Slashdot Mirror


Chinese Blogs, Netizens React To the Tibet Issue

Bibek Paudel writes "Over the past few weeks Chinese bloggers and people on Internet forums have been reacting to events in Tibet and the protests disrupting the torch relay. The BBC and Global Voices have interesting insights on the recent happenings on the Net. A western commentator says, 'Lots of Chinese people now view the Western media, human rights groups, and Western leaders' criticisms of their country as part of the Racist Western Conspiracy to Stop China From Being Successful.' One of the most vocal appeals by the Chinese blogs, forums, and text-messages has been to boycott French goods in response to the protests that accompanied the torch relay in Paris. One response post reads, 'Who is abusing human rights? Who is bringing violence to this world?' There also are two versions of music video of the song Don't Be Too CNN, and its lyric has assumed the status of a cult catch-phrase. Sina.com has a popular page: 'Don't be too CNN, fire to the Western media.' Many analysts believe that the protests over Tibet have only served to strengthen Chinese nationalism rather than evoke sympathy for the Tibetan cause. Sina.com has a petition against the Western media which has reportedly accumulated millions of signatures. There is also Mutant Palm, a blog by an expatriate in China who has been watching and commenting on the fallout from Tibet and torch protests online."

68 of 926 comments (clear)

  1. Uh.. by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 1, Insightful

    From the summary:

    'Lots of Chinese people now view the Western media, human rights groups, and Western leaders' criticisms of their country as part of the Racist Western Conspiracy to Stop China From Being Successful.'

    Wh...WHAT?

    1. Re:Uh.. by Shakrai · · Score: 3, Insightful

      'Lots of Chinese people now view the Western media, human rights groups, and Western leaders' criticisms of their country as part of the Racist Western Conspiracy to Stop China From Being Successful.'

      You mean like the racist western conspiracy that instigated a war with a formerly allied country mainly because of that countries despicable actions in China? And how did the West get repaid for taking that stance and helping to liberate China? With the Chinese intervention against the United Nations (not just the United States) during the Korean War. Nice going -- we help to stop Japanese aggression and get repaid by China flipping off the entire World to support an aggressive regime that tried to conquer it's Southern neighbor.

      If they want to make this into a nationalist cause celebre then somebody should remind them that there's a lot more history behind Chinese relations with the West then just the unequal treaties and not all of that history is the West "oppressing" China.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    2. Re:Uh.. by Nursie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Conspiracy to Stop China From Being Successful."

      It struck me as I read that that I've heard this line before in another sphere.

      It's exactly what (some, mainly republican) Americans say about the rest of the world's concerns about pollution and global warming.
      It's a conspiracy to stop the US being succesful, driven by jealousy of what they are achieving.

      In both cases it's ludicrous.

    3. Re:Uh.. by hitmark · · Score: 5, Insightful

      different leaders at different times...

      china helping out north korea was one communist nation helping out another, after UN forced had chased north korean into chinese territory iirc...

      on the other hand, the leadership of china during ww2 ended up fleeing to what is now taiwan after the communist uprising.

      and btw, china do not recognice taiwan as a nation. they insist that its chinese territory. but they do not invade as that would risk all out war with usa, who helped set up taiwan...

      got to love that stuff. in us eyes, anything other then communist leadership was good. it could be just as dictatorial or worse then the communists, as long as they where not communists...

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    4. Re:Uh.. by wattrlz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, but who's going to do that? China, as a country, seems to have a tendency to enjoy sticking its fingers in its ears and humming when someone brings up a point that doesn't fit neatly into its worldview. Like a child being told there's no Santa Claus or a Neo-Nazi being confronted with evidence of the holocaust.

    5. Re:Uh.. by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

      after UN forced had chased north korean into chinese territory iirc

      At which point in the war (prior to the Chinese intervention) did the UN violate Chinese territory?

      on the other hand, the leadership of china during ww2 ended up fleeing to what is now taiwan after the communist uprising.

      If you mean the Nationalists/Kuomintang fled to Taiwan then you are accurate. But they weren't the only 'leadership' of China during WW2. The Communists contributed more to the defeat of the Japanese than the Nationalists did. The Communist leadership was also engaged by the Western Powers during this period -- Stillwell in particular spoke highly about the Communists and their resistance towards the Japanese. So it's a bit of a mistake to say the 'leadership' of China during WW2 fled to Taiwan -- part of the leadership did. The part that actually resisted the Japanese stayed behind.

      got to love that stuff. in us eyes, anything other then communist leadership was good. it could be just as dictatorial or worse then the communists, as long as they where not communists...

      Well, if you consider the context of the times and the Soviet actions in Europe/violation of their wartime agreements (Potsdam and Yalta) then it really isn't that hard to understand why we were afraid of Communism. In retrospect our actions (particularly in Latin-America) weren't justifiable but it's too easy to condemn them with the full benefit of historical hindsight.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    6. Re:Uh.. by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If they want to make this into a nationalist cause celebre then somebody should remind them that there's a lot more history behind Chinese relations with the West then just the unequal treaties and not all of that history is the West "oppressing" China.

      But, the government of China isn't interested in the unbiased version of history. I'm sure the same can be said for Western governments on some topics as well to be fair.

      It purely is about being able to control perception of their own citizens by controlling the message. "We have always been at was with East Anglia" from 1984 comes to mind.

      Chairman Mao himself was the one who laid down the foundation for controlling the message of history. Make them believe your version of events, and you can shape how they'll feel about future events.

      The more they can pretend that Tibet has always been under the direct control China, and that the people who lived in Tibet were "liberated" from slavery and serfdom when the Chinese army came in, the more they can change the focus of the issue. Their claim is that the people lived under a cruel and oppressive theocracy, and the Dalai Lama is secretly a villain is designed to support their position.

      Sadly, if you get the whole Chinese populace riled up into thinking that everyone is picking on them, they have no strong basis for comparison. Heck, it's not like most of them know about what actually happened in Tianamen Square. They certainly don't really understand the oppression that has happened in Tibet over the last 50 years.

      And, don't get me started on the Panchen Lama debacle -- the Chinese government don't feel the need to tell the truth about such things. They have always manipulated the truth to their own ends.

      It is often hard to tell when the Chinese nationals are shouting down dissenting points of view if they actually believe that crap, or if they're just doing what they're told. I have a suspicion that a lot of them (even the ones here in Canada who were protesting against Western media bias last week) honestly don't know any different version of events. Therefore, they assume that we really are trying to hurt their national pride. They don't want to be told that their government is and has been lying to them.

      Misinformed nationalism can be manipulated in lots of ways by those in power. As I said, I suspect some of it happens in the West as well. The "Us vs Them" mentality that it drives doesn't always help with informed debate.

