Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

China Unblocks Sensitive Keywords

Posted by timothy on from the ip-traps-ready dept.

hackingbear writes "Reports from overseas (in Chinese) [Google translation] and Hong Kong-based Chinese media report that China appears to have unblocked several sensitive political keywords. Using Baidu.com, the country's leading search engine, users within the mainland border find, in Chinese, uncensored web page links and images using keywords like Tiananmen and 'June 4'. (Readers can click on the first one to view the images.) Given that the unblocking of these sensitive keywords comes one week after Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao publicly denounced left-wing leader Bo Xilai's movement of 'striking down the ganster while reviving the red culture' as going down the path of Cultural Revolution, it could signal the silent start of a major political change."

64 of 101 comments (clear)

  1. Start of political change? Doubtful. by daveschroeder · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They'll just spam public internet services to suppress what they view as dissent, ramp up coordinated cyber attacks, make their lawyers swear oath to the Communist Party, force real name registration on internet services, continue censorship of social networks when deemed necessary, and continue to massively build out CNO and espionage capabilities, all while on track to exceed even the United States' defense spending by 2025.

    But yeah, no big deal.

    1. Re:Start of political change? Doubtful. by realitycheckplease · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Or it just means that they've realised trying to track people who search for the censored terms is likely to be more effective if the searches give results - whereas previously people didn't bother searching because they knew the results were censored.

    2. Re:Start of political change? Doubtful. by jhoegl · · Score: 2

      Exactly... they put honey in some sort of holding container.
      You know... for the bears.

    3. Re:Start of political change? Doubtful. by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      One can only imagine the Cultural Revilotion by watching BMW's, Jaguar's, and Rolls Royce's parading around the Middle Kingdom.

      Of course, the People's Republic can stand in solidarity, against Steel Re-Bar?

    4. Re:Start of political change? Doubtful. by durrr · · Score: 1

      Or perhaps this is yet another step of china becoming more progressive and open.

        I mean, they've tried communism and oppression and information control and whatnot else, they got out of being a 3rd world country by trying something new, and their transformation was absolutely spectacular and I'm certain their leadership agrees on this, why not try more progressive changes, it of course depends on the mindset of the leadership, if they want to transform china to a great nation or if they are more interested in consolidating power for friends in high places and ideological allies?

      And why yes, a china that is an industrial powerhouse, with freedom of information and other civil liberties could certainly become what america once was with the american dream and all that rosy hyperbole.

      Now if only the US weren't heading in the opposite direction.

    5. Re:Start of political change? Doubtful. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Holy shit.
      The commies are smarter then the recording industry.
      Well I'll be damned.

    6. Re:Start of political change? Doubtful. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I agree with you, and i think that a lot of people forget that China has a history of slow political change. The bloodiest periods of their history coincided with rapid and radical swings to opposing political ideologies, so we can expect their leaders to be much more considerate in their actions as a result. They have a sense of history, and they realize that giving people too much immediate freedom can have lasting detrimental effects on their country so they're taking it slow. You can't always give everyone access to all the information at once or you risk overwhelming them. Now, we can go on denouncing China for their past, or we can work with them as two nations striding into the future.

      We're both stuck together anyway.

    7. Re:Start of political change? Doubtful. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      One can only imagine the Cultural Revilotion by watching BMW's, Jaguar's, and Rolls Royce's parading around the Middle Kingdom.

      Of course, the People's Republic can stand in solidarity, against Steel Re-Bar?

      Now there's a point. Does anyone really believe that The People's Republic is going to be stronger than Madison Ave? Ultimately, marketing will prevail. Consumerism will prevail. And the Cultural Revolution will fall to the same thing the American Revolution fell to: advertising and corporatism.

      Corporate power is so much more potent than any government. It's not even a contest.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    8. Re:Start of political change? Doubtful. by JimCanuck · · Score: 2

      or if they are more interested in consolidating power for friends in high places and ideological allies?

      Bo was one of the "princelings" having a father who was a high ranking officer with Mao since the start of the Red Revolution in China. It has been a problem for many Chinese that people are attaining power through connections over their abilities. Deng Xiaoping got most of the current leadership involved long after they finished school in technical fields and proved their wroth as scientists, engineers and doctors. In Chinese news, there is a undertone of a fear of going back to the old ways of having a "privileged" class which doesn't actually run the country effectively. Pushing Bo out of office is a sign that generational power transfer will not be tolerated.

      China is becoming more progressive, and while it won't become the United States, or the West, as a country they have a 5,000 year history to back their decisions on, and have another thousand years or so of watching Western culture evolve into the mess we are in today. Something tells me they will not take our form of "progress" but a different approach where the country's needs are more important then the "freedom" of voting which seems to have little effect in Western politics anyways.

      Tiananmen Square was about the people openly protesting what they saw as a government that was leading down the path the dynasties did. Something they knew would not be good for themselves. By allowing Chinese access to the information, it stands to reason that the Chinese people, will actually turn around and support their government for it, and for the measures its been trying to take to prevent a economic slow down of the country, as what typically happens when a government gets old and complacent in any form of Government.

