Fahrenheit WWII 2002

Fahrenheit WWII                                        

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   There is no construction without destruction—Chairman Mao

 

The elements that can provide a satisfactory explanation of the actions exhibited by the police force in Ordinary Men and those of the Red Guards are strong deeply rooted motivations.  It is important to understand both the mindset of these killers as well as the process by which they acquired what we might call extreme moral flexibility, followed by the most extreme violent actions.  Through propaganda, appealing ideals, and force, Hitler and Mao made themselves into subjects of worship.  These cults of personality[1], accompanied by legitimate promises of economic prosperity were one of the most important aspects of the eventually large-scale brainwashing success.  The historical legacy of the two countries is also significant because the history and cultural myths of China and Germany were used very efficiently to influence the people who would follow the causes.  Going even deeper into the possible explanations for the actions that to most seem inexplicable, the most primal instincts of human beings cannot be discounted.  In terms of human evolution, it is only recently that man has evolved from the hunter.  This is to say that not long ago humans had to kill animals in order to eat and in order to protect themselves.  Most people to not have qualms about killing an animal if it serves a purpose and so by dehumanizing the Jews or presenting nationalists in China as a life threatening force, Hitler and Mao were playing on some of the most basic human instincts.  Germany and China created a receptive audience and using propaganda and force; controlled this audience, but more importantly controlled people by using their almost subconscious desires and fears to create a group of people who were capable and in most cases willing to commit genocide.

          There were two main ideological differences in the propaganda put out by Germany and China.  Germany romanticized the past in order to create a sense of unity among the Christian Germans and to put the blame for present problems on the impurity represented most clearly by the Jews.  China took the opposite position by presenting the old world as corrupt and unequal while presenting the revolution as the solution to the problems caused by this old system.

          China used highly effective propaganda in the form of “Big Character” posters and “Quotations from Mao” to give impressionable students a goal they could believe in and fight for.  The first important and even sensible idiom is that everyone must have faith in the Party in order for the revolution to succeed.[2]  This is a normal expectation as a component of success in any government, that the party in power should have the people’s support.  The rhetoric that follows this stipulation, however, leaves no room for dissent.  Mao states that “Classes struggle, some classes triumph, others are Eliminated” and it is also made clear that people who do not support the party are the class to be eliminated.  This no doubt instilled a great fear in many people but for those who would become Red Guards, it was a rallying call.

          The most significant part of the Chinese brainwashing program was the “cult of personality” created by and around Chairman Mao himself. An important step in creating the cult of personality was the destruction of religion because there were idols that could compete with Mao.  The chairmen wanted the people of China to worship him so as to have complete control over mind and body without any interference.  This image of Mao as the great leader and even savior was carefully created and was not restrained by any dissenting realities.  Chairman Mao wanted to be the inspiration and the leader, more like Lenin than Stalin.[3]  Like President Bush’s town meetings, the Audiences for events where Mao appeared was carefully chosen so that the most enthusiastic crowd possible could be shown to the rest of the country.

          The appearance more than the actions of the chairman was used to demonstrate his devout following. Like President Bush’s town meetings, the audiences for events where Mao appeared were carefully chosen so that the most enthusiastic crowd possible could be shown to the rest of the country. As the most impressionable demographic was indoctrinated, a threat to the party was a threat to Mao which was in essence a threat to one’s survival. Mao became, in the eyes of the Red Guards, so important, that for him or the party to fail would be like the death of the nation created in part by these Red Guards.  If the revolution failed then the class to which the Red Guards belonged would be the one eliminated.  This perceived threat, along with the support for the Red Guards, created a group that projected their fears and even petty resentments on others with little provocation[4].

          Examining the motivations behind the police in Ordinary Men is much more difficult for three main reasons; the atrocities were carried out during wartime, there is little exposure of anti Jewish propaganda and the police being interrogated do not give many clues as to their mindset.  Nonetheless it is clear that for centuries in Europe there was an open and widespread hatred of the Jews.  Hitler and his propaganda crew capitalized on this existing animosity by presenting the Jews as not only as the enemy in the war but also as subhuman beings.