      Cheers
      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    7. Re:Uh.. by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And how did the West get repaid for taking that stance and helping to liberate China? With the Chinese intervention against the United Nations (not just the United States) during the Korean War. The US helped "liberate" China in such a fashion that it pretty much handed the country to Mao on a silver platter. American leaders were foolish enough to swallow propaganda pieces like Red Star Over China and so thought that the Communists were a little rough, but they were basically nice guys who were concerned with workers' and peasants' rights. (Some of them probably were, but by then Mao was in control, and he was not a nice guy at all.) In that mistaken belief, the Americans twisted Chiang Kai-Shek's arm (by threatening to withhold aid) until he agreed to continue co-operating with the Reds rather than mopping the floor with them when he had the chance.

      Not that Chiang was exactly an angel, either, but - had the Chinese Civil War played out differently - the country might have been spared a generation having its soul ripped from it as a hyper-Stalinist slave-labour state. But I digress.

      While support of the right of Tibetans to national and cultural self-determination is laudable, one must also have some recognition of China's recent history. The Chinese are very sensitive to anything they perceive as an attempt to divide (or even dismember) their country. This perception is quite understandable, given the number of foreign colonies, puppet states, spheres of influence, and disvestitures that China saw in the 19th and 20th centuries. They're not anxious to see Tibet become another Mongolia (which exists as an independent country today only because Josef Stalin wanted to be able to station troops within 500 km of Beijing) or Manchukuo (Japanese puppet régime in North China).

      Given the circumstances - rather than demand Tibetan independence - I think that a much more reasonable solution would be encourage China to adopt a 'one country, different systems' policy similar to how it has handled Macau and Hong Kong, where I've personally had the opportunity to see Falun Gong meetings taking place, in the open and unmolested, within sight of the PRC flag flying over Bauhinia Square.
      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    8. Re:Uh.. by bishiraver · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And then there's all those ethnic Han Chinese that were murdered/had their houses burned/had their businesses raised in the latest riots in Lhasa.. To a lot of the ethnic Han living in Tibet, the "free tibet" initiative is more about kicking all the Han out, instead of true liberation. There are political motivations to be sure, but there are strong racist elements within the unrest.

    9. Re:Uh.. by bishiraver · · Score: 3, Insightful
      While you're definitely referring to the Chinese government, many of those accusations could be applied just as aptly (but to a lesser extent) to the current US government.
      1. spied on its citizens
      2. taps their phone calls
      3. monitors internet traffic
      4. torture and imprisonment of people who don't get a trial (yay patriot act)
      5. kidnapped people in foreign lands and delivered them to torture centers
      6. meddled in the affairs of foreign governments to the point of overthrowing elected gov's and putting dictators in place (hello iran!)
      7. Hey, you don't think the patriot act is good? you're effing unamerican! While it isn't to the point of McCarthyism, it is present to an extent
      8. Their people are blinded by unfounded national pride.
      The only difference is the extent at which the atrocities are performed (but where do you draw the line?) and the communist nature of their government compared with our own capitalist oligarchy.
    10. Re:Uh.. by gstoddart · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And then there's all those ethnic Han Chinese that were murdered/had their houses burned/had their businesses raised in the latest riots in Lhasa.. To a lot of the ethnic Han living in Tibet, the "free tibet" initiative is more about kicking all the Han out, instead of true liberation. There are political motivations to be sure, but there are strong racist elements within the unrest.

      Yes, all that is true. And, it saddens me to see it happen.

      However, I should imagine that after 50 years of occupation, loss of freedoms, having all of those ethnic Han trucked in to settle it (there were NO Han Chinese in Tibet before 1959 -- they were brought in to bolster the claims of China) and all of that stuff could eventually build some resentment. After so many years of the Tibetans being trampled upon, some of them have reached their breaking point, and are trampling back. :(

      Sadly, most such conflicts simmer and get progressively worse over decades. Israel and Palestine. Northern Ireland. The Bloods and the Crips. Kosovo. Pick any two groups with a long-simmering dispute. I'm sure it goes back through all of history.

      One group of humans craps on another. Over time, someone gets tired of being crapped on and responds. More retaliation ensues, shit goes downhill.

      Sadly, the more I try to look at all this crap with a long lens and see as many sides of the story as possible, the more disheartened I get, because there's not a single right and wrong, and there's never a simple way out of it.

      I don't condone the violence done by any of them, but I can empathize with how they may have gotten there. Unfortunately, non-violence is hard to maintain in the face of decades of violence.

      Cheers
      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    11. Re:Uh.. by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How would "western media" react? Would us Canadians get attacked for human rights abuse for not granting Quebec independence?

      While I appreciate the point you're trying to make (and, in fact, some Quebecois are doing exactly that), the situations are somewhat different.

      Nobody is accusing China of human rights abuses because they won't grant independence to Tibet. They're accusing them of human rights abuses because of the documented cases of arresting the monks and nuns, torturing or killing them, trying to force them to renounce their religion and the Dalai Lama, displacing locals and moving in large quantities of Chinese citizens to settle Tibet ... you know, human rights abuses. This stuff is fairly well documented, despite attempts by the Chinese government to the contrary.

      To the best of the knowledge of anyone who lived in Tibet previous to the Chinese occupation ... they already were independent.

      Believe me, I don't claim to have a viable solution to Tibet, Quebec, Kosovo, or any other such conflict. If I did, I'd be the one with the Nobel Peace Prize and not the Dalai Lama.

      These things are complicated, and greater minds than mine haven't solved them yet. I'm just trying to contribute to the discussion and see the different points of view as best I can.

      Cheers
      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    12. Re:Uh.. by g0bshiTe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You also have to take into consideration Chinas longtime stance from Chairman Mao about disconnection with anything outside China.

      Times there are changing, they are growing out of the disassociation, open trade, foreign imports, outsourcing labor there. It's a matter of time until this current generation of Chinese take control, and push their country into the 21st century to join the rest of the modern world.

      Granted human rights are just that human, they should apply to all peoples, but life isn't that simple. It doesn't always happen like that, freedom isn't free, it comes with a price, sometimes that price is in human life, sometimes the cost is time. Time to grow, and learn, or just plain time for a new generation to take over and say "let's do it our way".

      Until such a time, I don't think we as a planet need to hinder their growth, while government actions still should not be condoned, it would be better to show them how life can be when government doesn't control everything you read, watch, do, or say.

      Here's to the inevitable day when there is a truely free and unified China.

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    13. Re:Uh.. by Original+Replica · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Too bad it conflicts with the US way of policing the world.

