Jul 18
The danger of categorically accusing others of prejudice
Written by DJ on Friday, July 18th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Filed under:-mini-posts, media, News | Tags:media, olympics, prejudice, racism, South China Morning Post
Add comments
Filed under:-mini-posts, media, News | Tags:media, olympics, prejudice, racism, South China Morning Post
Add comments
Tom Miller of the South China Morning Post has generated somewhat doubtful outrages with an article alleging Beijing ordered bars not to serve blacks. For now, however, Beijing Boyce seems to have seriously deflated the credibility of Tom Miller’s work. (H/T Danwei)
There are currently no comments highlighted.
For this post, I just want to point out an interesting quote Tom Miller managed to extract from an unnamed black British national:
Chinese people are prejudiced, but I would have hoped that the government would set a better example as it debuts on the world stage.
Gee, Tom, didn’t you notice the irony of this sentence before pushing the “report” out?
There are currently no comments highlighted.
66 Responses to “The danger of categorically accusing others of prejudice”
Trackbacks
- Emperor: clothes; USA: history; South China Morning Post: ??? | Fool's Mountain: Blogging for China
- Recent URLs tagged Prejudice - Urlrecorder
July 18th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Glad you jumped on this DJ. I was shocked to hear the claim, especially from a reputable paper like the South China Morning Post. Maybe I should say… formerly reputable paper like the SCMP…
July 18th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
I’m waiting to see how this story evolves. But in the following couple of paragraphs:
“I am appalled,” said a black British national who works in Beijing. “I understand that the government is trying to stop certain illegal activities, but I don’t think blanket discrimination is going about it the right way.
“Chinese people are prejudiced, but I would have hoped that the government would set a better example as it debuts on the world stage.”
It doesn’t seem that this quoted person was denied entry to any bar. Also, he didn’t indicate any of his friends having been denied entry. So this single black and anynomous “source” doesn’t have direct or indirect evidence to support the claim by the SCMP. We see.
July 18th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Chinese Prejudice toward Africans is undeniable. However, one context needs to be considered. The expressed prejudice among the Chinese that can be directly observed from outside is pretty much what they have. There is little hidden stuff beneath the surface. What you see is what you get. This is because China lacks a collective guilt toward Africans in particular and outsiders in general arising from a Western history of colonialism, legalized segregation and discrimination. There is a “we owe nobody a damn thing” mentality among the Chinese. Therefore the Chinese have almost no checks against their blatant expression of prejudices both in private life and at the institutional level. Western societies have evolved elaborate rituals and customs to suppress the expression of racial and religious prejudice. Therefore the amount of racism you can directly observe in the West is less than the tip of the iceberg; tons of stuff hides under the water.
July 18th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
@Admin, it seems suddenly, there are more posts and miniposts. The topics pass through the start page too quickly and comments are fewer per post. For example, in last couple of days, there are four or fives posts and miniposts a day.
July 18th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
@Netizen,
I think that’s good feedback. Could a blog be a victim of its own success…?
There are a lot of interesting topics out there, but perhaps by discussing too many of them at once we’re actually hurting deep discussion/consideration. Any other thoughts out there?
I know admin has been thinking about adding a separate “letters” tab where user submissions can go. Maybe all light-hearted miniposts should be moved into that area, too?
July 18th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
@Buxi,
That does seem to pose a little problem. I”ve been haven’t trouble keeping up with all posts. @_@
July 18th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
It’s a good problem to have. I felt like I was having a really difficult time trying to get one post onto the blog every day (a personal goal)… but with so many new helping hands, I feel like we’re in great shape. We just have to balance the other side of that.
July 18th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
@All,
Here is my quick solution for the posts overloading problem. I activated the Letters tab and put all guest posts there. I will also add an Aside page. So we can still have some mini-posts on front page for serious discussion and put other light-hearted stuff over there. Any suggestions/feedback are welcome.
