I’m still catching up on my China reading that I missed while I was in the U.S. Here are a few articles that stood out to me:

• “China’s Ethnic Song and Dance” in the Times, about China’s relationship with minorities: “Chinese officials like to paint a picture of China as one big happy multicultural family. To that end, the state pushes the stereotype that ethnic minorities are little more than entertainers who sing and dance in bright costumes.” The article goes goes on to describe how minorities are pushed into livelihoods based solely on their minority status. Indeed, state-sponsored galas of performances and skits often showcase minorities singing and dancing, all the while smiling so broadly, you think they’ve never been unhappy in their lives. In Anhui, Yunnan, Guilin and Sanya, I was taken to tourist sites that were models of traditional villages of the local area’s ethnic minority. Visiting one kind of feels like going to the zoo, where ethnic people mill around the mock village, doing their ethnic thing, against a backdrop of their native environment. Crowds of Han Chinese are shuffled by a tour guide from each “exhibit” to the next — one is of an old Miao lady weaving a pair of pants, another is a group of young men doing a dance, yet another is a young woman inviting you into her “house” to explain their marriage customs and clothing. At the end, you can buy their authentic ethnic goods: jewelry, snacks, ceremonial head gear, silver. To me, it seems kind of debasing, in the same way a zoo feels inhumane. While these tourist sites can be educational and help to preserve minority cultures that may otherwise be lost during assimilation, they are also remarkably superficial, a whitewashed tale of a happy, harmonious group of people with not a care in the world, to be gawked at — not joined — by their Han overlords. They are trophies, another sign of a great China, but they are not the Han’s equals. On the one hand, preferential policies make it seem as if minorities are at least recognized and treated well. On the other hand, the potential reasoning behind these preferential policies — to keep the minorities relatively content so that they don’t cause trouble — seem to negate any of the benefits that they receive, especially when coupled with the “go West” policies that encourage Han Chinese to settle in places that once were predominantly made up of minorities. I’m not criticizing China on this point (for now), as every Western culture has its own problems with how it treated (treats) immigrants and other native minorities, but I do think China still has substantial progress to make in this respect before it can be seen as a “great” country.
•  “Will the Real CIETAC Please Stand Up?” from China Law Blog, an update of the ongoing drama involving China’s arbitration commission. If you haven’t been following it, essentially CIETAC passed new rules early last year that strengthened the power of its Beijing (base) office, at the expense of its other offices (known as sub-commissions) around the country. Two of them rebelled and declared their independence in May. Since then, the comedy of it all has just about overshadowed the real effects it has had on many companies’ business agreements:

The saga continued, with the situation going from bad to worse. On October 22, 2012, CIETAC South China changed its name to the South China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission, or SCIETAC, with its own set of arbitration rules that went into effect on December 1, 2012. Realizing that if one new name was good, then two new names must be better, SCIETAC also gave itself a second official name: the Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration (SCIA). Then on April 18, 2013, CIETAC Shanghai changed its name to the Shanghai International Arbitration Center (SHIAC), with its own set of arbitration rules that went into effect on May 1. Naturally they needed a second name as well, and what could be less confusing than the Shanghai International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (SIETAC)? Meanwhile, CIETAC Beijing opened up new offices in Shanghai and Shenzhen, using the same arbitration rules that SHIAC and SCIETAC had rejected.

• “中国梦区别于美国梦的七大特征” from Caijing, on the seven ways the China Dream differs from the American Dream (besides the fact that China Dream refuses to go by English-accepted grammar rules): 1) The China Dream puts the wealth and power of the country as a whole ahead of individual prosperity; 2) The China Dream’s purpose is to revitalize the nationality of China, not the realization of individual success; 3) The China Dream must be achieved using only Chinese people, while the American Dream can be realized with other country’s talents and resources; 4) The China Dream is the harmony and happiness (幸福, xingfu) of the community, while the American Dream is freedom and happiness (快乐, kuaile) of each individual; 5) The China Dream seems like it has the stability and backing of historical depth (because China has 5,000 years worth of history); 6) The China Dream relies on the strength and policies of the community, while the American Dream is based on individuality; 7) The China Dream is for the honor and glory of the nationality, while the American Dream is for honor and glory of the individual. In a nutshell, the two dreams have different focuses — the collective versus the individual. In a larger nutshell, this is the difference between China and the U.S.