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]"
no matter how much it may sting, you can't repress the truth forever. I'm sure the people whom you've stomped on won't forget the truth.
... And this surprises anyone because...?
;) )
I admit, that this takes it to a new extreme though - what's next, censoring science fiction because the physics in the book violate the sci-fi laws that the government approved of?
I wonder if because the game is banned, will it push it underground, and make it more popular. (In that case, start hosting torrent files, people!
"What do you think?" "I think 'What, do you think?!'"
Capitalism has little to do with freedom. The issue here is not one of capitalism, but one of freedom of speech.
That's basicallly what I've been telling to Japan, but they won't heed my warnings about Godzilla even though Sim City clearly proves their existance!
"Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia." Reminiscent of 1984, no? Everything upsets the Chinese government anyway. Remember Falun Gong? Remember Tiananmen Square in 1989? This is nothing particularly new.
did Tibet have to be "taken over" if it wasn't a sovereign nation?
China is already a thoroughly capitalist country-- that is, a state capitalist country, in which the whole country is basically run for the profit of the state-owned industry. It is already quite removed from the old Soviet system, and is largely devoid of the traditional Maoist rhetoric about the dictatorship of the proletariat et al. They also seem to be moving fairly rapidly (by Chinese standards) in the direction of a more traditionally capitalist economy, with more privately-owned companies and foreign investment. Of course, that hasn't really resulted in a decrease in the state authority over speech, the press, etc.; it's just that now the state uses its authority to ensure corporate profits rather than the victory of the workers' revolution.
There is a sense in which China is taking a realistic road: they realized decades ago that the Soviet-style command economy wasn't going to get them anywhere, but they were also keen enough to realize that rapid reforms like glasnost and perestroika led to the sudden decline of the Soviet state before a stable alternative economy could be developed, with the resulting economic hardships, explosion in organized crime, and civil unrest. So in a sense they're taking a gradual course out of traditional Communism to avoid the problems of Gorbachev. On the other hand, those in charge of the state-run industries aren't just going to give up that power, so they want to insure that in the post-Communist economy they're still the majority shareholders, so to speak.
I am Sartre of the Borg. Existence is futile.
Although this is not banning or censoring, strictly speaking, the Bush administration and the corporate media is not much better than its Chinese equivalents.
They distorted the facts about the real reason for the Iraqi war -- the claim that there were WMD were at best speculative, and at worst plain lies.
The US (and European - the Danish, at least) mainstream media have been very US-friendly and projected into most people the sense that somehow, the war was 'OK', even though there were no WMD, and therefore no valid reason (besides money, oil, power, and influence) to invade a sovereign nation.
The US surely can't point fingers at China for not upholding the basic human rights. The imprisonment of many people in Guantanamo Bay with no trial, no evidence, and for basically no real reason other than show the right-wing voters (who sadly seems to be the majority of US voters) that "we're doing something about terrorism".
As a Dane, it's just so sad to see how the Danish government is following the US lead in practically everything. "Oh, we'd sure like the Danish prisoners out of Guantanamo Bay, but if we cannot, they probably deserve to be there anyway. And we sure don't give a flying fuck about any other prisoners than the Danish."
China bans games (and other things) all the time. Command & Conquer Generals was banned for how it portrayed the Chinese. When I played c&c generals, I didn't expect the screwy accents and "propaganda center" to necessarily agree with the Chinese people, much less the Chinese government. In defense of c&c, though, after playing it I did have a greater realization of the threat terrorism could have on China due to geography. The U.S. has it much easier being isolated between two great oceans.
Anyway, the annexation/aquisition/takeover/whatever of Tibet has been a controversy (for some) over recent years. So, it doesn't surprise me that "territorial integrity" is an excuse they cited. They can be picky about how you draw their borders.
A more fundamental question, though, is how serious people take this. It's just a game. Who actually believes what they see in video games?
My hippy neighbor's VW van is literally COVERED with "Free Tibet" stickers. And since the muffler doesn't work for crap, it makes a noise a LOT louder than a mere peep.
