Game of Thrones: Fiction or Reality?

Since the new season of Game of Thrones is coming out on Sunday, I thought this would make an opportune time to organize and present my reflections of the series. No doubt there are thousands of interpretations of the “true meaning” of Game of Thrones, and I do not claim to know with certainty what George R. R. Martin originally intended. Nonetheless I have a few interesting ideas that I would like to share, and welcome the skepticism that anyone expresses towards them.

In my opinion, the world of Westeros is merely a Middle Ages version of the current world order. Think of it this way. Westeros had only recently risen from a terrible age under the tyranny of Aerys Targaryen. I would submit that this represents the Cold War order where the entire world population lived under the threat of MAD (mutually assured destruction) as opposed to the Mad King. Following the death of Targaryen, a brief age of peace and prosperity arises under the leadership of Robert Beratheon, which I believe represents the American hegemonic world order of the 1990s and early 2000s. However, following the death/murder of Beratheon, there comes a violent struggle for power, which we are observing in the series now. I believe this represents the shift from a more stable American unipolar world towards a multipolar world where numerous countries have a similar amount of power, thereby creating environment ripe for a power struggle.  This is very similar to the period before World War 1 when British power began to decline while Germany and the US began to rival Britain as military/industrial powers.  Thus we have our current world order. Now where do the characters stand?

Kings Landing obviously represents the financial and political power centers of the western world, namely New York and Washington DC. In our 21^st century world, the iron throne is capital, financial power, GDP, and technological and military superiority. America and the EU still have the advantage over the rest of the world in this regard, but the future is not so certain.

The same is true for the Lannisters and Tyrells in Kings Landing. While these two houses have a strong hold on the iron throne, any viewer of the series knows there are several threats to their power, the most obvious being the arrogance of King Joffrey. Joffrey represents nationalism, pride, and the national myth that any one nation or empire is permanent. His leadership contains a unique blend of the stupidity and audacity of the Tea Party and the cruelty and pride of neoconservatives. The rest of the Lannisters are more intelligent and competent in wielding power. While Joffrey represents the extremism of the Tea Party, his grandfather Tywin represents John Bohner. He approaches political power far more conservatively, and prefers a patient and incremental approach to change as opposed to Joffrey who wants to take more drastic measures. Tyrian represents an even more moderate part of the Republican Party since he constantly questions his family’s actions yet remains loyal to them when it counts. I believe this is called a RINO (Republican In Name Only) is contemporary society.

The Tyrells represent the Democratic Party. While they also obtain their power through wealth like the Lannisters, they have a more sympathetic view of the poor, and see a positive public image as an egalitarian leader and champion of the poor as the key to power. I see Margaery Tyrell as a Hillary Clinton figure. She appears popular and sympathetic to the public, but is pragmatic and cold on the inside. Nonetheless, despite their differences, the Lannisters and Tyrells (Republicans and Democrats) are part of the same system of wealth and corruption and in most cases are indistinguishable from each other.  

Then there is the rest of Westeros, the most notable being the Stark family. The Stark family represents the political elements that were once powerful in the 20^th century but have fallen short in the 21^st century Gilded Age, labor unions. Once the champions of the worker and the average man, the power of labor unions has diminished in the post Citizens United era. The problem with both the Starks and labor unions is that they refused to adapt to changing political climates. In a world where cheap labor can easily be found overseas, labor unions are more harm to workers in America than help. The same goes for Ned Stark’s obsession with honesty and honor, which leads to his public execution. Like labor unions, the Starks had a brief period of Occupy Wallstreet in the north but were easily crushed due to their inability to lead and manage an army.

However there are two Starks that seem to be competent. Aria and Brandt are the only two Starks whose stories I quite enjoyed. They may not be apart of some large army, but they do play an important part of the story and they seem to know things that others don’t, particularly Brandt who can break into the minds of animals and see the future. These characters also thrive on being independent and antiestablishment. That’s why I see them as pro internet freedom groups like Anonymous, Wikileaks, and the various Pirate Parties trolling European democracies. In the end, these two Starks may prove far more capable of avenging their father than Rob ever could.

Then there are the brothers without banners who are manipulated by a monotheistic cult dedicated to the Lord of Light.  In my opinion this cult is a reference to an Abrahamic religion, and one with a particular violent following that supports murder and terrorism as a means to achieving political objectives. I need go no further in this comparison and will allow you to draw your own conclusions on which of the Abrahamic religions fit this perspective.

