"Cosmopolitan justice and global egalitarianism, regardless of nationality and citizenship."

This might just be the Chinese era: Vera Wang is designing Kim Kardashian's wedding dress (she already did Chelsea Clinton's wedding dress, which I describe with incredulity as "mounds of chiffon"); Chinese/white couples are one in three along busy Yonge Street, although Chinese/black couples are getting more frequent; Offspring of these mixed couples often identify more with their Chinese background; Chinese (well 1/2 Chinese) families appear to lead the way in child upbringing, but read the fine print here.

China has become a world lender, and is now a critique of American financial institutions, yet it stockpiled through cheap "Made in China" products.

But, I've seen fissures in this "dominance" for a while now.
Vera Wang's "Mounds of Chiffon"

Part of it is that well-to-do Chinese in the West see themselves as victims rather than as successful members of a society. Many in the group behave as though they have grievances that will never go away. They behave as though they're losing. I think what's happening is that they cannot quite come up to par with the Western world and its civilization they're trying to usurp, so they whine instead. And the most effective way to whine is by latching on to the already established minority grievance systems in the U.S. and Canada, such as discrimination, human rights, social justice, etc.

Here is a researcher at the University of Pennsylvania, who has made his academic career working on such issues. I found his name on Mark Richardson's site, where Richardson posts a quote by him on national identity. Here is Richardson's short post:

Anthony D. Smith is Professor Emeritus of Nationalism and Ethnicity at the London School of Economics. This is his account of national identity:

National identity ... is felt by many people to satisfy their needs for cultural fulfilment, rootedness, security and fraternity ... Nations are linked by the chains of memory, myth and symbol to that widespread and enduring type of community, the ethnie, and this is what gives them their unique character and their profound hold over the feelings and imaginations of so many people.

(quoted in Kok-Chor Tan, Toleration, Diversity and Global Justice, kindle location 1276)

I got suspicious by the title of the book which the post came from: Toleration, Diversity and Global Justice. These are words associated with victimology and the culture of grievance. So I googled Kok-Chor Tan, and below is what I found.

Here is Tan's profile at the University of Pennsylvania's website:

Kok-Chor Tan
Associate Professor of Philosophy
University of Pennsylvania

My area of specialization is in political philosophy, and I am especially interested in problems of global justice, nationalism and human rights. Currently, I am thinking of a book-length project with the working title “Globalization and Culture: The Problems of Global Justice". At Penn, my teaching, which reflects these interests, includes courses on global justice, political philosophy, introductory ethics, and specialized courses on topics such multiculturalism and human rights. I have also taught courses in philosophy of law, biomedical ethics, and introduction to philosophy (freshman seminar).

Selected Publications:

1. Institutions, Luck, and Justice: the site, ground and scope of equality (Oxford University Press, forthcoming).

2. Justice Without Borders (Cambridge University Press, 2004).

3. Toleration, Diversity and Global Justice (Penn State Press, 2000)

So there you have it: "Justice," "Diversity," Toleration," "Equality." It looks like Tan is critiquing these modern concepts, but here is an Amazon.com synopsis on his book: Justice without Borders: Cosmopolitanism, Nationalism, and Patriotism (Contemporary Political Theory):

Tan believes that cosmopolitan justice need not deny the worth of the ordinary non-impartial values even as it defends a vision of global egalitarianism. Properly understood, it can set the limits for nationalist and patriotic efforts without denying the moral independence of these partial pursuits.

And here is quote from a review of the same book in the Journal of Moral Philosophy (page 1, [pdf file]):

This clear and highly convincing book articulates and defends a plausible version of cosmopolitanism while providing an excellent overview of recent debates. ‘Cosmopolitanism’, Tan begins, ‘takes the individual to be the ultimate unit of moral concern and to be entitled
to equal consideration regardless of nationality and citizenship’(p. 1). A major problem cosmopolitanism must face, particularly a strong cosmopolitanism such as Tan’s that is not content to seek a global economic minimum but wishes to address global inequality as well, is how to take account of special ties and commitments, particularly to one’s nation.

"Tan believes in cosmopolitan justice and global egalitarianism, regardless of nationality and citizenship." (Please excuse my reconstructed sentence using Tan's words from his writings.) How large and wonderful the world has suddenly become!

Tan is referred to as Malay. But a small and prominent population of Malaysia is of Chinese ethnicity, which is what Tan looks like (and his name demonstrates that). The Chinese Malaysians fiercely guard their ethnicity (and power) from the Indian and native Malay population. And these very same Chinese bring their politics when they immigrate to Canada or the U.S. (i.e. the West) in order to have their hand in the power play that will put them as high up in the diversity hierarchy as possible (which is the only power play in town), and which places them above blacks (and Indians, and Malay), and lower than whites.

On a side note (perhaps it is more important than that), one of Tan's forthcoming books is titled: Institutions, Luck, and Justice: the site, ground and scope of equality. I suspect that Tan's use of "luck" is not just some Chinese superstitious concept, but is his underhanded way of saying that a small group (whites) has all the trump cards (is lucky), but is unwilling to share equally these spoils with (the unlucky) majority. All this latter gets is what's left over, which isn't much. How is anyone to trust a "researcher" who capitulates to some fanciful concept as "luck" when his task as a professor, in a renowned research university, is to prove things right or wrong?

In terms of art and design, the angle I often use when looking at non-Western and Third World encroachment into the West, what we're getting is a facade of competence which on closer scrutiny discloses shabby standards. Unless we want to become like China and Malaysia (and even Japan, which makes its mark copying American and European technology and design), then we had better pay attention to this trend.

But back to the whining (which then leads to serious issues like Tan's research topics): I'm telling immigrants to go back to their countries of origin (all immigrants, second, third, fourth etc. generations, have "countries of origin"), if this particular country provokes their ire.