No one should believe that the large majority of Battalion 101 was simply following orders in wartime, that they were “political and moral Eunuchs”[5] and had no personal philosophies regarding the extermination of Jewish civilians.  Using more direct methods than the Chinese, the German government complimented military training with “Ideological Education” which reinforced the necessity of the extermination and the Jews’ status as subhuman.[6]  These ideas however dully presented (opinion Browning), were repeated every week and seemed to be aimed at destroying any mercy on the part of the enforcers.  Words like “soulless” were used to describe the Jews in the course of education and it was also made clear that they had started the war with Germany and so put them ideologically on the level of a pack of scavenging dogs.[7]

When the time to kill came around, Battalion 101 used their education by further dehumanizing their victims.  The Jews were shaved and stripped so their appearance could more conform to the picture painted by such informative lectures like “Maintaining the purity of German blood”.[8]  These measure were an unconscious effort on the part of the Germans to ease the moral strain that one might expect when murdering large numbers of innocent people.  The Jewish populations were transformed from normal Europeans into a uniform, naked enemy, so that looking at them would prevent the Battalion from identifying with their victims and thus being unable to carry out their orders.  This idea of aesthetic brainwashing is shown clearly in many of the cases where the police refuse to kill as ordered.  A member of Battalion 101 might not kill, at least personally, someone who came from the same hometown or who had worked for the policeman.

          The men of Battalion 101 and the youths of the Red Guards did what they consciously believed was their duty. There were so many strong and approved justifications for the atrocities they committed so as to virtually eliminate dissention even without punishment.  The German police were not disciplined for refusal to take part in genocide and the youths of China did not have to join the militant Red Guards.  Peer pressure no doubt played a part in the execution of these acts but is in reality a background motivation because in the end the actions of others can not erase one’s own moral standing.  Using different but both highly effective methods of indoctrination, Nazi Germany and Communist China influenced certain people to the extent that they abandoned original thought with regards to the humanity of their fellow man.

Word count 1417

         

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


[1] Cheek p.206

[2] Cheek p.173

[3] Cheek p.206

[4] Cheek p.210

[5] Browning p.150

[6] Browning p.177

[7] Browning p.179

[8] Browning p.177

Intercultural Communication in Courtship

           Intercultural Communication in Courtship:The Case of Chinese and Americans Alex Churchill and Erik George CO442: Intercultural Communication 2 May 2006                        Two sectors that lead the way in the quantity and quality of intercultural contact are business and education.  Since a large proportion of Americans report meeting their future mate in these same two settings – work and school – it should come as no surprise that along with the increase in intercultural contact there is a concurrent increase in the rate of intercultural and interethnic courtship activity (Choi, 2005). This paper will explore the cultural values that bear on courtship and communication, identify and predict interpersonal communication problems that could arise, and will suggest methods to mitigate their negative effect on a relationship.             The case of Chinese/American intercultural dating is selected as the lens through which this paper will explore its research questions.  This example was selected due to both the increase in contact between these two groups and because the distinct differences between these two cultures makes for a larger variety of inherent difficulties in interpersonal communication between their members.  Because of differences in values, communication styles, and culture-based expectations for dating, Chinese/American cross-cultural couples face distinct communication challenges that can fortunately be overcome through competence in intercultural communication. State of the Field, Terms, and Methodology  The question of communication problems in courtship and mate relationships has been studied across many contexts and variables before, including in research by Nicotera (1997), Blood & Nicholson (1962), Romano (1988) and Hamon & Ingoldsby (2003).  Because the nature of communication difficulties is highly dependent on the specific cultures involved, their research is most often divided into sections or subsections that analyses a particular bi-cultural dyad.  The above-mentioned research does come to use general conclusions about the universal nature and needs of any human couple (Sharlin, 2000 pp. 54-55) which will be utilized in conjunction with more specialized studies of American and Chinese cases.            Because even the cultural labels of “Chinese” and “American” are broad and ambiguous, this study will further sub-divide these terms into the three groups “native Chinese,” “Chinese-American,” and “American.”  For the purposes of both specificity and efficiency, our examples will use native Chinese to refer to the young and middle-aged urban residents in China’s coastal cities.  This is to exclude those Chinese of economic disadvantage because in the past members of these poorer groups have married Americans for political or economic reasons (Xinhua, 2006). We will also exclude marriages of extreme economic and educational inequality because they also pose problems that are outside the range of this study.  American refers to members of the dominant culture of the United States, whose members are more likely than not to be of European descent.  Last, Chinese-American refers to Americans of Chinese ethnic heritage that retain elements of their parent’s or grandparent’s culture.              Chinese-American/American and native Chinese/American are the couple pairs used to compose examples and hypothetical situations.  The research aims to provide the increasing number of American/Chinese couples with information to clarify, predict, and overcome the intercultural hurtles in their romantic relationships and marriages. 

