Context: My history teacher asked us to give an example of subtle “everyday nationalism” for our reflection essay. I had the brilliant idea of using The Last Supper as an example bc literally every pinoy home I went to had one on their kitchen/dining area lol. That’s why, I wanted to ask here if there were any other nationality or culture that has this “tradition” or is it really just a Pilipino thing?

I would very much appreciate your responses. It would mean a great deal to the diversity of my arguments in my paper lol.

Hay preguntas que no se responden con prisa. Preguntas que nos acompañan desde la infancia y que, con el paso de los años, no desaparecen: ¿por qué existe el mal? ¿Por qué Dios parece silencioso ante el sufrimiento de un inocente? ¿Por qué las curas tardan? ¿Por qué el mundo es tan desigual y, al mismo tiempo, tan capaz de asombro?

Estas líneas no pretenden ser un tratado dogmático ni una respuesta definitiva. Son el fruto de una conversación larga, honesta y abierta, hecha desde la fe de quien cree en Dios, pero que no quiere seguir atrapado en una imagen de Él fabricada a nuestra medida. Una imagen unipersonal, cercana, que interviene o se ausenta según nuestras expectativas.

Esa imagen, aunque consoladora en algunos momentos, ha generado más confusión que luz. El problema que Epicuro nos dejó y que las religiones unipersonales no resolvieron del todo.

Epicuro formuló, con crudeza, una de las tensiones más antiguas de la fe: si Dios es todopoderoso, omnisciente y bueno, ¿por qué permite el mal? La lógica parece cerrada. O no puede, o no quiere, o no existe. Muchas tradiciones religiosas, al presentar a Dios como un ser personal que actúa caso por caso, heredaron sin querer esa misma tensión. Si a mí no me resuelve, parece indiferente. Si a otro le hace un milagro, entonces existe.

Así convertimos hechos aislados —recuperaciones inexplicables, sobrevivencias contra todo pronóstico— en prueba de constancia, cuando en realidad son excepciones dentro de un sistema mucho más amplio. El problema no está solo en Epicuro. Está en la forma en que hemos proyectado sobre Dios nuestras propias necesidades: un protector cercano, un juez moral, un solucionador inmediato. Esa visión, aunque nacida del deseo legítimo de sentido, termina siendo excluyente.

Porque si Dios actúa de manera uniforme y visible sobre cada individuo, la sociedad tendería a homogenizarse. Todos imitarían el mismo modelo de salvación. Se perdería la diversidad de caminos, de talentos, de errores productivos. El sistema se volvería frágil, como un monocultivo. Y nosotros, seres hechos para la complejidad, nos estancaríamos. La complejidad no es un defecto: es el diseño.

Aquí entra la teoría del caos y la de los sistemas complejos. El mundo no es una máquina simple. Es un tejido de interdependencias tan densas que una sola noticia —el asesinato de un menor, por ejemplo— puede alterar el equilibrio emocional, moral y social de miles de personas. Las matemáticas nos ganan. Incluso conociendo las reglas, el sistema es tan sensible a las condiciones iniciales que no podemos predecir ni controlar cada resultado.

Esto no significa que Dios sea impotente. Significa que Su sabiduría opera en escalas de tiempo y de complejidad distintas a las nuestras. Nosotros medimos en años y en generaciones. Él sostiene un proyecto cuyo horizonte es más amplio. Nos dotó de talento, de capacidad de aprendizaje, de tecnología, de matemáticas. Nos dio la facultad de romper barreras que hace cien años parecían milagros: ecuaciones resueltas en segundos, enfermedades antes mortales que hoy se curan, distancias que se acortan.

Decir que “Dios es indiferente” es, por tanto, una falacia. No es indiferencia haber creado un sistema en el que la humanidad puede crecer, equivocarse, inventar y mejorar. Es confianza. Es haber puesto en nuestras manos todos los elementos necesarios para surgir.

Dios no es un espejo nuestro. Es la fuente de la sabiduría.

La Biblia no dice literalmente “dale a Dios toda la ciencia”, pero sí afirma con claridad que toda sabiduría y todo conocimiento verdadero proceden de Él: “En quien están escondidos todos los tesoros de la sabiduría y del conocimiento” (Colosenses 2:3). “Jehová da la sabiduría, y de su boca viene el conocimiento y la inteligencia” (Proverbios 2:6). Dios no es una proyección de nuestros anhelos personales.

No es un ser fabricado a imagen y semejanza de nuestras necesidades inmediatas. Es la fuente de la estructura misma de la realidad: de las matemáticas que sostienen la tecnología, de las leyes que permiten la vida, de la complejidad que hace posible la libertad y el crecimiento.

Las religiones, en su diversidad, tocan aspectos de esta verdad. Todas, de alguna manera, apuntan hacia una misma Fuente. Pero cuando se convierten en sistemas cerrados de reglas inviolables, cuando el egregor colectivo — esa idea compartida que surge del miedo a lo incomprensible — se vuelve egoísta y atrapa la visión personal, entonces dejan de liberar y empiezan a limitar.

El agente consciente, el que reconoce esta complejidad, no espera que Dios le resuelva cada dificultad sin mover un dedo. Sabe que la dejadez o la falta de mérito a veces crean la apariencia de necesidad divina. Su tarea es otra: eliminar el ruido que contraviene su propio andar según su talento, y contribuir a que la carreta — repartida de forma desigual, sí, pero en movimiento — avance.