July 18th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Uighyrs, Mongolians, and Tibetans are also being pushed out of Beijing in preparation for the Olympics. Shameful.
July 18th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
@JD,
Are you trying to out-do Tom Miller in regurgitating half-true propaganda?
Any Chinese citizen with residency in Beijing, or confirmed employment in Beijing has the legal right to reside there during the Olympics. Any Chinese citizen with a valid identity card can enter Beijing. Otherwise, all we have are anecdotes no more accurate than what Tom Miller said.
July 18th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
How do you expect to get more than anecdotes in a society where information is controlled and manipulated, Buxi? There are reasons the authorities won’t permit a free media. I’m just reflecting that there is more than one report in the public domain covering this type of situation. Certain it’s worthy of further reporting and investigation.
July 18th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
@JD,
There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of foreign reporters in Beijing as we speak. As the above story mentioned, many called to follow-up immediately on Tom Miller’s report, interested in whether there’s any truth.
I don’t need to get into a theoretical debate about “information control”, let’s talk specifics. Why do you think foreign reporters in Beijing haven’t confirmed or reported on an orchestrated policy to push out “Uighyrs” (sic), Mongolians, and Tibetans? How exactly are they being controlled?
July 18th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Buxi, foreign reporters have filed such reports. I also recall some earlier comments on this site about Uighyrs having their passports arbitrarily confiscated. For further context there’s the Sanlitun raid which Time refers to. Funny how anecdotes and rumours carry real value in a society where information is controlled and manipulated. It’s definitely worthy of further consideration as there’s substantial context which supports the credibility of the SCMP’s assertion.
A “theoretical discussion” (sic) would entail consideration of how a liberal media could benefit China. I’d suggest you’d have a challenging time to establish the credibility of information control and disinformation. Such efforts are simply backwards.
July 18th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
JD,
To be honest, I think sometimes you are overracted about everything “bad” in China, like connecting everything “bad” in China with information control or freedom of speech.
I dont know if Beijing pushs out Uighyrs, Mongolians, and Tibetans. Even if it did, I dont see how that was out of political reason, rather for the safety of Olympic. Why should media have to report that NOW ? I remember that after Dec, 7th, 1941, lot of Japanese in Hawaii were detained, and there was no report by American media either. I dont think London media will report lot of bad news in 2012, right before the Olympic.
July 18th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
@JD,
Sounds like you really are unabashedly from Tom Miller’s school of journalism.
I already addressed these earlier comments about Uighyrs having their passports arbitrarily confiscated. Other than a single foreign, non-Uygur expat who passed on a rumor, no one else in Xinjiang has even hinted this is happening in the run-up to the Olympics. No Western media, even, has made that claim. There were passports being turned in for exchange last year, an issue which was discussed on Uygur-Chinese chat forums, and linked in the previous thread:
http://blog.foolsmountain.com/2008/06/23/dont-indulge-our-race-complex/#comment-3643
Worthy of further consideration? Seems to me you threw an assertion out there without any proof, and are asking us to consider equally manufactured “context”. Why even have a discussion about real events on the ground at all? Just give us a list of things that you “know” are happening.
I hear the IOC will be serving the blood of newborn human babies at the Opening Ceremonies.
July 18th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
@Admin,
1) You may want to bring some high quality submissons onto the Home page, and say so in instruction on the Publish page, so that it will give readers an incentive to write better quality posts and save your guys work.
2) I think the current 5 tabs is a good number. If there are too many options, traffic will divert and subdivide, not necessarily a good idea. If you change the tab Letters to something like Forum or something in that vein, you will be able to put light hearted miniposts with the submissions, without having to add another tab.
Feel free to take or discard the feedback above.
July 18th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
I think letters and miniposts are really the same thing. The former is stuff that needs to be checked for quality, the latter is stuff that the author admits is not of the same “thesis” quality. In that vein, I suggest they can all start their life on the same “letters” page as only “letters”. We can move stuff onto the front page, as needed, and depending on their character, assign them to a “post” or a “minipost”.