Culture’s Role in Courtship: America

            Culture has a strong effect on courtship patterns and norms.  Americans score low on ratings of power-distance and formality, and this carries over to romantic relationships that are often much more casual, at least at first, than those in other cultures. The American emphasis on individuality and self-reliance as well as progress towards gender equality results in American women that can be more assertive than women in many other cultures.  Ideally, Americans tend to marry for reasons of love and put lesser emphasis on social class and wealth while these factors can play a large role in the mate selection criteria of other cultures.  Last, American communication style is assertive, direct and low-context.  This value is manifested in the level of frankness and directness in dating practices, which can be at odds with the notions of politeness and modesty present in other cultures.              In a study on mono-cultural American relationships, the “mateship attributes” that more than 50% of male and female respondents identified as important to a “mate-type” relationship were trust, friendship, love, and honesty (Nicotera, 1997 p. 22).  Qualities paramount in other cultures such as duty, interdependence and obedience (Kline, Horton & Zhang, 2005, p. 15) ranked much lower or were completely absent.  Foreign men studying in American universities often described the American dating system to be “completely different” from that of their home country – no matter where they were from (Blood & Nicholson, 1962  p. 241).  This can be a result of the qualities that Americans value in a mate, which de-emphasize commitment and duty.  In contrast to their home countries, many respondents noted that in America, dating “is an end in itself rather than oriented toward marriage,” (Blood and Nicholson, 1962 p. 242).  Although men from all areas of the world found this to be different, those from East Asia in particular expressed that Americans’ option to date with casual acquaintances without intent to marry to be the difference that are hardest to accept (Blood and Nicholson, 1962  p. 242.)            American culture values uniqueness and individual expression and so mate selection criteria is generally more varied than that of other cultures.  Among American couples, “shared interests and value system…the ability to give and take, and flexibility,” were mentioned as an important variable contributing to a successful marriage.  However, others mentioned the opposite, “an equalitarian relationship with many complementary features,” as an important factor (Sharlin, 2000 p. 54.)  Americans choose mates based on criteria that other cultures might require in a friend, not a life-partner: equality and shared interests.  In a 2000 study, Woo corroborates this assessment, with her conclusions that “[qualities] making for intimacy [among European Americans] were those closely tied to personal efforts toward realizing one’s individual identity, if not freedom or independence.  Individual autonomy, in fact, seemed to be taken for granted.”  Among the qualities valued by Americans searching for a partner, this preference for autonomy may be the most troublesome for the intercultural couple due to its lack of emphasis in the Chinese culture.            Norms of language use in America are unique when compared with traditional societies like China’s.   Because of America’s comparatively short history, diversity of ethnic backgrounds, and lack of a monolithic traditional culture to prescribe norms for behavior, Americans rely on a low-context communication technique that relies on direct verbal signals.  Factors that lead to effective communication among American couples reflects this cultural background, with most couples identifying “honesty and not expecting the other to engage in ‘mind reading’ to know what is wanted or felt,” as the most important (Sharlin, 2000, p. 66.)  Second only to the differences in role-expectation among Chinese/American couples, the preference of Americans for direct patterns of speech may one of the most difficult obstacles for successful intercultural relationships. Contrasting Culture: The Chinese Example              The Chinese counterparts of the elements of American culture described above show significant contrast.  As a culture Chinese show preferences for harmony, collectivism and hierarchy which presents issues in the context of the individualist-minded dating system common to Americans.  Though it is changing in recent years (Jankowiak, 1989, p. 64; Evans, 1995, pp. 357-359), Chinese relationships still tend to be more formal than casual, and the qualities attributed to a good mate are comparatively rigid.  Chinese communication style is also very indirect and along with the fact that a Chinese/American relationship will have at least one member speaking a second language, the possibilities for technical communication difficulties are significant.            Because of a continued reliance on traditional practices in China, there exists a large gap between the dating procedures among typical native Chinese and Americans.  Americans and native Chinese both engage in activities with spouses such as eating out, “talking activities,” and physical intimacy at similar rates (Kline, Horton & Zhang, 2005 pp. 13-14) but the order and timing of these activities has higher variance.  