Finally we get to the big threats to the system. Daenerys Targaryen is the most fascinating character to look at from a political perspective. She is charismatic, pragmatic, and most importantly populist. Daenerys arguably has the most loyal army in the entire series since she freed them all from slavery. She has the hordes of the masses of Easteros at her back as she slowly makes her way to Kings Landing, not to mention she has dragons. Daenerys and her army represent the greatest challenge to the Washington Consensus, the developing world. I see the people of Easteros as the impoverished people of the former third world who have become frustrated by the inequality in the distribution of the benefits of free trade between the global north and south. This is reflected in mass protests such as the Arab Spring. Global income inequality is one of the greatest threats to global stability, just as Daenerys’s armies are to Westeros.  Daenerys’s dragons represent the other foreign threat to the power of the west, the rise of China as an economic power. It’s no secret that China’s economy will over take the size of the US economy in the coming years. It doesn’t mean that China will become the new unipolar power, but there is a general fear in the US that this may come to pass. China’s economic power and the demands for a more equitable international system by the peoples of the developing world demonstrate a shift in the world order that could possibly overthrow the Washington Consensus. Daenerys represents a shift in her world order. Her image harkens back to the great 20^th century dictators such as Castro, Lenin, Ho Chi Minh, and Mao who rose to power by the support of the masses and ruled over them with an iron fist and a unified struggle towards so called “equality” and “freedom.”

In addition to the human threats to the American world order, there are also natural ones. I think the most obvious comparison that can be made between the 21^st century and Westeros is the winter that is hurdling towards both. The one thing that everyone can agree to fear in Westeros is the arrival of zombified White Walkers from beyond the wall. I see this prolonged winter as the threat of Climate Change. The only thing that separates Westeros from utter chaos is The Wall.  I believe that The Wall is an allegory for humanity’s infrastructure: Roads, bridges, tunnels, temperature control, airports internet, satellite cable, hand held devices and any other modern convenience we have in the 21^st century. These things keep us safe from the harsh elements of mother nature (in most cases). The other side of  The Wall represents primitive human life that lived at the mercy of mother nature, and Westeros’s fear of that represents 21^st century civilization’s fear of once again descending into primitive society due to an apocalyptic scenario. Climate Change of course provides many possible apocalyptic scenarios that threaten major urban centers and the integrity of our infrastructure such as rising sea levels, fires, extinction of insects, tornados, tropical weather, and flooding near rivers and lakes. These possible disasters are represented in the coming of winter in Westeros. Such a winter has the potential to change everything in the story line, just as the environmental impacts of climate change have the potential to produce instability world wide in the 21^st century.

Therefore, perhaps Kings Landing is not so different from Washington DC. As politicians bicker about nonsense, the hordes of Easteros and the winter of the north get closer and closer to destroying the entire order of the kingdom. Either the kingdom will rise above the pettiness of nationalist pride, or a new order will bloom out of the ruins of the old. 

Star Wars: Western Bias and Orientalism

Before I begin I’d like to make clear that I’m not accusing George Lucas or Star Wars in general of being racist. In fact, I’m a huge Star Wars fan and I would not have been able to make the following observations if I wasn’t one. However, it is important to point out that Star Wars is not immune from reflecting the biases of the audience it was made for, which is primarily western. All films do this, and it is fascinating, if not important, to reveal these hidden messages about society and civilization. Star Wars happens to be a perfect example of western notions of orientalism. Orientalism refers to the negative stereotypes of eastern civilizations (especially The Middle East) made by western civilization, as well as western civilization’s fascination with the exotic from the 18^th century onward. I believe Star Wars adequately demonstrates both in the depiction of Luke Skywalker’s home planet of Tatooine.

It was no accident that George Lucas chose Tunisia as the location to film scenes of the planet Tatooine. Luke had to come from a dark and barbaric land to overcome his unfortunate situation and have greatness thrust upon him in the form of two droids. Tatooine is depicted as a harsh environment with a dry/hot landscape inhabited by undisciplined tribes, crime lords, poor farmers, slaves, cheats, and scoundrels. To quote the late Sir. Alec Guinness “you’ll never find a place with more scum and villainy.” Tatooine is a personification of western civilizations negative view towards the Arab world. It is untrustworthy, backward, cruel, and malicious. Tatooine is a planet located far from the civilized worlds of Naboo and Coruscant . It is ruled by what appears to be a patriarchal villainous autocrat Jabba the Hut, whose character is based off of Sydney Greenstreet’s role in Casablanca. He makes a good replacement for Saddam Hussein, The House of Saud, or Gadhafi.

