non-Tibetan people in and around today’s Tibetan Autonomous Region to be evicted, including Han, Mongolia, Hui, Menba, and Lhoba Chinese. They also want China’s national defense army to be withdrawn from in and around T.A.R. Can I safely say the reps are insane?

    Like

  6. Actually, an independent poll doesn’t require democracy. You can have such independent polls in Hong Kong without democracy. Without such opinion polls, I don’t think one can safely say how much support governments enjoy on an issue. And as I said – even a democratic government shouldn’t express its peoples’ feelings like if they were all of one mind.
    But let’s suppose that your estimate of at least 80% is accurate – in the light of mainland China’s media coverage, it could be. Why should this percentage of hurt feelings give your government a say in the appointment diaries of my country’s officials?

    For my view of the Tibet, please go to the dear fenqings thread.

    Like

  7. It’s because no one including your country’s officials can have things all their own way. In this case, China is not pleased to see your country give the Dalai Lama a stage to sell his indepdence.

    Your politicians can weigh the consequences of pleasing Him and His government in exile and displeasing the Chinese government – the real power that runs China, including Tibet. “Might is right”. This is the lesson the West has taught us and others.

    I’ve always had an idea that: people around the world are the same to the core though they are broght up in different surroundings, having different beliefs, and speaking different languages. That’s why people of different countries can communicate with each other.

    “To err is human”. But my idea is that they err in the same way. So, when you accuse of Chinese people, you accuse of your own people because we’re similar flawed as humans.

    Like

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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: