Header graphic for print
China Law Blog China Law for Business

China’s Train Wreck. I’m Not The Guy.

By Dan Harris on Posted in China Business

I have a policy that if I receive five or more emails asking me to write on something, I will write on it.

I very intentionally have not written on China’s recent train crash, but I have received well over five mails either suggesting I do so, or calling me out for not having done so.  Interestingly, I have been called out by both “sides” (as if there should be sides on something like this).  I pull the following two emails to summarize the two sides:

EMAIL 1:  I am not surprised you have remained noticeably silent regarding China’s high speed train crash. I guess it just doesn’t fit in with your constantly telling us how great China is and how much it is becoming just like us. Your failure to write on this just confirms for me that the only reason your blog exists is to make money for your law firm. 

EMAIL 2: I am surprised you have not done anything on the recent train crash. It fits in perfectly with your always thoughtful writings on how China is unsafe and overrated and is not going to be taking over the world any time soon. To me, this crash is great proof of what you are always saying.

I kid you not.

I am not going to write about the train crash.

I am instead going to explain why I have not written about it. My main reason for not having written about it is because (call me old fashioned), but I am appalled at the idea of instantly using a tragedy to advance any view. People died in that train crash. Real people.

I have nothing to contribute in terms of what caused the crash and one train crash, standing alone, in a massive country like China is not indicative of anything. I have not seen statistics regarding China’s train system so I cannot comment.  Also, no matter what those statistics say, I have to believe that traveling by train in China is much safer than going by car or by bus.

More than anything though, I do not want to use this crash to prove a point. Any point. I find that distasteful. It is wrong to use the dead to market ideas to the living. Both deserve better.

Here are some pretty unbelievably insensitive and very recent examples of people using tragedy for their own ends:

1.  Some complete idiot (and ungrammatical) blogger used Amy Winehouse’s death to let loose with a death threat against Israel. I quote directly from the post:

So Amy Winehouse, like so many others, is now dead and gone from over indulgence, a mentality that says nothing can hurt me, I am powerful, and I am invincible.

…………………not!

So, this brings me to the evil rogue state of israel, which, funnily enough, as it turns out, has quite a lot in common with Amy Winehouse, exept she had a great voice and didnt kill people constantly, they both suffered from the same affliction.

Once upon a time the mighty dinosaurs ruled the earth, and smaller life forms trembled at their feet, but nothing lasts forever, and just as the path chosen by Amy Winehouse caused her death, the path chosen by Israel will also cause it’s ultimate destruction. 

But, guess what? Israel is not “God” and ultimately what killed Amy Winehouse will also kill off israel as well. All we have to do is wait, and just keep on chip, chip, chipping away at the out of control, over excessive, over indulgent, spoilt brat killer bully that we now know as Israel.

2. Stan Abrams of China Hearsay did a post, entitled, “The Most Insensitive Story on the Wenzhou Rail Crash.” in which he awarded “the coveted insensitivity award” to Megan McArdle for her story in the The Atlantic, “The Significance of China’s First High-Speed Rail Disaster.” China Hearsay points out how Ms. McArdle used the train crash to tell “us that democracy is better than autocracy and that the United States should be thankful for the infrastructure system that it has.”  Stan goes on to say that a “lot of people are talking about the Wenzhou crash and what it says about corruption, incompetence, the fast pace of infrastructure construction, and so on. Plenty of questions out there. But taking this one crash and using it to somehow vindicate the deplorable state of U.S. infrastructure is laughable.”  I agree.

3.  Countless people have sought to use Norway’s killings to make their points and many articles on the killings have been in poor taste. But at least there is some basis for getting political on that since the killer ascribed his actions to his political (loosely defined) beliefs. 

Before the above, we had Pat Robertson on Haiti and Sharon Stone on a China earthquake. I could go on and on.

I remember hearing that really good books on an event are almost never written before at least thirty years have gone by since the event occurred.  Seems there ought to be some similar saying about a grace period before people start exploiting a tragic event for their own purposes. Thirty days maybe?

You want a story on China’s train wreck? I’m not going to wade in those waters; I’m just not the guy.

NOTE: i wrote this post before the issue of the Chinese people’s dissatisfaction regarding the handling of the aftermath of the wreck had become so front and center. I do not intend for this post to in any way take away from any of those issues.

UPDATE: Morissey (the rock singer) says eating meat is worse than the Norway murders. I haven’t had any meat for 17+ years and I think he’s an insensitive idiot and clearly off his rocker.