      It also conflicts with one of the supposed strengths of capitalism, that consumers can be informed of the ethics of the companies they do business with. Now Americans are shitty shitty capitalists, we protest the sweatshops but we still buy the shoes. But the basic idea still stands, if China wants to isolate it's ethics then they need to be isolated in every other way as well, economically, scientifically, and politically. If they don't want to meet human rights standards, then they don't need to have a seat on the UN security council or the right to trade with the other nations of the UN. Not being allowed to participate ,let alone host, the Olympics should be a minor fraction of their exclusion if they don't want to bring their governance up to modern standards.

      --
      We are all just people.
    14. Re:Uh.. by oldhack · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If Japan had been willing to compete on the economic stage instead of trying to conquer her way to economic independence...

      I'll be the last one to defend Japan, but why should Japan refrain from "conquering her way" into power when all the others had been and were still doing it?

      The Europeans colonized huge chunks of Africa and Asia and leverage them for economic military gains. The US, while not on the same scale, took on territories and interest in Latin America and Pacific/Asia. Japan, trying to keep up with the West, saw they needed to do the same, around its neighborhood, coming into conflict with the European and American interest in the region. The way things were developing, the US-Japan blowup was going to happen regardless of Nanking massacre/China, and your complaint about lack of Chinese gratitude on this point seems rather overblown to me.

      --
      Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
  2. They're Right by courtarro · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They're calling us hypocrites, and as a citizen of "the West" I can say they're exactly right.

    1. Re:They're Right by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They're calling us hypocrites, and as a citizen of "the West" I can say they're exactly right.

      So our past injustices excuse their modern day oppression?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    2. Re:They're Right by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      WEll maybe we are hypocrites, but I can still write an invective against my government and not get trundled off to prison where I'm to be re-educated.

      Better a hypocrite than a slave to tyrants.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:They're Right by courtarro · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So our past injustices excuse their modern day oppression?

      We have our fair share of modern-day oppression. I know it's a beaten horse, but Iraq is the perfect example. We may justify our actions differently, but the end result is very similar. Of course, citizens and their governments don't have to agree, but the actions of the government are what typically represent its citizens in the international view.

    4. Re:They're Right by Malevolent+Tester · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Mod parent up, moral relativism is a bullshit creed of cowards and sophists.

      --
      If you haven't made a developer cry, you've wasted a day.
    5. Re:They're Right by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib are not that far in the past

      So our ongoing injustices excuse their behavior in Tibet and towards their own people?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    6. Re:They're Right by bhima · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm not sure that the west's hypocrisy is relevant. For one there are many United States politicians have the testicular fortitude to stand up and condemn China. Secondly I am unclear just how the US is even vaguely capable of stopping China from doing anything much less from being successful. Lastly the existence of one hypocritical government of earth isn't a get out of morality for free pass for the rest of the governments we have.

      --
      Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
    7. Re:They're Right by quanticle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Do you really think that Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib can compare to the mass scale of oppression practiced by the Chinese security services?

      --
      We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
    8. Re:They're Right by NeverVotedBush · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Just because our leaders are hypocrites doesn't make me one. And something that is evil is evil regardless of who calls it out.

      They should call us on the things we do just as much as we should call them on the things they do.

      China's government is evil. Why shouldn't we be able to say that?

    9. Re:They're Right by gstoddart · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Mod parent up, moral relativism is a bullshit creed of cowards and sophists.

      So, tells us then ... what is the source of your moral absolutism?

      If it is any of "God", "because we say so", or "it should be self evident", you lose.

      Morality comes from a reasoned assertion, a religious assertion, or the belief that the Universe had a plan in mind. It is not physics or mathematics, but a convention chosen and applied by men. It is most certainly not an inherent fact of the Universe.

      I fail to see how you can assert that there is an objective, absolute morality unless you can show me some physical thing from whence it derives. Or, you're just decreeing that your own morality is absolute and everyone who disagrees with you is wrong -- which is the worst case of relativism there can be.

      Cheers
      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    10. Re:They're Right by theelectron · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Affect: yes.
      Capable of stopping: no.

      There is an important difference there.

    11. Re:They're Right by amplt1337 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Most people who harp on moral relativism grossly misunderstand it.

      It's not about condoning others' moral beliefs, it's about acknowledging that they have them, and are sincere about them, and might even be rather attached to them, and then modifying your behavior so that you can get along with them.

      Unless you want to convert the world to your own particular morality (i.e., destroy freedom), you have to live and let live to a certain extent. You don't have to endorse others' beliefs to acknowledge that they exist, and that others act as though they were legitimate.

      And between the choices of, say, moral relativism and Sharia law, well as nice as it would be not to have to shave any more, I think I'll choose the relativists, thank you.

      --
      Freedom isn't free; its price is the well-being of others.
    12. Re:They're Right by khallow · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We have our fair share of modern-day oppression. I know it's a beaten horse, but Iraq is the perfect example. We may justify our actions differently, but the end result is very similar. Of course, citizens and their governments don't have to agree, but the actions of the government are what typically represent its citizens in the international view.

      Perfect example of what? All I see is an inability to tell the difference. Tibet was a peaceful neighbor before it was invaded. Iraq had invaded two countries in the last 25 years. Iraq had invested heavily in a nuclear weapons program. Iraq donated considerable funds to terrorist groups. Iraq was a ruthless totalitarian state (even China is far better off now than Iraq was then). Tibet was a theocratic backwater, but it was never as disfunction or dangerous as Iraq was under Saddam Hussein. All of the current presidential candidates agree on leaving Iraq (except possibly a token military force, much like Germany). They only disagree on when and whether to set up a schedule ahead of time. Instead China claims that Tibet is as much a part of China as any other part of China.

      We all are flawed. But there are things you cannot sanction. The best you can do is to try to do is to try to make the world a better place both at home and elsewhere. It is foolish to ignore a great evil elsewhere merely because your folk did something similar (possibly even worse) not so long ago. It remains a great evil.

      No matter how the current Chinese government spins it, the occupation of Tibet remains a great evil. Tibet was an independent country when it was invaded and posed no threat to China. As I see it, it's only crime was that it was weak.

      Further I don't see the government of China as legitimate. Who selected China's head of state? Who makes China's laws? Where in those processes do the Chinese people have a say? The US could be considerably more democratic, but they at least pick their head of state and the entire legislature via election. Those people are affirmed by the people with every vote. That is legitimacy. Further, the US citizen is permitted to complain, criticize, and denounce whatever they want to with mild restriction (you cannot legally incite public panic, reveal state secrets or medical information, say untrue things about another person or organization, etc). Despite what some slashdotters say here, that's what you can do in the US. Most stuff that would get you jailed in China, doesn't raise an eyebrow in the US.