A 1992 study on sexuality in urban China finds that despite changes due to international cultural influence, “China highly emphasizes female virginity,” and “a girl will be ranked at a much lower status in the marriage market once it is suspected she is not a virgin,” (Zha & Geng, 1992 p. 9).  American attitudes towards sexuality are more liberal, and pre-marital sexual relations are treated with substantially less stigma.  There is also strong resistance in the conservative P.R.C. government to the deterioration of traditional sexual norms.  Jolly & Ram (2001) provide this representative statement by an official: “[sexual] liberation and freedom sound very attractive but on closer scrutiny can be seen to be fundamentally harmful to both the individual and society at large.”  Among a culture that places a high value upon reverence of the past, traditional value systems will persist in playing a large role in shaping the individual decision making process in the context of dating.              Although Chinese society has progressed away from the prescribed mate selection criteria promulgated in 1950 by the first version of the Chinese Marriage Law “appropriate criteria for mate choice: personal compatibility, political attitudes, and character”,  research shows that tradition persists here as well (Jankowiak, 1989 p. 65; Evans, 1995 pp. 387-388).  Kline’s study found that while several general positive emotions were associated with love in marriage were common to both Americans and Chinese, Americans reported “going out together,” or shared entertainment, as important along with honesty, openness, and unrestrained feelings as important qualities, all of which were absent from the Chinese responses (Kline, 2005 pp. 14-15).  This reflects American’s value of directness and equality in a marriage relationship.  The Chinese side, on the other hand, selected respectfulness, reliability, and faithfulness which were absent from the American’s survey (pp. 15-16).  This shows that an American may be expecting his partner to fill a role similar to that of an outspoken and equal friend while the Chinese prefer stable duty-fulfillment rather than unique personal compatibility with their partner.                Criteria other than character traits also enter into the equation of mate-selection among Chinese and Americans, and these too show manifest differences between the cultures.  The Chinese are a proud culture of relatively high ethnic homogeneity and harbor some historically-based prejudices against certain outsiders.  A 1994 study on anti-Black racism in China explains that “historical and contemporary evidence [suggests] that Chinese intellectuals have held notions of black inferiority,” and that “anti-Black bias can in turn be seen in the context of a recrudescence of elitist values that link and denigrate those who are dark and those who are poor,” (Sautman, 1994 p. 427).  This is continued reflection of the traditional idealization of fair skin in Chinese culture which associated it as representative of education and nobility in opposition to the peasantry which became tan from work in the fields.               In a similar phenomenon, the relatively rigid class structure in China does not allow for the free choice of mates more common in the U.S.  Instead, both hypogyny and hypergyny (marrying “up” and marrying “down,” respectively) are regarded as improper.  The case of a man marrying for upward social status is especially egregious, it is assumed that “men who use women’s disadvantages,” i.e. physical unattractiveness or age, “to gain social status are considered unscrupulous social-climbers who do not genuinely care for these women,” (Jankowiak, 1989 p. 68).  In this context, whether the man was interested in the woman to fulfill American style mate criteria (personal compatibility, shared interests) would probably not be considered.  The idea that people from different classes are inherently incompatible for marriage is certainly present in Western European and U.S. culture as well, but not nearly to the extent in China.  For example, in Chinese cities, “when women leave the university campus to go shopping downtown, they prefer to wear their university [ID] badge [because they]… ‘don’t want workers coming up to us and starting a conversation,” (Jankowiak, 1989 p. 68).  This blatant class discrimination, while perhaps unexpected in an ideologically Communist state, is nonetheless considered much more acceptable behavior in China than in the U.S.              Communication behaviors show another significant variation between U.S. and Chinese society.  What is defined as the “good communication skills” necessary for marital satisfaction in an American family includes “openness, honesty, and transparency in self-disclosure… an assertive, clear disclosing of and sensitivity to thoughts and feelings,” (Sharlin, 2000 p. 71).  However, often the opposite is the case in the Chinese situation.  Gao’s study on Chinese language usage finds that “meanings often reside in unspoken messages,” (Gao, 1998 p. 171).  This results in an emphasis on high-context, non-verbal communication.  For example, “a hand movement, a smile, and a shrug…convey embedded meanings,” which can be different from the meanings Americans would associate with these signals: “Chinese may smile to express embarrassment, frustration, or nervousness.”  Even when verbal communication is taking place, “nonverbal communication often provides important cues for interpretation of verbal messages,” resulting in lost or overlooked meanings for the non-Chinese observer (Gao, 1998 p. 171).   