    9. Re:Start of political change? Doubtful. by durrr · · Score: 2

      They aren't communists anymore, it's just inertia that's keeping the name schemes around

    10. Re:Start of political change? Doubtful. by JimCanuck · · Score: 1


      Bo Yibo, like 7 others were the "Eight Elders" who were the other 8 "giants" who brought communism to China beside Mao, of which, Deng Xiaoping who took power after Mao's death was purged not once but twice, in which one of his sons was beaten and then thrown out of a 4 story window becoming a paraplegic because the first hospital refused to give him any care to stabilize his condition. Of the remaining 6 members, 3 more were purged at one time or another under Mao. The common theme of all of their 5 purges is that they were never really touched, its their families who were made to pay the price of being counter-Mao.

      Being purged, is a temporary thing more or less for most in China, just because you lost favor with one leader, or with the party as a whole, doesn't mean you cannot take power back for yourself.

    11. Re:Start of political change? Doubtful. by khallow · · Score: 2

      Does anyone really believe that The People's Republic is going to be stronger than Madison Ave?

      Why would you think otherwise?

      Corporate power is so much more potent than any government. It's not even a contest.

      So remarkably stupid on two levels. First, every government is a corporation. It normally doesn't have the limited liability structure of a corporation, mostly because there's little value in having it when the decision makers of a government are usually well shielded from liability through some variation of sovereign immunity.

      Second, the statement completely ignores the vast power that governments have. No business (what one usually thinks of when discussing corporations) can survive long periods of unprofitability, but a government can be eternally unprofitable. Governments create virtually all rent seeking opportunities. And they typically have a monopoly on taxation, law enforcement, and military power.

      At this point, I imagine the most common criticism will be that businesses bribe governments and through that mechanism control government. In other words, businesses pay money to government for goods and services and that's how governments are controlled.

      But do I control Coca Cola by buying a soda from them? A customer controls the supplier only if the customer dominates the business;s demand. Say, if I was responsible for 90% of Coca Cola's profits, then I could exercise that power in great ways to control Coca Cola. But few governments have such a concentration of demand. It's thousands of businesses trying to get their sugar by paying the right government bureaucrats. The power isn't in the hands of the businesses. but in the hands of the bureaucrats who control the goods or services for which the bribes are paid.

      And there's little to no competition between bureaucrats. Either you pay the bribes to someone (usually a fixed set of someones) or you lose the sugar.

    12. Re:Start of political change? Doubtful. by khallow · · Score: 1

      Some people have posited that the Hundred Flowers campaign of 1957 was a deliberate attempt to lure out dissidents so they could be punished. Whether deliberate or not, it did have that effect. Similarly, here, they might be liberalizing the country slightly or creating a bunch of honeypots to persecute those who might become problems for the regime. Even if not the latter, they might later use information about such http requests to punish those who browse such subjects.

    13. Re:Start of political change? Doubtful. by ihatewinXP · · Score: 1

      Funny watching this discussion and last weeks COUP (attempted) gets no mention.

      I'm sure the biggest political upheaval in China since the trial of the Gang of Four has little or no signifigant value in this discussion about the actions and motives in any recent actions by said government....

      --
      ---- The real Slashdot is still here. You just have to browse at -1 to read the comments.
    14. Re:Start of political change? Doubtful. by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      yet.. if they make tianenmen square disappear from memory it'll actually make it happen again. "cultural revolution" fuckup is more likely to happen again if they sensor all knoweledge of it because the persons who would be doing it(rehash of cultural revolution) would think they're doing something fresh..

      and that would be start of political change - of course nothing by western/northern standards - and the faction which starts that might end up holding power for a while in china.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    15. Re:Start of political change? Doubtful. by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      so - wouldn't limiting government largess be a solution for limiting corporate influence? Isn't the very idea of government helping via government aide a corrupting influence?

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    16. Re:Start of political change? Doubtful. by khallow · · Score: 1

      So remarkably stupid on two levels. First, every government is a corporation. It normally doesn't have the limited liability structure of a corporation, mostly because there's little value in having it when the decision makers of a government are usually well shielded from liability through some variation of sovereign immunity.

      Second, the statement completely ignores the vast power that governments have. No business (what one usually thinks of when discussing corporations) can survive long periods of unprofitability, but a government can be eternally unprofitable. Governments create virtually all rent seeking opportunities. And they typically have a monopoly on taxation, law enforcement, and military power.

      Those are both the reasons why corporations are more powerful than any single government.

      That's only true if the whole is stronger than the pieces. It isn't necessarily. There's the military concept of "defeat in detail". A force that would be more powerful, if it were to act in concert is defeated because the foe can attack the pieces one at a time.

      In the case of businesses, there is almost no high level coordination among groups of corporations. In fact, in most of the world, there are effective laws that prevent that from happening.

      Note: I didn't say that aa single corporation was more powerful than a government, I said that "corporate power" or corporations in the aggregate are more powerful.

      No, it's pretty clear from context that you were speaking of businesses (eg, terms such as "Madison Avenue", "marketing", etc), not governments. And the aggregate of Madison Avenue, even if it were to act in concert, which it won't, just isn't that powerful compared to a large government.

      When China gave the Shenzhen region to corporations to do as they please, China thought they were going to ride that tiger. But just watch. The tiger is going to be riding China, just as they are riding the West.