The first characters we are introduced to on Tatooine are the Jawas who are little clocked people who come out of caves not dissimilar to those we see the Mushahadeen residing in Afghanistan. The Tuscan Raiders are a nomadic people who are violent and barbaric nature, which could easily be seen as a reference to a great many Middle Eastern tribes. In the second set of films we see the young white Anakin and his mother enslaved by a cruel and shrewd businessman who is depicted as untrustworthy and dishonest. The list goes on in on. We as the audience identify with Luke and want him to escape Tatooine because we perceive it to be a backward and hostile world unworthy of his extraordinary attributes as the protagonist. Therefore, a location that appears to be similar to the area of our own planet we refer to as the Middle East serves the purpose perfectly. The important question to ask is why?

Well let’s put Star Wars in historical context. I could talk about western civilization’s relationship to the Middle East from the crusades onwards but that would be a waste of 100 pages. Let’s fast forward to the 20^th Century when America takes the lead as champion of western civilization. Since our support of Israel in 1948, America has had a cantankerous relationship with the Middle East. Following the west’s support of Israel in the wars with Palestine in 1967 and 1973, the Muslim world took a step to punish the west for its insolence. Thus the 1973 oil embargo was implemented by oil producing Arab nations. This was America’s first economic crisis that was intertwined by an energy/resources crisis. It severally changed Americans’ perceptions of the environment, energy, economics, and especially their view of the Middle East.

Furthermore, America’s war in Vietnam was ending, and Asia as a theatre ceased to be important. The late 1970s would witness a great shift from American military involvement in East or Southeast Asia to American military involvement in the Middle East. It is during the peak of this shift that the first Star Wars film is made. Then in 1979, Iran overthrows the American supported Shah and replaces him with the Shiite Islamic Cleric Ayatollah Khomeini and establishes the Islamic Republic of Iran. Following this, Iranians storm of the US embassy and take 52 American citizens hostage. Following their release, the Iranian and US relationship became silent and cold and has remained so to this day. Before the second movie featuring Tatooine was made in 1983, another crisis enveloped in Lebanon when terrorists blew up a facility containing French troops, thereby forcing President Reagan to withdrawal all security personnel from the country. By the time the second trilogy of films was being produced the relationship between the US and the Arab world only became more antagonistic following the Gulf War. Once you put the Star Wars movies into historical context it makes sense why the dusty rock of Tatoonie was depicted to appear Middle Eastern.

Now take Tatooine and contrast it to other worlds. Coruscant is depicted as metropolitan and multi-global like an intergalactic New York. However, those individuals who speak English in the film have European/Anglo American accents. Naboo is ruled by Anglo-Whites, the Death Star is completely British, and a Token Black character commonly placed in 1970s pop culture manages Cloud City. Furthermore, the rebels themselves, while less advanced militarily than the empire, are majority white or have American accidents as opposed the imperial British in the Death Star. This distinction is made to separate American hegemony, which supports the virtues of freedom, independence and self-expression from European hegemony, which seeks to merely dominate, intimidate, plunder and exploit.

One more thing I find interesting about Star Wars from a civilization perspective is the Ewoks. The Ewoks reside on the forest moon of Endoor, which is largely untouched save for the Death Star’s defense shield reactor. The Ewoks are wild, unbridled by the constraints of technological advancement and social progress. They reflect many of the same attributes as the American and Meso-American Indian civilizations. While western civilization certainly had its antagonisms with Native American civilizations, there also existed a sense of fascination and admiration of their way of life.

Western ideas of liberty, equality, and democracy were influenced by the discovery of these new civilizations. Following the discovery of native peoples in the New World, European society was forced to reflect upon its own ideals and expand western philosophy into new realms of science, rationality, economics, religious freedom, and eventually republicanism. A perfect example of this was the Spanish myth of the city of Eldorado in South America, a glittering city made of gold where prosperity was plentiful and harmony permanent.