      As a citizen of the US, I have voted in every presidential election since 1988 (and most of the off year ones) and affirm every one of those elections. I have served in a jury. I have paid my taxes and obeyed (up to minor traffic violations) the laws of my land. By each of these acts, I reinforce the legitimacy of my government. The government and its citizens are occasionally stupid, but the system works pretty well. I've never had to watch my tongue for fear that I might say something unpleasing to some government official or bureaucracy. Sure, my government, my society, and I have done things which I am ashamed of. But I don't see how that should keep us from judging one another. The "flaws" in governments and countries kill people. We need justice at the international level not hollow laws that only the strong can break with impunity.

    13. Re:They're Right by JerryLove · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When we were seen as "Sick Men from East Asia", we were called The Peril.
      When we strived to get stronger, we are called The Threat. Strong things *are* a threat.

      When we closed our doors to the world, you forced them open with drugs and guns. The major source of opiates, the drug of choice for centuries in China, is your neighbor Afghanistan. Don't blame us for that.

      When we finally embraced Free Trade, you blame us for taking away your jobs. No we don't. That's why there aren't petitions to China to change what they charge. We blame our trade agreements with you for costing us jobs and try to change US consumers and leaders.

      When we were falling apart, you marched in your troops and robbed us blind. As someone from a country that provided troops and supplies to you during WWII, has never invaded you (minus perhaps a few miles near the Korean border after you attacked us), and that is largely responsible for the rapid growth in your economy thorough our trade (even gave you favored nation status), I'm really confused who you are talking about.

      When we put the broken pieces back together again, "Free tÂbet" you screamed, it was an invasion! I don't think your economy was related to the free Tibet movement. Was it an invasion? Seems you have a red-herring there.

      So, we tried Communism, you hated us for being Communists. That's fair. You hated us for being a republic.

      Then we learned from Capitalism, you hated us for being Capitalists. I'm looking for the "China sucks because it's capatalist" group but I can't find that. You are lying.

      When we had a billion people, you said "The planet is starving."
      So we tried to limit our population, you said it was Human Rights Abuse. I'll side with you here. I think the one-clid policy was a good idea and it's wrong for those who criticize it to do so without offering solutions.

      When we were poor, you think we are dogs.
      When we loan you cash, you blame us for your debts. Both simple lies. Our debts are the fault of our government and our buying. Few people are saying differently.

      When we build our industries, you blame us for global warming.
      When we sell you goods you can afford, you blame us for dumping inferior products. You are warming the globe, your toothpaste tends to kill people. They are valid complaints.

      When we buy oil, you called that exploitation and assisting genocide.
      When you fight for oil, you called that Liberation of Its People. Are we committing genocide in Iraq? Is putting $80,000,000,000 per year into a country with no real return and loosing thousands of American lives "exploiting"?

      Don't get me wrong, I oppose the invasion of Iraq, but "exploting genocide" would have been continuing to support Saddam, much like China and Sudan.

      When we were lost in chaos and rampage, you wanted Rules of Law for us.
      When we uphold our law and order against violence, you called that Violating Human Rights. I am aware of no protest over China arresting people for violent crime. You are, again, making it up.

      When we were silent, you said we have No Free Speech.
      When we are NOW silent no more, you say we are merely "Brainwashed". So before we said you had no free speech and now we say you have no free speech? Pointing out that we are consistant is hardly an argument. Prove you have free speech.

      Truth is we really don't hate you either, but do you understand us? Not really. I don't understand BinLauden either. Is understanding a prerequsite to something?
    14. Re:They're Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Morality derives from game theory.

      Yes, I am entirely serious. The reason you should do unto others as you would have them do unto you is not because some long-haired hippy told his friends to do it, or because of some supernatural being. It's because by doing this you make everyone better off, and if everybody failed to follow it then we would all be a lot worse off.

      Reasonable morality can be derived straight from mathematics. It's just that the average Joe responds better when you tell him to follow the Ten Commandments then when you talk to him about Nash equilibria and such.

      Are you happy now?

    15. Re:They're Right by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But you're okay when China pushes their own system on others? Rule by force is fine indeed, but I suspect you'd be singing a different tune if you'd be the target of the boot.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    16. Re:They're Right by Jorophose · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Great, more wonderful propanganda on Slashdot.

      Would you like to educate us on "One China" now?

      The Chinese government is full of shit and so are the people who clearly can't seem to understand that.

      Instead of doing the responsible thing and learning from our mistakes, you took our mistakes and built right on them. The Chinese could have helped build up the solar energy industry, and I would have been 100% supportive of helping them. But no, you have to build more coal and oil energy plants. Thanks, Chinese; now instead of slowly heading towards a strange future, we are now shooting towards it.

      That's not even considering the fact that you killed off a nearly unique species of dolphins! You also killed off so much life in your country, you've turned your waters black and orange, and you're killing off whatever marine life that has been trying to stay alive. Not including the fact that you put everybody's space plans in jepoardy; we've now got chuncks of artificial satellites floating around, which they'll be doing for another few thousand years, and they might not ever fall down.

      Silent no more? I'd rather the PRC remain silent than spew bullshit. Syria isn't silent. Of course we all know they are full of shit. You are brainwashed. Tibet was a demilitarised country that you invaded, pillaged, and litterally raped. And why? The chairman demands it!

      Thanks China, really, thanks. I can see clearly now that you're a wonderful nation boasting freedom of speech and doesn't fall to the censorship that other nations take. And of course, your war of liberation for Tibet was nothing like our war of liberation for Iraq! Of course not! How could Saddam Hussein ever be doing anything wrong to his people!

      ("[...] as though suddenly millions of Tibetans cried to the sky and were silenced instantly.")

      (And as for modpoints, feel free. I don't give a damn.)

    17. Re:They're Right by sydneyfong · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Iraq had invaded two countries in the last 25 years. Iraq had invested heavily in a nuclear weapons program. Iraq donated considerable funds to terrorist groups USA has invaded countless countries in the last 25 years. USA has the most extensive nuclear weapons program. USA funds many terrorist groups....

      What's the difference? That the allegations against the USA are actually TRUE? (instead of some fabricated shit created by the US media-propaganda)

      American invaded Iraq who posed no real threat. Where's the "difference" you speak of? If a "threat" to the rest of the world is a reason for invasion, the USA should be the first country to be exterminated from the face of the planet.

      We all are flawed. But there are things you cannot sanction. We'd like to see Bush and his warmongers sanctioned for their war crimes.
      --
      Don't quote me on this.
  3. History by Applekid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    One of the most vocal appeals by the Chinese blogs, forums, and text-messages has been to boycott French goods . . . Many analysts believe that the protests over Tibet have only served to strengthen Chinese nationalism rather than evoke sympathy for the Tibetan cause. And 5 years ago just about every American was in favor of war against Iraq, and boycotting French goods due to their being "against us" in the UN?