>i>"If you had invaded a country, committed genocide against it's people, done all you can to stamp out their indigenous culture ... ...colonized it and incorported it into your own nation, I'm sure you'd want to repress all mention of it as well."
_ american2.html).
You mean like every stolen land-based "state" in the western hemisphere, such as the USA, which gave aborignals disease infested blankets, hunted and killed with efficiency, and then moved them onto reservations of mostly useless land far away from their original farming/hunting grounds?
Hmmm sounds mighty familiar to me. Hell, the US Supreme court even ruled way back that the dispossession of Cherokee and other aboriginal nations was illegal, according to law, but the US just decided to send the army and IGNORE> their own courts/laws (ie: consititution)
(see a description here: http://memory.loc.gov/learn/features/immig/native
Nobody much wants to hear about that, do they? Nor do you hear anyone (well, except proud newfoundlanders) talk about how the Beothuks were exterminated in Canada....
or how current government policies of "racial quantum (purity) assessment" allows the government to say who IS and ISN'T Aboriginal, thereby stripping them of their last shred of power: The right to self identify and gather as a nation. It also has the great effect of pitting "status" Indians with their 'on the dole' rights against "non-status" who often seek some of those rights, but are denied due to shrinking government handouts.
Pretty world we live in here in the west, eh? Nope, nobody being colonized HERE. Oh, right, we just call it immigration.
Oh my gawd, they killed kenny's mod points!!!!
Yes, Tibet is just a misunderstanding.
And those religions that China keeps persecuting? Yes, just a difference of opinion.
...to point to the West's (undoubted) human right failures, and say "we are no better than they." Guantanemo Bay is just one example; you could add the goings on at the prison in Iraq, or the temporary "extradition" of terror suspects to regimes like Saudi Arabia, who do torturing for the US government.
;-)) are far from perfect. And groups like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International point to US and European shortcomings on a regular basis.
No doubt, Western governments (not even European ones
But to pretend this somehow means that the US is no better than Nazi Germany, Communist China, or Theologist Iran is absurd and disturbing.
In the US, as in Europe, the people can choose "regime change" every five years, if they don't like the government. Anyone (practically) can stand for government, even former wresters and movie starts. There are a range of different political parties, and even when they do not win power, they could, and they help shape the agenda.
Is that true of China? Or Iran?
In the West, women generally have equal rights to men; whites to blacks; and jews to Muslims.
In Saudi Arabia, and much of the Middle East, your rights are severely curtailed, or practically non-existent, if you fail to have the "right" charectaristics.
Best of all: in the West we have a (basically) free press, and freedom of expression. You can say whatever you want! It can be disturbing (eulogies to paedophilia, or support of mass-murder), but it exists.
In China, or Iran, or so many other places, saying the wrong thing lands you in jail.
Tell me again that the US is just as bad as China. Tell me you would really rather live there. Tell me which of your rights you no longer wish to excercise. Tell me which of my rights you think I don't deserve.
--- My dad's political betting
The difference, of course, is that nothing's being banned in the US because it speaks unfavorably of our past. That is not insignificant.
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
Perhaps. But if you tell it long enough, and object to the truth long enough. Eventually you'll persevere. Truth is subjective. Although we love to think of it as absolute, someone has to define it. If there is no "opposing truth", then the remaining "truth" is the truth.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
China was nearly conquered by Tibet during the Tang dynasty. The Tibetan army stopped miles from the Tang capital, signed a perpetual treaty of friendship with the Chinese, and departed. Today, that treaty is used by the Chinese government as evidence that Tibet was always a part of China. Ugh.
To say that Mongolia, or Manchuria, or Tibet, or West Turkistan are part of modern China because they were part of the Manchu empire is loony - CHINA wasn't part of China then! It was all part of Qing - China belonged to the Manchus, not the other way around! Geez! We're seeing classic disconnection here; a foreign power makes you their bitch for several hundred years, and after you manage to kick them out, instead of saying, "Oh, that was unpleasant, let's try to not do that to anyone else," you turn around and invade your neighbors. Nice.