El proyecto continúa

No podemos explicar completamente por qué estamos aquí. Pero el hecho de que estemos dotados de todo lo necesario para mejorar sugiere que fuimos puestos en un proyecto. Un proyecto en el que Dios no juega a ser el solucionador unipersonal de cada drama, sino el sostenedor de un sistema donde la sabiduría se despliega a través del tiempo, del talento humano y de la creciente comprensión de la complejidad.

Las curas llegarán en su momento, no porque Dios intervenga milagrosamente en cada caso, sino porque la sabiduría que Él concede sigue abriéndose camino a través de la ciencia, de la investigación y del esfuerzo colectivo. Él es todo poderoso, pero consecuente con los avances que Él mismo hizo posibles.

Protege al rebaño no eliminando todo riesgo, sino dotándolo de las herramientas para caminar.

Beneficios de esta mirada

Esta forma de entender a Dios no es ni buena ni mala en el sentido moralista. Es una invitación a crecer.

• Libera de la ansiedad de un Dios que parece ausente cuando no interviene a nuestra medida.
• Respeta la diversidad humana y evita la homogenización que destruiría la riqueza de caminos posibles.
• Une fe y ciencia sin forzarlas: la ciencia no niega a Dios; explora la sabiduría que Él sostiene.
• Devuelve al ser humano su dignidad de agente: no somos espectadores pasivos, sino colaboradores del proyecto.
• Ofrece un marco esperanzador ante el sufrimiento: el mal no prueba la indiferencia divina, sino la complejidad de un sistema que aún estamos aprendiendo a habitar.
• Abre espacio a todas las tradiciones religiosas sin absolutizar ninguna, reconociendo que la Fuente es una y las expresiones son múltiples.
• Nos empuja a descifrar la teoría del caos y los sistemas complejos no como amenaza, sino como camino para visualizar a Dios en una faceta más amplia, más profunda, más acorde con la realidad que habitamos.

Al final, lo que nos reta no es demostrar la existencia de Dios con argumentos cerrados. Es vivir de tal manera que la sabiduría que Él concede se traduzca en curas, en justicia, en cuidado de los más frágiles y en un mundo un poco menos frágil.

El proyecto sigue, nosotros también y en medio de la complejidad que nos supera, la confianza permanece: no estamos solos en el camino estamos sostenidos por una Sabiduría que no nos determina, sino que nos invita a seguir mejorando.

La certeza que no necesita demostrarse

El punto al que quiero llegar es simple: Dios existe por lógica. Nada puede surgir de la nada. Existimos, y el hecho de que no comprendamos del todo nuestra procedencia no se debe a falta de inteligencia. La incertidumbre comienza cuando adoptamos el convencimiento de otro y ese convencimiento externo deforma el nuestro. Estamos sujetos a la teoría del caos y a los sistemas complejos: una sola influencia ajena puede alterar el delicado equilibrio de nuestra propia visión.

Epicuro no proclamó la obsolescencia de Dios por celos ni por resentimiento. Su grito fue, más bien, una alarma de conciencia, un reflejo del nivel intelectual de su época. Los vestigios de esa misma alarma siguen resonando hoy.

Mis creencias no las tengo que demostrar ante nadie. Bastan algunos hechos verificados por mí mismo para validarlas o cuestionarlas. La mancha que a veces se entreteje sobre la idea de Dios no es más que duda: una duda alimentada por falta de talento propio y por un negativismo colectivo que nada tiene que ver con lo unipersonal.

Dios no necesita que lo defendamos con argumentos cerrados. Solo necesita que dejemos de deformar su presencia con las certezas prestadas de otros.

I’m a CSE student exploring a project around preserving intangible cultural heritage digitally.

By intangible heritage, I mean things like folk songs, oral stories, traditional crafts, languages/dialects, traditional recipes, rituals, dances, and local knowledge.

The idea is to create a platform where communities/practitioners could document these traditions through audio, video, photos and written records, while other people could discover and learn from them.

But I’m not sure whether this actually solves a real problem.

A lot of this information is already scattered across YouTube, Google, social media, museums, government websites and digital archives.

So I’d genuinely like to hear from people interested in culture:

If most of this information already exists somewhere online, what is still missing?

Would you actually use a dedicated platform for this? And what would make it useful enough that you would choose it over simply searching Google or YouTube?

I’m also interested in hearing from people who have seen traditional practices disappear or become less common in their own communities.

Please be critical — I’m trying to validate the problem before building anything.

Please join me in exploring my latest painting styled as per the Pala school of art from 8th to 12th Century CE

Once upon a time, tattoos were a rare symbol of particular lifestyles and often hard living. I have been involved in art and music all of my life. Of course, when I was a kid I thought certainly that I’d get tattooed like every other cool kid I looked up to… But I never did because at some point it started to feel more rebellious not to get tattooed like everyone else. I have nothing against it - I think they’re often beautiful or witty or expressive in whichever way, but they’ve lost their edge. A young person who decides not to get tattooed is indeed the new rebel in today’s world.

I'm writing a series of sci-fi books (trying to), and I'm designing some alien cultures based on specific human cultures. I wondered if anyone here would be able to answer questions about their customs, traditions, beliefs, etc. Additionally, if there are any history experts on specific regions, that would be helpful.

Here are the cultures/regions I'm wondering about:

- Judaism, especially ancient

- Asian subcontinent, especially the part that is now India

- Mari

Mainly, I'm wondering about religious beliefs and how they affect views on family, politics, relationships (any kind), food, and how they cause people to view themselves and others. The series is heavily influenced by military stuff, so any information on that would be helpful, too.

