Loading
Feb 26

Tibetan Losar 2009

Written by Allen on Thursday, February 26th, 2009 at 12:24 am
Filed under:-mini-posts, culture, politics | Tags:,
Add comments

Well – the New York Times just pronounced that first day of Losar 2009 is a Day of Mourning in Tibet.

Here is another version of Losar 2009 from the People’s Daily.

To be honest – for each of these pictures in the New York time slides, I could easily write captions that details the serenity and happiness that accompanies a new year.  After seeing the cnn pictures of last year, I really don’t know what to make of these NY times slides.

Below are some images from xin hua.


There are currently no comments highlighted.

281 Responses to “Tibetan Losar 2009”

  1. colin Says:

    I’m outraged enough that I emailed the this to the nytimes:

    “Monks left their morning prayer at the Rongwo Monastery in Qinghai Province on Losar, the Tibetan New Year. Many Tibetans boycotted New Year celebrations, and used the day to mourn and pray for the Tibetans killed or injured in the March 2008 crackdown.”

    So is I guess the NYTImes is pretty good at rewriting history. Most of those killed in the march riots last year were han civilians and police. Good going NYTIMES. While I appreciate some of your paper’s reporting, outright lies and biased stories like this makes me say good riddance that your paperwill be gone soon due bankruptcy.

  2. jch Says:

    “for each of these pictures in the New York time slides, I could easily write captions that details the serenity and happiness that accompanies a new year.”

    Similarly, captions about forced celebrations/pictures/etc could be written about Xinhua’s pictures. The NYTimes and Xinhua represent the two extremes. The truth is somewhere in between.

  3. colin Says:

    jch, you’re probably right about the truth somewhere in between. But my problem is this. When you read Xinhua, you know it is an arm of the CCCP, and know to take what they say with a grain of salt. The problem with outlets like the NYTimes is that the insist they are free and pure journalism. That’s hypocrisy and most galling to me when they publish something like this.

  4. Wukailong Says:

    As for this thing that there were so much lies about the riots, the only thing we know is this:

    * Xinhua reported 18 people dead, who were mostly Han and Hui. There was one Tibetan girl too if I remember correctly.
    * Western media outlets reported this but also added (often emphasized) the version of the Tibetan exile government which said that hundreds of Tibetans had been killed.
    * There were reports of unrest in both media in lots of places in Tibetan areas (not just Tibet proper).

    So how do we know exactly what happened? We don’t.

  5. jch Says:

    @colin and wukailong:

    I definitely agree with both of you guys. Generally, the NYTimes does a good job or presenting both sides of a story but sometimes they fall short on this on China. I’ve mostly found Edward Wong’s stories to be pretty good so i’m surprised this one didn’t even mention the other side (which to me, this makes it very clear that this is just one side but this might not be clear to those less informed about China).

    And, yeah, wukailong, Tibet seems to be one of those issues where it is literally impossible to know the truth.

  6. Allen Says:

    My experience with Edward Wong’s articles is that they have not been good. He is assigned to write a lot of articles about China (not just Tibetan issues), and few ever came across as fair / balanced / informative.

    Maybe he writes well about Iraq (as a freelance, he wrote a few good articles on it) … but definitely not China – and not at the NY times.

  7. jch Says:

    I think he started writing about China at least for them around the time of the earthquake. With the possible exception of articles about Tibet, I have found his articles relatively balanced especially compared to some of their previous China people.

  8. Otto Kerner Says:

    New York Times and other Western media coverage of the 2008 protests and riot had some serious flaws. But, in this case, all they said was that monks in Qinghai were mourning the Tibetan dead. For one thing, this doesn’t say that only Tibetans or mostly Tibetans died. For another, even if it was a completely specious claim, the New York Times is simply reporting what somebody else said and did. Now, maybe they have reported inaccurately, but here we’re in the realm of pure speculation.

  9. S.K. Cheung Says:

    To JCH #2:
    “The truth is somewhere in between.” – amen to that.

    But I wonder where the “tweener” reporting will come from, since China has not only banned journalists from Tibet, but all foreign tourists as well.

    To Colin #1:
    “I’m outraged enough…” – does this really warrant outrage?

    To Jch #5:
    “Tibet seems to be one of those issues where it is literally impossible to know the truth.” – amen again.

  10. Wahaha Says:

    Similarly, captions about forced celebrations/pictures/etc could be written about Xinhua’s pictures. The NYTimes and Xinhua represent the two extremes. The truth is somewhere in between..

    They deserve Oscar more than the actors in “slumdog millionaire”!!!!

    ___________________________________________________________

    Tibet seems to be one of those issues where it is literally impossible to know the truth.

    The same can be said about how the native aborignals think in Canada, New Zealand and Australia !!!

    ____________________________________________

    6.7 billion A$$h0les on earth, imagine that.

    BTW, one question : I thought westerners rarely like politicians elected by them and dont believe their politicians, why do they believe ONE HUNDRED PERCENT in whatever their politicians told them about Tibet without ever questioning them ?

    Like the pictures by XinHua, forced celebration or not, obviously those tibetans are FAR MORE HEALTHIER than tibetans in Nepal and India,

    ARE YOU BLIND OR PRETENDING NOT SEEING THAT OR …. just plain STUPID ?

  11. S.K. Cheung Says:

    To Wahaha:
    whoa, slow down, buddy.
    “They deserve Oscar more than the actors in “slumdog millionaire”!!!!”
    1. The actors in Slumdog didn’t win any Oscars.
    2. Who is “they”?

    “The same can be said about how the native aborignals think in Canada, New Zealand and Australia !!!” – can’t speak for the lands down under, but you could hop on a plane from NYC with a journalist buddy of yours, and go anywhere in Canada to discover the truth from any aboriginal person you can find, and do so from both a tourist and journalist perspective, all before lunch time tomorrow. So I’d say “the same” can hardly be said.

    “why do they believe ONE HUNDRED PERCENT in whatever their politicians told them about Tibet without ever questioning them ?” – can’t speak for others, but I’ve never listened to my politicians about Tibet. I’ve gotten all my info from good folks like you.

    “those tibetans are FAR MORE HEALTHIER…” – I mean, I know people say that without your health, you have nothing. But when did we switch metrics on this blog, and measure things by how healthy someone looks? Did I miss the memo?

  12. Wahaha Says:

    SKC,

    Like I said, we will never know the truth, wait a second, Aboriginal in Australia dont like their land being taken as they dont like the Australia national days, right ?

    As native in Canada, they are living in the lower society, like the ‘untouchable’ in India, they are happy ? Just their voice has never been heard, that is all.

    What information from ‘good’ guys like me ? You hate everything about CCP, so what can I say ?

    nite.
    _____________________

    Oh, I forgot, 2/3 of indians live under $2 a day, after watching the movie, what do you think they want most ? the right of voting some attornies of indian billionaires or their next meals?

  13. Wahaha Says:

    “those tibetans are FAR MORE HEALTHIER…” – I mean, I know people say that without your health, you have nothing. But when did we switch metrics on this blog, and measure things by how healthy someone looks? Did I miss the memo?

    Imagine a life that you cant afford using tissue after pooping,

    Let us educate them about high cholestrol, should we ?

    have a good nite.

  14. S.K. Cheung Says:

    To Wahaha:
    “As native in Canada, they are living in the lower society, like the ‘untouchable’ in India, they are happy ? Just their voice has never been heard, that is all.” – You seem to know little about Canada, which I suppose is not surprising coming from someone living in the US. BUt we don’t have a caste system, so no, nobody in Canada is “like the untouchables” in India. And if you seek to provide a stronger voice for our aboriginal peoples, you are more than welcome to do so.

    “You hate everything about CCP, so what can I say ?” – not a whole heckuva lot.

    “Imagine a life that you cant afford using tissue after pooping,” – yes, your imagery and linguistic flair are as colourful as always. BUt perhaps I can redirect you to the topic of this thread….then again, maybe I can’t.

  15. jch Says:

    To SKC:

    Yeah there’s not much in between reporting both because of a lack of access (the Economist clearly had the best reporting on the riots last year and why? because they had a reporter there!) and because most people who care about this issue have an agenda one way or another.

    To Wahaha:

    You seem to have ventured a bit off topic but in response to the idea that native populations in the US, Australia, etc have grievances against the government: the difference is that these grievances are openly reported. Any US news organization can freely report on these issues, while in China, such freedom of the press doesn’t exist. Furthermore, I fail to see how Western mistakes on these issues justify China making similar mistakes.

  16. huaren Says:

    To the “activist” scums:

    Freedom to report doesn’t guarantee against imoral reporting or lying.

    China doesn’t block all reporting from Tibet. Sure, China blocks the likes of NYT, CNN, etc.. Sure, NYT has the right to be pissed and take the position of “what you got to hide?” That’s all fine. China clearly distrusts these media organizations and they know they have to take this heat in some parts of the world.

  17. huaren Says:

    To the sane people:

    NYT, CNN are capitalistic media. They make the most money when the whole world is seemingly at war. If they portray the world as fine and dandy, then nobody is interested in reading papers. This is why, in the USA, the average citizen thinks everything is wrong. They feel they are victimized by everyone around them. They think schools are screwed up. They think their food is not safe. They think Mexicans are coming across the border to eat their lunch. They think the Chinese are taking all their jobs away. They think EU are anti-GMO Nazis. You name them.

    I don’t think the average Chinese citizen deserves these kind of brutality from a U.S. style, capitalistic form of “freedom of the press”.

    The government and the multi-nationals are clearly in bed with China – look at the volume of trade. Look at the key issues that require China and the U.S. to tackle together. Things are just fine.

    NYT, CNN, etc. are mainly an annoyance from my perspective. I don’t read them and I encourage everyone I know not to read them. Public media such as NPR is much better. Lots of info in blogs such as this one.

  18. S.K. Cheung Says:

    To Huaren #16:
    even though you seem like a shameless CCP-apologist, I must say I agree with your post.

    It’s China’s bed to make, and she’s the one who’ll be sleeping in it, but certainly it’s her call whether she wants to let foreigners in or not. However, assuming you stipulate that Xinhua reporting can be just as questionable as NYT etc, wouldn’t you, even as a Chinese person, at least want more than one source of information from which to draw your conclusions? Because right now, all you’ve got is one, and to me not a particularly reliable one.

  19. jch Says:

    To Huaren:

    I just finished posting a long reply but between the time i first got on this site and when i tried to post my reply, this page was blocked in China. so much for diverse information on “blogs like this one.”

  20. S.K. Cheung Says:

    To Jch:
    “this page was blocked in China” – really? Well, maybe some PRC Chinese got to take a look at it over the past 7 hours. Time to fire up the proxies.

    “so much for diverse information on “blogs like this one.”” – maybe PRC Chinese aren’t ready for something like this yet. At least that what Big Brother seems to think.

  21. vmoore55 Says:

    It is was nice to have 5 New Years to choose from in this world.

    Didn’t know that Losers in Tibet had a New Year, I hate to miss a day off.

    The Dollar Lamarama don’t like Tibetans to party and stop their all day praying and it’s not appropriate for Losers in Tibet to celebrate it’s a Han Chinese thing. Got that right.

  22. jch Says:

    To SKC:

    Interestingly enough I can still access the nytimes article. Sometimes I think the take the students with the lowest gaokao scores and put them to work in the censorship office.

  23. S.K. Cheung Says:

    To vmoore55:
    ahh, nice to see that you are as articulate and respectful as always. The more things change, as they say…

    To Jch:
    that is interesting. So they block a site where the majority of the people the majority of the time would be taking their side, while allowing a site that the majority of the time won’t…that’s one unique algorithm they’ve got goin’ on.

  24. jch Says:

    It’s working again now. Obviously none of the guys with their hands on the censorship button have high levels of english comprehension though.

  25. Raj Says:

    jch, it’s ironic that some people here will defend almost anything China does (unless it’s “giving in to evil imperialists”), yet the Chinese government isn’t sure whether it wants to ban this sort of place or not.

    “Fully support Chinese government banning this website and restricting my ability to communicate my views!”

  26. Raj Says:

    The problem with outlets like the NYTimes is that the insist they are free and pure journalism.

    But they ARE free. They are not being told what to write by the Obama administration. You can be free and still make mistakes.

  27. hainan88 Says:

    it is clear by the day western commenter are just wanting unrest in china, they tout the idea of politicizing tibet new year to sow unrest… but it wont work.

    skc, raj, jch etc, u are just trying to say tibetan don’t want to celebrate losar but everyday we see news on how happy they will celebrate… bcuz tibetan are true chinese people, they are brothers and sisters. vmoore55 is wrong to say they are losers, but there are some separatist elements who want to destroy tibetan democratic development with violence. don’t fall for it. tibet today is peaceful without dalai.

    first of all if western press is free, why they didn’t see finance crisis last year?? it is not free, it is just ruled by economy and government. china don’t need these medias, better stop them from destroying our country.

  28. kui Says:

    I think NYT made a mistake by including one photo of a group happy monks in their “a Day of Mourning” photoes. And all these photoes only shows some daily activities of Tibetans and plenty of traditions/culture (obviously has not been “genocided” by CCP/Chinese rule). They are so funny.

  29. Raj Says:

    skc, raj, jch etc, u are just trying to say tibetan don’t want to celebrate losar

    Don’t lie, please – I said nothing of the sort.

    first of all if western press is free, why they didn’t see finance crisis last year?

    1. Some commentators and publications have been warning of trouble for years.
    2. Because they’re not omniscient?

  30. AC Says:

    This site is not blocked, at least here in Beijing. I am not using a proxy or VPN. In the past few months, I never had any problem visiting this site. As a matter of fact, I can view all major English news sites (NYT, WaPo, Yahoo News etc.), even those articles with sensitive keywords/subjects.