July 19th, 2008 at 12:07 am
Wahaha@14, during the Atlanta Olympics, the authority tried to hide the black poverty and homelessness in Atlanta by destroying housing projects and arresting homeless people:
http://www.google.com/search?q=Atlanta+Olympics+homeless+people
I don’t remember human rights was ever highlighted by general media, and any soundbite was after the fact. Not nearly the same degree of venom as the b!tching we hear about China right now.
July 19th, 2008 at 2:38 am
Buxi, I would indeed take the SCMP approach to journalism over the Xinhua approach you prefer. You seem to have a bias towards accepting officially-approved sources of information which generally take the “ignorance is bliss” approach to controversy.
There would certainly be greater attention given to violations of rights if the media were free to report on them so, yes, anecdotes and rumours carry a great weight in China.
The ongoing pre-Olympic crackdown is casting a wide net. No surprise that reports are appearing of specific groups being targeted as potential sources of trouble. Let’s hope that people continue to bring forward important anecdotal information and question the official interpretations reported in state media. As seen in Wengan, this is the only way to begin to bring accountability to government and a far better approach than rioting.
July 19th, 2008 at 3:16 am
@Netzien and Nimrod,
Thank you for your feedback. I added an instruction on the Publish page that regular guest submission will be published on our “Guest Posts” page and a selective few will be featured on the main page.
I currently set up two subpages under the Letters page (“Guest Posts” and Mini Posts). We may, in the future, do away with miniposts on the front page and publish them on the Mini Posts page.
July 19th, 2008 at 4:53 am
It annoys me when people make up such false and malicious rumors to discredit another country and its people – the aim here, is clearly to scare people away from the Beijing Olympics.
There is an interesting conversation that is just beginning to take shape over at the http://www.underthejacaranda.wordpress.com blog, about China discourse, and why the western media so often portrays China in ways that are very negative. It’s worth taking a look at.
July 19th, 2008 at 5:20 am
I am not sure why this news report is worthy of discussion today. Wait till Aug 8, and we’ll have the answer. If Blacks are turned away, that’s deplorable. If they’re not, then the journalist will be losing a lot of credibility. Right now, it’s he said/he said. BTW, not sure how Beijing Boyce has discredited the journalist; he’s basically countered an unsubstantiated claim with hearsay and a couple of “I talked to a couple of guys”…hardly persuasive stuff either.
July 19th, 2008 at 5:35 am
@S.K.Cheung,
Beijing Boyce is a known entity in expat circles. When he says he spoke to bar-owners in the area, people believe that he spoke to bar-owners in the area. If there is supposedly an “official” policy on this, it’d be reasonable to imagine that bar-owners in the area would be aware of them.
@JD,
The lesson from Weng’an is that the international media (and the Chinese media) can get into a poor, distant corner of China within 48 hours of a major riot, and get access to the story on the riot. The idea that thousands of reporters in Beijing haven’t been able to tell us whether there’s a ban on Tibetans, Mongolians, Uygurs, andblacks is simply nonsensical.
July 19th, 2008 at 5:54 am
To Buxi:
I’m not saying Boyce is lying. If the guy says he talked to a couple of bar owners, I’m happy to assume he’s talked to them. But I don’t think his speaking to a few bar owners who are unaware of such a policy PROVES that such a policy doesn’t exist. Besides, the journalist referred to the Sanlintun area and Boyce concedes he hasn’t talked to owners in that district. So yeah, not so persuasive. Mind you, who cares, cuz the speculation ends in 3 weeks.
July 19th, 2008 at 9:32 am
Buxi, there are indeed reports of Uighyrs, Mongolians, and Tibetans as well as others – such as migrant workers – being pushed out of Beijing. There are widespread reports of an overall pre-Olympic crackdown, and the reports are consistent with other information that has been circulating. They deserve further investigation, though the fear of reprisal will keep many from speaking up.