  • http://www.ryan-mclaughlin.com Ryan

    ” It is wrong to use the dead to market ideas to the living. Both deserve better.” – very well said Dan.
    I read Stan’s piece the other day and agreed with him as well. I think it’s easy to use major news events, particularly tragic ones to forward an agenda, and people seem to scramble over each other to do so. You don’t need to work on building up emotion around the issue, it’s inherent and that just makes the writer’s pontificating all the simpler to deliver.
    Where I do think this brushes up against a greased declination is in that reporting of this — of all shades — will assure there are timely pictures of facts and thought to dig through later when a more even-keeled perspective is possible. Likewise, while it might do well for China watchers to remind themselves of the human cost of such a tragedy before trying to build rickety bridges between this and their thoughts on how it relates to a bigger picture — the Chinese are most definitely building similar bridges and asking similarly themed questions, and rightfully so.

  • Handan Bao

    The opening email excerpts made me laugh so hard.
    True that there haven’t emerged enough facts about why the crash happened to comment on that per se. But there have been many developments that are telling of the government mentality (and maybe PR competency) and public sentiments, if you look at the responses from the two sides. There are good questions being asked by the public.

  • http://www.yingkevarnai.eu Adam

    Regardless of the topic, this blog is very useful and entertaining (for me as a lawyer for sure). This is a most unselfish way to “make money for your law firm”. Side 1: thumbs down.

  • Paulus Sveto

    But I notice the Amy Whitehouse tag there. Why?

  • Richard

    iLook China, which is a somewhat odd blog that only recently came to my attention, compares China’s rail safety record with those of the U.S. and India. Turns out China’s rail networks are relatively safe:
    http://ilookchina.net/2011/07/27/more-on-chinas-july-2011-rail-accident/
    There is much schadenfreude amongst the American commentariat vis a vis the Wenzhou crash. Some, like Megan McArdle, were so quick to use the Wenzhou crash to indict all Chinese infrastructure projects. In reality, Chinese rail networks have a better safety record than that of the U.S.
    Yesterday, a train carrying hazardous materials derailed in California. 21 cars derailed and 250 homes were evacuated. Surely if Xinhua or China Daily were to publish a story using this incident as some sort of analogy for the U.S. political system, we would all laugh at them (although a “train crash” certainly comes to mind when pondering the debt negotiations in Congress). Yet, when it comes to China, every small incident is somehow evident of a larger issue. Every commentator seems happy to twist any incident to fit into a preconceived China narrative (just as those emails suggest CLB does–which, I should add, is an unfounded accusation).
    I love this gem from Stan: “Whenever I hear ‘When I was in China last year . . .’ I know that the next few words are going to be stupid and ignorant.”
    I’m gonna post this comment at Stan’s blog too.

  • Loren

    When I blogged, I used to get similar emails. I always attributed it to people either not listening or just assuming that if they disagreed with me it had to be because I was from a completely different camp from them. It could never be because I just thought differently than them on the issue itself.

  • Tim

    Dan,
    If I didn’t know you better I would call your bluff on those quotes.
    Love the fact that you’re able to confirm the suspicions of both sides of the spectrum – that is one mean feat of radical moderation.
    T

  • http://superspeedtrain.com Brian Carrillo

    Blogs are all about search engines placement and advertising, even when we don’t talk about something we are still talking about it. I liked your Post here but let’s be honest, you managed to use every major keyword in your article which in the end allowed me a way to find you and this post. If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there is to hear it, does it still make a sound?
    Of course it does.
    The Trains involved in China train crash were older models… Which is why we need to develop newer safer systems.
    http://superspeedtrain.com

  • http://www.sculpture-in-china.com/products_info/Garden-Wall-Fountain-Antique-finish-128773.html Vobar

    Beautifully said. I too find it aggravating how the Western press uses any problem in China as evidence of how China is a sham. I find it especially so right now when the U.S. system is so broken it cannot even fix its own problems.

  • Chris

    I absolutely love China’s high speed rail system. I’m not too alarmed by this accident and the strong response to the Wenzhou accident in China gives me confidence that a lot more work will be put into improving the safety of the system. I’ve taken a lot of train rides in recent years and it’s fast, convenient and comfortable. Some of the stations need a lot of work (Hangzhou comes immediately to mind) in terms of passenger experience – crowded, inconvenient getting in and out. Service once you are on the train is pretty good.
    Compared to the increasing nightmare of flying in China and the truly awful airline service, price gouging, the incredible delays, major issues getting into and out of airports etc, the train system is great.
    The official 70,000+ deaths on the road each year (and unofficial 200,000+ deaths estimates) makes me much more concerned about driving and safety on the road.
    Whether it was wise to continue to try and push the rail system to 350+kph as was originally planned for Beijing to Shanghai and the incredible cost is another issue. Anyway I’m really looking forward to trying out the new Beijing – Shanghai line, colleagues tell me its fantastic.

  • Hua Qiao

    @ Richard
    But when there is a train crash in the US, I think it unlikely that workers will be burying the evidence or the government will be seeking to muzzle the press as they have done in China.