    The only two sitres on my reading list I can’t visit are CDT and TIME China blog.

  31. vmoore55 Says:

    Why would China want to read anything here or block this site?

    Nothing here but girly man talk and some whining. Lots of cut and paste. Oh a good deal of telling the other posters how to think and what to read and how smart one is or not.

  32. Wukailong Says:

    @All:

    On very special cases, when there are specific keywords in the text, it’s been stopped. One thread about Mao reset the connection, perhaps because it involved a controversial British author (no, I’m not going to write the name here, just in case that’s the way the algorithm works…). Usually it works fine in Beijing.

  33. vmoore55 Says:

    SKC in BC, you recall what I said about the Canadian and US border X-ing thugs and the nazi custom agents and airport racist cops? Tell me you don’t know what I am talking about now. Tasers and killer rcmp.

    Yeah, it almost happened to me too, lucky for me I could talk back in English and told them to f… off.

    And “it’s ironic that some people here will defend almost anything China does”, oh no not me. I do not like what China is doing for me, they make me wanna become black and sometimes hide in shame.

    What I want is for China to take care of Tibet and Taiwan, make like 9/11 and go after the terrorists in Tibet, do The Gulf of Tonkin Incident thing and make Taiwan pay. Maybe get the Uighur Muslim terrorists from the Xinjiang region to start something there so China can invade them.

  34. Raj Says:

    Wukailong, you mean Jung Chang? I doubt that’s “banned”, though let us know if it does disrupt your access.

  35. Wukailong Says:

    @Raj: You’re right, the name alone doesn’t create any trouble for me… But it’s quite obvious part of this blog was off-limits for a while. Luckily I have unfettered access at work, but most people here don’t have that advantage.

  36. Wahaha Says:

    jch —> “these grievances are openly reported.”

    There is no difference if nobody reports it.

    My point is if West media really cared about human right, they would have reported what have been going on in their OWN countries at first (dont they care for people in their OWN countries more ? dont they want their OWN country being better ?) So the only logic conclusion is that HUMAN RIGHT IN CHINA IS NOT WHAT THEY CARE, and their altitude of self-appointed guardians for Tibetan people really makes me vomit.

    Then why they do that ? simple, either they dont want to see China getting better or they simply dont like CCP.

    Why do they buy everything their hated politicians said about Tibet ? cuz that is what they want to hear. Every bad report about China is like music to them.

    There was a report in US that two judges sent kids to jail for money, THOUSANDS OF KIDS. Well, imagine if it happened in China, the news would be all over the west world, news media . It wouldve been another round of bashing China. You tell me what the fairness and integrity of media is.

    jch, we are not idiot, you are not either. so please dont pretend you are a political moron. West doesnt care about human right as long as the government is pro-west, this has been proved again and again, and again, and again. Their communizing their idea of freedom, like free media and election (ironically most of them hate communism) in China is simply a way to get their influence into China. With election, they can fund pro-west parties in China and molest Chinese people like they did before, like they did in Russia.

  37. sophie Says:

    @26,

    “The problem with outlets like the NYTimes is that the insist they are free and pure journalism.
    -----
    But they ARE free. They are not being told what to write by the Obama administration. You can be free and still make mistakes.”

    However,
    Krugman in his NYTimes blog wrote: Who supplies the talking points?
    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/who-supplies-the-talking-points/

    It leads to the following article:
    McClellan: White House gave FOX commentators talking points
    http://crooksandliars.com/2008/07/25/mcclellan-white-house-gave-fox-commentators-talking-points/

    Quote:
    Matthews: “Did you see FOX television as a tool when you were in the White House? As a useful avenue to get your message out?”

    McClellan: “I make a distinction between the journalists and the commentators. Certainly there were commentators and other, pundits at FOX News, that were useful to the White House.” [...] That was something we at the White House, yes, were doing, getting them talking points and making sure they knew where we were coming from.

    Matthews: “So you were using these commentators as your spokespeople.”

    McClellan: “Well, certainly.”

    Furthermore, there was a BBC radio program talking about how Chinese government had been actively learning from the Western Propaganda system since they found their system was more sophisticate and work better

  38. yo Says:

    @ sophie 26
    “Chinese government had been actively learning from the Western Propaganda system since they found their system was more sophisticate and work better”

    It’s called spin :-)

    As for the NYT posting, yeah, it does seem like garbage(they took a page out of xinhua’s playbook), but it’s just one instance, and I always found that their extra internet content isn’t as strong as what they print. In general, it’s a reliable paper imo.

  39. Wahaha Says:

    “But they ARE free. They are not being told what to write by the Obama administration. You can be free and still make mistakes.”

    That should be judged by if they are allowed to report negatively about WHO HAVE POWER. In democracy, It is the riches who control the country, not politicians.

    For example, journalists have long disliked the astronomic bonus Wall street tycoons received over the years, but it was never a big issue until now, until those riches need money from ordinary people.

    Another example, Obama just canceled a plan of buying helicopters from Lockheed Martin Corp, each one costs 400 million dollars !! ( I am wondering how much they give to Katrina victims.) 11.2 billion dollars in total. Why wasnt that exposed before ? Who approved such rediculous plan before ? Well, you will not be told about this by free media.

  40. Raj Says:

    @ 37

    Sophie, that’s a self-professed liberal laying into his conservative counterparts – it’s hardly objective. But more importantly the New York Times is liberal, not conservative. So even if Fox News et al followed Bush, that doesn’t mean NYT and the rest would have.

    Furthermore, there was a BBC radio program talking about how Chinese government had been actively learning from the Western Propaganda system since they found their system was more sophisticate and work better

    Really, when was that on and what programme? I’d be interested to hear who said there is such a thing as a “Western Propaganda system”.

    I think what you mean is, as “yo” suggested, the Chinese government has been trying to learn more sophisticated ways of managing bad news – and/or using technology developed by North American and European companies to improve their internet controls.

  41. miaka9383 Says:

    @wahaha #36

    I don’t know if you read various different newspaper(from different state) or just read the major ones. The “human rights abuse” that China accuse U.S of gets reported almost everyday. But the difference is that U.S government (at least state government) all tries to improve all that. Look at Gitmo! That was on the news. State and Federal Government for U.S is semi transparent, where we as citizens are free to monitor our officials. Media is used as a tool to do so. It may be biased depending on the Journalist, but we have all sides of views so we can weight our own.
    There are websites for each elected representative and I believe there are other websites that are created to monitor the activities of our elected officials( what bill they voted for, what bill they didn’t vote for, what committee they are on… so on and so forth). If China starts doing so, I would say Chinese people’s personal freedom and rights have improved.

    We don’t believe in everything our politician says contrary to your beliefs. As for that judge, he probably will get dis barred and kicked out of his position. And that news wasn’t on the major news media because probably local news media was on it. If it was about China, it would be in the Major news media under Foreign section, but not a headline. This wouldn’t make the headlines. Just like the Chinese local government officials locking up dissidents in the mental institute did not make Time’s or CNN’s headlines.

  42. Raj Says:

    39

    That should be judged by if they are allowed to report negatively about WHO HAVE POWER. In democracy, It is the riches who control the country, not politicians.

    Wahaha, that’s your opinion – not a statement of fact. Of course rich people have influence, but to say they control things and not politicians is controversial. Can you show, though, that there is anything stopping people from writing that?

    For example, journalists have long disliked the astronomic bonus Wall street tycoons received over the years, but it was never a big issue until now, until those riches need money from ordinary people.

    Well, no, it wouldn’t be as big an issue as it is now. If a company makes lots of money and rewards its high-flyers then that’s its choice – the shareholders can respond accordingly. But when it needs to be bailed out by the public purse then of course people will complain if said bonuses continue as if everything was fine.

    11.2 billion dollars in total. Why wasnt that exposed before ?

    Even I (living in the UK) can see that US newspapers have been reporting on the cost overruns for years. All you had to do was google “new presidential helicopter” or “presidential helicopter” in the news search function and check the results over the last couple of years.

  43. Wahaha Says:

    Even I (living in the UK) can see that US newspapers have been reporting on the cost overruns for years.

    Raj,

    You dont read any chinese websites or newspapers, do you ?

    I reached my conclusion by comparison of how media treated those who controled the countries, (in China, it is government; in democratic country, it is the riches and syndicates.)

    and the answer is : NO DIFFERENCE !!!!
    _________________________________________

    Wahaha, that’s your opinion ..

    Raj,

    Explain to me how the indian billionaire dare to build a 2 billion dollar home in a city with 19 million people living in slums.

  44. Wahaha Says:

    miaka9383,

    You paid too much attention to what politicians did before they are elected (how they beg for votes make people feel good). What I care is what they do after they are elected.

    Let us talk about the bank rescue plan last year, where did the money go ? to the pocket of those millionaires who lost millions cuz of their own mistakes. Let me ask you, how many Americans would support that plans, (we know 80% of american are against injecting money to save auto). should we say 95% of Americans didnt like the plan ?

    Then the question is :

    How on earth did a plan, that had less than 5 % of the support of American people, get an easy pass by the politicians elected by American people ? Frankly speaking, I cant think of a single big plan in last 15 years in China wouldve got such low approval rate.

    You talk about Gitmo, well, it is like Sanlu Scandal, with the internet, something will be exposed anyway. Do you know the toxic rice scandal in Japan ? you sure know the peanut butter scandal. So comes another question :

    Why is a scandal like Sanlu in China blamed on the system while similar scandal under democracy is not ?

  45. Raj Says:

    You dont read any chinese websites or newspapers, do you ?

    What does that have to do with your (completely wrong) allegation that US newspapers had not reported on the cost of the new helos for the US president? Can’t you just admit you got it horribly, horribly wrong rather than try to change the subject to something else?

    Explain to me how the indian billionaire dare to build a 2 billion dollar home in a city with 19 million people living in slums.

    Because it’s legal?

  46. William Huang Says:

    @ S.C. Cheung #11
    “- can’t speak for the lands down under, but you could hop on a plane from NYC with a journalist buddy of yours, and go anywhere in Canada to discover the truth from any aboriginal person you can find, and do so from both a tourist and journalist perspective, all before lunch time tomorrow. So I’d say “the same” can hardly be said.”

    I am sure many native Canadian people don’t share your rosy pictures. You can easily found a lot of information on the internet about their angers. The Canadian government is building the 2010 Olympic site on the land they stole from Natives. There have been many protests already and will be more when the time comes. Here is one example related to how they treat Native people (http://www.bluecorncomics.com/2008/08/hypocrisy-over-olympics-bashing.html):

    “Here’s a tragic example: Harriet Nahanee was a 71 year-old Squamish elder (that’s right, she was 71) who was jailed for two weeks for her part in a protest against the construction of a highway upgrade in prep for the 2010 Olympics. Protesters stated the upgrade would damage ecologically sensitive land. When she was arrested fellow activists asked that Nahanee not be jailed as she was in poor health. Instead she was incarcerated; shortly after her release she died of pneumonia.”

    I thought in Canada everybody has the right to protest.

  47. Wahaha Says:

    Because it’s legal?

    You are trying to pull excuses out of your @$$.

    ________________________________________

    What does that have to do with your …..

    Raj,

    did you say “I can see that US newspapers have been reporting on the cost overruns for years.” ?

    Well, I can see China’s newspapers have been reporting on corruptions for years.. and how those scumbags IN GOVERNMENT were punished.

  48. Raj Says:

    You are trying to pull excuses out of your @$$.

    How is it an excuse to point out people are free to build mansions if they want? Which countries ban mansion-building?!

    Well, I can see China’s newspapers have been reporting on corruptions for years..

    Where have I alleged Chinese newspapers never report on corruption?

  49. Wahaha Says:

    Where have I alleged US newspaper never report the cost overruns ?

    By the way, keep pulling excuse out of .. whereever you think you can.

  50. Steve Says:

    @ Wahaha #39: Quick answers to your questions:

    Media had been complained vociferously about the Bush administration since its inception. They only backed off after 911 and resumed later. Media complain about every administration and usually more about Republican than Democratic ones since the majority of American papers are liberal, especially the most well known. Obama is on his “honeymoon” with most media but if you want to see him get bashed, I’m sure Fox News and Rush Limbaugh will happily oblige.

    There have been complaints in the media for years about those Wall Street bonuses. Personally, it was something that has bothered me for a long time so I was quick to notice them when they appeared. But as Raj said, it didn’t become a huge issue until federal money was used to pay them.

    John McCain’s been complaining about those helicopters for years and it’s been in the media, so nothing new except that Obama isn’t GWB, who approved the original expenditure.

    Katrina spending has been around $100 billion so far.

    What does all this have to do with Tibetan Losar? Why aren’t we comparing the photos and articles Allen used and discussing those specifically?

    I have three questions for everyone:

    1. What specifically do you object to in Edward Wong’s NY Times article?
    2. Do Shiho Fukada’s photos themselves bother you, or just the labeling of the photos by NY Times reporters as a “Day in Mourning”?
    3. Why do you think foreign reporters weren’t allowed into other parts of Tibet for a first hand account of the holiday?

  51. Virginia Says:

    The New York Times is horribly suspect these days, its awful what is happening there. This used to be the best paper in the U.S., not anymore. They have sold-out to “special interest” groups.

    For instance, I have been surveying the “reporting” of Nicholas Kristof for 3 years and he is very suspect (who can forget his “Genocide Olympics” columns).

    Once this was a great newspaper.