Conclusions: Anticipated Communication Problems, and Their Solutions

            The communication scholar Edward T. Hall wrote, “While personality is undoubtedly a factor in interpersonal synchrony, culture is also a powerful determinant,” (Hall, 1983, p. 163).  So, while the personal characteristics are very relevant in even intercultural relationships, the above comparative culture study results in pinpointing several relevant differences between Chinese/Chinese-American culture and American culture in values, courtship role preferences, and language.  Each of these differences brings with it a host of anticipated communication problems which will need to be addressed for such an intercultural relationship to work.            In the areas of values and role expectations between Chinese and Americans, the primary sources of potential conflict in an interpersonal relationship will likely be the conflict between the American concepts of equality, autonomy, and individuality versus the Chinese expectations for duty and respect in a relationship (mostly the male expecting these qualities in the female).  It can be assumed that if a couple is already dating, these general value conflicts have already been addressed and disregarded.  However, Romano (1988) has found the opposite to be true: that in the earlier “honeymoon” stages of a relationship, conflicts of internal values will be overlooked and it is only after marriage that the couple “[becomes] fully aware of how many differences there are, how deeply embedded some of them are, and how these differences are going to affect their life together,” (Romano, 1988 p. xiii).  The latter stages, after marriage, are described as similar to the effect of culture-shock (Romano, 1988 p. xv).                Hypothetical examples are easy to formulate based on these differences.  A Chinese man married to an American woman may find it difficult to accept a wife who expresses her autonomy and need for personal growth by going out and getting a part time job to the point of neglecting what traditional China would consider a wife’s duties in the home.  In an polar example, an American male married to a Chinese woman may at first enjoy his traditional wife’s dutiful and compliant manner.  However, studies have shown that Americans of European descent reflect their values in “an attraction to individuals who displayed self-sufficiency,” (Woo, 2000 p. 169).  After the honeymoon period, the American husband may become displeased with his wife’s cultural-based inclination to wait for her husband’s approval before making decisions on her own.  These are both generalized examples, but are readily applicable and illustrate the potential for conflict inherent in a clash of values and expectations.                   Language problems can also create misunderstandings that lead to conflict, especially when an English-speaking monolingual American comes into contact with a Chinese who speaks English as a second language.  Although being a native speaker of English, as the lingua franca, might be considered to be an advantage to intercultural communication, it in fact leads more often to misunderstanding and conflict.  This is because without prior experience to the difficulties of operating in a foreign language, the native English speaker more easily and erroneously assumes that everything being said by their partner carries the same meaning as when they says the same words in the same way.  Even if their partner has a strong command of English, absolute clarity and nuance is difficult to achieve (Romano, 1988 p. 92).  If the American does not have the patience and flexibility to accomodate imperfect communication, they may assume that what is being said in English is accurately reflective of what their partner is thinking. This may result in a lack of comprehensive expression and the problems that come with it.                Despite the potential for problems, with sufficient motivation obstacles of intercultural communication can be overcome for Chinese/American couples.  