    I'd like to say nationalism is the new evil, but, unfortunately it's been around for as long as there has been nations.
    --
    More Twoson than Cupertino
    1. Re:History by Reality+Master+201 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And 5 years ago just about every American was in favor of war against Iraq, and boycotting French goods due to their being "against us" in the UN?


      Not true, really. A lot of Americans were either ambivalent or against the war. It's just that our news media decided that they supported the war and that serious foreign policy thinkers were those that 1) supported the war, and 2) show up in the same cozy Washington/NYC cocktail party circuit as the reporters. Part of this was because the Republican party made damn sure to question the patriotism and intelligence of anyone who didn't strictly believe the Bush administration's bullshit.

      One day, I hope to have a full accounting of exactly how intentionally bullshitty the case for war really was, as well as some nice war crimes trials in the Hague for the responsible party. I'll not be holding my breath.
    2. Re:History by zstlaw · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well because they were against us going to war. They "claimed" the war in Iraq was unjustified and that there was no evidence of WMDs. But we showed them! Ha Ha! Take that you Frenchies! Gonna eat me some more freedom fries.

    3. Re:History by Applekid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's just that our news media decided that they supported the war and that serious foreign policy thinkers were those that 1) supported the war, and 2) show up in the same cozy Washington/NYC cocktail party circuit as the reporters. Wait a minute wait a minute... I think you just stumbled on something. Didn't China just recently stop blocking western English-language news agencies? I wonder if this anti-west anti-pro-tibet might be related.

      Hmmmm...
      --
      More Twoson than Cupertino
    4. Re:History by vidarh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I still would like to see the USA withdraw all troops from Europe and the middle east, and let those people get their own oil, for the things Chirac said.

      A pretty significant number of people both in Europe and the Middle East would thank you if you did.

  4. Racist by sm62704 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Racist Western Conspiracy to Stop China From Being Successful.

    China is a race? I thought the Chinese were Asian (or Oriental). Japan, Korea, Thailand, none of these Asian countries populated by Orientals have been stopped from being sucessful. When I was in Thailand in the USAF in 1974 it was incredibly primitive, but we had a Thai intern a few years ago who informed me that the roads are now paved, they have electricity and running water now, and it has become thoroughly modern and industrialized.

    I'm starting to believe that whenever someone starts screaming "race" (Jesse Jackson et al) the one screaming "racist" is, in fact, the true racist.

    --
    mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  5. The reaction should not be surprising by Enlarged+to+Show+Tex · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Because of China's overt and explicit censorship of the news media, those outside of China (and probably those inside China, too, for that matter) can't possibly be aware of the actual sentiments of the Chinese people.

    Basically, what's going to happen is that the pro-Tibet folks will be squelched, either by the Great Firewall of China, imprisonment, or self-censorship, and so only those voices advocating the pro-Tibet stance will be allowed through the filtering and be heard as the "popular" sentiment of the Chinese people.

    1. Re:The reaction should not be surprising by Serenissima · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Also, the news that's actually making it TO the Chinese people is so edited and biased that they're not getting the real facts about stuff.

      I would think the Chinese Government would rather tells lies and half-truths to get as many people as possible pissed off at the West. If you can get everyone pissed off, you won't have to block or make up news coming out. We all know genuinely pissed off people have no problem telling the whole world about it on the internet. They'll be angry based on lies, but I'm pretty sure the Chinese Government (or any Government) is going to lose any sleep by lying to the public if it can make them - at least appear to be - stronger and more patriotic.

      --
      Give a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day. But light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
    2. Re:The reaction should not be surprising by hoshino · · Score: 5, Insightful

      My God, Slashdot groupthink at its very best.

      I was born in China but I grew up overseas. I have tons of relatives who live all over the world, from Paris to New York. They have access to all the information in the world.

      But let me tell you this: Not a single person in my family supports Tibetan independence. Everyone supports the Olympics 100%.

      My grandparents were Party members so we are relatively well off. Most of my aunts and uncles had university education and my cousins are studying overseas. These are people who regularly criticize the government in daily conversations over things like corruption and bureaucratic inefficiencies, because they are well-informed and aware of what is happening.

      Westerners just can't grapple with the reality that the Chinese government is still generally popular and it's people, though overly addicted to nationalism and cultural pride, are NOT ignorant slaves that your corporate media and your condescending feel-good activists like you to believe.

      I personally am very much against the operating principals of the Chinese government, as are my parents. But I think this whole Olympic protest business is just bullshit. It will only strengthen ugly nationalism and serve as an ego trip for those hippie protesters.

      To fucking hell with karma. :/

    3. Re:The reaction should not be surprising by NeverVotedBush · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We have lots of ignorant and stupid people here too. They also have access to lots of information. Some people here that are stupid and ignorant are otherwise well educated.

      The Olympics are a waste of time. They have become too politicized and too many dedicate their whole lives and their families make sacrifices only to see governments like China's play it for all it is worth for propaganda.

      I haven't watched them in years - even when they have been in the USA.

      What's wrong with Tibetan independence? What's wrong with Taiwanese independence? China is way too nationalistic, expansionistic, and subversive for western investment. Opening trade with China, especially in anything high-technology has been a big mistake. They abuse western trust.

      And you attitude is a window into that behavior.

  6. Brainwashed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Just goes to show you how powerful the propaganda machine in China is. To give you an idea of how unsurprising this really is, consider the fact that there are many Chinese people who believe that Tiananmen Square never happened.

    1. Re:Brainwashed. by Hal_Porter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually it's more insidious than that. I dated a Chinese girl who said something like "the government had to stop the riot, they killed some soldiers by burning them alive".

      And it's true, some of the soldiers who cleared out Tiananmen were lynched and set on fire in the anarchy after tanks went in. But that was after tanks went in, before that the demonstration was peaceful and about democracy. Chinese Communist Party General Secretary Zhao Ziyang talked to the students and told Gorbachev (according to Gorbachev's autobiography) that over the short term there would be democracy inside the party but in the long run multi party democracy was inevitable and the Communist party should have to adapt to the point where it could win elections. His more brutish colleagues sent the tanks in and then used resulting deaths to justify it. Zhao was put under house arrest until he died. In an odd sort of way, that was a sign of progress, previous purged leaders were killed or sent to a concentration camp.