    But the truth today is: Don’t trust this Newspaper!!

  52. Allen Says:

    @Steve #50,

    I don’t object to Fukada’s photos at all. In fact, if you look at just the photos (minus the propagandistic captions) they are all really good pictures of daily Tibetan life.

    I do however reject the captions. They seem to be editorials to the point of propaganda having nothing to do with the actual photos.

    As for Tibetans mourning. I don’t mind individual Tibetans mourning at all if they so choose.

    My (real life) Tibetan friends have told me that culturally whether Tibetans mourn during New Years is a personal thing. Losar is both a time of celebrating a new year as well as reflecting upon the past year. If disaster has struck the family the last year, one often do not celebrate.

    A few Tibetan families may truly not want to celebrate because they were struck by disasters last year. Perhaps one of their family members or relatives have been involved in separatist activities and caught. From the family’s perspective – that is a disaster just like having a murderer in the family caught is a disaster – even though the catching of the murderer is just for society.

    Now some monks may not want to celebrate because the situation in some monasteries may be tense. We all know certain monasteries have been a beehive for breeding separatist tendencies. Those monasteries are no doubt under watch. Some of those monks may also feel like they have not much to celebrate.

    As for many other Tibetans … including those who do not care about what the DL have to say … many also had a hard year last year.

    In the advent of Mar riots, some Tibetans probably feel like they are being singled out like Muslims in the U.S. have felt singled out single 9/11. Other Tibetans have definitely felt the pinch of tough economic times as Tibet tourism has been dramatically reduced since last Mar. Add to that the global recession … you get the picture.

    In summary, some Tibetans may choose to celebrate – even if they are not CCP agents – and some Tibetans may choose not to celebrate – even if they don’t care about the DL. It’s all a personal decision. Only the DL is interested in politicizing cultural holidays (just has he has tried to politicize Tibetan religion and culture).

    For Ed Wong to call Losar 2009 categorically “A Day of Mourning” by the wave of hand – I think he has permanently soiled his reputation in my books.

  53. Steve Says:

    @ Virginia #51: I’m with you, not a fan of Nicholas Kristof either but it needs to be pointed out that he is not a reporter, he’s an editorialist so everything he writes is opinion and as such, he can say pretty much anything he wants. On the other hand, editorialist Thomas Friedman is strongly pro-China and has written glowingly of the progress there.

    In general, it’s an eastern establishment liberal newspaper and one of the few left with extensive foreign bureaus. I take what they say with a grain of salt and then compare the story to other sources, just to be safe. But I’d also say their world coverage is more thorough than any other American newspaper, so it’s a great source for discovering overseas news stories.

  54. William Huang Says:

    @ Steve #50,

    I share pretty much Allen’s (#52) point of view.

  55. Steve Says:

    @ Allen: Thanks for answering my first two questions. I also liked Fukada’s photos. I went back to the NY Times site and also found this video from Reuters which seemed to me to be more evenhanded than the photo captions. It is filmed in Beijing since reporters are not allowed in most areas of Tibet.

    Out of curiousity, why do you or William think foreign reporters weren’t allowed into other parts of Tibet for a first hand account of the holiday? It’s certainly not a concern for safety, since they commonly cover very dangerous war zones. I still can’t grasp the reasoning behind the ban.

  56. miaka9383 Says:

    @Wahaha
    Of course I know about the toxic rice scandal. Please stop acting like every american do not pay attention to what’s going on in the world. Attacking U.S. media does not prove the point that Chinese media is better.

    @Steve
    This discussion has nothing to do with Losar. But I saw someone saying something that wasn’t true and I felt the need to disprove him/her.

    As for Tibetans whether or not celebrating Losar is up to speculation. I am like you, I take all foreign reports with a grain of salt. If I want to find out about china/Taiwan I read Chinese newspaper.
    And as far as I have seen, I haven’t read a report on any one not celebrating Losar.

  57. Allen Says:

    @Steve #55,

    You asked why foreign reporters shouldn’t be allowed.

    To be honest, I don’t know. But I’ll tell you my opinion.

    I think the real reason is that Chinese officials don’t trust foreign reporters. If I (as a Chinese American) feel offended by Western Media last – you can multiple that 10 fold for the Chinese officials.

    The first emotional response is to bar these untrusty, tongue-twisting liers out of the country.

    But you ask: if they were more calculating, why not let them in to see the truth?

    Truth is in the eye of the beholder. In the 2008 Olympics, I saw stupid foreign reporters going around Beijing sensationalizing scorpion dishes, snakes dishes, etc. – as if that represents mainstream Chinese culture. Some would go through hu tong as if that is the official Chinese culture – the lost treasures of Chineseness.

    So yes, you definitely view the world through your private lens. If your agenda is to find discontent in Tibet, Shanghai, or Beijing – you will find it. So I don’t see much point in letting biased foreign reporters in – as far as getting to the “truth” is concerned.

    But you are right: closing the door only sows more distrust.

    For now – I guess some hardliners have the agenda. Foreign reporters might also give the impression to the locals that the DL is some sort of god. That is definitely not a message that the gov’t would welcome.

    I think eventually, rather than ask foreigners to change, the Chinese would have to invite them in – however biased they are.

    But even when foreign reporters are allowed, I don’t think things will improve in the immediate term.

    But opening the door will at least start the clock to allow things to improve over the long term.

  58. Steve Says:

    @ miaka9383: I wasn’t referring to your comments at all, which were responses to previous posts. Thanks for your viewpoint on Losar. I’m curious; could you let me know which Chinese newspapers you read to get your news? I’m always looking for better and more unbiased sources. I’m more hooked in with the Taiwan papers since it’s all government media in China, but I do catch some news from Xinhua.

  59. miaka9383 Says:

    @Steve
    I certainly love reading UDN it is a Taiwanese newspaper but it is probably close to fair report that I have found.
    I catch news from Xinhua and now UDN has partnered up with ifeng.com and that is how I get my news source….I don’t know if you get 世界日報 (world journal??) but it does a pretty good job at reporting since its audience is Overseas Chinese in america….

  60. Allen Says:

    @Steve #58,

    The good foreign about Chinese media is that you get to get the unobstructed, unabashed true and official version straight from gov’t resources. Whereas in the West, you need to go around fishing for rumors and inuendos from private sources like the NY Times and guess what the truth is!

    (j/k)

  61. miaka9383 Says:

    @Admin
    I think my reply to steve got filtered…. :/ All well

  62. Steve Says:

    @ miaka9383: You’re right; it got caught up in the spam filter so I pardoned it. :P

  63. Think Ming! Says:

    @ Wahaha 10

    If you want to “know what native aboriginals in New Zealand think” just come down and ask. No restrictions on Chinese journalists here, just a lack of interest on their part.

    Same can’t be said for Tibet, where the government bans journalists it doesn’t control.

  64. Steve Says:

    @ miaka9383: Thanks! My wife already had UDN bookmarked but didn’t have 世界日報 so I bookmarked it for her. I’m sure she’ll enjoy it.

  65. William Huang Says:

    @ Steve #55,

    To answer your question, I just want to add little more on what Allen’s said (#57) which I share his point of view.

    There have been quite anxieties built up in China largely due to economical crisis around the world, particularly its impact on China. To top that, this year marked 20th anniversary of “June 4th Tiananmen Square incident”, 10th of the ban on “Falun Gong”, and most importantly, 50th of “Peaceful Liberation of Tibet”. Ordinary Chinese are mindful of these dates and concerned about (along with economic crisis), an all-out turmoil in China. You can image what government is thinking.

    It is in Chinese ruling tradition (time honored one after thousands of years) to prevent large number of people from gathering in one place. To the government officials, it’s like a haystack socked with gasoline, and all you need is a tiny bit of spark to burn everything down. Holidays and anniversaries are the good times for these “haystacks” getting formed. Just take a look at some critical dates of important events in the modern history of China.

    This is a critical time for China and last thing it needs is turmoil. The government has enough problems in hand already and they will do everything they can to prevent chaos and turmoil from happening. If this means getting certain Richard Geer pissed off, so be it. In principle, I don’t support isolation and I believe openness is a better solution. However, for the time being, there are too many stakes that are too important to be compromised.

    For those unfortunates in the west who lost their jobs, they may or may not object Chinese government’s action if a stable China will help to get their jobs back earlier. It’s hard to get to the voting booth if you haven’t eaten for 3 days. It will be a real test on those who holds “human rights” so dearly and to see if it’s your brain or your stomach is calling the shots. We, Chinese figured this out quite a while ago.

  66. huaren Says:

    @Wahaha, #43 and other

    Be careful not to assume “Raj” is Indian and make unnecessary remarks against that country. He says he lives in UK. He could be a Tibetan separatist, a FLG practitioner, an ordinary Brit, or whatever, oh, and gasp, someone genuinely cares about other human beings.

    From my point of view, India and China both have lots of people. Why did India block the Tibetan exhiles from going towards the Chinese border last year around 3.14 to protest? Precisely because India and China knows their peace with each other is paramount to everything else.

  67. Charles Liu Says:

    Did our free and independent media forget about the 5 shopgirls torched alive by rioters???

  68. Raj Says:

    @ 49

    Where have I alleged US newspaper never report the cost overruns ?

    You said @ 39

    11.2 billion dollars in total. Why wasnt that exposed before ?

    Were you talking about a completely different helicopter project that is currently costed at $11.2 billion?

  69. miaka9383 Says:

    @William Huang
    Yes China as its own problems, but from a microscope, they may be improving things. However,
    the only way that China can move forward is not to be paranoid. Every country have gone through their own turmoil. I live in a state where immigrants everyday comes through the border and right now the drug war in Mexico has expanded into our state borders. My car was just stolen right outside of my house two weeks ago.
    If you openly criticize my government, the officials do not block my opinion. If I decide to hold a rally in protesting Albuquerque Police department’s inability to keep cars safe I can apply and get approved. (with police protection) So CCP with proper supervision can allow these “haystacks” to gather. CCP needs to allow these types of activities to happen. People need to learn how to exercise their rights with responsibility. It is the government’s job to educate these people and not oppressing their opinions. Stop being so paranoid. If you have the right laws in place, the police have the right to arrest certain individuals. Once they sign the application to hold a rally, they have the responsibility to see it through peacefullly but still express their opinion. There are laws in place for this. CCP needs to stop being paranoid to allow its people to express their opinions. Even if the Tibetans are protesting about DL/government.. let them. As long as they are not violating the law in place (once it gets put in place), they should be free to speak their minds.

  70. jen Says:

    To Wahaha:

    I’m on Chinese time so this is a super late reply and I haven’t read the continuing threat but anyway. Like you said, the Western media is commercial, so it won’t make money if it reports things that aren’t news. The Tibetan New Year protest is news, thats why they reported it. They do report on grievances in Western countries plenty of the time.

    Don’t pretend you know all of my political positions by my few short comments on this post. I believe Western governments should be harsher on their allies – for example Saudi Arabia – on human rights issues and also give China a break. This is my *political* belief so it applies to *governments*. Newspapers in countries with freedom of the press are allowed to report what they want. Just because you dont like what they report doesn’t mean there isn’t freedom of the press.

  71. huaren Says:

    @Charles Liu, #68

    You are right. That fact goes against the lie they have been propagating. It would get their readers confused! :)

    On the otherhand, you’d expect media in any other country to return the favor – I think its just human nature.

    The thing I find very cool, though, is likes of NYT, CNN, and the “activist” scums serve as a uniting force between Chinese citizens and the CCP. This enables the country to make bold moves. As long as the current leadership is competent (which they have been over the last 3 decades), China is going to continue to develop at its awesome pace.

    Raj, SKC, etc are just a fart in the wind, and only in a forum like this. Stinks though. lol, Raj, SKC – no offense, Buddy.

  72. William Huang Says:

    @ miaka9383 #69

    Thank you for interested in my post. I agree with you on the basic ideas but the problem is the implementation.

    Yes, you can openly criticize your government not because the officials in your government are open-minded (they may be) but simply because they don’t have the power to stop you. Some may even try, but others will stop them. The constitution and laws are worthless paper if nobody is willing to follow it. Richard Nixon tried, but the people with these ideas in their head stopped him not a piece of paper.

    So how long does it take to turn a great idea into practice? Take United States as an example. It took US almost 100 years to abandon the slavery, 150 years to let woman to vote, and 200 years to end legal discrimination against colored people. What happened during these years? The idea of “all men are created equal” had been firmly established from the get go, bill of rights had been amended into the constitution. The law that follows the spirit of constitution and its associated apparatus had been firmly built and practiced long before all that to happen. In other words, the basic ideas have never changed since the early days of United States as a nation but it took them very long time to implement. Why?

    Now let’s look at China. Chinese political system was established 60 years ago. There has been little change if any at all. However, perceived and practiced freedom and democracy; the freedom of speech and demonstration, free to travel, to establish a business, to elect a local officials, etc, etc. are dramatically different from 60, 50, 40, and 30 years ago. What has changed?

    People changed and this is what made it all happen. It is their understanding of their rights and entitlement changed. The civil rights movement in the US would not have succeeded if it started out 50 years earlier because white people were not ready, elected officials were not ready. The concept of democracy and freedom of speech inside of Chinese people’s heads are different from the people in the west. However, Chinese people are happy today and until these concepts are fully developed and matured, China will not have the democracy and freedom of speech as known in the west. There is no over-night solution. I don’t think anybody is paranoid in China, they just enjoyed very much of improved standard of living and they want to continue.