When Luke and Han come across the Ewoks for the first time, the Ewoks attack them and make them the sacrifice for C3PO (who appears to them to be some sort of deity). This demonstrates both the humor and dangers of their innocence. But soon Luke is able to fool the Ewoks into thinking they will be doomed if they kill him and his companions when he uses his Jedi Powers to lift the flamboyant C3PO off the ground. This demonstrates that while the primitive minds of the Ewoks can easily turn to violence, it can easily be molded into submission. The Ewoks soon become friends with our protagonists and help them bring down the Empire with the use of asymmetrical warfare, very much in the same way the American colonists took down the British Empire.

To conclude I just want to say once again that racial biases are common in any form of creative expression whether in literature (Heart of Darkness), Poetry (The White Man’s Burden), or film. What’s important isn’t to purge these classic pieces of the humanities, but to analyze them and reflect upon what biases we hold ourselves. May the force be with us in our quest to do so, always. 

Is a Chinese Democracy Really in the World's Best Interest?

21^st century Neoconservatives have taken the torch from 20^th century Wilsonian liberals in support of an American lead spread of democracy across the earth. However, the frequently referenced Democratic Peace Theory has not lived up to its promises in Middle Eastern experiments such as Iraq, Iran, and Egypt.  All three of these democracies brought disastrous results in their own ways. Iran established the world’s first and only Islamic Republic, which has adopted an extreme anti Western worldview. Iraq’s new republic is fragile at best and Egypt’s short-lived republic stripped social liberalism from Egyptian society and attempted to enforce a religious tyranny of the majority by implementing strict Muslim practices as opposed to a secular rule of law. Therefore, despite the expansion of democracy around the world, Samuel Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations appears to be closer to reality than the utopian liberalism adopted by John Stewart Mill. This leads me to believe that a democratic China could prove equally destabilizing and destructive to the Asia Pacific as Egypt has to the Middle East for a few key reasons.

Reason number one. Throughout its history, China has been ruled by a strong, unified, hierarchical and well-organized bureaucracy. This is why Communism adapted so well to the Chinese system (but was horrible in terms of results).  If you are familiar with Chinese history, you are well aware of its cyclical nature. Dynasties rise, a period of peace and prosperity leads to economic growth, social satisfaction, religious harmony, and an explosion of artistic expression, which then descends into a period of chaos when the dynasty falls. The lesson to take away from Chinese history isn’t that Chinese people need to be controlled, it’s that China works best under a tyrannical, cautious, and organized system of governance because that is how China has developed as a society.

Reason number two. China would not be any less corrupt under a democratic system than it currently is under “communism”. Those of you who believe that democracy leads to less corruption than all other system’s of government obviously don’t watch the news very often. But one doesn’t need to look to the American Congress to know that democracy hasn’t always provided the best results.

A better example in relation to China would be India. India’s economic growth is less impressive than China’s. This is due to the fact that India’s democratic system cannot freely manage and economy, extract resources, and organize labor as quickly as China’s undemocratic government. While China is swiftly connecting all its cities with bullet trains, India’s trains are still characterized by passengers hanging off the sides and sitting on the roofs of the cars. While China’s building impressively tall glass tours amongst wide freeways and boulevards, India’s cities are still plagued by the smell of raw sewage and miles of urban slum. The Chinese economic growth rate would certainly slow under a democratic government and China would prove unable to build infrastructure projects as swiftly as they had in the past. However this may prevent hastily built engineering monstrosities such as the Three Gorges Dam. 

Furthermore, India’s political system is hindered by bribery and corruption in the same way as China’s political system. This is because the majority of voters in India are poor, uneducated, and ignorant. A majority of Chinese citizens would vote in very much the same manner as their counterparts in India by supporting hot-aired politicians who claim to represent the poor but merely end up representing their own interests. Chinese democracy would not be able to remove the Chinese system of Guanxi (relationships) from its political process. In China’s current socioeconomic position, Chinese democracy would resemble something more like the American Gilded Age rather than a healthy liberal democracy. In fact, China attempted to establish a Liberal Republic in 1911, only to descend into fascism under the Nationalist Party a few months later.