Imagine, if you will, that Turkey tapped on the US's collective shoulder in Iraq and said, "Oh, thanks, we were looking for that." Imperial claims to territory don't mean jack. And if anyone says anything about 5000 years of Chinese history, my hed asplode - people have been living in what's now Switzerland for what, 10,000 years, but no one but a complete prat would talk about 10,000 years of Swiss history.
Oh shut up. The government isn't banning the film because it speaks badly about the government. A distributor is choosing not to distribute it, for a myriad of reasons, the most obvious ones being political. The first ammendment gives you a right to expression; it doesn't promise you anyone will give you a bullhorn.
And in that particular case, it looks like another distributor is going to pick up the film anyway.
And as far as Cuba goes, my family comes from Cuba. Cuba is oppressive in terms of free speech, but it is far from the bloodbath that you describe it as. In fact, if you look at the latest U.N. statistics Cuba's quality of life is one of the highest in the world and tops among third world nations: it is close to on par with countries with hundreds of times their GDP, and it is only beneath those nations in quality becuase of embargos that limit their ability to distribute the goods that they have to sell. On TOP of that, Cuba holds one of the leading Biotech industries in the world; their advances rival the United States. They have developed a vaccine for Hepititis-C, a strain that has not been able to be vaccinated in the U.S. and that is not available to Americans because of said economic embargoes. They are also in the testing phases of medicine that cures certain forms of breast cancer without the need for radiation therapy. Cuba would be a highly advanced nation right now, if it weren't for the Communist-fearing embargoes placed upon them. If you want to talk about injustice in Cuba, or starving children, you're going to have to point the finger at the wealthy nations that restrict their trade.
You talk of intellectual honesty: perhaps you should consider that the views you hold about the left and about other countries might not be true after all.
-Vendal Thornheart
History is written by the winners.
If we let China win, then Tibet will have always been part of China as they say. And anyone who says otherwise is simply some crazy hippie talking about silly conspiracy theories.
Of course it looks like the "conservatives" (and I use that term loosely because there is nothing conservative about this policy) are willing to ignore China's expansionism. Tibet and Taiwan are to be gobbled up to make China a happy trading partner.
What ever happen to real conservatives who resisted communist expansionism at every step? How did we decide that Russia expanding into eastern europe was not okay. But China expanding into asia is not okay.
I guess we lost our guts and our heads after the war protesters defeated the US during the Vietnam war.
If China can go around taking over nations, why can't we? Brazil looks pretty promising, they are beating the US in beef and soybean exports. Their economy got turned around in the 90s and isn't fighting massive inflation anymore. Since Brazil is part of South America and the US refers to itself as America that logically means that Brazil is part of the US and not a sovereign nations. It all makes sense now.
But first we have to expand into Canada and Mexico to get the resources necessary to take *back* Brazil.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
How did the US and the UK "let" the Holocaust happen? It took place in Nazi-occupied parts Europe which we were busy attempting to liberate. Should we have fought harder to get there sooner?
Chamberlain. He gave it up more then a Dallas prom queen. Arguably without him and other pacifists, hitler would have had no where near the space to manuever. Also if they didn't bitch slap germany after WWI so hard WWI arguebly woudl never have happened, the Nazi's wouldn't have arisen, and no holocaust woudl have happened.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
You do realise that you dont' get much of the news the rest of the world gets. This is corprate self-censoryship. Farenheight 9/11 is an obvious if somewhat weak example. When a incident arises in the middle east, say you bombed a wedding party. The US media will spin in as positive a light as possible because the majority of the News audience doesn't respond well to havign their side becoem the bad guy. In the rest of the world we hear most of the story. When you bombed A platoon of Canadian soldiers, US media spun it as an accident, while the rest of the world heard how the pilots were told to "disengage" but decided to be heroes and disobeyed orders.
Farenheight 9/11 is propaganda from a anti-republican individual. It's not being activly oppressed but it is havign a hard time finding distibution, for fear of government punishment on the distributor. Think of it this way, a corporation is in business for money. The film is garenteed to make a profit (moore has a build in audience). Disney refused to distribute it, likly for fear of "bad" treatment if they do.