    As for the current turmoil you are experiencing in your home base (sorry about your car), my opinion is that it’s not because the government’s experience but more of their incompetent. Look at Bush’s administration, there was a plenty of paranoid going on. The current generations in western government aren’t that particularly competent. It’s the previous generations who paved road for them. So I won’t count the problem as a fine example of democracy.

  73. Allen Says:

    Like miaka9383,

    I’ve also scanned the Chinese newspapers (HK, Taiwan, overseas Chinese) and not found any story that smack of anything remote to systemic Tibetan boycott of Losar as a political statement.

    For Westerners who want a more balanced story than hearsay from NY Times, check this AP story http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090225/ap_on_re_as/as_china_tibetan_new_year.

    Yes – there are propagandistic statements throughout the story – but since the statements are clearly attributed, you can at least judge for yourself.

    As usual, I urge people who truly care about to travel to Tibet – and for truly compassionate – to volunteer on the group in Tibet with legitimate non-profit organizations.

  74. S.K. Cheung Says:

    To Hainan88 #27:
    “u are just trying to say tibetan don’t want to celebrate losar but everyday we see news on how happy they will celebrate” – actually, all I’m trying to say is that it would be nice to see what they’re doing, and how they’re doing it. If they want to celebrate Losar, and are doing it, then that’s fantastic. I think my opinion of Tibet in general is that it would be nice to get a better window into their wishes and dreams. I can’t say I’m particularly enamored with, nor trust, the window as furnished by Xinhua/CCP.

    “first of all if western press is free, why they didn’t see finance crisis last year” – I don’t think a free press and the ability to predict the financial crisis are related in any way. If Xinhua predicted the crisis last year, it would not make Xinhua into anything remotely resembling free press.

    To Vmoore 55 #33:
    “what I said about the Canadian and US border X-ing thugs and the nazi custom agents and airport racist cops? Tell me you don’t know what I am talking about now. Tasers and killer rcmp.” – I think indiscriminately using the term “nazi” cheapens the term, and likely does likewise to the user. I can’t say the content of our past exchanges has left indelible impressions on me, but I don’t think the (to me) indefensible actions of 4 RCMP officers proves, or even begins to suggest, that all customs agents and airport police are racist, or somehow not discharging their duties in a professional manner.

    “lucky for me I could talk back in English and told them to f… off.” – that’s fantastic bravado. But I don’t think your walk is as impressive as your talk, unless of course you’ve become expert at being on the receiving end of body-cavity searches.

    “…Maybe get the Uighur Muslim terrorists …” – with you at the helm, China would have such a bright future.

    To Wahaha #36:
    “My point is if West media really cared about human right, they would have reported what have been going on in their OWN countries at first” – what are you talking about? You know, many newspapers have a local section, and an international section. You might want to check out the local section to find what’s reported about local/domestic/national concerns. I have no idea where you get some of this stuff.

    To Sophie #37:
    I think most people can tell the difference between Hannity and company, or Dobbs, or whatever “commentator” on whatever network (whose job it is to put their opinions out there), and people who are reporting news (whose job it is to put out the “facts”, however nebulous and ill-defined they may be).

    To Wahaha #39:
    “For example, journalists have long disliked the astronomic bonus Wall street tycoons received over the years, but it was never a big issue until now, until those riches need money from ordinary people.” – again, what on earth are you talking about? Executive bonuses have been well documented for years. The reason it wasn’t a big issue before was that everyone was making money, and people didn’t grumble so much about the execs making ridiculous amounts. Now, everyone is losing money, and I think most people can’t stomach execs who’ve lost a ton of shareholder money to be taking “performance” bonuses for crappy performance.

    To William #46:
    “I am sure many native Canadian people don’t share your rosy pictures. You can easily found a lot of information on the internet about their angers.” – I never said all Canadian aboriginals think their lives are pina coladas and umbrella dirinks. I didn’t paint any rosy pictures. WHat I did say, though, was that their is no restriction on them telling whoever wants to know, whatever it is that they want to find out. And that’s in response to Wahaha’s characterization in #10 that their situation is no different from Tibetans. I would say that is hardly the case. And your second sentence that I’ve quoted here would seem to aptly illustrate that fact.

    “I thought in Canada everybody has the right to protest.” – we do. However, as I recall about the case you brought up, the protesters lost a court case to halt construction of the highway, so the province had legal jurisdiction to proceed. The subsequent protests directly impeded on the government’s ability to essentially execute a court order. So the protesters were arrested not because they were protesting, but because they were doing so in a manner that broke the law.

  75. S.K. Cheung Says:

    To Huaren #66:
    you are an incredible piece of work. Your post actually has a good point to make, but for all the wrong reasons.

    “Be careful not to assume “Raj” is Indian and make unnecessary remarks against that country.” – so if Raj were in fact Indian, and he criticizes China in some way, then it would become necessary to make remarks against India? If you are somehow representative, in even a miniscule way, of the people on the other side of this mountain, then I might rather have a bigger mountain than a smaller one, since I may not enjoy how things look on the other side.

  76. colin Says:

    SK Cheung and Raj the same person? They both seem to make the same straw man arguments. A lot of arguments and so called “answers”, but none of which makes sense or really answer the big questions at hand.

  77. S.K. Cheung Says:

    To Colin:
    “SK Cheung and Raj the same person?” – good grief, people. And are you the same person who made the same pointless remark on the Paris/China thread? Hey, if you don’t agree with me, pick something I said, tell me why you disagree, then we’ll talk. Otherwise, not only does your post not provide answers, it doesn’t even identify the question.

  78. ForestWander Nature Photography Says:

    Yep, There does not seem to be a lot of mourning going on here.

    They look pretty happy.

  79. Moneyball Says:

    Dont we have something more meanningful to talk about? like china cancels airbus’s order today? I mean i wasnt here for 6 months you guys still arguing about Tibet, G it’s been like a 10 months long pissing-off contest…

  80. huaren Says:

    @colin, #76

    I had the same suspicion.

    @SKC, #75

    Hey, I expect “activist” scums like you who doesn’t understand basic morality to always disagree with me. lol. Woot, I am so happy because you almost agreed with me!!! :)

    Aren’t you twisting what I said in post #66? Maybe you went to a boot camp with Freya Putt in Canada, and your manual tells you:

    a. Manufacture friction between China and anybody else as much as you can – by twisting what other people have to say. (That’s consistent with manufacturing lies about human rights abuses.) The more you can the better for your cause.

    or

    b. You simply have poor reading comprehension. (Though I have to say you are very articulate with the English language in spewing out constant streams of crap.)

    @Moneyball, #79

    It seems so. I’ve been here last few weeks. The “activist” scums are annoying.

  81. William Huang Says:

    @ S.K. Cheung #74

    What Wahaha (#10) said was about how aboriginals think not what you and I think. The one reason Native Canadian protesting is exactly because of that and they felt that their side of story was not told as I quote as one Chief said with respect the protest:

    “We believe Canadians are fair-minded people and once they know the true story about First Nations poverty, it will be as unacceptable to them as it is to us.”

    The same was true for Black Americans before the civil rights movement. Yes, back then, the government did not restrict journalist from telling the truth but the question is: did journalists (before the civil rights) tell the truth about Black American’s story? For example, Norman Rockwell (famed American painter/illustrator) used to paint for “The Saturday Evening Post” magazine cover and the editor told him specifically that there will be no blacks in the picture to avoid offending the readers (he eventually did it as protest during the civil rights movement). When the people who controlled media held such attitude, the First Amendment of the Constitution won’t do any good. For a black man lived in South, right of freedom of speech enjoyed so much by the whites had little meaning to him.

    As for Tibet (I am not claiming China has as much transparency as west), it’s not completely in the dark as others trying to claim. Otherwise, how did Edward Wong (NY Times article) know about the mood of Tibetans’ during the New Year? More importantly, such lack of transparency is not directed at Tibetans. If Shanghai has potential riots, the same restriction would apply to Shanghai.

    “-we do. However, as I recall about the case you brought up, the protesters lost a court case to halt construction of the highway, so the province had legal jurisdiction to proceed. The subsequent protests directly impeded on the government’s ability to essentially execute a court order. So the protesters were arrested not because they were protesting, but because they were doing so in a manner that broke the law.”

    I understand that. However, shouldn’t the same rule apply to China? If this old lady’s death is justifiable because she broke the law, then, could Chinese police fire the gun if their lives are threatened by the mob of riots as in March 2008 in Tibet? If the law in Canada has to be respected and enforced regardless of consequence, does Chinese have the same right to say about the law in China?

  82. miaka9383 Says:

    @William
    The point that I was trying to make was not about democracy. My point was that no matter how incompetent the government is, I can protest, speak out loud, go outside of white house and say “I hate bush” as long as I don’t violate other people’s rights.
    And I am saying, in the sensitive time of the 60′s and 70′s there was protests and killings, and the government were openly criticized for that. Why can’t CCP take the criticism? Why can’t their own citizen, journalist criticize? They can privately among friends or sometimes online, but the majority of the opinion that we get from Chinese about their own government is the same thing we get from Xinhua. And it is the CCP’s job to educate these people how to take critcism openly. It is the CCP’s job to lead by example and to do that they need to allow protests, foreigners and their criticisms. That is how people grow with their government. This is not about democracy, it is about people’s rights. And as a growing society everyone needs to learn how to exercise their rights with responsibility and CCP is not allowing its people to do that. It needs to so it can grow into a leader and not some cry baby country that everyone laughs at.

  83. Allen Says:

    @miaka9383 #82,

    Would it make sense if I call on regular folks off the street regarding how to perform neural surgery?

    Would it make sense if I call on regular folks off the street regarding how to run a nuclear power plant?

    Would it make sense if I call on regular folks off the street regarding how to run a major economy – such as figuring how to deal with the financial crisis?

    Would it make sense if I call on regular folks off the street regarding how to define and execute geopolitical strategies?

    I’d like to make a small observation that governance is not easy … least of all in a country as diverse, populous, and complex as China.

    Of course – it is the right of a people to ask to participate in governance. According to a certain historical perspective, that’s what has happened in many countries in the West.

    But in my mind, depending on a society’s political, social, cultural, as well as historical context, it’s perfectly normal and logical for a society to rely on a specialized class of oligarchy to provide leadership and governance.

    If we can rely on a class of doctors for our health, we can rely on a class of mandarin officials for governance.

    The Chinese system of governance has focused on meritocracy and specialization in recruiting gov’t officials while the West has focused on (what I consider illusions of) people’s participation (democracy) in filling gov’t positions.

    In my view, neither is good nor bad. All it matters is whether it works.

    If the Chinese people want to move to participating in governance in the future, there will be no one to stop them (over the long term, whatever form of the gov’t you have, the gov’t can only reflect the demands of the people).

    But to say the Chinese must democratize and give up their form of governance by specialization and democratize in a Western fashion – that seems kind of myopic, narrow minded, and ideological … doesn’t it?

    You might as well tell the Chinese they should give up their complicated, character based language and adapt a more modern, and simple alphabetic system such as English!

  84. miaka9383 Says:

    @Allen
    I never mention anything about democracy or democratize.
    I just think people should start participating and the CCP should teach their people how to do that.
    Everyone has a fundamental right to voice their opinions without being penalized.
    They need to learn how to voice opinions and take other people’s opinions. That has nothing nothing at all to do with democracy or democratize.
    They have a right that they need to learn how to pratice with responsibility. CCP being that it is a merit base system have the responsibility to teach its people that. They have the knowledge to share but it seems like they rather have their people be puppets and have them hear whatever they what them to hear. People should have opinions and be able to voice them regardless of what the governmental structure is like.
    My point is what it is, please do not make it into something that it is not. I am not talking about democracy but about the fundamental right of being able to voice our opinions without being penalized.

  85. Charles Liu Says:

    For those genuinely compassionate and are turely mourning the victim of Lhasa riot please remember those five shop girls torched alive by the rioters (Admin if you can find westen report footage please replace below CCTV report):

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWYuVmZi0Zc

    And here are results from couple keyword searches on news.google.com (.cn domain excluded):

    “losar shop girl killed” – 0 results
    “losar tibetan killed” – 392 results

  86. William Huang Says:

    @ miaka9383 #82

    “The point that I was trying to make was not about democracy. My point was that no matter how incompetent the government is, I can protest, speak out loud, go outside of white house and say “I hate bush” as long as I don’t violate other people’s rights.”

    Without the democracy, Bush will put you in jail.

    “Why can’t CCP take the criticism? Why can’t their own citizen, journalist criticize?”

    CCP is not a machine. CCP consists of people and people have different views and ideas. For one thing, everybody wants to keep their job. If I receive a lot of criticism, my colleagues will have a reason to take my seats. You will do the same. So if I have the power, I will put down the criticism.

    Furthermore, human being has limited capacity to take criticism and it’s universal not just CCP. Even in a democratic country like US where freedom of speech is protected, how does Bush administration take criticism? I say, not very well. Just look at what happened to Ambassador Wilson and his wife Valerie Plame. These people (with the help from fanatic journalists) are willing to put her life in danger just to take revenge. Why people behave this way? I don’t know but you can see everyday.

    “And as a growing society everyone needs to learn how to exercise their rights with responsibility and CCP is not allowing its people to do that. It needs to so it can grow into a leader and not some cry baby country that everyone laughs at.”

    Not every country growing the same way but I agree with you that Chinese citizens deserve more freedom and have the right to speak. I just don’t know the answer and I am not sure this is really their top priority right now.

    Yes, there are growing resentments in the west against China but not because China is a failure but because China is successful and growing with power. Japan went through the same thing in early ‘90s. I don’t think there is a general view that China is a carrying baby. If anything, it’s some people in the west are carrying like baby and that’s exactly what Japanese said 20 years ago.