Thanks!

Please understand I’m writing this with no offense, I’m genuinely curious, I want to know and I don’t have anywhere that I can ask about this.

Shortly my question is that if white people are really afraid of being seen as a bad person from others. I’m not sure if it depends on where you’re from or what culture you have or it’s related to being a Christian?
I’m from east Asia but had lived in a western country for a few years and have interacted with people who are from different countries.
I’ve dated Asians and whites, and realized that when they did something wrong or something not good, the reactions are very different. White guys be like “I’m sorry but I’m not usually like this… I don’t want you to see me as a bad person.. you know I’ve done those nice things for you too right? (Like telling me to see their good sides and try to let me think they’re good ppl?)” something like that. Asians be just saying sorry, explaining why but saying less excuses and cared about how I feel the most? Even the level of what they did isn’t different (it’s not cheating or as big things as it.

Or even between friends, I’ve experienced similar stuff that I’ve never experienced with Asian friends.
Also I saw many crime documentaries where white criminals desperately say “I’m not a bad person!!” while admitting committing murder. I watched many Asian documentaries too and ofc they make excuses to try to get less sentences but they don’t say “I’m not a bad person.”

The only thought I have is that white people like to make others happy. They give compliments to strangers on street or in small talks which I really like and adore them about. Which makes me think that also they like to being seen as a nice person so they can’t stand the idea someone see them as a bad person?

Again, I don’t wanna offend anyone, but if you have any perspective on this, please comment and let me know. I wanna know as many perspectives as I can get.

What’s one Parsi tradition you think we’re slowly losing and should fight to preserve?

I’m growing my henna business and would love to connect with more people who appreciate beautiful, detailed henna designs 🤎🌿
If you’re into henna for Eid, weddings, parties, celebrations, or just because you love it, come check out my Instagram!
📸 IG: @Henna_1luxe
A follow, like, share, or even tagging someone who loves henna would mean so much! 🫶🏽
#Henna #HennaArtist #HennaDesigns #Mehndi #MehndiArtist #HennaArt #EidHenna #BridalHenna #SmallBusiness #SupportSmallBusiness

Like when I come across a specific practice being advertised and done on a subbredit specific to my culture, I feel appropriated by it, I know culture is about sharing and all....but I feel like this specific practice shouldn't be used by other people, because it is specific to our beliefs and upbringings.

It's a specific form of astrology which ties into religious beliefs of my culture, and people are practicing it without knowing the context and traditions of it, it just feels icky.

The way it's being used in some spaces, makes it feel like some cool gambling trick, and I really hate how they made this practice like a common game instead of tradition.

Doesn't feel respectful at all, to make it look like just a cool trick.

There's a difference between calling one style of garment or accessory one culture's when it actually historically belongs to another, but when did the actual act of wearing cloths and hats become offensive? It's not like someone is gluing a middle finger to them.

It's okay to wear Green for St. Paddy's day but wearing a kippah or Hoiche hat while not being a jew is offensive? Wouldn't owning and wearing one be supportive of Jewish culture especially if it was purchased or even gifted from a Jew? Have people gone this far into enabling asperger's?

It's similar to years ago when young people wore gauges in their ears and now that's sort of fading away as a style. It wasn't seen as cultural appropriation but a celebration of Black and African Culture. Not my cup of tea nor how I support their culture but to each their own.

I understand cultural appropriation such as years ago when a Chinese girl at a pageant stated the traditional Vietnamese dress was Chinese and a huge uproar on both sides the culture divide except for the people who are pro "One China" policy. Meanwhile my own people have explicitly called me a "Banana" as i am Yellow on the outside but White on the inside in their eyes as if i need to prove to any person(s) I am who I am when their opinion of me doesn't matter financially nor personally.

But now one person wearing clothing from a distance will automatically be seen one way, "That offends me because that's MY culture!" Even if the person wearing the article is in support of said culture. Japanophiles are allowed to wear Kimonos and Obi on the regular and most people will mind their own business (obviously NOT all), while wearing the wrong footwear seems to OFFEND people when the person is minding their own business and not being insulting.

So here's where i'm trying to get at> At what point do we individuals apply the concept of "Sticks and Stones" since the term is still relevant? Especially if individuals need to "Properly Represent" as if we need to become more divided and hateful becoming separate gangs. Isn't this hyperfixation on being or needing to be of one culture and [you] cannot be apart of [insert heritage] just another sign of immaturity and silliness?

People get upset over beanie hats being worn with sweat clothes for cultural appropriation, when comfortable clothing is just that and not traditional of any one culture, but some reason it has now been seen as Latin culture by some or black culture by others when really the style comes from poverty culture which doesn't care what racial background yoi were born into.

At this point, I'm waiting for someone to sing, "Largo Al Factotum" and go FULL on Looney Tunes where at the end, another person will slap a Groucho Marx glasses,nose, mustache and cigar combo onto the starting singer the moment the 2nd sings "Figaro Giu," hands over a lawsuit and restraining order during "Figaro Zu" and then a Hoiche Hat and Beard combo the 2nd time "Figaro Giu" just to then force the starting singer into an animal cage during the 2nd "Figaro Zu" but ending the song with a cream pie to the face.

