The Dragon battles back to beat Nike
By Benjamin Robertson

BEIJING - Easily dismissible as a classic piece of government over-reaction, Beijing's banning of US sportswear manufacturer Nike's latest television advertisement - featuring a US basketball hero trouncing dragons, a martial-arts teacher and flying spirits - says a lot about China's lingering sense of victim status.

Titled "Chamber of Fear", the advertisement featured National Basketball Association star LeBron James simultaneously dribbling a ball while fighting off several adversaries, clearly Asian and very possibly Chinese. In the ad, produced using a computer-game format, James' goal was to encourage children to learn from his own upbringing and experience to confront life's hurdles and not run from them.

Part of a global advertising campaign, the ad was aired nationally for more than a month before a statement on the ban was issued on December 6 by China's State Administration for Radio, Film and Television (SARFT). Since the government said the ad "violates regulations that mandate that all advertisements in China should uphold national dignity and interest and respect the motherland's culture", Nike (named after the winged Greek goddess of victory) had no choice but to admit defeat and apologize. Nike subsequently relaunched the ad in a heavily edited format. Nike sportswear is hugely popular, as a status symbol, in China (and shoes and clothing also are made in that country and others), with sales rising 66% last year to about US$300 million and more than one store a day opening in the nation of 1.3 billion people.

With no further government explanation offered, viewers of national and local channels were left to make up their own minds about why Nike's "Chamber of Fear" should have caused such offense. There are almost a billion TV viewers in Greater China - the mainland, Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan.

The answer comes in two parts. The first is the computerized adversaries that were soundly defeated included an ancient-looking martial arts teacher complete with long, wispy beard, several female spirits feitian (literally "flying heaven" similar to Buddhist bodhisattavas), and - perhaps most crucially - two dragons, the traditional symbol of the Chinese nation. All the defeated adversaries are icons closely associated with Chinese culture. The second is that James is a black American.

Whether it would have mattered if James were white or Asian remains a matter of conjecture. Although not uncommon to hear derogatory remarks or witness discriminatory actions toward black people in China, the notion that James' color may have influenced the government's decision was not touched upon by the large number of Chinese and foreign media reports on the announcement.

What is certain is that in some people's eyes Nike was being cavalier in its use of Chinese cultural icons, and depending upon how far you take the imagery, conveying an impression of Western cultural domination. "All the Chinese in the advertisement were defeated, including the dragon. This damages China's image and suggests China is incapable," a man called Hu complained on the Xinhua.net Internet message board.

This is not the first time a foreign advertisement has courted controversy. Against the backdrop of prickly Sino-Japanese relations, Toyota made headlines last year after an ad featured Chinese lion statues bowing their heads in respect to the auto maker's latest model. Experts suggest that the country's historical relationship with foreign powers has made China sensitive to any suggestions that it and its culture are inferior. Further, Japan's invasion of China, the Nanjing Massacre and other brutalities make China extremely sensitive to suggestions of Japanese superiority.

"When you take this advert, some people will look at it from the point of view of comparative status. LeBron James represents America and the computerized characters represent China," Feng Cheng, the organizer of a Beijing club that promotes Chinese culture to foreigners, told Asia Times Online.

"When two people of the same economic standing tell jokes about each other, it does not matter, as might be the case among Western countries. But when a rich man makes fun of a poor farmer in front of him, then the farmer loses face. All the farmer has is self-respect, and that is now being taken away," Feng said.

Although China is an economic giant and a major player in international diplomacy today, the lessons of Chinese history paint a different picture of China, and that different, darker image still resonates. Typified by the infamous "no dogs" and "no Chinese" sign that marked the entrance to an early-20th-century park in Shanghai, Chinese history textbooks are replete with examples of national humiliation at the hands of Western and Japanese imperial powers. Once a rallying call for Chinese nationalists of all political persuasions, the lesson for today's students is clear - never let your country suffer such indignity again.

"What would Americans think if Chinese people made fun of Mount Rushmore, or how would the Japanese respond if we made fun of Mount Fuji?" asked the Beijing Xinjing Bao (New Capital Newspaper) in an editorial about the decision to ban the Nike ad. Much to the Xinjing Bao editor's surprise, the answer would be that very few, if any, Americans would take offense if a Chinese company such as Haier, the nation's biggest appliance maker that  has cornered the US market in mini-fridges, were to use images of US presidents to help sell more mini-fridges - US companies have probably already done it.

"I think that the fact the US does not suffer from an implicit inferiority complex may have had a part to play when this advert was designed," said John Lombard, chief cultural consultant with New Leaders International, a company that helps people overcome cultural barriers. However, Lombard also told Asia Times Online that in addition to cultural and historical factors, the government's criticism of the Nike ad should fall within a wider political context. TV presenters' skimpy wardrobes, violent video games, and a scheduled but never aired sex talk show, Masks (in which participants discuss their sexual experiences and problems), all recently have run afoul of the government media watchdog agency. This indicates that the reaction to the "Chamber of Fear" could be part of a broader effort to enforce a more rigorous code of conduct on media operators, Lombard said.

However, not all viewers supported the government's response. Soon after the official announcement, online chat rooms posted many mixed opinions, perhaps reflecting a gap between a younger, computer games-playing demographic (at whom the advertisement was  targeted), and an older generation. Some denounced the ban as an affront to free expression and others condemned the Nike ad itself as an affront to Chinese culture. 

The incident is unlikely to cause long-term damage for Nike, which runs a powerful nationwide marketing campaign to promote its "cool" image, the company can perhaps take comfort from the notion that there is supposed to be no such thing as bad publicity.

Benjamin Robertson is a freelance writer based in Beijing.

(Copyright 2004 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us for information on sales, syndication and republishing.)