    Some people in this blog tried to portrait Chinese as such but I won’t pay any attention to it. Some people just like to whine about everything. If Chinese people are happy, why should anyone worry about it?

    That’s said, I have the utmost respect for the real humanitarians, past and present (not these phonies), which includes volunteers, human rights advocates and environmental activists. These people have genuine concerns about the world and their fellow human beings. Without them, the world is a terrible place to live.

  87. Steve Says:

    @ Allen #83: What does allowing more freedom of speech have to do with democracy vs. oligarchy? That’s a straw man argument. I was “with you” in the beginning of your post, thinking you were commenting on Raj and William’s exchange and were showing that unless we are lawyers or judges in France, we really can’t get too specific in our opinions on French law, and I agree with you about that.

    But Miaka never said anything about government in China, only about allowing more freedom of speech and assembly. Those are two completely different topics. Both systems use a meritocracy (full of Peking & Harvard U. graduates) in terms of their bureaucracies, but pick their legislators differently, one by election and another by appointment. Both have their strengths and weaknesses, but I’d say the “little princes” who have been appointed to high office aren’t necessarily there because of merit so I’d be careful using that term, and being that my congressional district used to be represented by Randy “Duke” Cunningham (currently in prison) I am VERY familiar with elected politicians without merit.

    “You might as well tell the Chinese they should give up their complicated, character based language and adapt a more modern, and simple alphabetic system such as English!”

    Like pinyin? That should only be for dumb guys like me. :P

    Anyway, good point about specialization!

  88. Otto Kerner Says:

    @William Huang #81,

    “I understand that. However, shouldn’t the same rule apply to China? If this old lady’s death is justifiable because she broke the law, then, could Chinese police fire the gun if their lives are threatened by the mob of riots as in March 2008 in Tibet? If the law in Canada has to be respected and enforced regardless of consequence, does Chinese have the same right to say about the law in China?”

    Now you have changed the subject from whether the law should be enforced to how it should be enforced.

  89. Steve Says:

    @ William Huang #86: “Without the democracy, Bush will put you in jail.”

    Thanks for reminding me once again why GWB was the worst president in my lifetime. :P

    Actually, I’d amend that to say “Without constitutional law, Bush would have put you in jail.” Democracy is just a form of leadership selection, the rest is under the Constitution in a republic. I think the rest of your comments were right on, and your comment about human nature having a limited capacity for criticism makes Miaka’s comment even more apropos, since there needs to be some form of protection for the people who do voice their opinions. The limits of that protection would be different in China than… say, the USA because Chinese society values harmony more, but right now there is really no protection except what the bureaucracy says it is.

    Having said that, I’ve seen baby steps in that direction over the last decade or so. As Charles Liu has pointed out on many occasions, there is a limited form of democracy being practiced on the local level in many communities. It’s not universal yet, but it’s a start. In the Internal Divisions and the Chinese Stimulus Plan thread, Stratfor talks about the allowance of discussion in the media and online on topics that would never have been allowed a few years ago.

    Progress is progress; we can’t expect China to get from A to Z in one jump, but the incremental steps that Miaka suggests are certainly worth discussing.

  90. Allen Says:

    @Steve #87,

    I think the point being discussed was about allowing freedom of speech and assembly to criticize the gov’t – to give the people an avenue to voice opinions on governance.

    My argument applies to this as well as democracy in general.

    Why should laypeople be able to voice an opinion on how government should be run? That’s like laypeople telling neurosurgeons how to do neurological operations.

    Now … I like your pointing out that the CCP may not be as meritocratic as I made out. That’s fine – and the CCP need to reform. Corruption – not economy – is the biggest threat to CCP legitimacy – and the CCP knows it.

    But I still don’t see why lay people must be necessarily given a voice in gov’t policy.

    Lead or get out of the way!

    For those who want to play Monday night quarterback with gov’t decisions – get out of the way.

    For those people who want to devote their life to governance – join the CCP.

    You may gasp – why … why must people be forced to join the CCP to participate?

    Well – in any country, even the U.S., to go anywhere politically, you do need to join the establishment to advance in politics.

    In the U.S., it means the Democratic or Republican Party. In China, you join the CCP. It’s a perfectly democratic system for those who want to participate.

  91. William Huang Says:

    @ Otto Kerner #88

    “Now you have changed the subject from whether the law should be enforced to how it should be enforced.”

    I am sure there is something I said you don’t agree but I am not sure what it is. Can you be more specific?

  92. Allen Says:

    @Steve ..

    Please note in #90 I am not arguing for the status quo per se. I think some freedom of speech, under the right circumstances, will give a valuable channel for people to vent, give the gov’t more eyes to police its various organs, and in general lead to a more harmonious and stable society.

    I am however arguing against the absurd remark that any legitimate political system must allow citizen participation or freedom of speech.

    Whether in a democracy or authoritarian gov’t, the most important thing is finding good leaders who can execute good governance.

  93. William Huang Says:

    @ Steve #89.

    Thanks for the correction. I do mix democracy with human right some times.

  94. Ms Chief Says:

    @Allen #90, isn’t allowing only the educated to have a say just plain elitism and taking us back quite a long way? From what you are saying, poor uneducated people should be denied a voice and should depend only on the educated elite to represent them. How can the uneducated trust that the educated (and usually rich) choose not only to serve themselves and their own interests? How would we ever know what’s happening at a grass-roots level? I understand your point that the intelligently challenged shouldn’t create the policies but it surely doesn’t take an educated person to want to express a preference, for example, for money to be channelled into healthcare rather than sparkling new government offices. Dismissing their opinions about matters that directly affect them is patronising, and in my opinion, a big mistake.

  95. Allen Says:

    @Ms Chief #94,

    Sure – you’re definitely justified in using loaded terms such as “elitism” “back quite a long way” “self-serving” etc to describe what I am arguing.

    In today’s Western ideological context – grass-roots is always right: the gov’t must be watched because it is inherently condescending and overbearing.

    But depending on the situation – that may, or may not be correct.

    Depending on the situation, grass-roots could mean mob rule, instability, chaos, etc. and the gov’t peace, stability, predictability, good governance.

    In summary – I may be elitist. But if what I advocate result in competence – what is wrong with that type of governance?

  96. Otto Kerner Says:

    @William Huang #91,

    “I am sure there is something I said you don’t agree but I am not sure what it is. Can you be more specific?”

    All you did was ask questions, and I don’ t disagree with what I imagine your answers are. What I disagree with is how you set up the questions. In the first case, you were talking about a case in Canada which establishes that some laws do need to be enforced against political protestors. But then you started talking about whether Chinese police have a right to open fire on a crowd. The implied analogy between these events is not clear, because in the second case the question seems to be about the tactics that the police use, rather than whether or not their goal—enforcing the law—is right. Furthermore, I’m not sure who you’re arguing with here. Who have you ever heard say that, if police are genuinely threatened by a violent crowd, they should never fire their weapons?

  97. Allen Says:

    @Otto Kerner #96,

    William Huang wrote in #88,

    However, shouldn’t the same rule apply to China? If this old lady’s death is justifiable because she broke the law, then, could Chinese police fire the gun if their lives are threatened by the mob of riots as in March 2008 in Tibet? If the law in Canada has to be respected and enforced regardless of consequence, does Chinese have the same right to say about the law in China?

    He was very explicit to spell out “could Chinese police fire the gun if their lives are threatened by the mob of riots as in March 2008 in Tibet?” He did not write “could Chinese police fire the gun if protesters broke the law.”

    I have no idea what you are trying to get at here.

  98. Ms Chief Says:

    @Allen #95,
    I find it difficult to believe that there can be competent rule if you ignore a major section of society, as what works for you and the elite may not work for everyone else. I am also against mob rule and am not saying that the uneducated should call the shots but think that they should have the right to voice their opinions. I think it’s when the grass-roots are unhappy with being completely ignored and start venting their frustration that it descends into chaos and instability.

  99. Allen Says:

    @Ms Chief, I agree that there should be a channel for citizens to voice discontent to the gov’t also.

    Some people believe the best channel is democracy through voting.

    Others think it should be through the right to assemble and protest.

    I believe whatever the channel is – it is in the interest of the gov’t for it to be as open as possible – so it can detect signs of stress as early as possible. But the gov’t can rightfully demand that the channel be controlled if it sincerely believes the channel can lead to conflagration, chaos, and mass instability.

    The key goal is a balance between opening an ear of gov’t to the masses without the ear becoming a tool for fomenting instability.

    I guess our basic disagreement is whether free speech is a tool of governance (which I believe, i.e. as a means to good governance) or a basic right (it’s a right that must be provided, regardless of the needs of governance).

  100. Allen Says:

    @Ms Chief, you mentioned in #94 that you believe only the educated and rich would be fit to govern in my model.

    If you look back to Chinese history – and look at the Civil/Gov’t Examination System – you will see that that is an incorrect assertion.

    Many poor – through diligence and study – rise through the ranks of gov’t.

    Sure the Civil/Gov’t Examination System did become corrupt as the Qing gov’t as a whole became corrupt – but that’s a whole different issue.

    But ALL governments – no matter the form – can ossify, become corrupt, and degraded to become an enemy of the people.

  101. Wukailong Says:

    When did this turn into a discussion of democracy? Anyway, I’m short of time now, but I just realize that these discussions tend to go the same way. Opponents of democracy often use the “direct democracy argument” which worries about the chaos that would be caused by everyone “having their say”. Imagine neurosurgeons being told what to do by a mob!

    But is that what democracy is about?

    “But ALL governments – no matter the form – can ossify, become corrupt, and degraded to become an enemy of the people.”

    They can, but what are the factors behind this? Are governments in some countries more corrupt for decades than other countries? Should we try to use some sort of metric to find out why, like the one adopted by Transparency International?

    Sorry, this is all I have time to say at the moment… Back in a day or so.

  102. Ted Says:

    @ Allen #83:

    “Would it make sense if I call on regular folks off the street regarding how to perform neural surgery? …Would it make sense if I call on regular folks off the street regarding how to run a nuclear power plant? …Would it make sense if I call on regular folks off the street regarding how to run a major economy – such as figuring how to deal with the financial crisis? …Would it make sense if I call on regular folks off the street regarding how to define and execute geopolitical strategies?”

    The question you left conspicuously absent… Would it make sense if I asked you how my decisions will effect your life? Yes.

  103. S.K. Cheung Says:

    To Huaren #80:
    “Aren’t you twisting what I said in post #66?” – umm, not so much. You see, it was a direct quote. Do you not recognize what you wrote. If I were you, I’d disavow what you wrote too. But sadly, it sits there for all to see. You can go and check it out yourself.

    I disagree with you not because of who you are, or even necessarily how you say it (though admittedly, not well); I disagree with what you say. Pure and simple. So if you have an explanation for what you wrote in #66 that makes you look less ridiculous, I’m all ears. However, I must say I’m not holding out much hope.

    To William #81:
    I think most Canadians would be receptive to learning more about the grievances of our aboriginal peoples, or of any other disadvantaged group in our society. You are correct that someone has to be a champion for their cause and bring their message into the public view. My point simply is that in Canada, there is no barrier to such a champion doing such work; the same cannot be said for China about Tibet, because such champions would be muzzled, or worse.

    “As for Tibet (I am not claiming China has as much transparency as west), it’s not completely in the dark as others trying to claim.” – you’re right. But at the same time, i think it could still use a lot more light.

    “More importantly, such lack of transparency is not directed at Tibetans. If Shanghai has potential riots, the same restriction would apply to Shanghai.” – Many have said that what ails Tibetans ails all CHinese. But then why aren’t they calling for increased freedoms and transparency for all Chinese, rather just denouncing those who ask for such things for Tibetans? If Tibetans shouldn’t get special treatment because all Chinese deserve these things, then why aren’t those around here who criticize calls for the former being equally vociferous in demanding the latter?

    “If this old lady’s death is justifiable because she broke the law, then, could Chinese police fire the gun if their lives are threatened by the mob of riots as in March 2008 in Tibet?” – wait a second. This lady died of pneumonia, based on what you said, after being released from prison. It wasn’t an in-custody death. And even if she died of pneumonia in jail, she could similarly have suffered the same fate were she not in jail. Her breaking the law and being incarcerated did not cause her death. THat’s considerably different from the Chinese response to the riots. I don’t question the CHinese right to put down a riot; I merely question whether the response was proportionate. And just as someone can look at this lady’s case and question Canadian law, so too can a person look at the Tibetan case and question Chinese law.

    To Allen #83:
    C’mon, I don’t think Miaka is suggesting that John Q Public in China should take over Hu Jintao’s day job. But I think what she is saying is that Johnny should be able to openly question how well Hu is discharging his duties without counting on an “interview” from the authorities.

    To William #86:
    “Without the democracy, Bush will put you in jail.” – then all the more reason to strive for democracy.

    “Furthermore, human being has limited capacity to take criticism and it’s universal not just CCP” – agreed. And if someone in power does a good job, they won’t get as much criticism. I would rather someone aim higher to avoid criticism than to stamp out all criticism and just do as they please.

    To Allen #90:
    “Why should laypeople be able to voice an opinion on how government should be run?” – you have got to be kidding me. I think sometimes in an effort to make your point, you pass through sublime and go straight to ridiculous. If I have a grapefruit growing out of my head, I’ll see a surgeon. I’m not about to them him/her where and how to cut. But I’d sure like a discussion about my options, what the risks are, etc. I tell the surgeon what I’d like the outcome to be, and entrust him/her to go achieve it for me. And as a layperson in society, I think most would appreciate an opportunity to voice their desires and fears, then ultimately let the government go and attain their goals for them. I mean, as a lawyer, do you often go into court and tell your client:”I’m just going to sit on my hands, and let the judge decide. There’s no need to emphasize the merits of your case, since I implicitly trust the judge to know that already”.