      In Taiwan, one year after Tiananmen, there was a similar movement, the Wild Lily movement. Lee Teng Hui, who had just been elected President by a parliament last elected 50 years before met the students and told them that he would call Presidential and Parliamentary elections where every Taiwanese citizen could vote and allow the recently formed opposition party to stand. The students left, LTH ended the State of Emergency which had lasted since the civil war, called elections and won them. Even more remarkably he enacted term limits and stepped down when his ended. No tanks, no lynched soldiers. And it's funny how the Chinese don't care about the 20,000 soldiers that died in the Sino Vietnam war. Oddly enough it was mostly soldiers who fought in that war who were sent into Tiananmen, since they came from the part of China bordering Vietnam and had been told that a violent counter revolution was happening in Beijing. And relations with Vietnam improved which Vietnam's equally loathsome Communist government enthusiastically supported

      You can see the same thing with Tibet - some Tibetans did kill Han Chinese and that is clearly wrong. And the Western Media did not cover that for a while. But that's because the Chinese government banned them from Tibet to avoid coverage of the crackdown. Any violence in Tibet is unnecessary too. The Dalai Lama has said he is not seeking independence, opposes violence and is willing to talk. If they talked to him and made a few concessions like legalising the Tibetan language, he could probably sell that to the Tibetans. Instead they demonize him, oppress them and then publicise any riot as proof that more oppression is needed. If China was a democracy, Tibetans would be allowed to change policy without rioting. And violent groups could be marginalised by media criticism.

      I actually hope that the CCP is dooming itself. Protests in Tibetan and rising inflation were supposed to be the causes of Tiananmen. Most Chinese I suspect hate them and want a free society. Actually if China was a democracy which allowed its regions a high level of autonomy, they could probably do a deal with Taiwan too, another nationalist cause the CCP exploits to stay in power.

      Even this attempt to substitute absolute censorship for a creepy groupthink set up by more selective censorship is dangerous. The people ranting about the Western media now have much more serious things to complain about nearer to home, and they can find out just how much they have been lied too if they take advantage of the recent unblocking of the BBC and CNN. Then again, maybe it's like Iran where the people demonstrating against the West are all either government zealots or dragged along against their beliefs.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
  7. Totalitarian regime by should_be_linear · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As long as they call all non-Chinese media "Western Media" they clearly cannot seriously criticize it in any meaningful way. I mean, Fox News, Slashdot, BBC, FAZ and Corriere della Sera are all part of same group of anti-Chinese conspiracy? With that argument, dear Chinese blogging friends, you are becoming pretty laughable.

    --
    839*929
    1. Re:Totalitarian regime by Yvanhoe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, we are calling a group of nationalist Chinese bloggers "Chinese blogs". I am not sure this is more believable.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
  8. Matter of culture by The+Analog+Kid · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Chinese culture is vastly different from western cultures. People either don't understand or refuse to acknowledge this. They've always been ruled by a totalitarian regime, communism is just another variation. They aren't apt to enact quick changes unless their is an actual benefit. Some of the people I've talk to, point to Russia as an example of why it's not a good idea to quickly move to a democratic system.

    That and people don't like to be told why their country is bad. Just look at America.

    1. Re:Matter of culture by Xenna · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That and people don't like to be told why their country is bad. Just look at America.

      This is rubbish. There are always large numbers of Americans to be found who hate Bush and the Iraq invasion and are willing to say so loudly. For Pete's sake there are plenty of idiots who believe Bush planned 9/11.

      Similarly, in Europe, there are lots of anti-government groups (just look at the anti-globalism nuts) who get lots of airtime.

      Wherever the whole country agrees, you can be sure you're not in a western democracy.

    2. Re:Matter of culture by Yvanhoe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or maybe... maybe... they could be misinformed ? Imagine America where only Fox News would be authorized. This is not cultural difference, the Chinese people act in a sane way given the informations they are fed with.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
  9. Re:That's ok. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Did you not buy the computer you are using? Do you not own a computer?

  10. Re:That's ok. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I don't buy stuff made in China anyway.

    I suspect you buy far, far more stuff made in China than you are even aware of. Did you use a computer to submit your comment? Where do you think 90% (or more) of the components inside were manufactured?

  11. No, they are not by tjstork · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They're calling us hypocrites, and as a citizen of "the West" I can say they're exactly right.

    No they aren't. There's no censorship in the west to the extent there is China. There's no individual right to keep and bear arms in China like there is in the west. The differences are staggering and people that proclaim dictatorship whenever politics don't go their way do more to undermine the very definition of what a dictatorship really is.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:No, they are not by VirginMary · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There's no individual right to keep and bear arms in China like there is in the west.

      What do you mean by "west"? Is this U.S. American arrogance or ignorance? I am from Western Europe. Last time I checked we were part of the "West." European countries tend to have much tighter gun laws than the United States. When I was in graduate school in physics in the U.S. I had friends from all over the world, including Europe and all of them agreed with me on thinking that Americans are crazy to tolerate their lax gun ownership laws. In fact all agreed that guns do not belong in the hands of civilians with the possible exception of hunting rifles. So be careful when you say "we", you Americans do not automatically speak for all Westerners. (A good example would have been the initiation of the Iraq invasion.) Of course I agree on your other point about the extent of censorship in the West vs. China even though I had my doubts about the U.S. in this area just prior to the Iraq invasion.

      --
      When 1person suffers from a delusion,it is called insanity.When many people suffer from a delusion,it is called religion
  12. And the Chinese Communist Party.... by the_raptor · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... had absolutely nothing to do with starting this "backlash". Why do we even care what the average Chinese citizen thinks about this issue? They have no power, and would be arrested if they tried anything like the Paris protests.

    The whole point of the protests is to embarrass the oligarchs, not to get the Chinese people to pay attention.

    --

    ========
    CINC, 4th Penguin Legion
  13. the us slaughtered native americans by circletimessquare · · Score: 3, Insightful

    europe sent crusaders to the middle east

    both of these things are wrong

    however, you wish to use events of 200 years ago and 1000 years ago to excuse and condone the same kind of colonization by han imperialists in tibet today, or the actions of violent muslim fundamentalists today

    this is not morality or a human conscience

    the only morally and intellectually defensible position is to condemn:
    1. the slaughter of native americans
    2. european crusaders
    3. han imperialism
    4. violent muslim fundamentalism

    condemn all of it. that's morality and intellectual honesty

    to excuse 3 and 4 because of 1 and 2 is i don't know exactly what, but its not morality or intellectual honesty. its some sort of weird kind of attempt to avoid a human conscience

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  14. Mod Parent UP PLEASE by tjstork · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A pretty significant number of people both in Europe and the Middle East would thank you if you did

    This makes me feel good actually. Don't you think the world would be better off if the USA had business office overseas, rather than troops. I keep asking myself, what country in their right mind really likes having foreign troops on its soil. I mean, I wouldn't really care for it too much if a German division was stationed in Delaware, and I can't imagine the Germans feel any differently. Now with the USA and UK, its a different animal and for some reason I could see the British being in the USA just because my grandfather and my wife's grandfather fought in the Pacific during World War II and to this day I am grateful that the British sent the largest fleet they ever produced (18 aircraft carriers, 4 battleships, and more), to have Seafires flying CAP over American landing forces at Okinawa. And, the British are with us in Iraq...