Although the US has very little Active censorship (aside from sex), they do have a lot of filterign that happens for different reasons, thus you get a US positive view of the world. But incidentally most of the world doesn't lik you too much. As someone else pointed out, it's not what you got, but how you behave. Like a grade school bully who has a rich family.
Quickie examples:
the USA promotes free trade. The USA slaps tarrifs on Canadian softwood lumber, because the US lumber lobby put enough money in Government coffers. The USA loses the WTO ruling, this tarrif is said to be unfair by a trade body the US helped create. (hippocrites)
Canada has 1 case of BSF, the US closes all borders to Canadian beef. The US has 1 case of BSF, attributes it to a Canadian supplier, no evidence exsists for this. Canada substatially beefs out it's detection methods, the USA keeps it's old detection methods (the ones the canadians were using before). Border stays closed. Reason: US ranchers lobby put enough money in Government coffers to keep it closed.
And all this is to your "best friend" and neighbor. I hate to see how you fuck over your non-friends.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
And the response to that is simple:
You were legally entitled to make the post you just did. No one can throw you in jail for making the argument contained in your text.
Of course a great deal of spin, filtering and self-censorship goes on. Of course Big Media is going to present news in a fashion helpful to it financially and poltically. That's no surprise. But so long as dissent is legal and the marketplace of ideas isn't regulated by men with guns and jails, we're basically OK. You and I and anyone with a set of working vocal chords (or typing fingers) is free to respond to whatever nonsense the powers-that-be present with whatever resources we have available to us.
No, it's not.
If I buy a bootleg copy of Hearts of Iron in China and get caught by the police, what will happen to me? I could go to prison, a nice comfy Chinese prison, for a very long time.
If I buy a bootleg copy of Fahrenheit 9/11, what will happen? I can't get caught by the police, because it's not a crime. (Selling without permission of the copyright holder is illegal, buying is not.) I can pop it in my DVD player and go to town, invite my friends, call the Mayor, the Chief of Police, and the President and tell them all, "I'm watching Fahrenheit 9/11, and you can kiss my ass!" Nothing will happen.
In fact, I won't even have to buy a bootleg. The movie is now legally unencumbered, and I'm sure they will find a distributer very soon. Because we live in a, you know, free country, all you need is one maverick movie house who sees the incredible amount of money that film can bring in, and you have a nationwide Friday-night release.
Corporate censorship is bad, but it should never be compared to government censorship. There is an enormous difference between simply refusing to distribute a work, and punishing anyone who possesses a work.
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
To paraphrase some other cases:
"MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! THE WAR IS OVER!" "Um, actually, the soldiers on the ship printed up that banner and hung it behind us as a total surpise! We knew *nothing* about it."
"Saddam was behind 9/11, that is why we invade!"
"We invade because we have evidence that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction and threatens the world."
"We invade because he has the *capability* to create WMD, also, we never said anything about an imminent threat or him having WMD right now, so shut up!"
"We invaded to remove a vicious dictator and bring democracy to Iraq! If you recall something else your memory is defective!"
"The liberal cowards in the CIA who tries to dissuade us from going to war can be safely ignored."
"Oh no! The CIA betrayed us, they didn't tell us how dangerous going to war would be! Everyone, look how corrupt and incompetent the CIA is!"
And the good oldies -
"Bush has a spotless history!"
"Rumsfelt had NOTHING to do with supporting Saddam during the Reagan administration and absolutely did not shake his hand on that picture!"
"We did NOT train and financially support the Taliban and Usama bin-Laden to fight the commies during the cold war, and we should ignore weeping liberals who say today that we shouldn't support brutal dictatorships because these dictatorships claim to fight terrorism! God bless America!"
The list is basically endless....:
http://mediastudy.com/articles/av12-11-03.html
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0206-02.htm
http://www.dunedinmethodist.org.nz/just/orwl.html
Being bitter is drinking poison and hoping someone else will die