Long Live the Great, Glorious and Correct Communist Party of China

by Nikos Akritas (November 2022)

Bloodline: Big Family No. 3
, Zhang Xiaogang, 1995


My most recent post was interesting for a number of reasons, not least because the bureaucracy involved in getting to the country I was supposed to be working in meant I never got there. Instead, I initially taught lessons online and, when that wasn’t working for my colleagues (it was more hassle for them to connect me up to the class than teach it themselves) or because the connection just wasn’t great, I would only connect to attend meetings and post data up onto the school’s systems. It wasn’t ideal for any of us but China’s zero tolerance stance on Covid meant that my first flight from London was cancelled (due to passengers on the same route a couple of weeks earlier testing positive) and, the day before my second flight, I was refused permission to fly to China by the Chinese Embassy, as I had tested positive for antibodies (unsurprisingly, given I’d had a Covid vaccination booster a few weeks earlier).

Being stuck in London with an eight hour time difference, I would start work at midnight and finish at 8am. I not only had the pleasure of this Monday to Friday but also one Saturday for an in-service training event, held over the course of two days in February just after the Chinese New Year. One of the speeches made was by a professor heavily involved in government and advisory panels for Hong Kong and the Chinese mainland. The speech started off mundanely enough, with the usual greetings, especially with reference to the New Year, and exaltations to the prestige of being part of an educational organization which was celebrating its ninth decade. It also gave a brief overview of China’s basic education initiatives of the early 20th century under Communism which had improved peoples’ lives. But, about half way through, there was a clear, if subtle, turn of direction, linking Chinese history with the schools mission of, ‘glorifying China.’

The school group, established in 1931, followed a period of, “Hardship, destitution, oppression, humiliation, and bullying.” Note especially the last item in the list. Reference was made to outside powers interfering in the affairs of China to be followed by the seemingly contradictory claim, “Please do not consider our school very political.” Pride was expressed in establishing a system of education in 1970s Hong Kong specifically in opposition to a British one, even though the ideas involved (play based learning), were borrowed from the West. This organisation is currently attempting to expand abroad, especially in ASEAN nations (with whispers of expanding into Central Asia too), and gratitude was expressed to the Chinese government in aiding this expansion. Given the school’s ultimate mission of glorifying China, could this be read as cultural imperialism? Of course not— “I hope every one of you will bear in mind that cultures are to be integrated in the matter of culture [sic], no one should be considered superior or inferior to others.”

Benign recognition of globalisation? This was further buttressed by talk of mutual respect for, acceptance and integration of each other’s cultures in the school’s learning communities. These learning communities consist of Western and Chinese teachers in each year group. With such noble words and such a system, it seems like this is an open dialogue or mutually rewarding working relationship of learning from one another, encouraging tolerance and harmony.

However, this “acceptance and integration” where no culture “should be considered superior or inferior to others” was to ‘be achieved’ by acquainting everyone with the necessary, crucial knowledge of Chinese history and no other. And to demonstrate receptiveness to other points of view, reference was made to books on Chinese history originating in the West (the three volume Cambridge History of China), as well as to Chinese published history books (a 24 volume set was referred to). Diversity and cultural integration was, therefore, to be achieved not by embracing all cultures but by embracing non-Chinese scholarly works about China as well as Chinese ones.

As confusing, or contradictory, as this was it was also somewhat perturbing when claims of the school’s importance as a body acting for cultural integration and the common good of the country were added to it. The 5,000 year history covered by the volumes referred to, then, were to establish mutual respect and integration on a world scale by extolling the virtues of purely Chinese concerns. The world’s ‘common good,’ it seemed, was concomitant with that of the country’s and the school was a conduit to achieve this end. All animals are equal …?

This was all mixed in with further references to national humiliation. As an example, the 24,000 volume Yongle Encyclopaedia was used as an iconic symbol of Chinese culture being, “trampled underfoot.” The destruction of this vast body of work was lamented to now exist in only 160-odd fragments of varying size. To avoid a repeat of such a catastrophe was, “Why it is important China prospers and becomes powerful,” with a nod to the destruction in the Middle East and its, “Coming under heavy fire.” The inference being without strength and unity foreign powers would also meddle in the affairs of China and destroy it too.

