Here are the complaints re: Confucianism, excerpted from above:

…Confucianism omitted out of the social relationships man’s social obligations toward the stranger…Theoretically, it was provided for in the “doctrine of reciprocity”…But this relationship toward “others” was not one of the five cardinal relationships…in theory at least, Confucius did not mean family consciousness to degenerate into a form of magnified selfishness at the cost of social integrity…He meant the moral training in the family as the basis for general moral training [from which] a society should emerge which would live happily and harmoniously together…The consequences are fairly satisfactory for the family, but disastrous for the state…

Cheng (1990) points out that the Confucian “five cardinal relationships” (wǔ lún; 五伦) put too much emphasis on family and one-to-one relationships (e.g., brother to brother and father to son); hence, they fail to address the broader aspect of human relationship, such as that between a person and the community at large. Liáng Qǐ Chāo 梁启超 (1936), a prominent thinker in modern Chinese history, attributed a Chinese person’s lack of “civic morality” (gōng dé; 公德) and sense of obligation to society to the Confucian ethic

Strangers have no place in this social logic and are not mentioned in any of the Five Cardinal Relations [Confucian values]. In this vacuum there are no constraints beyond self-interest to bind people together.

The only principle that might guide behaviour towards strangers is the Chinese ‘golden rule’ of Confucius, ‘Do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you.’ This counsel, however, is in the negative and prohibits harmful acts rather than promoting helpfulness.

I totally understand, first-hand, how an aspect of a cultural heritage can be unfairly scapegoated for all the ills of that culture. But so far, here and on other blogs, the only pro-Confucian responses I’ve seen to these criticism boil down to, “You/foreigners/Western-influenced-Chinese don’t know what they’re talking about.” I’d much rather see people engage the specific criticisms quoted above.

Before one blame Confucius it’s best to read and understand what he says.

… and study the results of faithfully applying his ideas in society. But I’ve never heard anyone argue that Confucius would approve of the kind of behaviour we’re discussing here. People are blaming the heritage of Confucianism, or the practical results of his teachings as a whole (for example, where he did and did not lay his emphases), more than man himself or his specific teachings. Of course the historical Confucian heritage as it played/is playing out in Chinese culture is not 100% faithful to Confucius’ actual ideas, generally similar to the way many points in ‘Christian’ history are directly contrary to the actual life and teachings of Jesus. Furthermore, Confucius’ teachings no doubt have results in some areas that he did not anticipate and would not approve of, either through lack of foresight on his part or misapplication by his followers and the society at large, similar to same way it can be said that, “Calvin would not be a Calvinist” (depending on which brand of Calvinism you’re referring to).

Anyway, I’m still waiting for someone to address the specific criticisms I’ve quoted. That would be interesting, and I’d probably learn something! :)

Confucius said nothing about foreigners as China was then composed of many small tribal kingdoms. Confucius was invited by different rulers to offer advice in many of them and so most of the people he spoke to were, effectively, strangers. We can glean how people should behave according to Confucius in regard to strangers from the following quotes by the Master from the Lun Yu:

“By nature, men are nearly alike; by practice, they develop in ways to be wide apart.” (Lun Yu: 17.3).

A young man should be a good son at home and an obedient young man abroad, sparing of speech but trustworthy in what he says, and should love the people at large and cultivate friendships among them” [Lun Yu: I.6].

The Master said, “The Chun Tzu (Gentleman)thinks of Ren; the small man thinks of comfort. The superior man thinks of the welfare of others; the small man thinks of the favors which he may himself personally receive” (Lun Yu: 4.11).

The master said, ‘Guide them by edicts, keep them in line with punishments, and the common people may stay out of trouble but they will have no sense of shame. Guide them by virtue, take seriously the performance of Rites, and the people will, besides having a sense of shame, reform themselves (Lun Yu: ii.3).

King Chi K’ang, distressed about the number of thieves, inquired of Confucius how to do away with them. Confucius said, “If you, sir, were not so covetous and set an example in regard modesty and frugality , there would be no thought of thievery, theft and lawlessness throughout the kingdom” (Lun Yu: 12.18)

In this, the last quote, Confucius is referring to ‘remoter’ people or strangers when he says the following:

If remoter people are not submissive, all the influences of civil culture and virtue should be cultivated in order to attract them; and when they have been so attracted, they must be made contented and tranquil(Lun Yu 16.1).

Before one blame Confucius it’s best to read and understand what he says.

The good samaritan who finally pulled her off the street is now being blamed for doing it only for attention!

Evidently, everything’s still normal back in China.

I used to thought Chinese people do not want to hear “thank you” too much!

I realised why now after reading your article.