Yes, you’re right that it’s hard to cover-up news despite persistent official efforts to do so. A second-best approach to a blackout appears to be an officially obfuscated blur of confusion, with Wengan, Sichuan, or the recent event near Huizhou as examples. Thus the stories such as the SCMP’s and anecdotal reports on blogs such as this deserve attention. To simply ignore them or automatically question their credibility is nonsensical.
Wahaha, I do think a liberal media serves a useful watchdog function, however imperfectly, and that a free flow of information brings widespread benefits to a society. Ignorance is not bliss and advocating for a free media is not an overreaction. Controlling media and information is so commonplace in China that it has become accepted as the norm. What’s so frightening about a liberal media? China faces many challenges and broad public interest and debate seems like a good way to find effective solutions.
July 19th, 2008 at 11:19 am
@SK Cheung – I couldn’t agree more. I personally find this story not very credible, it would be insane of the Beijing police to order such a bar, but we’ll find out when the time comes.
July 19th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Today’s follow-up in SCMP by the reporter Tom Miller:
Police in Beijing’s popular Sanlitun bar district deny they are conducting a racist campaign ahead of the Olympics, as another bar owner revealed he had been ordered not to let in blacks.
“They made us sign and chop a document saying we would not allow black people in [during the Olympics],” the owner said. “But no one is willing to say so because we’ll all get deported … and have our business shut.”
Asked yesterday whether they had told landlords not to let blacks in bars, an officer at the Sanlitun police station had a one-word answer: “No.”
The bar owner said police had given landlords a list of dos and don’ts during the Olympics. “We simply can’t let them in [during the Olympics], it’s what I was told,” he said.
“It’s [the restrictions on blacks] definitely happening. It will all happen in 24 hours.”
His revelation comes after the Post reported yesterday how another bar owner had been verbally warned by Public Security Bureau officers not to serve customers of Mongolian and African descent, while other bars had been ordered to sign chopped pledges to keep to curfews, not allow the illegal sale of drugs, and refuse certain customers.
“They [local police] call meetings, and everyone has to go, or else … If you don’t go, they’ll come back and shut you down,” he said. Further investigation found that not all bars in the newly revamped area known for its nightlife had been ordered to refuse black customers, suggesting police are targeting specific bars.
“Black guys can come in and drink as long as they have valid visas,” another bar manager in Sanlitun said. “But we have been told to watch out for black guys acting suspiciously, such as constantly talking on their mobile phones. The aim is to crack down on drug dealing.”
July 19th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
@eswn – Are we in the presence of East-West-South-North here? There’s no link.
July 19th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Yes, eswn = the ESWN. SCMP articles are subscription only, so a link wouldn’t do us much good.
Beijing Boyce also has another update, based on personal experiences:
My god, if this is an issue with a foreign bar owner not understanding the difference between 黑人 and 黑恶势力…
July 19th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Blacks vs. black elements?
It might be someone had preconception and had his brain running once he heard the Chinese word for “black”?
July 19th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
“dark elements” is a better translation.
July 19th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
I suspect this is what happened:
The police asked CERTAIN bar owners to keep an eye on the African drug dealers and the Mongolian hookers during the Olympics. The police might have also suggested to CERTAIN bar owners that they might as well keep the drug dealers and hookers out of their establishments during the games. Because these bars are where the drug dealers and hookers conduct their usual business, and the bar owners KNOW who they are.
July 19th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Here locally some bars and nightclubs are also raided and since they are in downtown, they have certain patron demographics.
Also, Dan Washburn’s comment in the Shanghaiist blogpost stated the raids were based on crime. Looks like someone has again made a “logical inference” that may not be there.
This allegation will later turned out to be true or false – but it doesn’t matter, the damage has already been done.
