Lauren Ladaker

2.      This visit proved very controversial politically. I was confused as to why the US would make such a bold political move when I realized that they wanted to strengthen Taiwan relations in order to support democracy in East Asia. With this being said, it arguably countered China’s recent crackdown on human rights in places such as Hong Kong. I am glad to hear that the US and Taiwan were able to strengthen their relations, however, I worry that it will negatively affect the US’ trade deals with China. The US must balance a democracy and economy here which is a very dangerous game. 

3.      This dangerous game is furthered by the third video as it compares the China-Taiwan conflict to the Russia-Ukraine conflict. It claims that the China-Taiwan conflict could escalate to that level if Taiwan tried to declare independence or China tried to initiate unification. Furthermore, the main takeaway of the video is that the US viewed Taiwan as a “strategic tool”. The video worked to deconstruct the idea that the US wanted to support Taiwan because of democracy when they actually wanted to support Taiwan because they saw Taiwan as a strategic tool democratically and economically. They brought up a good point that the US is competing with China economically to be number one in the world which means that supporting Taiwan, whom China is reliant on for their economic stability, would give them an upper hand in the market. 

Reaction2: I had not known much information on the topic before viewing this TikTok yet it seems as though many other places knew of her visit.  I’m surprised yet not surprised that the U.S decided to make this sort of move. I just question why now? Knowing that tensions were already rising between Taiwan and China, why visit at that time? While it’s great to increase bonds with a country, is it currently worth the risk? Apparently it was due to what seems to be a positive visit between both the U.S and Taiwan. 

Reaction3: This video better puts into perspective the relationship between the U.S and Taiwan and why they support Taiwan. It makes sense why China would want Taiwan. If Taiwan and China were one at one point, why would China want Taiwan to be connected to the U.S. There is also a dependence on Taiwan that China has. Since Taiwan has economic capabilities that would benefit both the U.S and China, it seems to be a battle of which country can obtain a stronger foothold in China.

Lauren Ladaker

Reaction 2: In this review there is a more positive viewpoint of the 1998 movie and a negative viewpoint on the 2020 movie They state that there is no real emotional connection between characters in the 2020 Mulan in comparison to the 1998 Mulan in which she has a very positive relationship with her father. Additionally, although they talked about qi, it was never truly established what it was. Qi in this movie seemed to be a representation of some sort of super power which is inaccurate. Lastly, the 2020 movie did not set up Mulan for growth, nor empathy, She was non for her natural abilities rather than her cleverness like in the 1998 movie.

Reaction 3: For the most part, the people in this interview seemed content about the Chinese culture being highlighted; however, there were also many concerns that the live action movie would not be able to capture an abundance of Chinese culture. There were also concerns of the story deviating from the 1998 film. In the end the were correct. Although it did highlight Chinese culture in some way, the drawbacks were inaccuracies within the film when involving culture. This was due to the lack of representation when directing the movie.

Lauren Ladaker

Reaction 2: It’s understandable why there would be people against the three child policy. It is gradually getting more difficult to take care of oneself, even without having another mouth to feed. There was a couple that also brought up the quality of education they would want for their child. It’s not that these people don't want multiple children, but that they simply can’t afford to have another child.

Reaction 3: I believe it’s interesting to see the pros and cons of the one child policy and the three child policy. Although a lower birth rate will improve the quality of life, it also increases the employment  rate of older people because there are not as many young people to pass the work down to. Additionally if a couple wants several children a pro and con would be population increase however it is also a heavy con because it decreases the quality of life for all involved.

Lauren Ladaker
 

2)     I think it’s very interesting that the country is pushing for its population to have more children, yet their economy makes it difficult to do so. In other words, the cost-of living, the cost of education, and the cost of buying house are all too high to afford having more children. The problem goes a lot deeper than the birthrate, but this seems to be putting a band-aid on a large wound rather than serving any real help to the government. 

3)     The balance between high population and resources seems to be delicate. It is similar to the last video in saying that it’s difficult for families to have more children since they have access to limited resources. Despite this, it has a positive spin showing that China is doing well in comparison to India, and it also talks about how a higher population can be helpful to the economy by having more people in the labor force. However, it cannot go without mentioning that the work force is shrinking and the ageing population is growing. Some solutions to encourage more births would be better access to health care, improved education, and raised living standards. Without these things, I do not think that China will be able to grow its population rapidly again. 

Thus, I created a Quora post to try and get Chinese people to try and explain their perspective and thoughts on the situation. Quora is a social media tool that allows for discussions on certain topics. Thus, I prompted this discussion by creating a post that invites Chinese people to discuss the topic and comment on their thoughts on the topic. This would provide a variety of opinions from a broad community of people that allow for more discussion, a more general consensus, and great examples to help us understand this information better. I believe this is the best choice of medium because it provides a professional and important discussion on a social media platform that gives a lot of insight, and thus the most impactful way to conduct data. While other social medias draw awareness to these issues, I believe that they are not effective in drawing debates and discussing topics. Quora provides a formal place to talk and discuss. This also implements the characteristics of social media because I am telling people to leave their opinions in the comments, and also placed an image as well, exemplifying these as a social media post that's goal is to create a discussion.

 

Shang-Chi was a good representation of China to a certain extent. 