    I keep thinking that the perception of America military hegemony with troops all across the globe is bad for public relations. The Cold War is over... if someone invades Europe, America will be there to defend you, but right now, I honestly think the best thing for the USA is to be a trading empire, not a military one.

    I do not want the USA to make the Athenien mistake.

    --
    This is my sig.
  15. Re:Welcome to the 21st century by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    My main beef is that Chinese nationalists do not understand that when I say "The Chinese government ought not to oppress Tibetans", I say it - not the economist, not CNN, not Bush. Conversely, when anyone of them says anything, it doesn't mean I'm saying it. For some reason, that seems lost on them. As a result, I can't be a hypocrite for advocating human rights while Bush advocates Guantanmo Bay.

    As for manipulating nationalism, you're spot on. There've been various stories in the past where there was concern that the CCP was breeding a monster it will ultimately not be able to control. We'll see if that'll be the case. But I think the Olympic Games will be the most interesting in years.

    --
    Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
  16. Root problem: China's ownership claims over Tibet by Anonymous+Bullard · · Score: 4, Insightful
    At the root of this whole shameful (both to the Chinese and to the Free World which chooses to do nothing) and tragic (to the Tibetans) issue of Tibet is China's perceived "suzerainty" or "ownership of the Tibetan territory, with the Tibetan people naturally included in the claim.


    It is extremely rare to find a Chinese person who is willing to even listen to the Tibetans' own arguments about their millenia of independent history, not to mention about the horrors perpetrated by the CCP regime after Mao Zedong's 1950 invasion. Google for Grace Wang at Duke Uni. and "burned in oil" to learn how the true Chinese patriots deal with those of their own who merely want to promote debate.

    For the Han Chinese race, and not just those still within the Great Firewall of China, this perceived imperial right to rule over neighbouring peoples has become an obsession, which is all the more ironic since the #1 pet hate of the Hans, basically taught since kindergarten, is against the foreign imperialists who "humiliated China" in the 19th and 20th centuries. The Chinese are taught, and this ideology only arose in the late 18th century, that the now billion+ overpopulated Han nation will violently break up if they allow their neighbouring peoples to regain their freedom and independence. (Why is that, btw.?)

    Here's a fairly compact Aussie radio programme, with a transcript, about the reasons why the Chinese rulers claim that Tibet and Tibetans are theirs to do what they wish. Basically, the Chinese regime claims that since both Tibet and China were (albeit in very different ways) ruled or under the protection (as Tibet was) by the same foreign power during roughly the same period, after that foreign rule had collapsed the Chinese emperor automatically assumed (perceived) ownership over Tibet as well, despite having no de facto control or rule over the Tibetan nation.

    The ultra-nationalistic Chinese you may have seen screaming LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! to pro-Tibetan demonstrators during the CCP's recent global torch parade tend to shout slogans like "TIBET BELONGS TO CHINA!", but if you somehow manage to ask them on what basis, they'll either continue screaming or come up with wildly different historical explanations, ranging from a marriage between a powerful Tibetan king and a Chinese princess (they always forget the Tibetan and Nepalese princesses somehow) in the first millenium to the claims of the foreign Mongol rule (known as the Yuan dynasty in China) in the 13th and the foreign Manchu rule (the Qing dynasty for the Chinese) in the 17th centuries as giving the Mao Zedong's China the absolute right of ownership over Tibet. (waitasec, I thought the communists were totally against any such feudal claiming of lands and peoples??)

    If only such mediaval imperial babble was the end of it, but unfortunately the brutal oppression and systematic destruction of Tibetan cultural heritage, identity and language which started with Mao's invasion in the 1950s is still going on strong today. Even sadder is that very few Chinese either know or choose to believe the horrors China has committed in Tibet over the last half century. Some, like the well-known Chinese dissidents Wei Jinsheng and Henry Wu Hongda, who spent years in a Tibetan prison unit alongside Tibetan prisoners of conscience, have told about their experiences, but why would the proud Chinese of today choose democracy and the admission of their own shame when the Communist Party is hauling in foreign money and promising unprecedented global power?

    International law be damned.

    How much longer do the Tibetan people have to suffer until the Chinese learn that there are higher and more positive values in life than genocidal jingoism?

    --

    Should invading one's peaceful neighbours be opposed, or rewarded with trade deals?

  17. Re:Spare me the French apologia by Reality+Master+201 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    None of which contradicts the point of the post, that the whole anti-French thing in the lead up to the Iraq war was because they dared to say that they thought the case for war was stupid.

    You might not like the French, but they were still right about Iraq.

  18. Re:Root problem: China's ownership claims over Tib by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Here's a fairly compact Aussie radio programme [abc.net.au], with a transcript, about the reasons why the Chinese rulers claim that Tibet and Tibetans are theirs to do what they wish. Basically, the Chinese regime claims that since both Tibet and China were (albeit in very different ways) ruled or under the protection (as Tibet was) by the same foreign power during roughly the same period, after that foreign rule had collapsed the Chinese emperor automatically assumed (perceived) ownership over Tibet as well, despite having no de facto control or rule over the Tibetan nation.


    The claim is ridiculous anyways. You might as well state that the Ukraine should be reabsorbed into Russia, or that the Vatican has some claim to Central Italy. Maybe Austria should demand Hungary back. Austria controlled Hungary a helluva lot more recently than any Chinese emperor ever controlled Tibet.
    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  19. Chinese shoes by SirLanse · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How many of us are talking high and mighty about the EVIL Chinese while wearing chinese shoes, sitting at a chinese made desk, typing on a chinese made keyboard.
    If you want to protest, stop messing with the torch and stop buying their CRAP!
    Buy mexican or indian or german, just get off of chinese stuff.

  20. Re:so if you go over the urals, by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There are substantial societal and cultural differences. Chinese cultural has long been a strongly hieararchical one, with each level of society showing great deference to the next level up. That's one of the basis of Confucianism, the moral obligation of each individual, whatever their station, to those above them. The Chinese Communists tried to some extent to undermine that, but once Mao had gained power, he essentially took on the mantle of an Emperor, isolating himself from his inferiors, creating a sort of spiritual cult around himself. This was intentional, because it invoked a very ancient cultural motif. If Chiang Kai-shek failed, it's in large part because he was really too Western, a Christian who fashioned himself more in the mold of a Western military dictator, in a sense he was an alien cultural presence.