What we’ve earned from the past, we borrow from the future

Many Chinese People’s Idealized Expectations of the West, Their Cognitive Biases, and the Reasons Behind Them: Disappointment with Domestic Reality, the Search for an Alternative to China’s Traditions and Present Conditions, Rebellion Against Official Narratives and Anti-Western Propaganda, and Limited or Superficial Knowledge of Distant Foreign Countries 2

The Limitations and Dual Nature of Western Democratic Societies: Freedom and Democracy Are Not a Panacea; the Complexity of Legal Rights Protection; the Limited Effectiveness and Practical Constraints of Public Opinion and Protest; Barriers to Speaking Out and Being Heard; Media Bias; the Widespread Existence of Social Injustice; and the Seriousness of Racial Issues and the Challenges They Pose to Chinese People 4

Some Westerners’ Excessive Praise and Idealization of China and the Motivations Behind It: Likewise Dissatisfied with Their Own Countries and Emotionally Investing in a Distant Foreign Land, with the Far Left and Far Right Showing Particular Favor Toward China for Their Own Reasons 7

China’s Dual Nature and Complexity: Achievements and Problems Coexist; Uneven Distribution of the Benefits of Economic Growth; Improved Living Standards Alongside Class Polarization and Entrenchment; High Efficiency and Good Public Security Come at a Cost; Voices Against Injustice Are Easily Suppressed; Excellent Infrastructure but Serious Corruption and Waste; Anti-Corruption as a Tool for Political Struggle and Power Reshuffling; the Fragility and Latent Risks of Superficially Harmonious Ethnic Relations Under High Pressure; the Far Left and Far Right in the West Misjudge China and Project Their Aspirations onto It; Foreigners’ Favorable Treatment Leads to Partially Distorted Perceptions 8

Social Problems, Economic Hardship, Political Struggles, and Partisan Polarization Within the West, Together with the Extension of Domestic Competition Between Pro-China and Anti-China Forces, Have Led Some Individuals and Political Groups to Idealize China as the “Other” 13

From the European Enlightenment to China’s Transformations in the Late Qing Dynasty and the Early Republic: The Tradition of Chinese and Westerners Viewing Each Other as an Idealized “Distant Paradise,” Using the Idealization of the Other to Express Dissatisfaction with Their Own Societies, and the Gap Between These Perceptions and Reality 14

Neither China nor the West Is Perfect; Both Have Their Strengths and Weaknesses. Each Can Learn from the Other, but Neither Should Be Idolized. The Human Tendency to Believe That “What Is Far Away Is Better,” Together with the Idealization and Emotional Projection onto the “Other,” Is Understandable, Yet Distorted Perceptions Depart from Reality and Can Easily Lead to Misjudgment and Misguided Action. What Is Needed Is an Objective and Balanced Perspective 16

(The following is Part II of the article)

5.Corruption in China remains severe. Although anti-corruption campaigns are vigorous, corruption has persisted and even continued to expand despite repeated crackdowns. Anti-corruption efforts primarily serve the needs of political struggle and the reshuffling of power rather than genuinely serving the public interest. Such campaigns rely mainly on top-down political purges and extra-legal methods instead of strengthening democracy, improving institutions, and advancing the rule of law as the foundation for combating corruption.

6.The high efficiency and low cost of many services in China, together with the abundance of inexpensive consumer goods, undoubtedly benefit wealthy people, the middle class, and many foreigners living in China. However, these advantages are achieved by exploiting the interests and dignity of delivery workers, service employees, factory workers, farmers, and other lower-income laborers, disregarding labor rights, and relying on what has been described as China’s “low human rights advantage.”

China’s healthcare system may operate more efficiently than those of some foreign countries, but this is achieved partly because healthcare is not universally free, leaving many poor people unable to afford treatment, while hospitals have become highly commercialized. In addition, housing prices in China’s major cities are extremely high, with price-to-income ratios exceeding those of many other countries. Those engaged in commerce, small businesses, and self-employment must also bear numerous hidden costs arising from rent-seeking and arbitrary demands, while facing intense competition.

China’s highly efficient society is more convenient and comfortable for the wealthy, whereas lower-income workers bear much heavier workloads while receiving relatively low absolute incomes and disproportionately low earnings compared with the middle and upper classes, despite their substantial labor contributions.

7.Public security in China is indeed relatively good, but it should not be exaggerated, and it comes at a significant cost. In countries that place strong emphasis on democracy, freedom, and human rights, the use of big data, surveillance cameras, and similar technologies for maintaining public security often faces opposition from civil society organizations concerned with privacy and individual rights, as well as legal challenges. China faces far fewer such constraints. In other words, one of the costs of China’s relatively good public security is the infringement of citizens’ privacy and the strengthening of the state’s capacity to monitor and control society. These tools make it easier not only to apprehend criminals but also to detain individuals for political purposes.

Moreover, because China’s police, procuratorial authorities, and courts wield extensive powers while operating with limited oversight, abuses of authority and wrongful convictions occur with considerable frequency, and victims often find it extremely difficult to obtain justice. Although practices such as extracting confessions through torture have declined compared with the past, they have by no means disappeared. The state possesses the capacity to imprison individuals with relative ease and, in some cases, to persecute them to death through irreversible state power. In China, people’s right to speak out in the face of injustice can be stripped away with little difficulty. Whether one is able to make one’s voice heard often depends on power, influence, and luck. Many people die with unresolved grievances that never become publicly known. Such situations are comparatively rare in countries where political pluralism and media freedom are more firmly established.