July 19th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Some bar ownres are not that innocent either because they usually allow such illegal activities go on on their establishments (they bring business). Maybe some of them are disguntled due to these police guidelines, because it will hurt their business during the games.
July 19th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
@AC,
I think your explanation is very reasonable. I’ve been to many of the bars/clubs in the Sanlitun area, and small-time drug dealing is done right in the open. The police hurt their own credibility by not cracking down on this stuff all the time.
In the mean time, the Western press is jumping all over the story that “blacks are now banned from the Olympics”.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/19/no-blacks-mongolians-allo_n_113838.html
http://www.alternet.org/wire/92102/?ses=030308f0db7c669b2919e537790331a7
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080719.CHINA19/TPStory/TPInternational/Asia/
July 19th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Still making lots out of hearsay, but since we’re at it…wouldn’t it have been better if the cops just said to monitor for patrons who might be dealing drugs…I mean, isn’t a fluorescent green drug dealer just as bad as a black one? Again, once you start labelling based on external characteristics, you’re just asking for PR trouble.
July 19th, 2008 at 11:28 pm
@Buxi – I don’t think that HuffPuff and the Globe and Mail constitutes the western press ‘jumping all over it’, for myself, that doesn’t happen until Jane Macartney and the BBC are obsessing on it, at least not as far as I’m concerned.
As for drug dealing, bar owners and the police, lets just say that if you go to 乱世家人 in Nanjing you’ll find drug dealers, police, and bar owners all working together quite satisfactorily, and this is quite representative of how things are done both in and out of China.
July 20th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
@Buxi
OK, now we actually do have evidence that Tibetans and Uighurs are being racially profiled. Shanghaiist has identified a set of security regulations from Shanghai’s people square, which includes following:
Whenever anyone that can be identified as “Tibetans”, “Xinjiang Uyghurs” and “Qinghai Hualong Hui’s” enters the building, please report them to the security department. Security guards will persuade them to leave the building, or follow them till they do so.
对可以确认身份的外来“西藏人”，“新疆维吾尔族“，“青海华隆回族人“进入大厦，请立即报告保安部，保安人员会力劝其离开大厦，离开前要全程监控。
http://shanghaiist.com/2008/07/19/racial_profiling_at_shanghais_jw_ma.php#more
Care to comment?
July 20th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
@Hemulen,
I saw that on Shanghaiist last night, meant to do a follow-up blog post on it. For some reason the actual scanned in document (is it in Flash?) isn’t showing up in my browser, but I’ll take you + Shanghaiist word for it that it says what you say it does. One quick clarification though, these regulations aren’t for the People’s Square, but rather issued by the private security department of a private building called “Tomorrow Square” which happens to be located around the People’s Square.
My comment is: I’m not at all surprised. This is the current nature of Chinese society. Keep in mind Chinese universities and businesses still ban employees/students on the basis of height, weight, and even status of hepatitis infection. And I will never deny that Chinese society “racially profiles”. I am, unfortunately, not aware of a law that bans discrimination (of any type) in Chinese society. It’s one more thing, out of many, that needs to be addressed. I believe one of our posters mentioned that Hong Kong just passed an anti-racism law very recently.
So, when a private business chooses to profile racially, I’m not surprised. If you were to tell me police officers selectively choose to focus on checking the identities of those of a certain race, I’m also not surprised; racial profiling by the police remains a major (moral and legal) issue in the United States, despite its long history of living alongside minorities while fighting discrimination.
This requires a process. It was only 40 years ago that the United States specifically had different entrances and public facilities for whites and non-whites. The United States of that era had the same Constitution, and were largely made-up of the same God-fearing people that it has today. But it took a legal process of deep introspection and gradual improvement to get to the point it is today.
So, in that vein, I personally would donate to a Chinese equivalent to the ACLU which supported one of my Tibetan, Uygur, or Hui compatriots in suing the private ownership of Tomorrow Square. And I wouldn’t settle for anything less than a public apology, and a 1 RMB compensation for emotional suffering.