    To Allen #92:
    “good leaders who can execute good governance.” – and who gets to decide if said governance has been good? I’m hoping that at some point, you’ll see the light and say: “oh yeah, the people”. I’d say you need to get off your high horse, but lately, your horse has been shrinking fast.

  104. vmoore55 Says:

    Get ready for more Tibetan evil doing terrorism in China starting now.

    “Pro-Tibetan groups outside China say Chinese police have shot a Tibetan monk who had set himself on fire in the south-western province of Sichuan.”

    The DL is at it again, pissing on China and he calls it spring rain for the New Year and he is leading the monkeys in monks robes to protest his 50th year in exile.

  105. S.K. Cheung Says:

    To Vmoore55:
    once again, your terminology is oh-so-classy. Nice work.

    I heard the same report. And my first thought was: man, sure would be nice if I could have a third-party report that i could trust. As it stand now, and as is often the case, it’s TGIE said; China said.

  106. Jiang Hua Says:

    I’m tired about that pro CCP crap, CCP and it’s little puppet CCTV just telling lies to chinese people 24/7. You have no freedom of speech in this country, you are with the CCP or you are a traitor. What happens in China and Tibet is very sad and the whole world is withness for the communist party crimes against humanity, no matter how strong is the censorship we still can see it. How long will some of you chinese accept this government lieing to you; covering up scandals and corruption, torturing and even killing people for their faith, unfair trials, labor camps, awful working conditions, etc…? CCP is even hiring some Wu Mao (net commentators) insulting people on the web who dare talking about the bad things of China!

    How long will you accept that?
    The truth is noone is allowed to enter Tibet from a long damn time since last March and nobody really knows what is going on there, except the CCP! Wake up! CCP doesn’t give a s**t about human, they treat them worse than animals sometimes!

  107. Jiang Hua Says:

    Never forget June 4rth 1989!

  108. Steve Says:

    @ Allen #90:

    “Why should laypeople be able to voice an opinion on how government should be run? That’s like laypeople telling neurosurgeons how to do neurological operations.”

    Let’s put it this way. You have a problem with your kidney and need it removed but since you have two of them, it’s not a big deal. So you hire a Harvard Medical School graduate M.D. specializing in kidneys to perform the operation. After it’s over, you discover he did an excellent job removing THE WRONG KIDNEY!

    Since you are a lawyer, do you sue him for malpractice? Or since he’s a brilliant surgeon from Harvard Med, do you give him a free pass since he knows far more than you do about kidneys? Isn’t the accepted advice always to consult more than one surgeon to get a second opinion, and then choose on which one you feel more comfortable with, asking a lot of questions along the way?

    Or maybe we can rephrase your quotation in this way: “Why should laypeople be able to voice an opinion on how government should be run? That’s like the SEC telling investment bankers how to regulate investment banks.”

    “Now … I like your pointing out that the CCP may not be as meritocratic as I made out. That’s fine – and the CCP need to reform. Corruption – not economy – is the biggest threat to CCP legitimacy – and the CCP knows it.”

    And who exactly is committing this corruption you mention? Isn’t it those same bureaucrats you glorify, the ones who graduated from Peking University and other august institutions? So how do we prevent corruption? In a constitutional republic, it’s done through a series of checks and balances (Jefferson didn’t trust those elites you champion) that keep corruption under control. Normally no one power controls all phases of government and when it does and becomes corrupt, it is usually overthrown.

    Witness what happened to the Republican Party in the USA over the last few years. In the early ’90s, they controlled all three branches of government and ran roughshod over the law. The checks and balances were seriously out of whack. Now this same party was filled with brilliant bureaucrats from the best universities, yet managed to run the country into the ground. And I’m not just getting after the Republicans; I seem to recall the Democrats controlled most government functions from ’92-’94 and it was also a disaster that caused them to lose both houses of Congress.

    “But I still don’t see why lay people must be necessarily given a voice in gov’t policy.”

    I don’t see why lay people should not be given a voice in government policy, since government policy directly affects lay people. And how can the government know what policies to administer without knowing what people think or what they want? Don’t even really smart people need information and data in order to make correct decisions? Aren’t people’s opinions and desires a huge part of that needed information?

    “Lead or get out of the way!”

    “You’re either with us or against us!” – George W. Bush (’nuff said)

    “For those who want to play Monday night quarterback with gov’t decisions – get out of the way.”

    The most common player of “Monday morning quarterback” is the same government who made the decisions and then finds a “scapegoat” to blame those decisions on. As an example we can use Chen Shui-bian, who seemed to blame China for everything he ever did wrong.

    “For those people who want to devote their life to governance – join the CCP.”

    It is very difficult to reform a party from the inside; just ask Japan’s LDP. Without competition, some would say it is impossible.

    “You may gasp – why … why must people be forced to join the CCP to participate?”

    Actually, I don’t think I’ve ever “gasped” in my life. :P

    “Well – in any country, even the U.S., to go anywhere politically, you do need to join the establishment to advance in politics.”

    Then explain independent senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. And the U.S. doesn’t have one “establishment”, it has two major parties and a few minor ones, and within those two major parties are various factions. In fact, Allen, even you can create your own political party and run for whatever office you want, on a platform of creating a new and more authoritarian system of government for the US. It’s totally legal. Some elections (San Diego City Council is an example) are non-partisan where the party name is not allowed to be shown on the ballot. But why are we talking about parties here when Miaka’s point was about expanding freedom of speech and assembly in China beyond it’s current and very tight limits?

    “In the U.S., it means the Democratic or Republican Party. In China, you join the CCP. It’s a perfectly democratic system for those who want to participate.”

    Democracy is usually used in either two meanings on this blog. You like to use it as majority rule, which isn’t how any country actually uses it so that’s a misleading argument. The other definition is a government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives. The CCP doesn’t meet either of these definitions, so what definition are you using for democracy that they DO meet?

    But an oligarchy is a form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few. Isn’t that a better definition of China’s current government? I’m not discussing the merits of each system, just the type of system currently used in China.

    From #92:

    “I am however arguing against the absurd remark that any legitimate political system must allow citizen participation or freedom of speech.”

    You just brought this up; no one else has even implied that a government isn’t legitimate if it doesn’t allow citizen participation or freedom of speech, so your implication is absurd, isn’t it? :D

    I don’t know of anyone who doesn’t think China has a legitimate government. Their government is recognized by every major and most minor countries except a few that are getting paid big bucks by Taiwan, and of course the Vatican which we’ve already discussed. It’s not a question of “must” allow, it’s more of a question of “should” allow to improve the system of governance. I have no problem with arguments on both sides, but let’s not cloud the issue by bringing in “legitimacy” when it’s not an issue with either side.

    “Whether in a democracy or authoritarian gov’t, the most important thing is finding good leaders who can execute good governance.”

    Allen, haven’t you ever seen those cable TV advertisements for the videos “Good Girls Gone Bad”? Just because a leader starts out as good doesn’t mean a leader continues to be good. I thought Chen Shui-bian was a pretty good mayor of Taipei and a pretty bad president of Taiwan. Democracies tend to elect popular leaders and authoritarian goverments elect powerful leaders. Neither system insures good leaders, but it’s easier to rid yourself of a bad leader in a democracy. However, once again you’ve moved the discussion away from Miaka’s post into a “democracy/authoritarian” argument, which is irrelevant to any point she made.

    So let’s get back to her point. It’s a two edged sword, so we’ll hit one at a time:

    1) Freedom of Assembly: We’re not talking “Million Man March” stuff here. Let’s take the Olympics; the government announced they would allow freedom of assembly in certain specified parks as long as the demonstrators received a permit to assemble. Then everyone who asked for a permit was put in jail. Reminded me of something from the 50′s: “Letting a hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools of thought contend is the policy for promoting progress in the arts and the sciences and a flourishing socialist culture in our land.” We all know how that one turned out.

    Why announce a policy that you have absolutely no intention of allowing if not to use it to put potential protesters in jail? Isn’t that saying to the people that absolutely no freedom of assembly is allowed under any circumstances? Because none was allowed, how can you say it would be harmful to the state? In the last ten years, can you name an instance where peaceful assembly was harmful to the government?

    2) Freedom of Speech: There are always limits on freedom of speech in every country. We all know about shouting “fire” in a crowded theater, or threatening to murder someone, etc. I believe Miaka’s point was to allow greater freedom of speech, not absolute freedom of speech, just as she called for greater freedom of assembly, not absolute freedom of assembly. It’s a common but misleading debate tactic to take ‘relatives’ and turn them into ‘absolutes’ for the sake of argument, but it’s a misleading argument, just as there are more government alternatives than anarchy or ruthless totalitarianism.

    Again, I’ll go back to Charles Liu’s comments that he’s made many times in various threads. The CPC is experimenting with more freedoms on a local level in some towns and small cities, but not on a federal or consistently national basis. Where it’s been tried, it seems to be working. Miaka would like to see that expanded. If it’s already been tried and seems to be working, why is this a bad thing?

  109. Jiang Hua Says:

    #108
    “I am however arguing against the absurd remark that any legitimate political system must allow citizen participation or freedom of speech.”

    You just brought this up; no one else has even implied that a government isn’t legitimate if it doesn’t allow citizen participation or freedom of speech, so your implication is absurd, isn’t it?

    There is a document that prove you false, the UNIVERSAL Declaration of Human Rights, it said:

    You have the right to take part in your country political affairs!

    watch it there: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTlrSYbCbHE

    oh .. maybe it’s blocked by your beloved CCP!

  110. Steve Says:

    @ Allen: Oops, seems like Jiang Hua wants you to explain why the CPC is legitimate when they don’t allow citizen participation or freedom of speech after signing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

    Jiang Hua, they’re not MY beloved CPC. But I’m sure you’ll get many replies from those who do feel that way. Welcome to the blog! :)

  111. Jiang Hua Says:

    “In the U.S., it means the Democratic or Republican Party. In China, you join the CCP. It’s a perfectly democratic system for those who want to participate.”

    WHAT! What a bunch of BS, there is no democracy in China, there is no way youu can choose your government and what they will do, they impose you this thing. If the person are not happy they might kill the person, no problem with that for the CCP. CCP works with corruption and businessmen greed, if you are close to them or you have money you have a good life, if you are not you are worse than an animal!

  112. Jiang Hua Says:

    Thanks Steve! I like it here now!

  113. Allen Says:

    @Steve,

    In the spirit for ranting??? :-P

    I am not writing about “Million Man March” stuff either … so glad we agree on that.

    I’ll keep my response short.

    I am not arguing against transparency … nor am I arguing against freedom of speech … nor am I arguing against gov’t accountability … nor am I arguing against freedom of assembly.

    A big sigh…

    All I am arguing against is the perception of a lot of so-called rights as basic “rights” and blindly transplanting “rights” across systmes of governance.

    Here is what miaka wrote:

    And I am saying, in the sensitive time of the 60’s and 70’s there was protests and killings, and the government were openly criticized for that. Why can’t CCP take the criticism? Why can’t their own citizen, journalist criticize? They can privately among friends or sometimes online, but the majority of the opinion that we get from Chinese about their own government is the same thing we get from Xinhua. And it is the CCP’s job to educate these people how to take critcism openly. It is the CCP’s job to lead by example and to do that they need to allow protests, foreigners and their criticisms. That is how people grow with their government. This is not about democracy, it is about people’s rights. And as a growing society everyone needs to learn how to exercise their rights with responsibility and CCP is not allowing its people to do that. It needs to so it can grow into a leader and not some cry baby country that everyone laughs at.

    Some people think rights like free speech – much like democracy – as an end in itself. For me, I think of so-called “rights” as policies – means of governance. In China’s case, each policies should be evaluated on how they advance specific gov’t agendas – i.e. in China’s case, social harmony and prosperity.

    To simply scream out “rights” – China need to adhere to “rights” without more …. is such a non-starter.

    Based on responses (including frmo you), I can see I am rarely understood … but that’s ok. Wish I could be full time here and explain myself better. But for now – snippets will have to do.

    Gotta run … have a Great Weekend! ;-)

  114. Jiang Hua Says:

    Allen, Freedom of speech and Human dignity are the 2 most basic Human Rights, and sorry for you the chinese communist party fail to even respect those 2.

    You will not evoluate if you don’t respect someone’s else opinion, if people do not like their life it is the government duty to listen to them and try changing the system so it will be more fair. You have to accept critic if you want to solve a conflict, you cannot just think 1 sided! Freedom of speech and democracy are not the same thing but they are linked, a democratic regime will allow more than 1 point of view!

    A fascist regime allow only 1 point of view, the one of the government leaders, they brutally eliminate opposition and critisim, emphasing an agressive nationalism. Well in that kind of country people do not feel themselves happy, they just follow the rules so they can survive. There is no Freedom of speech and that’s what CCP is!

  115. Steve Says:

    @ Allen: That’s not ranting, that’s courteous discourse. :P

    Allen, if you look at the italicized remarks you made that I replied to, none of them contained the word “rights” or “human rights”. I just responded to your specific remarks. In fact, in your responses #82, 90, 93 & 95, you never mention anything about “rights” vs. policies. I think that’s why you’ve been misunderstood.

    So let’s take Miaka’s post and substitute the word “privileges” for “rights”. Would that work for you?