      And why would you think that? It doesn't work that way in the West, much less China. All China has to do to keep its businesses in line is to own the biggest and occasionally kill (by a combination of seizure of assets and criminal penalties for employees) members of the herd that get too troublesome.

      Even the weaker control mechanisms of the West, such as regulation and taxation are effective.

      So remarkably stupid on two levels.

      Always nice talking to you, khallow.

      I only wish I could say the same. You don't think. It's almost painful to read your words.

    17. Re:Start of political change? Doubtful. by khallow · · Score: 1

      I also get the feeling you don't understand the power of a major government. In addition to the potent monopolies they enjoy, they also handle huge streams of tax revenue and have ability to print a lot of money.

      China, for example, spent $1 trillion on US government debt (most purchased over the last five years). If they had used that to buy publicly traded companies, they'd own about a 2-2.5% share of the world's publicly traded companies. A few decades of focused investing and passage of laws which heavily favor corporations which China controls, could effectively turn the market of all publicly traded companies into a Chinese subsidiary. That's the sort of power China has.

      The other big governments wield similar power. The US Federal Reserve printed over $3 trillion dollars (in "quantitative easing") over the past few years. That would be enough to obtain at least a 6-8% share of publicly traded corporations globally.

    18. Re:Start of political change? Doubtful. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      so - wouldn't limiting government largess be a solution for limiting corporate influence?

      I don't think so. If government was shrunk down to the bare minimum, what would stop your bank from deciding that they're going to raise the interest on your mortgage from 5.25% to 30% because they say so? If you limit government down to the barest minimum, and Wal-Mart decides that the stuff being imported from China is perfectly fine for you to eat, even though it contains melamine?

      There are many many issues for which there are no "free market" solutions. Environmental protections are a great example. Let's say that the energy company decides that the nuclear plant near your house really doesn't need a whole lot of safety precautions, and burying the waste next to your children's school is the most economic thing for them and will save them money. What is the "free market" solution for that? What is the "free market" solution to law enforcement, in terms of creating a society that's orderly enough for commerce to take place? The most powerful corporations don't even have customers or potential customers in the general population, so there really is no possible social limitations that can be placed on them except by government.

      Face it, government is the only possible counter to corporate power, and they're not doing their job in that regard, for at least the past 30 years. There is no other way to limit corporate power except government.

      That's why we have to stand on the government's neck to get them to do what they are supposed to do, which is maintain a rule of law among corporations.

      Thomas Jefferson, in 1816, had this to say about corporations:

      I hope we shall take warning from the example of England and crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our Government to trial and bid defiance to the laws of our country.

      Even back then, just forty years after the founding of the country, the guy who wrote the Declaration of Independence was warning us about big corporations, about a class of super-rich, about the Koch Brothers, and Bain Capital and super-PACs. About Mitt fucking Romney.

      When everybody was making money hand over fist, nobody wanted to listen to Jefferson, but something changed again back in the 1980s, and a serious challenge to the rule of law arose from corporations. In the past few years, we've seen the Supreme Court, the far right bloc on the Supreme Court, bring two major decisions: 1) the Citizens United decision, which allows unlimited, anonymous corporate money to be spent in political campaigns and 2) the Kelo vs City of New London decision, which allows personal property - real property - to be taken from a private party and given to another private party just because the new owner could make more money with it. These two decisions have unleashed the greatest challenge to the rule of law in this country since the Civil War. But now, only a very small minority, about .01% are making money hand over fist, and the vast majority of us are falling behind, making less, working longer, harder, giving up quality of life and quality of life for our families.

      That's why we have no choice but to do everything we can to force the government to keep their foot on the necks of the most powerful corporations until they learn to behave. And if they fail, we have to be prepared to take it to the next level - boycotts, general strikes, civil disobedience. Otherwise, the coming decades are going to be no fun for our kids and grandkids. People my age and older fucked up. We let the whole thing get out of hand because we were all fat and happy. Now we have to try to remember how to work the same mechanisms that our Founding Fathers had to figure out in the second half of the 18th century.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    19. Re:Start of political change? Doubtful. by khallow · · Score: 1

      Buddy, you forgot a few critical observations in your verbal thrashing. Let's start with something called employment. Government is one big fat cost center and where do you think they get their money from? Trees?

      They get their money from their monopoly on force. Employment is an artificial category of peoples' activities. Everyone has something to take away whether they fall in that category or not.

      Secondly, most wars today are a result of unemployment (not religion or freedom and all that sheeple BS). Tell me, how many wealthy nations have you seen invaded lately? Do I need to carry on? Okay, yes I will

      No, all wars are because someone uses military power on someone else. And I've seen a lot of wealthy countries invaded, for example, in the First and Second World Wars.

      Corporations make or break countries. What do you think sanctions are. You and the original poster are wrong. Government might set the rules and have a big stick, but corporations are where the money is. No money = No power = No influence.

      Only if those corporations also have the label, "government". Else, they're just another organization, which might be wealthy or might not.

      Money or more accurately, wealth isn't power. Don't make that mistake. Power can take wealth, while wealth can only lease power. Sanctions work to a modest degree, not because they take away wealth, but because they undermine power and control of the government.

      End of the day, the line between Government and Corporation is so thin, this whole thing is a mute argument.