 

The lead actor who played Shang-Chi, Simu Liu, was born in China and moved to Canada when he was 5. As well as other iconic actors and actresses such as Tony Leung, Michelle Yeoh, Awkwafina, and Meng’er Zhang. There is a mix of Chinese-born and Chinese-American people in the cast which I think enriches the idea of Shang-Chi being an American film which reflects Chinese culture. Although it is not purely Chinese in its filming, it was very conscientious of Chinese culture as it referred to “qi” in Ta Lo. The producers clearly did their research with the mythical creatures represented in the film. For instance, there were fire phoenixes, nine-tailed foxes, stone lions, and the famous Chinese dragon. These are all very prevalent parts of mythical stories and beliefs in China which is why I am glad that they incorporated it into the movie. They also spoke a lot of Mandarin Chinese in the movie which is commendable considering the fact that it was made for an English audience. This additional aspect of language helped make the movie feel a little bit more authentic because they were speaking the native language of the country it took place in. These details are all very important in making Shang-Chi culturally accurate. 

On the other hand, there are some undoubtedly Asian-American factors to the movie in characters such as Awkwafina and Shang-Chi when he goes by "Shaun" in America. Their characters are undoubtedly Asian-American as they portray the American lifestyle in the beginning of the movie very well. This may take away from its representation of China itself, but I think that it’s still an important aspect to integrate subtly into the storyline since the target audience of this movie was most likely Asian-Americans. 

Of course, I believe that it is still only to an extent that it reflects China culturally because I believe that China’s culture is too ancient, rich, and vast to fit into one movie. However, for being Marvel’s first Asian superhero movie, I think that it is clear that they did their research and created something that the Asian-American community could be proud of to claim as their own. 

This issue should concern anyone who owns a computer - not for the vague ‘security concerns’ that American firms claim to exist, but because it suggests future breakthroughs are yet to come. The development of future and super-future technologies are not restricted to one nation or the other. Nor should they be. Arbitrary divisions like America vs China or Google vs Huawei should not restrict the ability of everyone, especially cutting-edge firms like Huawei from contributing to the global good. Connection through cell phones, computers, and internet infrastructure benefits everyone. The Huawei ban from 4 years ago, and if reports are to be believed, the proposed total extension to all business with Huawei will only hurt American and Chinese citizens. Huawei’s ties to the government have yet to see any credible proof, or anything beyond conjecture. Huawei is one of the globally leading firms for cutting-edge technology, and spreading that technology across the world. Huawei and other manufacturers in China should not be subject to these restrictions just because of the country they reside in. 

Even as a protectionist measure, forcing China to develop these machines on their own may cause more economic damage to US firms than selling them would have. If companies like Huawei relied on ASML like the rest of the world, they could still control the market. But Huawei’s development would make China self-sufficient not just for the microprocessor fabrication machines, but all microchip manufacturing. Without relying on TSML in Taiwan, China would be free to produce phones and laptops at much lower prices. Huawei also claims on their website to be producing technologies that bypass lithographic technologies. Huawei plans to have approximately 90 Extreme Ultraviolet Lithography systems in use by 2025. Fear of the Chinese market will only serve to harm American industry that fails to adapt to global technological developments. As Americans, we should foster a global network of cooperation, especially in the technology industry, as that is what drives innovation. We should not fear technological development just because it is not ours, as Huawei has not feared technological development by the West. Ren Zhengfei’s company is, in my opinion, the closest thing we have to the next consumer technological revolution. I make this post to ask you as a reader and an American to consider the strength of Chinese technological developments and weigh the costs of isolating the market against the benefits. If you believe that the free market should determine the best technological development, then you should agree that fencing China out is unfair and bad for business. If you believe that government intervention should serve the people, then ask who this serves? 

The public figure involved in this controversy is Jackson Wang, a Chinese man who is a part of a kpop group who recently went on a solo tour. Why is it important that we know he is a kpop idol? Well, as some people may or may not know this sort of community of people take fan interaction very seriously. It seems to almost be the basis of their popularity without the help from their music. These friend-like interactions carry over to social media building a very diverse and strong bond between other fans both local and international.

Now that the foundation has been established, why has Jackson Wang received so much backlash? On his solo tour in Londin he had about an 8 minute speech on acceptance and motivation to do things that you want and follow your dreams. This 8 minute speech was clipped to about the first 30 seconds to a minute in which he talked about the Western media and its view on China. All in all, he heavily disagreed with this portrait of China. Although there is nothing wrong with being patriotic towards your country, what some fans saw was him condoning alleged inhuman acts in China being done to Muslim people in attempts to re-educate Musim people in a specific part of China. The U.S had released documents claiming that there were alleged Muslim concentration camps in China that were mistreating the people there. His statement paired with this new information sparked a fire in some fans that caused the clip to go viral and Jackson Wang received both backlash and support. Support came from people who believed he was simply uneducated and backlash coming from people that either believed what is allegedly occurring is correct or that he should not say anything without being educated on the matter.

So my questions are, where is the line drawn between public figures and regular human beings? Where is the line drawn in fandom influence? Should we address politics and portrait especially in an entertainment setting? Should public figures state their opinions in politics? 

Lauren Ladaker