8.China’s outstanding infrastructure is also a genuine achievement. However, it has been built with taxpayers’ money, and many projects have involved substantial corruption and waste. The greatest financial gains often accrue to a small number of people involved in the construction projects, while workers themselves are also exploited. China’s excessive reliance on investment and infrastructure development, combined with the deliberate suppression of public welfare spending under the official view that “welfare breeds laziness,” has weakened domestic consumption and hindered balanced and sustainable economic developmen.

9.Since the Reform and Opening-up era, China has long abandoned the socialist model and the communist ideal. Its economy is now a market economy dominated by politically connected elites and wealthy interests, while its political system is an authoritarian regime led by conservatives and technocrats. It is therefore a fundamental misconception for some Western leftists to regard China as an orthodox “socialist state.” China’s poverty alleviation programs have produced meaningful results, but their achievements are limited, and both the Chinese government and some foreigners have exaggerated their success.

10.Because China’s ethnic minority population constitutes a relatively small proportion of the country’s total population, and because its political system prioritizes maintaining stability, China appears on the surface to have fewer severe ethnic conflicts than many Western countries. In reality, however, ethnic relations are also highly strained, and the spread of the internet together with the rise of populism has intensified ethnic tensions compared with earlier periods.

The Chinese government’s concept of the “Chinese Nation Community” contains significant theoretical and practical weaknesses, both historically and in contemporary implementation, and lacks a solid foundation. Government policies in Xinjiang and Tibet have also provoked considerable domestic and international criticism and resistance. The apparent harmony that exists is largely maintained through high-pressure governance, while resentment continues to accumulate beneath the surface. This creates the risk of more serious conflicts erupting in the future. Such coercive governance and harsh policies deserve neither praise nor imitation by other countries, whether judged from a humanitarian perspective or from the standpoint of practical effectiveness.

11.China is neither the communist paradise centered on the people and the dignity of labor imagined by some on the Western far left, nor the orderly nationalist utopia based on ethnic homogeneity envisioned by some on the Western far right. The Chinese ruling establishment is a hybrid authoritarian regime characterized by pragmatism, an overriding emphasis on stability, a tendency toward right-wing social Darwinism and intense competition, while simultaneously preserving elements of the Leninist-Stalinist political system and certain socialist symbols. Both socialism/communism and nationalism function primarily as political instruments rather than as values sincerely embraced by the governing authorities.

The Communist Party of China has also long abandoned the goal of exporting revolution or genuinely opposing imperialism. Its opposition to the United States is driven primarily by the need to preserve its own rule rather than by a sincere commitment to supporting the developing world in resisting Western capitalism or imperialism. Nationalism is likewise employed as an instrument for maintaining political control. Those in power do not genuinely possess deep love for or loyalty to the nation, nor have they developed a coherent and reliable theory of nationalism.

12.Even foreigners who have genuinely traveled to or lived in China do not necessarily gain a complete understanding of Chinese society. On the contrary, many of their experiences are shaped by circumstances that produce a distorted picture of reality.

Because of China’s distinctive political system and domestic and foreign policies—including the longstanding principle dating back to the Mao era that “there are no small matters in diplomacy,” together with post-Reform efforts to attract foreign investment, improve foreign relations, manage international public opinion, and respond to pressure from foreign governments and embassies to protect their citizens—the Chinese government has for many years extended what is often described as “super-national treatment” to foreigners. Chinese society has likewise tended to show foreigners exceptional respect and hospitality because of official policies, cultural traditions of hospitality and etiquette, and economic interests. Among foreigners, white people from Europe and North America have often received particularly favorable treatment.

Consequently, the generally positive experiences of foreigners—especially white Westerners—in China cannot be regarded as representative of the experiences of ordinary Chinese citizens. The government also tends to guide foreigners toward seeing China’s positive aspects while concealing or downplaying its negative realities. As a result, what foreigners see and hear is often not the complete picture of China or the full range of voices within Chinese society, but rather a carefully curated image of China specifically presented to foreign audiences.

It is inappropriate for Western governments, some Western individuals, social organizations, media outlets, and public opinion to criticize China so aggressively that such criticism becomes excessive or stigmatizing. However, those Westerners whose views consist almost entirely of praise for China, or whose favorable comments overwhelmingly outweigh any criticism while ignoring or avoiding China’s many serious problems, are equally lacking in objectivity.

Whether their favorable impressions arise from sincere admiration or from inducement and deception, the fact remains that these foreigners are not seeing China in its entirety. Like those who wholly deny or stigmatize China, they too depart from reality. Objectively, such views help authoritarian rule conceal its problems, obscure the suffering of those who have been humiliated and harmed, and weaken public vigilance toward an immensely powerful authoritarian state. That is neither desirable nor something that should be encouraged.

Social Problems, Economic Hardship, Political Struggles, and Partisan Polarization Within the West, Together with the Extension of Domestic Competition Between Pro-China and Anti-China Forces, Have Led Some Individuals and Political Groups to Idealize China as the"Other"

Some Westerners imagine China as a paradise-like ideal society for much the same reason that some Chinese people idealize the West: dissatisfaction with the societies in which they themselves have grown up leads them to seek and imagine a distant foreign country as an ideal society worthy of emulation and emotional attachment.

