Slashdot Mirror
Strategy Videogame Upsets Chinese, Gets Banned
An anonymous reader writes "China's State News Agency, Xinhua reports that China's Ministry of Culture has banned a computer game for 'distorting history and damaging China's sovereignty and territorial integrity'. Paradox's PC strategy game 'Hearts of Iron', was accused of distorting historical facts in describing Manchuria, West Xinjiang, and Tibet as independent sovereign countries in the maps of the game. 'All these severely distort historical facts and violate China's gaming and Internet service regulations,' the Ministry's Game Products Censorship Committee said. 'The game should be immediately prohibited.' [via China Digital]"
Tibet *was* an independent sovereign nation before China took it over. Just because you don't like being known as a bully doesn't mean you aren't one.
Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never, ever get it out. -Thomas Cardinal Wolsey
It IS ridiculous, because they complain that: 'Moreover, "Manchuria", "West Xinjiang", and "Tibet" appeared as independent sovereign countries in the maps of the game. In addition, it even included China's Taiwan province as the territory of Japan at the beginning of the game."
Well, Taiwan WAS a Japanese colony in 1936, (following the 1894 Sino-Japanese war Taiwan was ceded to the Japanese) and Tibet WAS independent till 1959 when China invaded it.
And Xinjiang was *CERTAINLY* not an independant nation at any time, ever. It has always been considered an "autonomous region" along with a great portion of that western side of China, but it is by no means independant. It still functions under the rules and mandates of the Chinese government(s), and has done so for the past 2200 years.
So I believe that, although their action because of it was a bit extreme, they were at least correct in their reasoning for two of the states. The first one, Tibet, was indeed an independant soverignty until 1950, and so should not have been on that list. (of course, the propaganda surrounding the Tibetan situation with China is such that they would like people to believe otherwise)
And as a final, humorous note... should the United States censor Risk, that divides our country into five partitions. =)
-Vendal Thornheart
It says "circular", not "perfect circle".
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
Do you not know anyone who's gotten married in the last few decades? In the USA, women certainly can keep their surname after marriage. Simply... continue using it! If you don't explicitly change government IDs, you retain the existing name. Nothing to it.
Hogwash. This betrays a complete lack of knowledge of Chinese and Tibetan history. Imperial China routinely claimed sovereignty over every state with which it had diplomatic relations, on the theory that the Emperor could only enter into the relationship of master to vassal, including Japan, Okinawa (an independant country until 1609), Korea, and Vietnam. The Qing dynasty may have claimed sovereignty over Tibet, but Tibet was de facto an independent state and did not acknowledge Chinese sovereignty. The Qing did not exercise effective control of Tibet. Nor did the Qing carry out, or for that matter, even attempt, the cultural genocide that the People's Republic has engaged in. The Qing didn't destroy thousands of temples, kill thousands of monks and nuns, suppress the use of the Tibetan language, and settle millions of Han colonists in Tibet. The destruction of Tibetan culture began in 1951, not during the Qing.
In any case, as a matter of international law, the critical fact is that in 1951, at the time of the Chinese invasion, Tibet was an independant state. It had a distinctive population occupying a well-defined territory under the effective control of its own government. The government of Tibet issued currency and passports that were internationally recognized. It entered into diplomatic relations as a sovereign nation with other countries, including Nepal,Mongolia, Great Britain, and Ladakh. In fact, The Republic of China negotiated with Tibet as a sovereign nation at the Simla Conference in 1913-1914.
Notice that the parent contradicts himself. He claims that Tibet was under the control of the Qing, then justifies Chinese occupation of Tibet by the claim that the traditional government headed by the Dalai Lama was an oppressive theocracy. Unless he wants to adopt the implausible view that the traditional government somehow developed between 1911 (end of the Qing) and 1951, by critizing the traditional government he is admitting that the Qing did not in fact control Tibet.
In any case, if the traditional government was oppressive, and it did indeed have its faults, that doesn't justify the introduction of an equaly if not more oppressive foreign government, nor does it justify massive Chinese colonization and cultural genocide. An internal revolution in Tibet might have been justified (though in fact the current Dalai Lama, who was 17 years old at the time of the Chinese invasion, has proved to be a reformist who would no doubt have made considerable changes), but the only legitimate role that China or other foreign countries might have played would have been to assist Tibetans in establishing a more just government.
Xinjiang has been under the control of China for just over two millenia.
Incorrect. Xinjiang was most recently not under Chinese control during the Ming dynasty. It has at various times within the last two millenia been under the control of the Mongols, Tibetans, and been semi-organized/independent under Turkish tribes.
Oh, and Machuria was independent during the Ming dynasty as well. And the only reason it wasn't distinct afterwards (through the 19th century) was that the Manchu conquered Ming China.
1. Isn't that the same reasoning behing the Iraqi tortures? "... but when Sadam ruled them, they were tortured even harder!
That is similarly illogical thinking. That is EXACTLY what I was accusing you of doing, thank you. If you think that the above statement is absurd (it is!) then why are you doing the same thing?
And furthermore, it's your good right to think I'm stupid, but imho it does show your lack of actual counterarguments.
No, it does not. Your arguments are filled with pointless diatribe and hyperbole. Furthermore, a key point you brought up in your response (that this article is about banning a video game) is destructive to the entire argument you are trying to make (i.e. that US publications only criticize other countries' governments)
- Yes, this post is about banning a video game. That is why it is on Slashdot. You can find TONS of anti-war, anti-US articles written by *gasp* US newspapers and online publications. These are NOT on Slashdot right now because of Slashdot's focus on technology and law. Typical anti-US articles on Slashdot focus on these two key areas, which in most cases involve complaints about government payoffs from entertainment conglomerates, the DMCA, the Patriot Act, etc.
By the way, Slashdot is not afilliated with the US government and as stated above is often extremely critical of that government. Why is it hypocritical for them to publish an article about another nation's abuse of the law in what is certainly their usual domain?
As for your last paragraph, I am at a loss for words trying to imagine in what way you think that Hollywood movies designed for entertainment can be validly compared to direct government alteration of history. Yes, China altered the history of the region, but not by banning a video game. I never said that. They banned the video game because it conflicts with the way in which they already altered history. Do you suppose that the US government has an official version of history and that no one is allowed to deviate from it in entertainment products? Because that is what we are discussing with China here.
As for your last paragraph, I am at a loss for words trying to imagine in what way you think that Hollywood movies designed for entertainment can be validly compared to direct government alteration of history.
Two Words: The Blacklist
Or did you never read anything about the McCarthy years, and what filmakers in Hollywood could, or could not portray in their films?
Amber
Wind Beneath Thy Wings
Glad Herbert Xu quit Debian - the project doesn't need someone like that.
e bi an.org/msg43619.html
Look at this posting to see what his real attitude is:
http://www.mail-archive.com/debian-boot@lists.d
He says: "Who cares? It'd be much better if you [Taiwanese] didn't use Debian at all.". Idiot.
He's awfully "nationalistic" for China for someone who is living in Australia of all places. What a hypocrite.