The point that really sticks to me is the idea that it is the faulty translation of ancient Chinese text that leads western scholars to the conclusion that China does not have a structured tradition of rhetoric, and therefore the Chinese are not logical.  Both Xing Lu and Yameng Liu make this point in their articles.  Through out Chinese history struggles for political power encouraged the need for literacy.  People were needed who were adept in oral communication and persuasive discourse.  The ancient Chinese had an “awareness of the power and impact of language” (Lu 6). Many western scholars believe that speech is deprecated and silence is valued.  It was not silence that was valued it was speech that was substantial, appropriate and wise. Speech that was shallow, false or “flowery” was depreciated.   According to Lu this interpretation of Chinese culture desiring silence is a misinterpretation of the word for speech– yan.  In Chinese, yan can represent a variety of speech types.  It is the context of the whole piece that a translator has to look at not just literal meanings.           

I never thought that China did not have a rhetorical system or tradition.  This idea was new to me and rather racists.  The work of Carolyn Matalene in the article written by Yameng Lu was particularly offensive.  Matalene based her whole claim that Chinese thought does not value the new and suffers from faulty logical skills on the essay of one student.  This student is one who is bilingual (English/Chinese), and one that does not truly reflect the greater population of China.  This student is trained in the western rhetoric.  Lu goes through the student’s essay and outlines the argument and the line of logic.  Why did Matalene berate this student’s essay?  Was it because she believed the stereotypical view of Chinese rhetoric?  Rather than learning Chinese, Matalene bases her views on antiquated translations and research that is ethnocentric at best. Lu states “she has found both a conceptual framework, categories of comparison and even specific observations about Chinese rhetoric with which to impose an order on…the unruly data she gathered” (321).

 The problem that Lu brings up is the initial misunderstanding of the original text.  This misunderstanding leads to over generalizations about China, Chinese culture and Chinese rhetoric.  The lack of translation of many key texts makes it impossible to adequately study Chinese rhetoric.  Lu states that “the continued lack of English translations of key rhetorical text constitute a major obstacle to a fuller understanding of rhetoric in the Chinese tradition, lending currency to the myth of a very limited body of source material relevant to the study of those traditions” (332).  Throughout Chinese history there have been many, and often competing, schools of thought such as Ming, Confucianism, Mohism, Daoism, and Legalism, each of these focusing on