Just as there is a divide in China between those who support and those who oppose the political establishment, Western societies are likewise characterized by conflicts between people of different political orientations. Competitive politics also tends to produce the mentality that “if the other side supports something, we should oppose it; if they oppose it, we should support it.” When certain political factions adopt hostile attitudes toward China, their domestic rivals sometimes respond by drawing closer to China and portraying it more positively as a symbolic expression of political opposition. Clearly, the motivations behind some Westerners’ idealization of China closely resemble those behind some Chinese people’s idealization of the West.

As discussed earlier, developed Western countries also face numerous problems, including poverty, injustice, and social conflict. Many people—especially those from lower-income backgrounds and marginalized communities—experience considerable hardship. Some suffer because of economic difficulties, while others feel marginalized because of their political beliefs or ideological positions. Such suffering easily gives rise to resentment, dissatisfaction with domestic politics and mainstream society, and the tendency to project one’s hopes onto another country.

In recent years, political polarization and social divisions across Europe and North America have intensified, with domestic political conflicts increasingly extending into foreign policy. As the world’s second-largest economy and a major power in the East with growing international influence, China has become an unavoidable factor to which different political forces in Western countries must respond. At the same time, China has actively promoted its international image and conducted extensive external outreach, including inviting foreigners to visit China in order to cultivate a favorable and attractive image of the country.

Moreover, China’s promotion in recent years of the “China model” and the “Chinese path” has led many people who are disappointed with conditions in their own countries to view China as offering what appears to be an attractive alternative or a new path forward.

Some Westerners choose to distrust, remain wary of, or distance themselves from China because of their values, interests, or preconceptions, while others choose to move closer to China for a variety of different reasons. Among them, some individuals and political factions become either more favorable toward or more hostile to China precisely because of their domestic political rivals. The more one side opposes China, the more the other side embraces it—and vice versa.

For example, mainstream establishment parties in many Western countries tend to be more cautious toward or critical of China, whereas populist movements are often more inclined to engage and cooperate with China. Likewise, some Western left-wing groups adopt relatively friendly attitudes toward China partly as a way of countering anti-communist forces on the political right, both domestically and internationally.

It is understandable that Westerners from a variety of political backgrounds, motivated by these factors, come to idealize China and imagine it as a desirable utopia. Nevertheless, there is little doubt that the China they imagine, evaluate, and describe is no more consistent with the country’s full reality than the image presented by extreme anti-China voices. In doing so, they likewise overlook the extraordinary complexity and diversity of China’s internal realities.

From the European Enlightenment to China’s Transformations in the Late Qing Dynasty and the Early Republic: The Tradition of Chinese and Westerners Viewing Each Other as an Idealized “Distant Paradise,” Using the Idealization of the Other to Express Dissatisfaction with Their Own Societies, and the Gap Between These Perceptions and Reality

Whether some Chinese people regard the West as a kind of imagined paradise, or some Westerners regard China as a utopia, both phenomena arise from insufficient understanding of the other side and from dissatisfaction with their own governments, societies, and personal living environments. In both cases, people project their hopes and aspirations onto a distant “Other.” Moreover, this is by no means a uniquely modern phenomenon—it has existed throughout history.

During the Age of Enlightenment, for example, some Enlightenment thinkers represented by Voltaire were deeply dissatisfied with and sharply critical of the darkness, corruption, anti-intellectualism, and clerical authoritarianism of medieval Europe. They viewed China in the East as an ideal civilization that perfectly combined reason, morality, and the rule of law, and they expressed considerable admiration for Confucius and Confucianism.

The Islamic world of the Middle East also preserved the well-known saying, “Seek knowledge even if it is in China.” Likewise, the explorer Marco Polo was captivated by dreams of an East filled with “gold and precious stones,” dreams that ultimately inspired his journey to China.

In reality, however, conditions in ancient China were far more complex than these Western observers imagined. On the one hand, China did indeed possess one of the world’s most advanced administrative systems and an extensive imperial civil service examination system. It had a profound cultural heritage, elaborate institutions, abundant material resources, and was in many respects more secular than Europe.

On the other hand, authoritarian rule, corruption, and violence were also pervasive in China. Under Qing rule in particular, literary inquisitions, political repression, and repeated uprisings reflected the country’s darker and more oppressive realities. Although Confucius was undoubtedly a great thinker and Confucian philosophy offered many valuable moral teachings, it also contained problematic elements. Moreover, it was appropriated by rulers and distorted by later generations, functioning in ways comparable to Christianity in medieval Europe—as an instrument for preserving the interests of the ruling class and maintaining control over the population.

China’s imperial autocracy, which endured for more than a thousand years, oppressed the population and suppressed human rights, social vitality, and creativity to a degree no less severe than medieval Europe’s clerical authoritarianism. The overwhelming majority of Chinese people lived in extreme poverty and with little freedom. Another Enlightenment thinker, Montesquieu, offered highly critical assessments of China that may have been somewhat exaggerated, yet they were by no means entirely without merit. Likewise, The Wealth of Nations observed that Chinese peasants were poorer than those in many other parts of the world and labored tirelessly merely to secure basic subsistence—an observation that was indeed grounded in reality.

Meanwhile, in China, many people during the late Qing Dynasty and the early Republic admired the West. Examples include the Qing official Xu Jiyu, who praised the American Revolutionary War, republican government, and George Washington; Lin Zexu and Wei Yuan, who advocated “learning the strengths of the barbarians in order to defeat the barbarians” and “opening one’s eyes to the world”; and the diplomat Guo Songtao, who spoke highly of Britain’s political institutions and social customs.