I was able to find more details on Tianya about Chinese policies towards Xinjiang (not just Uygur, but all Xinjiang) and presumably now Tibetan visitors to inland provinces. This wasn’t in context of the Beijing Olympics, but I’d assume the same policies apply. Basically, hotels are obligated to notify and register with the local police 派出所 whenever anyone with a Xinjiang ID checked in. And to avoid the extra paperwork that entails, many hotels chose to just turn away those bearing Xinjiang IDs. I can’t fault the legal requirement for registration; there are a thousand similar policies for foreigners, for people holding 外地 ID in other areas of life… but I, again, would donate money to a legal case against a hotel that discriminated against customers for that reason.
July 20th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
“No dogs or Uighurs”?
July 20th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
@Buxi
I’m happy that you and I are on the same side when it comes to the crucial role NGO should play, if they were allowed to. However, both you and I know what happens to lawyers who try to file these type of cases. They lose their license. So, China might not be just 40 years behind the US, but a century behind.
I wasn’t aware of the restrictions applied to Tibetans and Uighurs when it came to travel into the interior, but I take your word for it. Now, in that context, if you put yourself into the shoes of a Tibetan living in Lhasa, imagine how he feels when Han Chinese are flooding the capital and setting up business, with little or not restrictions from the government. When he is treated like a foreigner in his own home town. Although this does not excuse the violent events in March, it does explain them to a certain extent.
July 20th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
@Hemulen,
I believe any policies on Tibetans would have come *after* March, not before. The discussions on Tianya (from 2007) were pretty clear it was only in reference to those with Xinjiang ID cards.
One of the (bitter, nationalist) Tibetans on Woeser’s blog talked about how deeply beloved Tibetans + Tibetan culture were in the interior before March… except he chose to characterize Tibetans as China’s “pet”, and when the pet bit the hand that fed it, the pet was punished. I’m not going to agree with the second part of that, but I’d agree with him that before March at least, Chinese were infatuated with Tibetans and Tibetan culture.
On the lawyers not getting their license issue… actually, I feel like I should do a blog post about that. After all, “lawyers denied their license after offering to defend the Tibetan protesters” was headline news in the West back in May, right? I believe that’s probably the case you’re referring to? I’ll give you a sneak peak though: the facts aren’t that simple.
I think many of the “right defenders” (维权) have implicated themselves in political goals, to be honest. I’m not going to say they shouldn’t be able to have political goals, that’s a different issue. But I will say speaking as someone without those political goals, as someone who wants to see the legal system improve, who just wants to see justice as defined by the leadership of the Communist Party… perhaps I’m naive, but I think there’s room for such an entity.
July 20th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
@Buxi
Discrimination against Tibetans and Uighurs have not come as a bolt from the blue, I can assure you that Tibetans and Uighurs have been routinely described as prone to violence for a long time. When desperate Han Chinese peasants blew themselves up in Beijing a couple of years ago, Uighurs were immediately singled out and discriminated against. When a Han Chinese mob storm government offices or kill policemen in the countryside recently, many Chinese bloggers expressed sympathy, while deploring their methods. And the government didn’t blast the whole country with sensationalist coverage how backward people are in that region and how incredibly grateful they should be to the CCP. Somehow, if Tibetans and Uighurs are violent it is seen as part of their nature and their actions are always portrayed in the worst possible light. The only thing that has changed is the fact that the government does not feel any urgent need to cover it up anymore, because they can use the “mass incident” in Tibet and similar events as excuses and they have enough popular support in favor of repression of ethnic groups.
July 20th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
Well, anyone offended by this should boycott Shanghai Tomorrow Square Company Limited, or the management company of Tomorrow Square, Marriott International.
Blaming Chinese government, or the British government (the “no dog or” thing is legacy of colonialism) is about as valid as blaming George W Bush when your ice cream cone drop on the ground.