In fact, “most social scientists writing from an assimilationist perspective see the amalgamation of different racial groups as an inevitable final step; and perhaps if the time span is stretched long enough, some type of racial intermingling will no doubt occur,” (Kitano, Yeung, Chai & Hatanaka, 1984, p. 179).  In fact, there is considerable success in this area already.  Weiss has shown in a 1970 study that due to proportionally more success at assimilation to American dating customs, Chinese-American women have had great success marrying Americans, despite some traditional cultural opposition (pp. 277-288).  Though at the time of the study, several factors contributed to a lower rate of success for Chinese-American males. These included a focus on academic studies that precluded sufficient socialization, negative American stereotypes of Chinese men, and a desire to preserve traditional Chinese dating behavior (Weiss, 1970 p. 277).            Studies suggest that a change in role expectations can pose a major difficulty for intercultural couples.  Specifically, “if one of the partners is forced to adhere to a more severe role delineation than was customary at home, there may be severe problems,” (Romano, 1988 p. 47).  Other research shows that one reason that the American male and Chinese female relationships might be more successful is that Chinese have shown to be significantly more persuasible than Americans (Chu, 1966, p. 171).  That is to say that because of a collectivist, authoritarian and hierarchical cultural upbringing, Chinese may be more amenable to changing their behaviors and expectations than their more stubborn American counterparts may be.  Though this would be present in both male and female Chinese, the traditional Confucian relationships deem males as superior to females in marriage, and so although Chinese men might be more persuasible than their American counterparts, they would likely be less pliable when forced to conform to an American wife’s expectations.             With an understanding of the potential pitfalls of intercultural relationships and a motivation to succeed, it is possible to overcome or avoid potential conflicts.  Particular factors contributing to success are (1) a strong motivation to succeed; (2) the presence of common goals between the partners – are you both working towards the same end?; and (3) sensitivity and flexibility towards the inevitable challenges of communication (Romano, 1988 p. 126).              With these factors present, researchers suggest a number of practical steps and ideas that in combination can help intercultural couples.  These include living together before marriage, visiting each other’s family, a commitment to learn the native language of each partner, observing your partner among his/her friends or seeing a professional counselor (Romano, 1988 pp. 141-147).  Based on the success of Chinese-American/American marriage, it can also be concluded that a desire and ability to assimilate into one of the partner’s cultural behaviors can result in a higher success rate (Kitano, Yeung, Chai & Hatanaka, 1984), although this is not always desirable or possible.  Instead, a willingness to understand the cultural reasons for each partner’s behavior (i.e. lack of ethnocentrism) is both more easily practiced and necessary.              Although Chinese and American culture have a large divergence in terms of core values, behaviors, marriage roles and language, romantic interpersonal relationships are nonetheless both possible and oftentimes successful. The large numbers of areas that hold the potential for conflict produce challenges for these couples.  But in an era of increasing contact between these two groups, research such as that contained in this paper will provide the information needed to overcome these challenges.    References Blood, R.O. & Nicholson, S.O. (1962).  The experiences of foreign students in dating   American Women.  