    I’ll let you and Jiang Hua work out that Universal Declaration of Human Rights thing. Have fun!! ;)

  116. Allen Says:

    @Steve … I don’t remember if I mention rights per se. But I was responding to miaka’s post about “rights.”

  117. Allen Says:

    @Jiang Hua -

    A gov’t that does not listen to the people or care about the people is not fit to govern.

    A gov’t that does not allow your definition of free speech does not mean the gov’t does not listen to the people or care about the people.

    There are plenty of channels through which citizens can communicate with gov’t regarding policy matters. Just because those channels are different from the West does not mean there are no channels.

  118. Jiang Hua Says:

    The problem is that government in China can choose to evict you from your house, and there is nothing you can do about it, and when it’s time to compensate some people flee with the money, and the owner of the house is left with nothing. It happened before the olympics.

    If government decide that your ‘subject’ is too dangerous for them they will just censor it and tell you to stop talking about it, if you don’t want to stop they will arrest you and bring you to secret prisons or re-education through labor camps, where you will get tortured.

    CCP sometimes listen to their people as long as it doesn’t concern them, if it’s about them they will cover it. They block every ‘sensitive’ issues about political events which happened before, like the tian an men massacre (64), Lhasa riots, Longyan riots etc… So there is no real Freedom of speech just a facade.

    And there is that Golden Shield project (Great firewall of China) which censors unwanted subjects, so you cannot tell me that China has Freedom of speech. It’s always the CCP who decide what is allowed and what people cannot talk about!

  119. vmoore55 Says:

    #106 Jiang Hua

    You are no more Chinese than my black kung fu teacher and he wants so really bad tobe a Chinese because he has so many Chinese gal friends.

    Maybe China don’t like him, now he hates China, I think he is a wannabe Muslim and he has AIDS so he can’t get a visa to enter China. He really hates China so very much, his gal friends are waiting for him there now, they were sent home after the cops arrested them last year in a raid on this whorehouse they were in. The pimp was never found, but we know he will get his gals back from China, they are waiting for him to free them from the bad CPC inhumane laws.

    A good US saying for you, You Don’t like the country than Get the hell Out of here.

    AND SHUT THE HELL UP.

  120. Jiang Hua Says:

    119. vmoore55 which Wu Mao faggot are you, guys like you being paid 50 cents a comment by the CCP to slander other people and even doing personnal attacks. When you guys have nothing constructive to say you insult other people countries, like calling other KKK supporter for an example. People like you should seriously GET A LIFE!

    Wu Mao dang:
    50 Cent Party (wumaodang), also called 50 Cent Army, is the name for paid astroturfing bloggers operating since 2005 from People’s Republic of China, whose role is posting comments favorable towards the government policies to skew the public opinion on various Internet message boards. They are named by the 50 Chinese cents, or 5 mao, they are paid per such post, though many operatives are volunteers; other names are red vests and red vanguard. [1] Conservative estimates[who?] say the 50 Cents Army employs tens of thousands bloggers, some estimates[who?] say as many as 280,000-300,000. Their activities were described by Chinese president Hu Jintao as “a new pattern of public-opinion guidance”. [2]

    They operate primarily in Chinese, but English language posts appear as well. Their effect is most felt at the domestic Chinese-language websites, bulletin board systems, and chatrooms. Their role is to steer the discussion away from anti-party articulations and advance the party line.[3]

  121. Jiang Hua Says:

    What if I am a foreigner? I have the right for my opinion like anyone else!

    Wo shi jia na da ren!

  122. ShoeProtestor Says:

    LOL… Look at the e-mail I got from Wikipedia. It shows us what CCP are doing haaaaaa…

    We note your coments on inacurate quotations and incorect factual content held within the Wikipedia database. We would like to point out that Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia with millions of articles contributed ‘collaboratively’ using Wiki software.
    We note by your topic of enquiry and your e-mail address, that you are interested in and have specific concerns regarding historic information held on the Peoples Republic of China. It may answer your question if you considder the term ‘colaboration’. We colaborate mainly with The Oxford University Press, Chambers Encyclopedia and several accademic institutions around the World to compile our knowlage base. Additionally, Wikipedia is open to voluntary contributions from individuals around the globe. Our editorship of contributions is often based upon data already stored.
    However, we have found that contributors do submit data which is sometimes motivated by their own political agenda. This is more aparent where the data has been submitted from countries such as China, Russia and North Korea.

    We do work hard to control the inacuracies but we find that particularly from China, our edited content is quickly re-submitted in the contributors original format. Furthermore, we are one of three knowlage based web-sites that suffers from continual hacking. This week alone we have removed 13 trojans from our site which originated via a government hub in the central Beijing area. just one of these trojans is responsible for the removal of text and other data held under our topic “Tienenmen Square 1989″ which was one of the subjects of your enquiry.

    Please be assured that we continue to work on the control of deliberate interferance of our data, but we are unfortunately outnumbered by our attackers.

    I hope you are aware that Wikipedia does have a fully controled “Nappaview” version which is available at $22 per year. Again, looking at your e-mail address, it appears that you are an employee of the Amnesty International Asia Office. If this is the case, then you should be able to access Wiki Nappa free of charge, providing you have access to the user name and password.

    Finally we thank you for your observations and enquiry and hope we have enlightened you somewhat.

    Juliet Barancourt
    Data Services Manager

  123. Jiang Hua Says:

    I like wikipedia, it’s even there I found the definition of Wu Mao dang, good website, sadly some bad intentionned people try to hack it!

  124. ShoeProtestor Says:

    Oh my god this blog is full of communist lies and rhetoric.

  125. Raj Says:

    Allen @ 117

    A gov’t that does not listen to the people or care about the people is not fit to govern.

    A gov’t that does not allow your definition of free speech does not mean the gov’t does not listen to the people or care about the people.

    If the CCP cares, why does it restrict Chinese citizens’ ability to complain? Why is it so paranoid about people speaking out against it? Why are the courts so useless in resolving problems that, in one way or another, involve politicians and officials that people have to go to Beijing to petition? Why is it that foreign journalists keep getting mobbed by petitioners when they’re anywhere near the areas they’re staying?

    The CCP may want what’s best for China, but only if that means staying in power indefinitely. It will not make sacrifices to benefit ordinary people, such as bringing in freedom of speech, freedom of the press, etc because those threaten its position of power. It will listen but more because that’s a way of gauging whether it’s supported or not – if not, it can take steps to change that. But as I mentioned, the steps it will take are limited.

    Therefore, by your own definition, it isn’t fit to govern.

  126. Jiang Hua Says:

    CCP doesn’t do it for China, it’s not true, they do it for themselves, for their economical greed! They are bandits who just feed their people with crap propaganda and lies, if people are not happy they crush the threat. CCP destroyed a lot of things in the chinese culture during the cultural revolution and will do it if it threatens their power!

    CCP will never bring Human Rights, Freedom of speech and democracy that’s a big lie, the only way chinese will get these things is by destroying the communist party, period.

  127. Allen Says:

    @Raj #125,

    No no….

    The CCP definitely do listen to the people. They have their hands on the pulse of every thought of the people. That’s why Chinese gov’t are able to get such high approval ratings (over 80% according to most polls, over 90% according to some polls)…

    When there are problems and unhappiness, you can bet the CCP knows about them. However, in a country in such flux as China, and in a country with limited resources, some tasks will necessarily be prioritized ahead of others …

    What the CCP does not want is for people to vent in such a way as to inflame segments of the populace into conflagrations of mob anger that lead ultimately to instabilities…

    You are right: the CCP potentially one day can theoretically become so decadent as to be unfit to govern – like the Qing was in the early 20th century. Perhaps you have better vision than I do. But I sense nothing close to that as of today….

  128. Wahaha Says:

    SKC,

    http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=44930

    show me some evidence that native aboriginal have some REAL political influence in Canada.

    _____________________

    Miaka,

    If West hasnt turn blind towards the problem in their own country, I wouldnt have minded your criticism.

    BTW, Japan is always on the last line of protest against human right issue in China, Why ?

    Whether you like it or not, people in East dont like other’s criticism unless you are perfect. and West is far from perfect due to their history, So in the eyes of Chinese, they are not even qualified to point the finger at others, ON MORAL ISSUE.

  129. Wahaha Says:

    Allen,

    Why you argue with Raj, didnt you see his “genius” answer to explain how a 2 billion dollar home was built among 19 milllions people ?

  130. huaren Says:

    @ShoeProtestor, Jiang Hua

    LOL. Keep it up.

    @Wahaha, Allen,

    I bet you $100 these scoundrels are going to eventually to do something stupid, and in of all places, gasp, inside China! I don’t know why, but this thought suddenly occurred to me. :)

  131. S.K. Cheung Says:

    To Allen #113:
    “so-called rights as basic “rights” and blindly transplanting “rights” across systmes of governance.” – if certain rights can be agreed upon as being sufficiently basic, then there should be no barriers to their application or accessibility, regardless of the system of governance.

    “In China’s case, each policies should be evaluated on how they advance specific gov’t agendas – i.e. in China’s case, social harmony and prosperity.” – and once again, who should be given the privilege of penning the report card on how well these agendas are being advanced? The answer would seem to be so blindingly obvious as to make the need to repeatedly ask the question surreal. Now, many have said that China is “not ready” for a report card in a typical democratic sense. One only hopes that she will be someday. But in the meantime, is she not ready for some freedom of expression? Or of assembly? Or of information? Or must it be the paternalistic “big brother knows best”, 24/7/365? (I suppose, if it’s paternalistic, then it should be “daddy knows best”, but that wouldn’t work with Orwell).

    To Wahaha #128:
    while I realize that you often venture out of your residence in the deep recesses of left field to pose questions seemingly out of the blue, may I ask what your latest effort has to do with the price of tea in China? Or in Tibet, for that matter? Nevertheless, since you asked…

    I don’t know how much real or fake political influence our aboriginal peoples have in Canada. But I do know each one of them has the same vote I have, to use of their own free will. That would appear to be about 1.000 votes more than what your average Tibetan, or PRC Chinese citizen, has. And it would appear that their grievances are readily known or accessible, even to the casual observer sitting in NYC. In that sense, this also sits in sharp contrast to the anonymous plight of Tibetans, or PRC Chinese. And while you show a curious, though perhaps convenient, interest in the well-being of aboriginal peoples in Canada, which is in and of itself very worthy, where is your outrage or lamenting of the inability to discover similar “truths” about Tibetans? I’d love for you to show me some of that…since we’re into showing stuff and all.

    To Shoe Guy:
    that’s an interesting letter from Wiki. Good cautionary tale about the “facts” you find on the net.

  132. Raj Says:

    @ 127

    The CCP definitely do listen to the people. They have their hands on the pulse of every thought of the people. That’s why Chinese gov’t are able to get such high approval ratings

    It’s got nothing to do with “listening”. It’s because the majority of Chinese in the cities are satisfied with the way things are. Or perhaps those who are willing to talk to foreign research firms are. People who aren’t happy may be understandably be reluctant to say so.

    When there are problems and unhappiness, you can bet the CCP knows about them.

    So? What it does is the important matter.

    However, in a country in such flux as China, and in a country with limited resources, some tasks will necessarily be prioritized ahead of others …

    Oh yes, the “China is so poor it cannot be expected to do everything” argument. Why is it that if one asks something like “can China beat America to the moon” you get responses like “yes, China can do anything – China will soon be number 1 country in the world!” Yet if one queries China’s lack of progress in the human rights field the response is “but China is still a developing country – it isn’t strong enough to do all that.”

    What the CCP does not want is for people to vent in such a way as to inflame segments of the populace into conflagrations of mob anger that lead ultimately to instabilities…

    Are Chinese that uncivilised? Many other countries, both poor and rich, manage higher levels of press freedom and freedom of speech than China without all social order breaking down. Why can’t China cope? It seems like many well-off Chinese are quick to jump in if anyone complains about the qualities of Chinese people, yet they also put them down as an excuse to gag them.

    What you said was a standard CCP propaganda line. In reality it goes much further than that. The censors block lots of things that wouldn’t cause unrest for the mere reason that it challenges the CCP too much. This extends to the history of the CCP, even back to the 1950s. Are those the actions of a party concerned about social order or concerned about maintaining its image? It’s the latter.

    Besides we know there are plenty of riots every year in China. A freer press and more rights to speak freely might avoid violence because people would think they can get heard without hurling stones.

    But I sense nothing close to that as of today….

    Hey, I was using your own criteria.

  133. S.K. Cheung Says:

    To Raj:
    ““yes, China can do anything – China will soon be number 1 country in the world!” Yet if one queries China’s lack of progress in the human rights field the response is “but China is still a developing country – it isn’t strong enough to do all that.”” – that’s a good point.

    “Are Chinese that uncivilised? Many other countries, both poor and rich, manage higher levels of press freedom and freedom of speech than China without all social order breaking down.” – and that’s another.

  134. shel Says:

    Standard Operating Practice for CIA/NED called for destabilizing competitors using whatever means. It is no surprise NYT lie about things they done know. An article like this will fool no chinese or third world citizens, it only fools American kids who have no other souce of information. Let the american eat their own s…t.
    Then again, NYT will publish another article soon complaining about not having free access to get chinese to read their propaganda. Their modus operandi is: first lie, follow with complaining of lack of freedom of press when the propaganda does not reach the targeted group.

  135. Jiang Hua Says:

    S.K. Chung you seriously believe the world will let CCP become a superpower, so they can invade anyone?

    Remember what happened to Hitler, the same thing will happen to the CCP!