      As I noted and you ignored, government is a corporation, so the line already is not where you think it is.

    20. Re:Start of political change? Doubtful. by khallow · · Score: 1
      We can sum up this part of the thread as follows:

      GLMDesigns: "Maybe restricting government power would restrict corporate influence?"

      [...]

      PopeRatzo: Free thinks a stream of bullshit strawmen.

      Pope, first, GLMDesigns didn't demand a minimal government or a less than minimal government. If we take a few laws away or regulate things a little less severely, we don't suddenly become Somalia.

      There is no other way to limit corporate power except government.

      Sure there is. Recall the boycotts that occurred during the fight for civil rights in the US. There are many other types of power. You just have to have enough clue to realize they are there.

      That's why we have to stand on the government's neck to get them to do what they are supposed to do, which is maintain a rule of law among corporations.

      Increasing regulation of businesses without corresponding increase in control of government has lead to this situation. There's no point to merely increasing the bribery opportunities, if the bribes aren't punished.

      Even back then, just forty years after the founding of the country, the guy who wrote the Declaration of Independence was warning us about big corporations, about a class of super-rich, about the Koch Brothers, and Bain Capital and super-PACs. About Mitt fucking Romney.

      And we're standing on the neck of government and keeping those "big corporations" under control, right? Well, not really. Which is why the question by the original poster came up. If the approach isn't working, maybe we should let up and try something else?

      When everybody was making money hand over fist, nobody wanted to listen to Jefferson, but something changed again back in the 1980s, and a serious challenge to the rule of law arose from corporations. In the past few years, we've seen the Supreme Court, the far right bloc on the Supreme Court, bring two major decisions: 1) the Citizens United decision, which allows unlimited, anonymous corporate money to be spent in political campaigns and 2) the Kelo vs City of New London decision, which allows personal property - real property - to be taken from a private party and given to another private party just because the new owner could make more money with it. These two decisions have unleashed the greatest challenge to the rule of law in this country since the Civil War.

      Because the 1980s were right after the 1810s. Let me give you some perspective on your "two decisions". Decision 1) happened because the McCain-Feingold law was unconstitutional. Period. Unlimited, anonymous corporate money (which incidentally would be pretty much the case, even if that bit of McCain-Feingold wasn't overturned) is not a greater threat to democracy than the cavalier disregard for these foundations of law. Just pass a damn law that isn't unconstitutional and stop whining.

      As to Kelo v. New London, I consider that blatantly unconstitutional, but something that has already been fixed in most of the US by laws at the state level. I'm concerned as a result that we'll see more unconstitutional law upheld (such as upholding Obamacare), but this particular case at least had a workaround. That makes it much less than the epic fail you claim it is.

      It's also worth noting here that the "far right bloc" voted against the Kelo v. New London decision. Maybe you should take a look at who is actually undermining the Constitution in this country.

      It's not a coincidence that the ideological group that happens to think "corporations" are too powerful is also the force behind Kelo. Individuals are after all, just one man corporations on the verge of abusing their power. They need to be restrained just like the biggest corporations. Maybe even more so, since they don't kick back as much money.

      But now, only a very small minority, about .0

  2. That's good. by virgnarus · · Score: 1

    I'm sure they feel a lot better now that they're unblocked. Can't imagine how upset they were when it happened.

  3. Relation to possible revolution? by gman003 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'd read a few days ago that there was a lot of stuff going around the Chinese blogosphere about a possible coup or revolt going on in Beijing - armored vehicles in the streets, gunshots, and so on. This is second- or third-hand stuff - bloggers->other bloggers->american news - and until this, I figured it was the rough equivalent of the fake death rumors that go around Twitter sometimes. Even combined with the political infighting news, it was "possible but not probable".

    But, in light of this, I'm thinking there might actually be something to it. Probably not a full-fledged revolution, but even violent political maneuverings might be a good thing (if the less-evil faction wins).

    1. Re:Relation to possible revolution? by Guppy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It looks like there's a struggle going on between two major power blocks, triggered after head of the Public Security Bureau in ChongQing, Wang Lijun, attempted to seek shelter (and possibly defect) at a US Consulate -- possibly to save his own life after uncovering corruption involving Bo Xiliai (who at one point had been thought to be a candidate for a top leadership position in China).

      While the US consulate rejected Wang, he is rumored to have turned over a lot of dirt to the US staff before being arrested by Chinese authorities (including rumors that he had info on a possible coup attempt) and now officials are getting purged all over the place. Interesting times.

    2. Re:Relation to possible revolution? by gman003 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      So I'll now reiterate what I say whenever I'm roped into watching a sports match:

      Who's playing, who's winning, and who do we want to win?

      In other words, what do the two factions stand for, which one is winning, and which one will result in a more free, fair and just China?

    3. Re:Relation to possible revolution? by x0d · · Score: 1

      Maybe they're just upgrading their servers and something wrong..

    4. Re:Relation to possible revolution? by gman003 · · Score: 1

      That has happened before, but they usually have it fixed within hours.

      Given that it's been hours since it was posted on /. and it still seems to be up, it seems more likely that this is deliberate.

    5. Re:Relation to possible revolution? by am+2k · · Score: 1

      In politics, you usually want neither faction to win, since they're all rich, lying weasels. As long as they're fighting each other, nobody else gets hurt.