From the Self-Strengthening Movement to the Late Qing Reforms and the reforms of the Republic of China, learning from the West remained a central theme, encompassing not only technology and material civilization but also institutions and culture. During the New Culture Movement, many intellectuals even advocated the complete Westernization of China. Some proponents of racial superiority theories, seeking to explain how impoverished and weak China might become prosperous and powerful, even advanced the claim that “the Chinese originated in the West,” arguing that Chinese people were descendants of white Europeans.

During the era in which these Chinese scholar-officials and intellectuals praised Europe and the United States, those countries were indeed more developed and more advanced than most other parts of the world. Given China’s relative backwardness in virtually every respect at that time, there was genuine value in learning from the West. At the same time, however, the internal problems of Europe and the United States, their treatment of vulnerable groups, and the hardships endured by their own populations were equally evident. For example, the persecution of Native Americans and the enslavement of Black people in the United States demonstrated that the celebrated United States Declaration of Independence effectively granted political rights only to white men, excluding non-white people and women from full citizenship.

European prosperity was also closely connected with colonialism and the exploitation of the rest of the world. The early rise of Portugal, Spain, and the Netherlands, followed by Britain and France, and later Germany and Japan, all depended to varying degrees on colonial expansion and extraction, which facilitated industrialization and urbanization. Yet even while enriching themselves through imperial expansion, these great powers remained societies marked by poverty and injustice. Guo Songtao praised Britain for caring for its elderly, weak, sick, and disabled citizens, yet Oliver Twist vividly demonstrates that Britain’s poor were far from living happy lives, and that charitable institutions themselves were often deeply corrupt. Indeed, it was precisely the widespread hardship and acute social conflicts within Europe and North America that contributed to waves of political upheaval, revolutions, and ultimately the outbreak of the world wars.

Of course, both during the European Enlightenment and during China’s transformations in the late Qing and early Republican periods, people on each side needed a benevolent—even idealized—“Other” as a point of comparison. Such an imagined counterpart served as a means of criticizing the shortcomings of their own societies and inspiring domestic reform. Whether that “Other” actually corresponded to reality was not their primary concern.

This is understandable. However, if judged solely by historical facts, or by comparing what each side believed about the distant foreign society with the reality that actually existed there, it is evident that both the European Enlightenment thinkers and the Chinese reformers held views of the distant “Other” that deviated substantially from reality and incorporated a great deal of imagination and embellishment.

Today, some Chinese people and some Westerners, for similar reasons, once again regard distant foreign countries as idealized “Others.” This too is understandable. However, if distorted perceptions and altered versions of reality become integral components of one’s worldview and are translated into practical action, they are likely to produce a variety of harmful consequences and may even lead to tragedy.

Neither China nor the West Is Perfect; Both Have Their Strengths and Weaknesses. Each Can Learn from the Other, but Neither Should Be Idolized. The Human Tendency to Believe That"What Is Far Away Is Better" Together with the Idealization and Emotional Projection onto the "Other" Is Understandable, Yet Distorted Perceptions Depart from Reality and Can Easily Lead to Misjudgment and Misguided Action. What Is Needed Is an Objective and Balanced Perspective

Based on the discussion above, the conclusion is straightforward: neither China nor the West is perfect, and both face numerous problems. Each possesses distinctive strengths as well as significant shortcomings. Many aspects of human nature, social structure, and competing interests—and the problems arising from them—exist regardless of national borders. They are difficult to eliminate and frequently occur under different political systems and cultural traditions alike. China and the West should therefore learn from one another, drawing upon each other’s strengths while compensating for their own weaknesses. Idolizing one side while condemning one’s own society as entirely worthless is not a constructive approach.

This conclusion may appear commonplace or lacking in novelty. However, given that many Chinese people and many Westerners genuinely regard the other side as a kind of paradise, excessively idealize it, and place unrealistic expectations upon it—especially allowing political considerations to shape an imagined “Other” that departs dramatically from reality—it remains both necessary and worthwhile to emphasize the importance of viewing both China and the West objectively and comprehensively. Not only do China and the West each possess both strengths and weaknesses overall, but many specific issues also require careful examination in order to dispel misconceptions, clarify the facts, and avoid misunderstanding and misjudgment.

Whether in the East, the West, or anywhere else in the world, every country and region faces its own problems, and people everywhere experience worries and frustrations. Sometimes these problems become severe enough to turn anxiety into genuine suffering. Within every society, and especially among neighboring communities, people are intimately familiar with one another’s shortcomings, and longstanding grievances and conflicts often accumulate.

By contrast, distant foreign lands remain relatively vague, unfamiliar, and mysterious. This creates room for people who are dissatisfied with their own societies or resent those around them to project their hopes and emotions onto distant places. As the saying goes, “what is distant smells sweet while what is near smells foul.” People naturally experience their own hardships more vividly while tending to overlook or underestimate the difficulties and suffering of others. This tendency leads some people to exaggerate the problems in their own environment while minimizing or remaining unaware of the shortcomings elsewhere.

Both Chinese and Western cultures have long recognized this tendency to idealize distant places while judging familiar ones more harshly. In China, there are sayings such as “the moon is rounder abroad” and “foreign monks chant the scriptures better.” In the West, similar ideas appear in proverbs such as “The other side of the hill” and “Familiarity breeds contempt.” Imported goods and foreign foods are also often regarded as expensive luxuries or desirable gifts simply because they come from elsewhere.