Reason number three. China views itself as the center of Asia. For more than 150 years, China’s role as the most powerful country in Asia (the pillar of peace and security if you will) was lost to it by European imperialism, Japanese invasions, and the failed economic policies of the Mao Era. However, since China’s capitalist transformation, its economic and military position has improved while America’s has declined. This has lead China to become more assertive within the East Asian region. As part of its “historic rights to sovereignty” China has claimed maritime territory in the East and South China Sea that is disputed by Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines, Brunei, Malaysia, and Vietnam, as well as continental territory disputed by India, Russia, and North Korea. The most dramatic of these disputes, the Diaoyu Islands dispute with Japan, triggers anti Japanese protests throughout the China on occasion. Chinese citizens target Japanese businesses and the Japanese embassy when an event causes the dispute to resurface.  Often I will see 日本狗 (Japanese Dog) painted on the sidewalk or scribbled on one of my student’s desk. Due to China’s long history as a great civilization, Chinese people are usually very patriotic, and when the spirit of the Chinese people is released, nothing stands in the way of its fury (if the Cultural Revolution is any constellation).

While the Communist Party certainly condones anti Japanese sentiments, it also realizes the importance of retaining a somewhat peaceful political relationship with Japan, a valuable business partner and an ally of the US. If necessary, the Communist Party will prevent violent actions against Japan to preserve the status quo. If anything, Anti Japanese rhetoric from party sources is pontificated to distract the Chinese public from domestic problems.  A democratic government with the threat of populist backlash during an election would be much more willing to adopt a military response to territorial disputes in Asia than the current government.

Even more troubling is the possibility of anti foreign populism being directed at the US and other western powers. The current government is already paranoid about an American strategic encirclement of China through various alliances with regional rivals. A democratic government might prove more cantankerous towards US interests. For instance, a democratically elected Chinese government may be less willing to purchase US debt as opposed to the current government, which is focused primarily on economic expansion as opposed to Chinese economic independency. A democratic government might prove more confrontational in the South China Sea, which the US vows to protect as an area of free trade. There is also the possibility that the US, Europe, and even Australia might be characterized as barbaric outsiders attempting to overthrow the great Chinese civilization and once again force China to submit to unfair trade practices.  I could entertain the idea of “Remember the Opium War” campaign slogans blasting the airwaves during a Chinese election year. What is important to remember here is like the US, China is a proud culture with a vibrant history and a rightful claim to the status of an extraordinary human civilization.  While the Communist government certainly plays this up to encourage patriotism and political optimism, a democratic government may unleash a dangerous sense of unified nationalism that could lead to violent illiberal results.

However, there are a few benefits that a Chinese democratic state could bring about. First, Chinese minorities would be empowered if China adopted  a federal system of democracy. Minorities dominate several Chinese provinces. In a national election, minorities such as the Uighur, Miao, Hui, Zhuang, and Tibetan peoples would have electoral clout in the provinces of Tibet, Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia, Qinghai, Gansu, Ningxia, Yunnan, Guangxi, and Sichuan. Imagine if Latino voters dominated three states and Native Americans dominated six in an American national election. This essentially illustrates the picture you get with minorities in China. Therefore, minorities would have the capability of achieving a greater sense of social mobility in China instead of their current status as subjects of a humiliating form of forced affirmative action. However, there is also the possibility of a backlash against racial minorities through a racist nativist political party similar to India’s BJP and France’s United Front. Despite the fact that minorities would have more of a voice in China, they would still are minorities that live with the possibility of marginalization.

Another positive result of a Chinese Republic would be a greater sense of transparency in the government. The Communist Party is currently experiencing a political crisis due to the sudden public revelation of corruption within the party by several high profile members, the most infamous being Party Boss Bo Xi Lai of Chongqing. The new President Xi Jin Ping has hailed that he will punish both the “tigers and the flies” who have committed acts of corruption. However, little has been done besides punishing whistleblowers in the name of stopping “libel”. People of any society will eventually do away with their government if it is not viewed legitimately. The current lack of transparency between government and society leads to a greater perception that the Chinese government is illegitimate which in turn leads to instability. A Democratic government would remedy this issue and make the Chinese government more trustworthy to the Chinese people.

Furthermore, a democratic government would attempt to tackle issues that matter more to the average Chinese person such as housing prices, air quality, and social security. For the past 30 years the Chinese government has focused exclusively on economic liberalization and growth. A democratic government would give Chinese people the perception that they can have control over their own destiny and that they can influence the government to address a problem that matters to them. This would create a healthier society and a stronger sense of civic involvement.