For those who still refuse, even at this point, to recognize the big brother tone of all this, the professor then tied Chinese education to the school’s worldwide mission of promoting a wish to show, “Our love and gentle care of the world,” not China’s might. Not patronizing enough yet for those who only believe in a white male patriarchy controlling the world and being a danger to all that is good? The name of the school group, which translates to “glorifying China,” has not been chosen to push nationalism but Xi Jinping’s notion of a, “Community of Common Destiny for Mankind.”

Soviet Communism may be over but a Communism viewed and applied through a nationalist prism is what is sought by China for the rest of the world. Communism fed by Capitalism (read Chinese nationalism) is what China pursues in its version of globalisation and it is harnessing educational and cultural as well as economic and military ‘tools’ to achieve this end.

I am still not sure if the pandering to Chinese government doctrine was genuine, heartfelt nationalism or just that—pandering. But I leave you to decide with the final thoughts of the address:


Glorifying China amongst the world [sic] is a goal we will keep embracing as we move forward.


Table of Contents


Nikos Akritas has worked as a teacher in countries across the Middle East and Central Asia as well as in Britain. His book Bloody Liberals: How Politically Correct Ideas About Race, Education and Religion are Killing Liberalism is available on Amazon.

Follow NER on Twitter @NERIconoclast


4 Responses

  1. Having lived within the expatriate Chinese community for nigh on 22 years and having
    visited China itself on a number of occasions I think I’m finally bringing their culture into focus.
    First things first, they are absolutely not interested in integration with the other cultures of the world, there is a “Chinese” way and then there’s the way of rest of the world.

    That doesn’t mean that they want to cut themselves off, because they are practical enough to realize that international trade is their road to prosperity. But, they don’t ask who it’s made by, nor do they ask the conditions of work.
    It’s just… “how much does it cost landed on the quayside of my choice?”

    They don’t want a worldwide Chinese empire, that’s too much trouble to administer and would involve setting aside some of its fundamental principles of personal responsibilities in the living of life itself.

    Those personal responsibilities make the majority of Chinese mainlanders very proud of their government despite the ripping they get from foreign press.

    Even after all of these years, even with a smattering of Chinese I still feel like a different species when I’m at a gathering of my wife’s friends, some of whom are important figures in Mainland China society. I feel like a zebra amongst the deer and the other animals at the watering hole

    It’s hard to put it into words but my own opinion has developed into an understanding that says.
    We are happy to do business with you, we don’t want to overrun you but keep your nose out of the way we run things.

    We’ve brought half a billion people out of poverty in the last 25 years, transformed our cities and infrastructure to leave the rest of the world gasping… so don’t tell us how to keep things together.

    Having said that, there’s an inscrutable aspect to their methods and I don’t think there’s any doubt that the leaders brook no dissent within their borders.

  2. Just one problem here is where China considers its borders to be? The two huge areas of Xinjiang and Tibet (larger than the Chinese province of the same name) are not ethnically Chinese (although China has been trying for a long time to change the population make up of these areas) but seem to be claimed by recourse to similar arguments made by those advocating a Muslim Caliphate: we once ruled these areas so they are historically part of ‘our’ lands and should be so now. A worldwide empire maybe not but an empire nevertheless.

  3. What’s “ethnically Chinese?”
    All “African Americans” are described as the same ethnicity by the Western Media
    I see people from Xinjiang and people from Tibet and I see Chinese ethnicity.

  4. I would say ‘ethnically Chinese’ are those that see themselves that way, just like any other ethnic or national group it is based on feeling not any set of objective criteria. As far as I am aware neither Tibetans nor Uighurs see themselves as ethnically Chinese. Chinese citizens they may be but not ethnically. Aside from having their own languages and traditions, they are part of China by force not choice, as are the Kurds of Turkey. It all boils down to whether one believes in self determination or not.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

New English Review Press is a priceless cultural institution.
                              — Bruce Bawer

The perfect gift for the history lover in your life. Order on Amazon US, Amazon UK or wherever books are sold.

Order on Amazon, Amazon UK, or wherever books are sold.

Order on Amazon, Amazon UK or wherever books are sold.

Order on Amazon or Amazon UK or wherever books are sold

Order at Amazon, Amazon UK, or wherever books are sold. 

Order at Amazon US, Amazon UK or wherever books are sold.

Available at Amazon US, Amazon UK or wherever books are sold.

Send this to a friend