July 20th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
I would suggest an alternative hotel chain with descent properties lin Asia like Starwood (Westin, Sheareton, W, Meridien…)
July 21st, 2008 at 4:25 am
@Charles Liu
I’m relieved to learn that only Shanghai Tomorrow is engaging in this kind of blatant discrimination of Uighurs and Tibetans. I’m eagerly waiting for a Xinhua editorial to denounce this blatant threat against national unity.
July 21st, 2008 at 5:43 am
@Hemulen,
It’s possible to have a heated debate about difficult topics, as we had been doing so far on this thread.
But I don’t really have any interest in responding to your post #43. It’s one of your worst postings ever on this site, filled with unsupportable, biased, hysterical slander that isn’t worthy of discussion.
July 21st, 2008 at 6:05 pm
But wait a minute, Buxi – if there’s no Xinhua editorial, then it’s proof I didn’t get 50 cent for this comment 😉
July 21st, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Hemulen,
“Discrimination against Tibetans and Uighurs have not come as a bolt from the blue, I can assure you that Tibetans and Uighurs have been routinely described as prone to violence for a long time.”
Are you saying Han chinese have discrimination against Tibetans ?
Did you ever hear complains by Han Chinese about how chinese government spent so much money in Tibet ? what are you trying to say ?
July 21st, 2008 at 6:22 pm
BTW,
People from Tibet and Xin Jiang are real violent, ever heard of the violence between Tibetans and Hui people ? much more intense than between Tibetans and Han Chinese.
This is typical result of poor education and being poor, NOTHING MORE. People want to live with same kind, with the same education and wealth background, there is no hate involved.
It seems you are well educated, do you enjoy sitting next to someone who talk loudly. Can I just claim you hate uneducated people ?
July 21st, 2008 at 8:33 pm
@Buxi
Too bad that you find my post hysterical, but I can’t see why. You know as well as I do that Uighurs are often portrayed as violent, and if you doubt me you can read Wahaha’s post above. And the double standard I was talking is not something I just made up. Some Chinese bloggers have actually commented on the fact that Tibetan and Han rioters are judged by different standards.
http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2008/07/the-discriminatory-complex-beneath-our-consciousness/
July 21st, 2008 at 8:48 pm
Hemulen,
You are truely a master of manipulation. go try to see how Chinese would react if Han mobster killed 5 innocent girls. BTW, large percent of anger by Chinese were towards west media and politicians.
BTW, I said before, even chinese govenrment trys to push out tibetans, it is for safety, not discrimination, there was not so called racial discrimination against Tibetans and Uighurs.
July 21st, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Racial discrimination is a believe that certain gorup of people are genetically inferior, or natural born losers.
July 21st, 2008 at 8:54 pm
If a Han chinese despises a Tibetan who graduated from a well known university or a rich man with good behavior, then it is called discrimination. Dont tell me you treat a poor and uneducated person as your equal.
July 21st, 2008 at 9:03 pm
For God’s sake, Hemulen. Can you tell these are two incidents of different nature? One is a hate crime targeted innocents and the other is alleged government corruption and cover up?
Don’t you have any conscience, Hemulen?
July 21st, 2008 at 10:44 pm
@AC and other
*sigh* I never suggested that the two incidents are identical. I posted a link to an article that discusses the double standards that many netizens have when they are looking at the incidents. That shouldn’t be incredibly provocative. Neither should it be a shock to anyone to suggest that discrimination of Tibetans *in their own country* as well as the marginalization of Tibetan culture may account for some of the violence in March. Again, to explain is not to excuse. If this blog is to live up to its stated purpose we should be able to discuss these things.
July 21st, 2008 at 10:48 pm
@Wahaha
I said before, even chinese govenrment trys to push out tibetans, it is for safety, not discrimination, there was not so called racial discrimination against Tibetans and Uighurs.
It is incredibly hypocritical to say that singling Tibetans and Uighurs out as safety concerns is not racial discrimination.