    6. Re:Relation to possible revolution? by Iron+(III)+Chloride · · Score: 1

      Just fyi since I'm not sure this was clear to you, but Wen Jiabao is part of the current leadership that will retire next year, so he's not going to make too much of a difference other than in any influence that he might have over the leadership transition in promoting those with similar agendas as his - at least in terms of the agenda that he has publicly expressed, in any case.

      (Some critics believe that Wen Jiabao's pro-reformist rhetoric is just a smoke screen by the Party to placate the masses while stalling and not actually doing anything - sort of analogous to the concept "empty campaign promises" here in the US. I don't know whether those criticisms are warranted given my lack of knowledge about the situation, just putting the possibility out there.)

      --
      Cogito, ergo sum, fosho!
    7. Re:Relation to possible revolution? by subreality · · Score: 1

      In politics, you usually want neither faction to win, since they're all rich, lying weasels.

      +10

      As long as they're fighting each other, nobody else gets hurt.

      -3

  4. Admiral Ackbar's message to Chinese dissidents: by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

    "It's a trap!"

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  5. Hundred Flowers? by McDrewbie · · Score: 1

    Another Hundred Flowers in the making?

  6. Re:Left-wing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Well, now it portrays him as a circus clown. Such goes the wiki.....

  7. Bo Xilai is a blocked word by andy1307 · · Score: 3, Informative
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303812904577295462500007558.html

    For several days after his ouster, censors took a hands-off approach to online gossip, letting speculation flow freely. That changed this week as popular microblogging site Sina Weibo reinstated an earlier block on searches for Mr. Bo's name and additionally blocked a wide range of user-invented code words for Mr. Bo, including the term "not thick"—a play on Mr. Bo's surname, which means "thin." Searches for Mr. Bo's name, "not thick" and other related terms were also blocked on Tencent Weibo, another of China's popular microblogging sites, which often impose their own blocks in anticipation of what the government will deem sensitive.

  8. Brave, educated or foolish? by Teun · · Score: 4, Insightful
    If this is not an error but a conscious change in policy one has to wonder whether it's a brave, educated or foolish move.

    China is a vast multicultural society only held together by a sometimes ruthless dictatorship.

    Releasing the reins too fast can have some very disturbing side effects.

    --
    "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    1. Re:Brave, educated or foolish? by twistofsin · · Score: 2

      If this is not an error but a conscious change in policy one has to wonder whether it's a brave, educated or foolish move.

      China is a vast multicultural society only held together by a sometimes ruthless dictatorship.

      Releasing the reins too fast can have some very disturbing side effects.

      Why can't it be all 3?

      China may have diverse cultures but I think they have a strong political unity. Overall I don't think it's the dictatorship itself that keeps them in line, they also share a strong belief that their gov't has everyone's interests in mind.

  9. Re:Left-wing? by Sir_Sri · · Score: 3, Interesting

    do you seriously believe a contentious current figure, in a secretive state is going to get an honest rap from Wikipedia?

    Anyone in the echelons of power is an elitist, or crazy, it's a matter of degree, and what you're trying to do with that power.

  10. Re:Ganster? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

    What does "wassa" mean?

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  11. Good start China by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

    Slashdot posters often slam China (often for good reason). At least we have some positive news here.

  12. Perhaps its an official "adjustment" on Tianamen by voss · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Jiang Zemin was the party leader in shanghai during Tianmen who was able to stop the protests in shanghai without resorting to violence. Wen Jibao would not have publicly denounced Bo Xiliai without the approval of Jiang Zemin. It is likely the chinese government may be willing to adjust its view of the June 4th protesters to call them "sincere if misguided citizens seeking reform" and the ones who sought the crackdown were "hardliners" like Li Peng and use this as an excuse to purge the "red culture" and other hardliners faction from the party.

    Also look and see if Zhao Ziyang gets rehabilitated posthumously.

  13. Not everything unblocked... by f3rret · · Score: 2

    Like, try searching for 'falun gong' then baidu.com stops responding. At least for me.

    --
    Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
  14. Re:Perhaps its an official "adjustment" on Tianame by Guppy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Wen Jibao would not have publicly denounced Bo Xiliai without the approval of Jiang Zemin.

    I'm not sure I understand this interpretation. To me, it looked like a direct shot from Hu Jintao / Wen Jiabao aimed right at Jiang Zemin's faction. They're opening up the Great Firewall because the majority of the information circulating on the western side is more embarrassing to Jiang than to Hu/Wen. Not only that, but it's allowing dirt regarding Bo Xilai / Zhou Yongkang to get back through to Chinese citizens in a roundabout way, bypassing domestic news sources (who, even when encouraged by the nominally-in-charge authorities to report, find themselves paralyzed and unwilling to possibly end up on the losing side, once the purges are over).

  15. I'll believe it when by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The Chinese troops pull out of Tibet and the Han colinization is reversed and Tibet is paid reparations AND The Dalai Lama is once again in the Potala monastery.

    My Chinese buddies being able to vote in open elections would be cool.

    The above would indeed be a wonderful site. Humanity could even be accused of getting its shit together!

