Patriotism Abroad: Overseas Chinese Students’ Encounters with Criticisms of China.
The largest group of international students in America is made up of Chinese students. The lack of engagement or engagement of these students with host students and the campus community has raised concerns. Henry Chiu Hail explores these issues in his article “Patriotism Abroad: Overseas Chinese Students’ Encounters with Criticisms of China.” International education cause conversations between foreign and host students, which can result in positive, friendly feelings and mutual understanding, and at times it constraints interactions between students.
I believe that more positive friendships and experiences would be built if the domestic students and host students talked together. Despite this being true, anecdotal experiences of Chinese students observed by Hail show that host students and the campus community are often interested in the social and political aspects of China, which causes negative interaction between international and domestic students. I postulate that domestic students exhibit prejudices, offensive, misinformed views of current events in China, which creates hostility between domestic students and Chinese students.
I support the idea put forward by Hail that biased views of domestic students on international students make international students defensive and may try to counteract the discriminatory biases of their home country displayed on the media platforms of the host country. In the study conducted by Henry Chiu, there are four modes of criticism reaction showed by international students: harmony-seeking, loyalty-based, utilitarian, and status-based response. According to Hail, the American media often portray negative images of China making Americans view China as a threat. On the other hand, the Chinese view America as jealous of China’s rising power and trying to limit China’s ascendance. There is a unique context around Chinese and American students’ interactions, and the interpersonal interactions cannot be removed from the bigger geopolitical context.
I am surprised by the fact that some international students share a sense of unity with domestic students and may view host students’ criticism as well-meaning even when they do not support this idea. Hail claims this is a “precondition of productive discussion is that both parties believe each other to be benevolent” (Hail 322). I believe that lecture rooms should be venues for productive conversations, and tutors should take measures to make the discussions respectful. Professors could conduct explicit discussions on cross-national interactions’ topic. According to Hail, such discussions may help “students to express their feelings” and reflect on how experiences and “differences of background affect perception and emphasize the importance of listening to various perspectives” (Hail 323). Moreover, host and international students need to engage in certain activities like sharing lunch breaks, building confidence, and eliminating misinformed views on the media.
In conclusion, international education leads to talks between foreign and host students, which may contribute to positive feelings of friendship and mutual understanding and may sometimes lead to constraints of student interactions. I believe that people have different opinions and thoughts and are free to express them; however, they should only express their views rather than the government’s rulings on certain topics. Most American students have misinformed opinions about China, and they often interested in discussing these social and political factors with Chinese students. However, tutors can help make the interactions between domestic and international students productive and friendly by educating students on the traditions of liberal democracy and its significance. The opportunities for helping both domestic and Chinese students observe American democracy in play are more effective and essential than tutoring on the human rights record of China.