Recently, when US Vice President Vance was interviewed by the media and talked about the Trump administration's trade policy towards China, he claimed that America borrows money from "Chinese peasants" to buy things made by "Chinese peasants". This rude and ignorant remark quickly triggered widespread criticism.
Vance interviewed on Fox News
In the evening of the 16th, the Hong Kong media "Hong Kong 01" published an editorial titled "Who are the Villagers?" to refute it. The article pointed out that Vance deliberately reinforced this stereotype by labeling China as "backward" and "taking advantage of American labor." Not only does this amplify the humiliation and crisis feelings of the American public, creating a justification for Trump's tariff policies, but it also stirs up populism through opposition narratives. The editorial asked: In today's international trade pattern, who is more like the "countryside" traditionally exporting agricultural products, and who is dependent on the advanced goods and funds of the other side?
Furthermore, the editorial pointed out that Vance's remarks represent the deep-rooted arrogance and prejudice in the United States. For a long time, American elites have considered themselves the "chosen people of God," unwilling to understand civilizations with long histories and distinct cultural roots, let alone respect them. The article wrote: "If they habitually discriminate and oppress others within their own country, how surprising would their disdain for non-Western and non-white peoples be?"
In addition, the editorial criticized that the limited critique and reflection on colonialism by Hong Kong, which has been accustomed to "making money" under British colonial rule, is no different from Vance's contempt for "villagers." "Hong Kong 01" believes that before becoming a "mediator," Hong Kong should have its own ideology and cultural foundation. On one hand, it needs to deeply understand the development model of the country; on the other hand, it should critically view the complexity of Western civilization. Only then can it find its position in the turbulent global landscape.
The full text is as follows:
"Let those 'villagers' in America wail before the five-thousand-year-old Chinese civilization!" This sharp remark by Xia Baolong, Director of the Office for Safeguarding National Security of the Central People's Government, at the opening ceremony of the National Security Education Day is no secret—it is clearly a satire aimed at US Vice President Vance. Even outside the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, this is the sharpest rebuttal from the central government so far against Vance. Recently, during an interview, he used derogatory language to claim that "we borrow money from Chinese 'peasants' (peasants) to buy goods produced by those Chinese 'peasants'," not only labeling "country folk" negatively but also lacking factual basis.
In reality, it is the opposite. China imports soybeans, meat, and other agricultural products from the United States, while the U.S. buys Apple phones, personal computers, and rare earth elements, among other high-value-added industrial products and critical raw materials, from China. This is why the Trump administration, despite launching a tariff war against China, had to exempt smartphones, computers, and some electronic devices. Americans not only depend on China for life science products but also rely on China to purchase U.S. Treasury bonds, effectively continuing to lend money to the federal government. This is why the ten-year Treasury yield once exceeded 4.5%, prompting both Mnuchin and Yellen, two Treasury Secretaries, to respond to whether China is selling off Treasury bonds. There is no need to elaborate further on who resembles the traditional "countryside" exporting agricultural products or who depends on the advanced goods and funds of the other side.
Cover of "Hillbilly Elegy" (Revised Edition)
Arrogance and Prejudice Look at "Others"
Not just Vance and Trump, many American elites have long considered themselves the "chosen people of God," accustomed to measuring the world from their own strength—especially military, technology, and finance. They take pride in America’s short history of just over two centuries and do not intend to understand civilizations with long histories and distinct cultural roots, let alone respect them. If they habitually discriminate and oppress others within their own country, how surprising would their disdain for non-Western and non-white peoples be?
Out of self-justification through "manifest destiny" and other narratives, America's short two-hundred-year history is filled with land grabs, cultural cleansing, and violent oppression of indigenous peoples. Minnesota today was once home to the persecuted Dakota nation, who were forced to abandon their lands and brutally punished by the government after resisting. African Americans need not be mentioned; from slavery, theories of racial superiority, to Jim Crow laws, the derogatory term "nigger" once hung on the lips of countless white Americans. Although the civil rights movement changed society, why did George Floyd still die in 2020 due to a knee-to-neck restraint by a white police officer? The "Black Lives Matter" movement resonated widely, revealing that racial discrimination remains severe in present-day American society.
