I must admit that your blog packs a big punch, which demands a serious response. I believe debate, if we want it to be productive and meaningful, must bear fruit of knowledge and truth, not aiming at the sweet feeling of overwhelming your opponent. It requires a rational approach, rather than an emotional or passionate one.

Your blog divides itself into three major parts. Part one is the recount of Zola's story; part two, the views on China and the Chinese culture expressed by the people you loathe; part three, your own feelings and opinions on your home country.

Let me address the first part first. I have no problem in the way you reading the narrative; however, we must be aware of other ways of reading the same story. Zola's treatment of the story was sarcastic and indignant, as he always did. But we as readers don't have to follow his line of argument with absolute loyalty. Instead having a sense of tragedy or pity on the ugly women in the story, one may see the joke is actually on the ones who acquired their service. I can imagine if the story was to be adapted into a hollywood movie, the heroes would be those ugly ones who rise against the injustice of their fate and turn the table on the privileged, and coming out the other end triumphant. Furthermore, Zola's attitude would appear too elitist under the scrutiny of today's readers. He was standing on a moral high ground, condemning the disease-ridden society, and, in order to satisfy himself more, he decided to choose the least fortunate, the ugly women, as his object of sympathy. As always, sympathy tends to elevate the sympathiser, rather than the sympathised. His sympathy, in my opinion, inflicts even more humiliation on those women, for it made the unfortunate more miserable and pitiful. His disgust for the entrepreneur also appears excessive in today's standard.

The characters in Rentafoil, when viewed without favour or prejudice, if one could, are equally pathetic, for they are both the victims of diseases of the society and the carriers of the pathogen: all of them led a shameful life, parasitic and mercenary, and none of them did any favour to the maintenance of their human dignity.

I must concede that my view may be too cynical, nonetheless, I am tempted to say that I was expecting a better analogy to underpin your argument.

Now, let's turn to part two. The descriptions of the negative presentation of the Chinese culture in general were written with such spontaneity and fluency that I found myself ecstatically lost in the guilty pleasure similar to those provided by pornography. What is really pungent and stimulating is the truthfulness of both your description and what have been described, albeit some of them appear in words less desirable, stereotyped, prejudice, and even malicious.

We may spent another two life time debating on the fair assessment of the Chinese culture and still ends in futility. Suffice it to say that you have successfully captured the essence of the criticism levelled against Chinese culture. My doubt, however, is that do they need to be sold to the West, or, are they really merchantable?

From what I have read so far, with shameful limitation, I should admit, all of what you described were sold to the Chinese intellectuals by the Westerners, rather the other way around. One of my favourite books is called The Wealth and Poverty of Nations by David S. Lendes, and the author devoted a large section in discussions on the deplorable state of the Chinese society in general, the Chinese economy in particular. Let me ensure you, that was some depressing reading indeed. Now you are warned. Another book that I find disturbing is The Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1895 by Prof. S. C. M. Paine. The professor quotes a number of passages from Western media during that period to show the transformation of perceptions on China and Japan before, during, and after the war. Again, less flattery to the Chinese. One of the books of great influence on China published in that era was titled Chinese Characteristics by Arthur H. Smith, which I found to be honest, balanced and truthful. Still, one may not find it pleasurable. And there are many many more.

All of them show a simple fact, and that is the West knew it all along, both the merits and shortcomings of the Chinese culture. By the way, I believe a healthy dose of self-criticism is critical for a nation's growth and progress. The West benefits enormously from its tradition of self-criticism, so should China, who suffers from an acute deficiency of it.

Finally, part three. Now we come to a dramatic turning point in style. I find myself reading a poetic ode to the motherland. The personification of a state, a country, a culture, a nation, or a people in effect stonewalls all rational debate. Because the personification is a means of language manipulation, and the purpose of the exercise is to prevent a concept from being defined in such a way that objective analysis can be conducted. Lets see an example. “She is entertaining when visited; she enslaves nobody when empowered;” wrote you. Who is She? The state? The people? Entertaining the visitors? Who? The Mongolians? The Manchurians? Or the Japanese? Enslaves nobody? Or everyone was a slave of the ruling class? No one could argue with a poet on his poem, for it is only a matter of taste, rather than of right or wrong.

You are entitled to make any sweeping claims that you see fit. On the other hand, wouldn't it be wiser to maintain the maturity and integrity of one's intellect?

Let me end my response with a coolheaded observation. To be born into a nationality is not the result of a conscious decision, rather, it is a random, biological incident; nationality, on the other hand, is purely artificial. The emotional attachment one has with the place of his birth is also biological in nature. If a bird could write a poem, she would have written one, singing praise to the branch she is standing on. The risk is always present to have the innocent and personal feelings manipulated for ill purposes, and the world has witnessed far too many tragedies of hijacked patriotism. Hence, no one should be held responsible for a biological incident beyond his control, nor should he be held accountable to an artificial label to demand his life long commitment of loyalty. Also for that reason, we always set the foundation of our judgement of right and wrong on our capability of logic and reason, not on our solidarity with the land in which we were born, the culture with which we associate, or, the people with whom we share superficial physical traits.