    GreekGeek. :-)

    1. Re:I'll believe it when by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      The Chinese troops pull out of Tibet and the Han colinization is reversed and Tibet is paid reparations AND The Dalai Lama is once again in the Potala monastery.

      Hey Greek, I like your style.
      You might also want campaign for the Europeans to pull out of America, fully pay off the $16trillion, and to reinstate Sitting Bull into the White House while you're on your pulpit.

    2. Re:I'll believe it when by JimCanuck · · Score: 2, Interesting


      Tibet had accepted its place as part of China since before there was a Dalai Lama, the 13th century to be precise, 2 decades before the first Dalai Lama.

      The little "take over" of Tibet by the PRC in the early 1950's was caused by British meddling in Tibet, first in 1913 with trying to push the new Republic of China to make Tibet a Autonomous region of China, as they tried to take parts of Southern Tibet and incorporate them into the British ruled India. When they attempted to merge 9,000 km squared worth of territory.

      Then the British started to arm the Tibetans, and they launched attacks into the rest of China in the 1930s, where a Muslim Chinese Army and a Han Army crushed them.

      When 1934 came around and the 13th Dalai Lama died, and the Tibetan government reaffirmed that Tibet was still a part of China as a autonomous region. To which Tibet is still classified today, along with 4 other provinces for 4 other minority groups. Most of which enjoy much greater freedoms then Tibet because they are not consistently starting problems for the central government. Two of which are Muslim autonomous regions, where in one was the power base of the Muslim war lord who helped crush the Tibetan attack into China mentioned above.

      The Chinese Government in 1940 affirmed and allowed the 14th Dalai Lama selected to be named that and continue to be their spiritual leader. Something that is still kicking around in video tape form as it was filmed as a ceremony in Beijing.

      Was not till 1947 that Tibet tried to act independently, at which point, the situation started to break down, and after the Communist take over of China, did they decide to re-exert their rule of Tibet, which again has been going on for over 800 years. Along with removing the power of the land lords and lama's in Tibet, as they did in the rest of China. As serfism is contrary communist teachings, and contrary to our own freedoms, as its a form of generational slavery to your landlord.

      As a Greek, you should know, British meddling into countries affairs is never a good thing, lead us to one Civil War all about installing a Danish king back into power. Perhaps next time read some history and understand the situation in your own "native" land before opening your mouth about another country?

    3. Re:I'll believe it when by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually all the Tibetans I know regard the above as utter rubbish and loath the occupation of there country.

      You can accept what you like, just do not presume to speak on there behalf, by repeating the occupiers fictions.

      GreekGeek :-)

    4. Re:I'll believe it when by JimCanuck · · Score: 1, Interesting


      So not only do you claim to know more then one Tibetan, you claim to know more then one, of the mere 9,000 of them in the United States, or even less in Canada. Who the majority have never lived in Tibet, instead being born and raised in Napal and India to hate the Chinese, as their families were expelled or were forced to leave before the Communists sealed the boarder. Which typically were landlords and Lama's who kept the rest of Tibet in a medieval state, where the vast majority were born into slavery as they knew they'd be prosecuted under the communists if they were captured.

      Unless they or there families have been in the US since before around 2000, in which case, a great many of their parents/grandparents were trained by the CIA to fight a guerrilla war against Tibet, seeing as by the time the operations ceased a mere 500 or so Tibetans lived in the US.

      Or accepted history, not only for the Chinese, but many written histories and reports over the centuries given by Europeans in China who saw the situation first hand, not only now, but also for the last few hundred years.

      Who is a more reliable source? People who were raised to be polarized against someone, or written history of the last several centuries before politics got involved?

      Parakalo gia na kleisei to stoma sou, eiste mallon amorfotos vlakas.

    5. Re:I'll believe it when by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Your rhetoric is good, I merely question its relation to the world.

      Tibetans outside of Tibet, have ties inside to Tibet. That is how all the video an real news gets out. Your assertion that the borders are sealed, along with much of what you say, is a rehash of the occupiers fictions. (for those interested, see this movie, "Tibet-murder in the snow." Just be aware, you will see unarmed people being killed by CCP troops, as they flee Tibet seeking freedom.)

      Some who escaped from Tibet, were tortured by the Chinese occupiers. These accounts have been around since the 1950's.

      As usual, you rehash the fiction about Buddhist's holding the population as hostage. All the Tibetans I know are Buddhist, yet not all are as a whole. They are not trained to hate the Chinese, as you propose. They practice the dharma together. Naturally, they want the CCP out of Tibet, so they have the choice to go back home if they would like.

      As for "many" the Tibetan exiles being trained by the CIA, more CCP fictions.

      In an attempt to give credibility to these fictions, mass Han migration has started since the railway into Tibet was completed.

      Just because non-Tibetans who have not been there, write histories on there behalf and are published, does not entail any verisimilitude.

      Pity we can not just rock on up and ask the local Tibetans in Tibet, as we clearly can not. Who indeed is a more reliable source? The CCP and Han's who have just been moved there in the last decade or Tibetans who with these well documented migrations are rapidly becoming a minority in there own country. An obvious stratagem, which proves the lie the CCP would have the rest of the world believe.

      As for asking me in faux Hellenic, to be quiet, clearly you loath democracy as much as you utterly fail to comprehend the Hellenic character and for that matter Tibetan history.