Marriage and Family Living, vol. 24, no. 3, 241-248. Choi, C.  (2005, November 2.) Interracial dating rises, but marriage still lags.  Associated         Press State and Local Wire [Albany].  Viewed on April 29, 2006 via Lexis-Nexis       database. Chu, G.C.  (1966).  Culture, personality, and persuasibility.  Sociometry, vol. 29, no. 2,            169-174. Evans, H.  (1995).  Defining difference: the “scientific construction of sexuality and         gender in the People’s Republic of China.  Signs, 20:2, 357-394.   Fong, C. & Yung, J.  (1995).  In search of the right spouse: interracial marriage among Chinese and Japanese Americans. Amerasia Journal v21.n3 (Winter 1995):         pp77-93(21). Gao, G.  (1998).  “Don’t take my word for it.” – understanding Chinese speaking          practices.  International Journal of Intercultural Relations, vol. 22, no. 2, 163-    186. Hamon, R.R. & Ingoldsby B.B. (Eds.). (2003). Mate selection across cultures.            Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc.   Hall, E.T. (1983).  The dance of life.  Garden City, NY: Anchor Press/Doubleday. Hirano, J., Sodei, T. & Kin, K. (2000).  Attitude toward marriage and mate      selection among Japanese and Korean college students.  Journal of Social      Sciences and Family Studies, 7, 25-39.   Hofstede, G.H.  (2001).  Culture’s consequences: comparing values, behaviors,      institutions, and organizations across nations, 2nd ed.  Thousand Oaks,             California: Sage Publications, Inc.   Jankowiak, W.R.  (1989).  Sex differences in mate selection and sexuality in the People’s          Republic of China.  Australian Journal of Chinese Affairs, no. 22, 63-83. Jolly, M. & Ram, K. (Eds.).  (2001).  Border’s of being: citizenship, fertility, and      sexuality in Asia and the Pacific.  Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan             Press. Kitano, H.H.L., Yeung, W., Chai, L. & Hatanaka, H.  (1984).  Asian-American interracial        marriage.  Journal of Marriage and the Family, 179-190.   Kline,   S., Horton, B. & Zhang, S (2005). How we think, feel and express love: a cross-cultural comparison between American and East Asian cultures.  Conference Papers –International Communication Association,            Annual Meeting, New York,    NY, p1-28 Miller, R. & Browning, S.L. (Eds.) (1999). Till Death Do Us Part: A multicultural        anthology on marriage. Stamford, Connecticut: Jai Press INC. not used Nicotera, A.M. (1997). The mate relationship: cross cultural applications of a rules            theory. Albany: State University of New York Press. Pimentel, E.E. (2000).  Just how do I love thee?  Marital relations in urban China.          Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 32-47.  Romano, D.  (1988).  Intercultural marriage: promises and pitfalls.  Yarmouth:        Intercultural Press, Inc.   Sautman, B.  (1994).  Anti-black racism in post-Mao China.  The China Quarterly, no.           138, 413-437.   Sharlin, S.A. (2000).  Together through thick and thin: a multinational picture of long        term marriages. Binghampton: The Haworth Press INC.  Sinclair, K. (2006, January 17). Till death do us wed. South China Morning Post.   Weiss, M.S. (1970). Selective acculturation and the dating process: the patterning of     Chinese-Caucasian interracial dating.  Journal of Marriage and the Family, vol.       32, no. 2, 273-278. Woo, D.  Social patterns in intimacy and support: European Americans and Chinese      Americans.  In: Miller, R. & Browning, S.L. (Eds.) (2000). With this ring: divorce, intimacy, and            cohabitation from a multicultural perspective.     Stamford: Jai Press INC. Xinhua news agency, Beijing. (2006, March 8). Chinese advisers urge rights of women marrying foreigners protected.  Xinhua news agency [Beijing].  Accessed via BBC      Monitoring Asia Pacific. Zha, B. & Geng W.  (1992).  Sexuality in urban China.  The Australian Journal of      Chinese Affairs, no. 28, 1-20.