China Left Review
China Left Review is a bilingual web-journal brought to you by the China Study Group. Our purpose is to stimulate discussion and collaboration between left-leaning scholars and activists in Chinese and English-speaking worlds. We seek to do this by compiling, translating, and commenting on a variety of works related to controversial and pressing social issues. Our focus is on China, including both the struggles of China’s subordinated classes in today’s capitalist context, as well as the lessons, positive and negative, that yesterday’s socialist experiments provide for those struggles. But we hope also to explore how such struggles and lessons relate to the struggles of people everywhere oppressed by capitalism, patriarchy, and racism, and to contribute to the global circulation of struggles toward building a more just, sustainable, and inclusive world.
We hope eventually to publish several issues a year full of original contributions in both Chinese and English, and translations or summaries of all contents in both languages. At this point, however, we are running almost entirely on uncompensated labor done when most of us should be sleeping or working for capital. As we grow, these stolen moments may add up to a proper voluntary workforce, but for now, we are limiting our goal to one issue per year, each with a few original contributions and translations, and introductory overviews in both English and Chinese.
- Issue 1 (Spring 2008) The Question of Land Privatization in China’s “Urban—Rural Integration”
- Issue 2 (Spring 2009) Focus on the Global Financial Crisis
- Issue 3 (Summer 2010) Reevaluating Rural China in the Collective Period: Reflections on Selected Works Published Overseas
- Issue 4 (Summer 2011) Historical Legacies, Global Financial Crisis, and China’s Working Class Movement
If you would like to submit a Chinese or English article, essay, story, poem, or picture for publication, or if you would like to help us by translating or working on the website, please contact us at [email protected]
I’m a freelance UK writer working on a commissioned book on the Boxer Uprising & 8 Power War China 1900-02. The biggest challenge was getting Chinese views - nothing appears to have been translated (I don’t read Chinese)? This made one of my goals, rehabilitating the Chinese soldier’s reputation as a fighter which had been so denigrated by Western writers, extremely difficult.
Are there any primery, or even secondary, sources of the Chinese experience of the conflict?
Hi there, It appears that my extensive article which was contributed to the discussion on tibet and the Lahasa riots has been removed from your cite. Is this a case of censoring views which do not agree with yours? Besst, Eric Sommer, ChinaDaily writer and resident of China. [email protected]
Eric,
I am not sure what article you are referring to. But articles are added by CSG editors and bloggers. If an editor did not add your article at your request, that is not censorship. If you want to add a link to your article in the comments to some article on CSG I am sure that would be fine. Where was the article published?
Eric,
I deleted your article - not because of the views (although I do happen to disagree with that pro-state-repression/ the Tibetan rioters and protesters were all henchmen of US imperialism line, CSG and CLR already published two articles with the same line - CSG is politically diverse), but because you posted an entire long article in the comments section of someone else’s article. This is not an open forum for anyone to post whatever they want. As LangYan said, you’re welcome to post a link to an article published elsewhere. You’re also welcome to submit something to [email protected], and if the editors approve, we’ll publish it.
Hi there, I was sorry to see your use of the misleading phrase ‘pro-state-repression/ the Tibetan rioters and protesters were all henchmen of US imperialism line’ to charaterize my article, which is a research and reality based attempt to use the political-ecnomomic structure of U.S. society, the history of U.S. interventions abroad since world war II, and the history of western media treatment of Tibet, to explain the U.S. media distortions which took place in their coverage of the Lahasa riots. You are welcome to delete it as ‘too long to be a comment’ if you like, but please refrain from such extreme misrepresentation of my work. Eric Sommer, Beijing, China
Hi again, To further clarify for other readers: My article focused on explaining *why* the *actual events of the riots* were so badly distorted in western media. In addition to being a professional journalist and teacher, I live permanently in China and have direct access to all parts of the country including Tibet, viewed videos of the riots, and had first-hand reports on the riots from people who were there! Those riots were, in fact, almost completely distorted in the U.S. media coverage. Best, Eric
Eric, sorry if you think I misrepresented your article. I only skimmed it but that does seem to be the only political orientation that could be associated with such an article - again, two very similar articles were posted on CSG and CLR over a year ago, there are many others circulating on the internet (indeed, in the months following the riot, and again after the Urumqi riot, this was basically the only kind of perspective you could find in China), so when I see such writings now maybe I’m too lazy to take the time and look for how they might differ subtly from the mainstream perspective here (just as I can’t be bothered to watch the likes of CNN). Maybe 100% of what you wrote is true, but even if so, what is the political purpose of taking the time to write and publish such a thing, if not to support the mainstream perspective propagated by the Chinese government in defense of its actions?
Let me also clarify that the reason for deleting your article is not that it was too long, but that it was not a comment - in the sense of a direct response to the piece on whose page you were posting. It was a free-standing article. I might make sense to publish it somewhere else and then provide a link to it, along with a comment explaining how it relates to the piece in question. And again, if you think it fits CSG’s mission statement, then you could email it to us and ask us to publish it. But the comments section is for comments and discussion, not publishing articles.
“pro-state-repression/ the Tibetan rioters and protesters were all henchmen of US imperialism line, CSG and CLR already published two articles with the same line.”
Oh, knock it off. The above quote and “interpretation” is Hu Sunzi’s of course, and NOT the CSG’s or CLR’s. Such editorializing reflects his or her own orientation.
Hu De