      GreekGeek :-)

    6. Re:I'll believe it when by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hi Yall & Jim,

      who proposes I....

      Perhaps you should read some Greek history first before you argue about your knowledge of Tibetan history.

      I'm not arguing about my knowledge of Tibetan history. I'm correcting yours and bearing witness against The CCP.

      Jim also asserts against His Holiness The Dalai Lama, who has been awarded The Noble Peace Prize in 1990, that....

      I'm sorry, but replacing one "oppressor" with another

      Again CCP fictions, spread throughout the west & since 1949. Interestingly, whenever someone asks Tibetans, most say they want him to return to Tibet. He has foresaken his leadership role of the government in exile and there is now a parliament in exile, FYI yall.

      As usual the CCP argue against "...foreign meddling," in other regions. Ignoring the irony (and or utter hypocrisy ), of CCP occupying Tibet; consider the following obvious counter-example. France and of course Greece, were and are very happy for The Allies to assist in the ejecting of the Nazi regime, during WWII. The acid test of course, is if the locals want freeing and the Tibetans want rid of the CCP. Ergo the mass Han migration in place now and the failed attempt to keep the lid on this.

      Jim also states....

      Democracy, whether the Chinese are in power, or the Dalai Lama will never see Tibet.

      REALLY? So you are prescient too? Clearly I am out of my depth.... Keep taking the medication buddy.

      GreekGeek.

    7. Re:I'll believe it when by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Ok CCP mouthpiece Jim (nice fake name btw), answer me this - why have so many Tibetan monks self immolated themselves lately??

    8. Re:I'll believe it when by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is the most ridiculous, inaccurate piece of Chinese propaganda about Tibet I have ever come across. As the great John McEnroe used to say: 'You cannot be serious'!

    9. Re:I'll believe it when by JimCanuck · · Score: 1

      nice fake name btw

      Says the anonymous coward. If you think its a fake name, perhaps you should Google it, I'm sure your brain will be able to put the pieces together and figure out who I really am. I do not "hide" myself well on the internet.

    10. Re:I'll believe it when by JimCanuck · · Score: 2


      Buddhists, Taoists, Muslims, Catholics, Protestants and Jews, are welcomed to practice in China, as long as they denounce any connection with any external of China leadership. Such as Chinese Catholics do not hold the Vatican in any way, shape or form, as their "leadership". Officially there is about a third of the population who are religious. Some estimates put it greater then half of the population. There are some pretty big places of worship in China, that make some of our Western places of worship seem pale in comparison.

      For example, the government commissioned a 105 meter tall statue of Guan Yin for Buddhists, that you can see here ( http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/HainanSanya2.jpg ) which is the 4th largest in the world built in 2005. The largest statue in the world being another CCP production at 128 meters and a cost of 18 million USD, was built in 2002 again for Buddhists ( http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Spring_Temple_Buddha_picturing_Vairocana%2C_in_Lushan_County%2C_Henan%2C_China.jpg.png ) ... which comparison wise makes the Statue of Liberty seem rather small ... ( http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/Height_comparison_of_notable_statues_01.jpg )

      Well that your willing to keep the Religion Chinese in origin and that your not going to use it as a front for political protests and ideologies contrary to the Communist Party's rule. Which really is very simple to understand and stay on the good side of the government, at least for most of the religions currently practicing in China.

    11. Re:I'll believe it when by Asic+Eng · · Score: 2

      That seems more or less the official PRC version of Tibetan history. To start it's worth pointing out that Tibet has it's own language, culture and writing system and is ethnically separate from the Han people who make up the majority of the PRC.

      Tibet had been an autonomous region, since the mid 19th century Qing influence was mainly symbolic and of little practical consequence. In 1904 the British invaded, in 1910 the Qing did, and in 1912 the Tibetans got rid of the Qing. In 1950 the PRC conquered Tibet.

      There is more, of course - but given that you left out everything going against the PRC case, it makes sense to add a few of those back in.

      Ultimately what it comes down to: if the Tibetans don't want to belong to the PRC they shouldn't be forced to. After so many years of government by the PRC the Tibetans should now be able to see how much they benefit if they stay part of it. Surely there was enough time to convince them?

      Give them a free and open vote. If after all this time the people of Tibet still don't want to be governed by Beijing, then Tibet does not belong to China.

    12. Re:I'll believe it when by JimCanuck · · Score: 2

      That seems more or less the official PRC version of Tibetan history. To start it's worth pointing out that Tibet has it's own language, culture and writing system and is ethnically separate from the Han people who make up the majority of the PRC.

      That is perhaps because its the recorded history that predates the PRC for the most part, and you cannot really outright lie about it when its written the same way in textbooks all over the world.

      Tibet had been an autonomous region, since the mid 19th century Qing influence was mainly symbolic and of little practical consequence. In 1904 the British invaded, in 1910 the Qing did, and in 1912 the Tibetans got rid of the Qing. In 1950 the PRC conquered Tibet.

      You have one relatively large problem with your over all line of thinking, in 1912 when the "uprising" happened, there was no Qing Dynasty anymore. Instead no, all the Tibetans did is attack a garrison of Qing troops still in the region, while the commander's (Zhao Erfeng) own troops openly revolted against him as well as they were fans of the Xinhai revolution that had already ended the Dynasty. The Dynasty's asserting control over Tibet, after Tibet started to try and veto agreements between China and Britain about Tibet, started in 1905, not 1910.