If we think that only black people are discriminated against in America, we cannot understand the controversy surrounding "Oscars So White." In Hollywood, which most prominently displays American cultural soft power, the abilities and contributions of non-white actors have long been overlooked. It took until 2023 for the first Asian-American actress to win an Oscar. Malaysian-Chinese actress Michelle Yeoh openly stated that winning the award broke Hollywood's long-standing stereotypes about Asians, directly exposing the invisible ceiling and discrimination faced by Asians.
Over the past few centuries, this arrogance and prejudice spread globally through the West's hard power expansion into the international order and globalization. International law, seemingly objective and neutral, is deeply influenced by Eurocentrism and, in fact, promoted by imperialist expansion. Political entities outside Europe were once deprived of equal international status due to excuses such as being "uncivilized" and "lacking governance capabilities." Colonial interventions, unequal treaties, and even direct conquests thus gained a "legal" veneer.
In the process of economic globalization, Western powers were in a dominant position as the "core," exploiting colonies and developing countries seen as the "periphery." Ironically, what Westerners call advanced, free, and civilized was originally built on monopolizing and exploiting non-Western worlds; the so-called backwardness and primitiveness of non-Western regions actually contributed to the prosperity and strength of Western powers. If Vance and his supporters really believe that Chinese farmers threaten American livelihoods, why haven't they considered how Sino-U.S. trade over the past few decades has supported American economic and social development? It is not any country that is backward, but the binary thinking that views the West and non-West as core and periphery, which leads to questions like "who are the villagers."
How do Hong Kong residents see "villagers"?
Hong Kong residents should not be Vance's audience, and there is no reason to take issue with Trump supporters. However, the prejudice that China is backward and primitive may not be much different. Accustomed to "making money" under British colonial rule, accustomed to borrowed places and borrowed times, accustomed to "post-1997" (editor's note: referring to the period after Hong Kong's return to China in 1997) "resistance politics," Hong Kong's critique and reflection on colonialism are clearly limited, and its contempt for "villagers" is equally alarming. To some extent, the grand narrative of "cultural exchange between East and West" may have diluted the inequality and exploitation under colonial rule.
Hong Kong has become an international metropolis due to its unique historical circumstances, serving as a gateway for the West into China and a bridge connecting the country to the world. We have benefited greatly from capital flows and trade exchanges between China and the West in the past. However, the outdated system characterized by inequality and institutional bias now seems precarious. Emerging economies represented by China are rising, and the economic scale of the BRICS countries has reached parity with the G7 since Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran, and the UAE joined. In this unprecedented great change in a century, the old core-periphery relationship is being challenged. Trump's representation of American hegemony attempts to stem the tide, and the tariff war is merely the beginning of intense turbulence in international politics and economics. Nobles and clergy clinging to the old system have been mercilessly eliminated by the tide of history, so Hong Kong's former glory in the last century is not something we can assume can be replicated.
In the past, Hong Kong played the role of a "super connector," perhaps simply acting as an intermediary to convey information and broker deals. But in the new pattern, if we lack critical understanding of imperialism and capitalist exploitation, and fail to grasp the historical depth and modern development model of Chinese civilization, what can we connect? Before becoming a "mediator," Hong Kong must have its own ideological and cultural foundation. On one hand, it needs to deeply understand the country's development model; on the other hand, it should critically view the complexity of Western civilization. Only then can it find its position in the turbulent global landscape. Thinking that Hong Kong as a free port can profit from the tariff war is surely overly simplistic. Hong Kong not only needs to play the role of an economic exchange channel but also has the potential to become a communication bridge for civilizational dialogue and understanding. With Chinese society and Western influence, which city is better suited than Hong Kong, this "prodigal son," to possess a transcivilizational perspective?
This article is an exclusive contribution from Observer Network and cannot be reprinted without permission.
Original source: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7494211882182640128/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author. You are welcome to express your opinion by clicking the "thumbs up/thumbs down" buttons below.