Finally, a Chinese democracy would greatly benefit China scholars by making the Chinese political system far more interesting to observe. Once you’ve seen one meeting of 10,000 people clapping in the Great Hall of the People you’ve seen them all. A Chinese Republic would reveal greater social and political divisions in Chinese society, making China far more vibrant and colorful. You’d be able to see religious fanatics, labor socialists, free market capitalists, social traditionalists, progressives, and agricultural interests duke it out on the political stage in a competition to win the hearts and minds of 1.8 billion people. Such a spectacle would be much more entertaining than the selection of a new chairman at the next meeting of the National Peoples’ Congress. In conclusion, to simply except the Democratic Peace Theory as absolute is an incomplete, if not lazy, argument when considering the results of a democratic Chinese government.

Social Experiment

Last week I was able to conduct an interesting social experiment in my classes. The lesson topic was Super Heroes and the language objective was reinforcements of basic plurals and singulars. Out of this mixture arose an interesting game, which required critical thinking and consideration of ethics.

I set up six teams in the classroom and gave each team a few super heroes. I then gave the class a series of scenarios where two different locations needed help at the same time, one an individual one a group.

There were several different choices to consider such as whether to save a woman who had been kidnapped by pirates or a group of old women who had their money stolen and between helping cars in a traffic jam or a broken down bus full of school children. I got several interesting and amusing answers such as: I will help the woman because she’s sexy, I will help the old women because the elderly should come first, I will help the old women because I like money, I will help the bus because children are our future and they need an education, and I will help the cars because I hate school. 

But the scenario I thought produced the most interesting results was a choice between a political official (Xi Jin Ping/ Li Ke Qiang) who had been kidnapped and a robbery where several peoples’ lives were in danger and the bank account of hundreds of people could potentially be stolen. In almost all the classes, the results were half and half. I got quite the diversity of answers.

Some groups chose to save the political official because he is important for the country, but others would pick the people. One boy said he would pick the people because the loss of all that money would severally damage the economy. Another girl said that she would save the people because another leader could always be selected to replace the assassinated leader but a country would be nothing without its people. Another boy made a very bold statement when he quoted Mao Zedong as saying that all people are equal regardless of position, pretty much stating that it doesn’t matter how important Xi Jin Ping is. In a choice between saving lives, the many always comes before the one. One kid plainly blurted out that he didn’t like Xi Jin Ping at all and so he wanted to save the people!! Instead of gasped this statement only received laughter from his fellow students.

This game demonstrated to me that even at a young age, Chinese people have little patriotic obsession over their technocratic leaders, and in the right setting you can get a lot of dissenting opinions out of them.

However this doesn’t mean that Chinese people completely speak freely about their opinions regarding political officials. In one class, a group of educators sat in and observed the session. They seemed to generally enjoy the lesson, but they did have an effect on student answers in regards to this scenario. Only one team picked the people in the robbery over the political official in this class, and all the answers in support of saving the official came off as a bland statement referencing how important Xi Jin Ping was for the country and how China wouldn’t be able to progress without him. Given the circumstances I decided not to press the students on their answers.

However, I don’t want to give the impression that all teachers and educators mindlessly support the Communist Party. While party members usually head school administrations, I have talked to a few teachers at my school (all female too) who have openly denounced the effects of the Cultural Revolution on Chinese society. But like their students, these teachers are far less bold in front of their superiors.

Also my neighborhood in Shenzhen (Overseas Chinese Town) is unique in China. Shenzhen itself is sort of a bubble. It’s a special economic zone that has been officially capitalist for thirty years. It’s right next to Hong Kong where newspapers and books with views not condoned by the Communist Party can be easily purchased. Most people in the inner districts own their own computer and even in the outer districts an Internet Café isn’t too far away. Most importantly, the economic prosperity, wealth, and opportunity that can be found in Shenzhen has bolstered a vibrant Middle Class in areas such as my neighborhood of OCT/Window of the World.

An area dominated by a Middle Class is more likely to have a louder and more diverse array of opinions as opposed to some village in Guizhou where people don’t have the luxury to ponder the socioeconomic issues facing 21^st Century China.  Shenzhen is way ahead of most of China in regards to political and economic perspectives. However, Shenzhen is a good place to observe changing Chinese perspectives that within 10-20 years very well could be the norm.