      Additionally Tibet, like many other regions of today's China have always been "autonomous" regions under Federal country of the current ruling system of government for all of China. Doesn't mean they were not Federally incorporated into China for 800 years, nor does it mean they were "free". Instead they were enjoying the benefits of a pre-US Civil War style of government. Where the states were semi-independent entities.

      Facts, and dates, a tell tale sign someone didn't actually do any research before opening their mouth. Or in this case before typing something.

    13. Re:I'll believe it when by serialband · · Score: 1

      A lot of the "free Tibet" supporters don't seem to know history. The people who left Communist China have been the families of the very rich landowners and merchants. They certainly would have been killed if they hadn't escaped. I'm sure the CIA want to destabilize that region to give China extra things to worry about. That describes Taiwan and their constant propaganda which has brought up some deluded people who think they can take back China with their measly military might.

      The "free Tibet" movement would be similar to a "free Texas" or "free New York" movement in the US. The US, as country, wouldn't tolerate people from China pushing the international community for one of the states to secede. People need to stop meddling in other countries affairs. The US has used the dalai lama as a propaganda mouthpiece for many years.

    14. Re:I'll believe it when by JimCanuck · · Score: 1

      #1.2 million Tibetans died as a direct result of Chinese occupation of Tibet.

      And another 75 million Chinese in general died between 1949 and 1989, what is your point? Communism under Mao sucked, not just for the Tibetans but everyone. The Chinese people and government today do not want to end up in a situation like they lived through under Mao.

      Again, a full understanding of history perhaps would allow your judgement not to be clouded.

      Also if your going to copy and past information off other websites, instead of being able to articulate your own opinion, perhaps you should consider at least formatting the text so its not so pain painstakingly obvious.

  16. Re:Left-wing? by Guppy · · Score: 4, Informative

    Why is Bo Xilai called a left-wing leader? Wikipedia portrays him as an "elitist" who sometimes supports leftist policies.

    It's relative to the peculiar (and seemingly contradictory) factional politics of mainland China.

    Bo Xilai is aligned with the "Shanghai Princeling" faction; their members are mostly descendants of the original generation of Communist leaders. Generally this group has been seen as elitist and market-oriented. Yet at the same time, Bo Xilai was known for instituting populist welfare programs, busting "criminal gangs" (and according to rumors, ordinary businessmen whose assets were coveted by the government) and encouraging Mao-era culture and ideology.

    Their major rival faction, the Tuanpai faction, arose from members of the Communist Youth League; few of their members came from privileged backgrounds, including current General Secretary Hu Jintao (whose father was denounced during the Cultural Revolution). Their faction is generally considered populist, with special emphasis on social harmony.

    Given these descriptions, it would be difficult for a Western observer to assign labels like "Left" or "Right" to these groups, but it makes sense from a Chinese perspective.

  17. Re:Left-wing? by JimCanuck · · Score: 1


    Bo Xilai is left like most of China's leadership (or centralist due to the "white cat, yellow cat" ideas of their post-Mao leader), rather far left, a relic of his fathers time, wanting Mao style policies and practices reapplied today.

    Back when being the poorest peasant meant you were qualified to lead the people around you, and the most effective and educated engineers, scientists and doctors was forced to go work on the farms for a "people's education". This is also known as the cultural revolution, which is something many do not want a repeat of. It was a complete disaster to Chinese history, industrial base and people.

  18. Re:Left-wing? by Omniscientist · · Score: 1

    Political leaders of any stripe can almost always be classified as "elites". It's practically a prerequisite for the job. Even Che Guevara, whose father was the great-grandson of one of the richest men in South America at the time, and whose fully blue-blooded mother (of Spanish nobility) was the granddaughter of a wealthy landowner, was an elite.

  19. It wasn't going to stay censored forever... by Nux'd · · Score: 1

    Surely there comes a time when such atrocities are so far behind you that they no longer feel like 'our fault'. When this time comes, they can serve as a useful indication of how much better things are today (particularly to remind those who would wish a return to those days).

  20. Forget Chinese, can someone translate this for me? by chispito · · Score: 1
    I'm still trying to make sense of this sentence from the summary:

    Given that the unblocking of these sensitive keywords comes one week after Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao publicly denounced left-wing leader Bo Xilai's movement of 'striking down the ganster while reviving the red culture' as going down the path of Cultural Revolution, it could signal the silent start of a major political change.

    Can someone tell me what hackingbear is getting at?

    --
    The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
  21. maybe im misunderstanding but. by musikit · · Score: 1

    ok. i RTFS, then had my chinese wife look for taimen (spelling please forgive) and june 6th. on baidu. while i brought up the chinese wiki page for the event. she said the results she got back were nothing in correlation to that event. what am i misunderstanding?

  22. Re:Left-wing? by wisty · · Score: 1

    IIRC, Premier Wen was the first Premier to speak against the Cultural Revolution. He also says that a lack of reforms might start another one. He's actually censored a bit in China.

    Hu's less interesting - he never says anything except the consensus position.