    I'm not saying that people are fundamentally different in China, but rather that you just can't discount millennia of cultural influence. The West has certainly had its aristocracies, but it was never as rigid as it was in China. Western society, even in such stratified cultures as England was for centuries, simply did not have the absolute respect or fear of authority that you find in China.

    I can also understand the position of the Chinese government. They saw the absolute chaos that reigned in Russia for a decade, the loss of key parts of the Soviet Empire, the ethno-religious war in Chechnya and the break down of social order. They have taken a much slower approach to reform, and to an extent I can appreciate that, but for them it's still the ancient cultural motif of a remote and isolated ruling class. Only in the last few years have they finally started to deal with the millennia-old problem that came from that system, and that's a corrupt bureaucracy.

    Still, that's a Chinese problem, but the invasion and attempted cultural genocide of Tibet is something else entirely.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  21. Re:Brilliant, evil, or both? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Dali Lama says the most reasonable things, it is true, but this is a double talk. He may very well be for only peaceful protests, but he would not stop violent protests and rationalizes them. He is in a very good position of letting others do the dirty work for him and not be tainted by any of them. In truth, he is but one side of Tibet independence movement, the presentable face of it. If he and his government are ever back in power in Tibet, it is inevitable the organizers of violent actions will be in top positions. Isn't it wonderful for a movement when its actions have no negative consequences because its spokesperson can disavow them to the world without condemning them, thus in effect providing it with perfect cover.

    And do not believe all you read in the press about anyone. I bet you did not know Dali Lama was in CIA's payroll until 70s. Western press do not lie, they just don't tell the whole truth. Chinese press lie and print unreadable stories (one fervently patriotic Chinese reader wrote: I would rather kill myself than read this junk.) Mass media appears inevitably to become mass propaganda tools; it is not for nothing many people do not watch or read news in US; they do not trust the press, which considers itself fair and balanced; FOX News even says so.

  22. West is appalled to futile suffering by microbox · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Westerners just can't grapple with the reality that the Chinese government is still generally popular and it's people, though overly addicted to nationalism and cultural pride, are NOT ignorant slaves that your corporate media and your condescending feel-good activists like you to believe

    Westerners just can't grapple with the reality that the Chinese government would participate in such embarrassing lies and historical revisionism. At least in the west we are cynical about what the establishment feeds us.

    Why is that important?

    When Ghandi was campaigning for independence, he and the Indian people were subject to many brutal and unfair things by the British government. So Ghandi's side of the story was heard, and eventually a peaceful rationale solution came about.

    When the people in Tibet complain *peacefully*, they are confronted with the gun, and then the Chinese government attempts to resolve the situation by managing perception. It's no wonder that the peaceful demonstrations turned violet.

    When you tell a lie, you must keep lying to preserve that lie. I think the chinese government has told so many lies that they don't know which direction is up. It's too bad to see so many people suffering because of a lack of straight-forward honesty.

    --

    Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
  23. Re:What the CCP isn't telling the Chinese populati by hackingbear · · Score: 2, Insightful

    While we can't rely on what the Chinese government tells us, it is just as risky relying on what the Tibetan-in-exile tells us. For one, the Tibetan movements are backed by some influence like the CIA behind the back which, of course, would be very interested in having the US to deploy missiles over in Tibet.

    The Chinese government have acknowledged atrocities occurred in the 1960's and 70's but those were due to Mao's Cultural Revolution which affected all of China and not just Tibet. In the current times, the Chinese government or Han Chinese probably eradicate Tibetan culture/language/religion probably no more effective than the mainstream Americans eradicating the culture/language/religion of American Indian.

  24. Re:let me guess, you are a "liberal", huh? by AuMatar · · Score: 2, Insightful

    All governments use propaganda- communists use it no more than other kinds. Bought any freedom fries lately?

    As for 9/11- the most horrific attack against civilians? Please. It doesn't rate in the top 100, it probably barely makes the top thousand. I can think of a dozen worse ones in this century alone, starting with the rape of Nanking, the firebombing of Dresden, and two nuclear bombs dropped by the US.

    As for America being attacked for being successful- nope. We were attacked for being arrogant and controlling. We were the ones who created Bin Laden. We funded his fight in Afghanistan. We took out government after government in the middle east. Our policies make the rich rulers there fabulously wealthy, while everyone else lies in squalor. Those are the reasons we were attacked. And of course, rather than fix anything we're making the problem worse as usual.

    --
    I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
  25. Britain invaded China to force opium trade by Geof · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When we closed our doors to the world, you forced them open with drugs and guns.

    The major source of opiates, the drug of choice for centuries in China, is your neighbor Afghanistan. Don't blame us for that.

    Talk about ignorance. The behavior of the British in China was flat-out evil. From Wikipedia:

    Britain had a large trade deficit with China and had to pay for these goods with silver. Britain began exporting opium to China from British India in the 18th century to counter its deficit.

    China banned the trade and importation of opium, on the basis that "Opium is a poison, undermining our good customs and morality. Its use is prohibited by law." They even wrote to Queen Victoria, asking why, since opium was banned in Britain, the British continued to sell it in China. When China seized opium from British traders who violated the law, Britain responded by invading China, seizing territory and forcing China to allow the opium trade. Other countries achieved similar concessions (including at least the French French, Italian, American sand Japanese). At one point, the British army marched to Beijing and burned down the Old Summer Palace, then said to be one of the wonders of the world .

    The Chinese are on firm ground when they criticize past Western behavior in China. They are often correct when they describe our current policies and attitudes as hypocritical and self-serving. I detect an undertone of racism, or at least of xenophobia, in much of what is said about China. These are echoed by many Chinese, in China and in the West. We need to get beyond resentment, arrogance, and paranoia on both sides. The Chinese government is brainwashing its citizens. But (as a student of Communication) I can assure you, our media is doing something similar (in response to different pressures). Even though few people pursue alternative sources of information, it is important that in the West we are permitted access to them. For example, here's an in-depth argument by an expert that the Western media have slandered China with respect to Tibet. I haven't assessed it in detail, and I don't think it exonerates the Chinese government, but it is clear there's much more to this than we're hearing.

    I live in Vancouver. Chinese comprise a large proportion of the population here. To stereotype a little, they are thoughtful, productive, essential members of my society. The same is true in Calgary, Toronto, Ottawa. For me, Canada would not be Canada without them. It saddens me greatly to witness the hatred directed toward them, just as it saddens me to see so many intelligent people (on both sides) follow the party line on Tibet.