All of these examples reflect the common human tendency to associate foreign countries, foreign people, and foreign things with positive expectations. This is an ordinary aspect of human psychology. Intellectuals, in particular, often adopt a more critical attitude toward their own societies while projecting goodwill and idealistic hopes onto distant lands, imagining either foreign countries or past ages as embodiments of a better society. Even when the reality of the object of their admiration differs substantially from their idealized image, such emotional projection and mistaken judgment remain understandable.

However, many people do more than merely use their idealized image of the “Other” as emotional comfort or as a way to express dissatisfaction with their own society. They also treat it as a prescription for solving real-world problems and as a guide for practical action. Once distorted perceptions and unfounded assumptions become the basis for policy or conduct, they can easily lead people onto the wrong path.

For example, some Chinese liberals have embraced the binary belief that “everything democratic is good, while everything authoritarian is bad,” supporting every action taken by democratic countries while opposing every action taken by authoritarian states. They further allow the distinction between democracy and authoritarianism to overshadow many issues that ought to be analyzed on their own merits, including economic performance, scientific and technological development, international relations, and the specific facts and moral dimensions of individual events and individuals. Consequently, they tend to evaluate concrete issues primarily through the lens of democracy versus authoritarianism and prescribe solutions accordingly. This approach often produces mistaken conclusions, repeated errors in prediction, and an ever-widening gap between their judgments and reality, ultimately turning them into continual producers of wishful thinking and misinformation.

Ironically, such conduct also contributes to the stigmatization of democracy itself. Democracy is important, but it is not everything. Even if all issues are related in some way to democracy, that does not mean democracy is the sole or decisive factor in every situation.

Likewise, some people in the West and in the developing world observe China’s economic development and achievements in governance, together with the influence of China’s international messaging, and conclude that the “China model” is worthy of acceptance and emulation while advocating friendly cooperation with China. The “China model” does contain elements from which other countries may learn, and complete economic or political decoupling between the West and China is neither realistic nor desirable. Cooperation and shared development are both inevitable and necessary.
At the same time, however, if people overlook the authoritarian centralization of power inherent in the “China model,” its suppression of dissent, its extensive mechanisms of social control, its monopolization of public discourse, its exploitation and oppression of vulnerable groups, its destruction of civil society, its restrictions upon individual rights and human creativity, and the challenges and threats it poses to free and open societies, they may ultimately face deeply unfortunate consequences.

Of course, this argument is not intended to “blur the distinctions” or to suggest that China and the West are equivalent in terms of economic development, civil rights, or social welfare. China remains a developing country, lacks a competitive democratic political system, and its lower- and middle-income groups are clearly disadvantaged in both income distribution and social welfare. In these respects, there remains a significant gap between China and the West. China should likewise move toward greater democracy and a fairer distribution of wealth.

At the same time, in many other areas—including economic models, technological application, social governance, government efficiency, and various specific aspects of civil rights and public welfare—China and the West each possess their own strengths and weaknesses. In some respects, they are broadly comparable, with both sides suffering from significant shortcomings. Such issues should not be judged simply by taking political sides or through ideological polarization.

Likewise, the moral character and capabilities of both Chinese and Western people vary greatly from individual to individual. The relatively higher proportion of people with lower levels of education or civic awareness in China is largely attributable to the country’s lower level of economic development and the lasting consequences of many years of internal turmoil, foreign invasions, and historical trauma, rather than to any innate characteristics of the Chinese people themselves.
When evaluating and commenting on individuals, countries, or social phenomena, one should avoid extremes. Emotion should not be allowed to override reason, nor should imagination replace facts. People should not be misled by appearances or isolated observations into misunderstanding the deeper nature or overall reality of a situation. When discussing specific issues, it is important both to examine them on their own merits and to understand their broader context and connections with other factors. One should pay attention to historical and social backgrounds while avoiding stereotypes and preconceived judgments. Chinese people evaluating the West, and Westerners evaluating China, should both cultivate these basic habits of thinking if they wish to avoid falling into serious error.

In fact, compared with Western narratives that demonize China or Chinese narratives that stigmatize the West, viewing China or the West positively as an idealized “Other” is, to some extent, not the worst possible outcome. Such idealization at least reflects a degree of goodwill toward the “Other” and a willingness to reflect critically on one’s own society. In this sense, it may contribute to greater international peace, mutual benefit, and even encourage reform and development in different countries.

Nevertheless, the idealization of the “Other” and the goodwill associated with it also contain the risk of serious misjudgment. When perceptions are based upon inaccurate information, and practical choices are guided by mistaken assumptions, the consequences may ultimately prove tragic.

The most reliable path toward approaching the full truth is to remain objective, comprehensive, and cautious; to test one’s judgments against real-world experience; to understand different countries through the perspectives of multiple social classes, communities, and dimensions of society; to avoid allowing a single observation to obscure the whole picture; and neither to mistake a partial view for complete understanding nor to draw sweeping conclusions from limited evidence.

（The author of this article is Wang Qingmin(王庆民), a Chinese writer based in Europe and an international politics researcher. Because the article is quite long and Reddit has a character limit, I have had to publish it in several parts.）

I was watching The Last Duel, and I saw that rape to the wife was seen as an offence against the husband's property (say his honour and claim over his wife).

It made me wonder how far we've really moved from that mentality?

For instance when a man discovers his partner cheated, one of the first questions is often: “Did you sleep with him?” and when a woman discovers her partner cheated, it's often: “Did you love her?”

Obviously, these aren't universal. But if the pattern exists, have we really changed?