July 21st, 2008 at 11:20 pm
@Hemul,
Did you notice that the author claimed Mongolians were a part of the “pan-Han” group (and not targets of racism)? How do you feel about that?
The author is entitled to his opinion, but what he describes as “pan-Han” ethnicity (again, including Mongolians, Manchus…) sounds to me like the “zhonghua minzu” some of us are aspiring to. I don’t see why the term “pan-Han” can’t be replaced with “zhonghua minzu” in that article.
He insists that Tibetans, Uygurs, and (mysteriously) Hui aren’t included within that category. I say, individual Tibetans and Uygurs aren’t included within that category when they act to pull themselves out of the category. And there’s not much doubt that’s what happened in the context of 3/14.
In other words, the author seems to feel there’s no institutionalized discrimination, and nothing is being “fanned” by the media. Do you agree with his position?
July 21st, 2008 at 11:39 pm
@Buxi
*sigh* That’s an interesting spin, but it is not supported by the text, I’m afraid… I’m at a loss for words, really.
July 21st, 2008 at 11:45 pm
“It is incredibly hypocritical to say that singling Tibetans and Uighurs out as safety concerns is not racial discrimination.”
Ok, you got your revenge.
Now back to the topic,
One, I dont know how on earth Chinese government will be able to pust out Tibetans and Uighurs, as lot of them are living in inlands China, not Tibet or XingJiang, so technically I dont see how it is possible.
Two, If that is racial discrimination, I cant think of a good word to describe the discrimination in West agaisnt people from middle east and Islam. I never heard a Chinese complained ” What is wrong with him/her ? how could he/she marry a Tibetan/Uighurs ?”
Three, I heard lot of Americans’ complains about how some people forgor Uncle Sam’s generosity, I never heard a han chinese complained about the money invested in Tibet.
This is kind of discrimination you are talking about ? Sorry, I dont think I am hypocritical. It is hypocritical to single out one incident to prove a point while ignoring the whole picture.
July 22nd, 2008 at 1:33 am
@Hemulen
Perhaps I didn’t make my point clear enough. The blog article you linked to is complete wrong about the “different standards”, in fact it’s quite the contrary, people were using the same standard – their conscience and sense of justice. The different reaction is caused by the different nature of the two incidents.
July 22nd, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Buxi, you earlier made a comment that there’s no law in China banning discrimination of any sort (comment 39). That’s incorrect, as discrimination is clearly prohibited by the highest law in the land.
I wonder what would happen if Chinese citizens exercised their rights of freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, and freedom of demonstration to demand an end to discrimination. I suspect that the answer is straightforward and the police would not permit the demonstration to take place, thus violating the prohibition against oppression.
July 22nd, 2008 at 5:21 pm
@JD,
Good point.
I’m not sure, I believe I read it’s not possible yet to file suit on the basis of the Constitution… but if it is, again, I personally would contribute to the legal defense fund of a Tibetan or Uygur filing suit against Tomorrow Square in Shanghai.
I feel like many choose to selectively interpret the Constitution when it comes to this. Good or bad, the Constitution as its currently written gives the government to control these rights.
- Article 35 Citizens of the People’s Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration. This is the article you’re focused on.
– Article 51 Citizens of the People’s Republic of China, in exercising their freedoms and rights, may not infringe upon the interests of the state, of society or of the collective, or upon the lawful freedoms and rights of other citizens. This is the article the government is focused on.
Clearly, the Chinese government has been one-sided in interpreting article 51 above. The vast, vast majority of mass assemblies (99.99%?) are considered to infringe upon the interests of society, and therefore applications are turned down.
September 12th, 2009 at 6:47 pm
I agree with AC, The different reaction is caused by the different nature of the two incidents. However, I don’t agree that Chinese people are prejudiced… when you get to the base of what it means to be human noone is prejudiced.
Keep it Real.