  136. Jiang Hua Says:

    And it will be the chinese people who will suffer the most from you dirty communists pigs!

    Stupid Wu Mao are so stupid and ignorant!

  137. Jiang Hua Says:

    You guys are lieing, the majority of chinese doesn’t like CCP, soon there will be a huge revolt and you communist pigs will be the first ones to pay!

  138. Jiang Hua Says:

    WW3 is coming!

  139. Jiang Hua Says:

    admin’s note

    Jiang Hua

    your comments #139-159 were just an entry from the wikipedia
    ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989 ), copied and pasted without even a proper citation. Therefore, I am removing the content of these comments. Interested readers may visit the wikipedia entry instead. In addition, I have saved comments #139-159 in a PDF file (15 pages). I will send it to you or any other readers upon an email request.

  140. Jiang Hua Says:

  141. Jiang Hua Says:

  142. Jiang Hua Says:

  143. Jiang Hua Says:

  144. Jiang Hua Says:

  145. Jiang Hua Says:

  146. Jiang Hua Says:

  147. Jiang Hua Says:

  148. Jiang Hua Says:

  149. Jiang Hua Says:

  150. Jiang Hua Says:

  151. Jiang Hua Says:

  152. Jiang Hua Says:

  153. Jiang Hua Says:

  154. Jiang Hua Says:

  155. Jiang Hua Says:

  156. Jiang Hua Says:

  157. Jiang Hua Says:

  158. admin Says:

    @Jiang Hua

    This is a thread about Tibet. If you want to comment on 6/4. We have multiple threads on this topic. Please see

    http://blog.foolsmountain.com/tag/sixfour/

    Many of our readers are knowledgeable about 6/4. Some of them were participants of the student movement themselves, including yours truly. You are welcome to comment on any topic, but to copy/paste in multiple comments in such a short period of time is called spamming and I will deal with this accordingly.

  159. Jiang Hua Says:

    Well what do you think CCP is doing in Tibet?

  160. Jiang Hua Says:

    shooting the tibetan people or shooting the Beijing people, what’s the difference!

  161. Jiang Hua Says:

    Both groups wants Freedom of speech and Human Rights!

  162. Jiang Hua Says:

    My intention was not spamming it was to inform people

  163. Getsmart Says:

    Nice debates going on here. NYtimes’ concerns are becoming more and more limited and targeted on human rights issues and tibet. Before (around 2006-2007) they wrote some reports on China’s development and problems with it, such as pollution, corruption. So people see two sides about china. But since last year they began to attack chinese gov in every way. They know china gov doesn’t like them and it is hard to change the situation in short time so they made up their mind not to report anything positive. Even in this world economic downturn they don’t do any analysis on china’s economy (maybe this is not their specialty). I used to like their report but now I would rather read WSJ on China issues.

  164. Jiang Hua Says:

    What positive there is to say about China?

    Tibetans are getting eradicated like Hitler did to the jews, so you think anyone would have a positive view about CCP outside CCP freaks, no! Simple as that. People are more important than money, if China doesn’t realise, nobody will have a positive opinion about China, and the situation will just get worse and worse!

  165. Allen Says:

    @admin … yeh this is a thread about Tibet (Losar in particular) …. it’s my fault for allowing this to expand into a slug fest against the CCP.

  166. miaka9383 Says:

    @Allen
    I am sorry this thread has degenerates into attacks. This saddens me…
    However, on the issue of rights vs policy… I personally think rights or Privileges affects its policy. It isn’t policy per se until one violates another one’s privilege.
    Everyone has an opinion, it is human nature. So why suppress it? Why not listen to the fullest?
    Like… I am a democrat by nature but I listen to Rush Limbaugh driving to school… I sincerely believe that there’s every side to each fact (tho Rush is kinda high all the time.. its in the news)
    And I am saying that if CCP allows opinions flow, take criticisms and give their stands on the situation then that would be a side of CCP that I would like to see and that I believe they are capable of. That is how they move up and on in the world.

    @Wahaha
    If you are going to make a broad statement like that about “West ignore its own problems” please show prove. I live in the west, especially in the hated U.S, trust me, U.S government addresses the problems the best that they can. They don’t run away from it or forbid people from talking about it. So tell me, what problem have they not addressed?

  167. Jiang Hua Says:

    Well CCP doesn’t care to hire those stupid Wu Mao (50 cents) net commentators on the to screw relations beteween chinese and other countries, these low life bastards works like 24/7 and have nothing to do else than personnal attack and threats on anyone talking against China, you guys sure are not talking about those losers.

    I even have their name, I always see them on the web:
    HanChineze, Goldenkey007, DonkeyTibet, openIc555, Zhangyileo, Jadeee121, Chineseheart (this is the worse), Poidsfi, Anoneagle, etc… You know what’s more funny, is these assholes are not even in China anymore!!!!!

    Look they like this propaganda video:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9QNKB34cJo&feature=PlayList&p=4143CC27D800F4A7&playnext=1&index=2

    They are ALWAYS there to insult others and defend CCP at all cost!!!

  168. admin Says:

    @Allen,
    This is not your fault and I am perfectly fine with anti-CCP opinions. :)

    @Jiang Hua
    I want to reiterate that genuine comments are welcome, spams are not. If you want to provide information from the Wikipedia, please just leave a link.

  169. Jiang Hua Says:

    Ok here is a link:
    http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%BD%91%E7%BB%9C%E8%AF%84%E8%AE%BA%E5%91%98
    (it’s probably blocked for people in China so use the software to counter the Great Firewall of China if you want to look at it)

  170. Jiang Hua Says:

    I love chinese but I do not accept those Wu Mao calling my country KKK supporter on Youtube!

  171. S.K. Cheung Says:

    To Jiang Hua #135:
    “the world will let CCP become a superpower” – to be fair, i don’t think China would need anyone’s permission. I simply hope that, when she is good and ready to become one, she will behave accordingly. And I’m sure there’ll be much disagreement about what constitutes “accordingly”.

    Again, I think we should go easy with the Nazi references. Cheap use thereof cheapens the term, and the user.

    To Miaka #166:
    “And I am saying that if CCP allows opinions flow, take criticisms and give their stands on the situation then that would be a side of CCP that I would like to see and that I believe they are capable of.” – agreed. It would certainly be good to see. As to whether this is something she is capable of, we’ve yet to see much proof, IMO.

  172. Jiang Hua Says:

    It’s because some of those Wu Mao often say:

    we are going to be a superpower and we will eradicate the t-begs and the hamburger eather people, so is the mentallity of the CCP too, since they work for them?

  173. Jiang Hua Says:

    You know like this ************ there:

    HanChineze (il y a 10 heures) Afficher Masquer
    0
    Marqué comme spam
    Répondre | Non-spam
    China primary goal should be a focus on cleaning up all the separatists – terrorists mo ther fvckers. China should never emulate the West, otherwise there will be tens of millions of hardcore prisoners in China.

    We Chinese are more pure, China should not intertwine with the low class **** eating rap cultures.

    Sorry but did Hitler tried to do the pure race too?

  174. Jiang Hua Says:

    This guy work for the chinese government, wow, you see CCP can go very low! Do you allow someone who thinks like that in your country?

    If no, then DO SOMETHING before we all get into WW3!

  175. Jiang Hua Says:

    I tell you, stop dreaming, China doesn’t stand a single chance vs USA and probably more countries coallition!

  176. Jiang Hua Says:

    http://www.youtube.com/user/hanchineze

    There that’s his Youtube account! If people like that were living in Canada, he would be spending a couple year in jail!

  177. S.K. Cheung Says:

    To Jiang Hua #172-173:
    many around here have expressed their disgust with eugenics. So hopefully characters like the ones you’ve quoted are appropriately rebutted wherever they go. Having said that, folks like these do not appear worthy of engaging in conversation. I hope that their dim view doesn’t represent the norm, or even within 3 standard deviations thereof. But sometimes, I do wonder…

  178. Jiang Hua Says:

    These kind of person are insulting people everyday on Youtube

  179. Steve Says:

    @ Jiang Hua: I’m getting a little tired of editing your profanity. If you want to say something, say it without the four letter words.

    I’m not sure what kind of blogs you’re used to but this is one where we try to disagree without being disagreeable, don’t send a series of one sentence posts and in general, use proper internet etiquette. We’re all pretty easygoing here (at least most of the time) but if you want people to respect you and respect your opinions, then you need to respect theirs.

    I don’t particularly care what people say on youtube since this isn’t youtube. I don’t care what people write on other blogs since I only care what people write on this one. Please address your comments to what is written here and try to compress your comments into one longer post. Our commentators and readers use the “Recent Comments” column to track what they’ve missed and when someone spams the comments section, the ability for them to easily do so disappears. Thanks…

  180. ShoeProtestor Says:

    Here is an extract of a letter I sent to a fellow Chinese who is undecided about the true face of China:

    China did want Hong Kong back. But the Chinese leaders saw the UK’s offer to return its colony back to China as an opportunity to gain something more, make a bigger proffit on the deal if you like.
    One copy of the transcript of the negotiations is hanging in an office in Gloucester Road, Wan Chai, Hong Kong. another copy is kept by the Governor General of Overseas Affairs at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London. The third and only other copy was given to the Chinese leadership in Nanking but its existance has always been denied by China ever since.
    I have seen both the remaining copies actually and no one can deny their existance.

    Of course there was harm done to China in the past, not only by the west, Japan isnt the west is it? neither is Russia. Genghis Khan wasnt from the west was he?

    It is important to set asside your feelings of dislike for the west when you qeastion what they did or didn’t do. Be inpartial at all times and your thaught prosesses will not be tainted by rumour and tales of wo that have abounded in our culture.

    Who do you think was the first country to offer assistance during Mao’s disastrous fammine? Do you think it was Japan, Malaysia or Burmah? No! In fact it was the Europeans and Canada. Who was the first to offer assistance to China following the big earthquake in Sichwan? That was Great Britain and America.
    Do these offers of assistance indicate the wests hatred of China?

    But to balance things out a little, during the period 1216 to 1869 a number of western countries were colonising parts of the world quite distant from their own shores. But dont forget the same was going on in and arount our motherland. every Chinese dynasty had expansionist ambitions. And remember the west dont think we are intending to breake up their countries because of what happened over the Khwarezmid Empire which was far more destructive than anything the west ever did, not forgetting the Japanese Empire (NOT westerners remember).
    We in China are all the victims of brainwashing of some sort, even my 7 year old nephew is fed false information in his school.

    So to the presant; I have attended a number of NATO and UN conferences and have even been allowed to observe British Foreign Affairs Committee meetings. And as a Chinese (eastern) observer I came away with the wests intentions are:
    #1. To protect their own borders.
    #2. To enhance their political influance for the improvement of foreign trade.
    #3. To secure a good negotiating relationship with foreign political institutions.
    #4. To harmonise humanitarian laws on a worldwide basis.

    Thats it!

    I saw no hidden agenda at all. I have even met with British and American polaticians whom all tell me the same thing; we will be happy with China when the ordinary Chinese citizen is also happy with China!!!
    Human rights are paramount they say.

    Now on the Chinese side:
    China is the only country in the world who have over the past 25 years supplied arms to despot regimes such as North Korea, Zimbabwe, Iran, Somalia and even today as we talk on the subject, Hui Liangyu is negotiating a deal to sell Cyclosarin (a nerve gas) to Nicaragua!!! These countries are not at war with anyone. No they are countries that are involved in genocide or mass murder of their own people… But of course not everyone may see these regimes as being involved in anything like that so maybe I should just quote the quantity of arms that China shipped to Pol Pot $200,000,000US. A free gift to a true friend of China our premier told us. Ha!

  181. Oli Says:

    Igat, Christ on a stick! Its the invasion of the bunged-up trolls.

    What has this thread degenerated into? So many escapees from the loony bin asylum of circular reasoning.

  182. Jiang Hua Says:

    Steve, I think someone doesn’t understand what I am trying ot say. I want to say that I am fed up of those Wu Mao living in our countries and saying profanities throughout the web, you should care because I will come back here to talk about it until someone takes care of this problem! We take these people seriously you know, we are very tired of them. Some of them even come here, I’m pretty sure so what are we going to do?

    Are we gonna let them break the relation between chinese and foreigners and violence will start in our country, or we say stop to this nonsense and we say screw you to CCP henchmen!

  183. Jiang Hua Says:

    The world is very concerned about the Human Rights abuses in China and Tibet, China is our first economical partner. We do not like to make trades with a country who kills their own citizens and send them to re-education through labor camps.

  184. vmoore55 Says:

    Ah so, somebody don’t like the Chinese to have real Free Speech in China.

    Does Wu Mao sound too much like Radio free Tibet, maybe.

    Don’t like it when it comes back to you, hey?

    Well, too bad. HaHaHaHaHaHaHa

  185. Jiang Hua Says:

    Vmoore55 there is a limit at everything, even Freedom of speech::

    HanChineze (il y a 10 heures) Afficher Masquer
    0
    Marqué comme spam
    Répondre | Non-spam
    China primary goal should be a focus on cleaning up all the separatists – terrorists mo ther fvckers. China should never emulate the West, otherwise there will be tens of millions of hardcore prisoners in China.

    We Chinese are more pure, China should not intertwine with the low class **** eating rap cultures.

    Saying these kind of comments REPEATEDLY on the internet is largely crossing the limit of Freedom of Speech, it’s called hatred speech and it’s a crime,

  186. Jiang Hua Says:

    Freedom of speech doesn’t mean you are allowed to say everything, it means that you can have your opinion, China does restrict people to have a different opinion than the one of CCP. In western countries people can have a different opinion than the one of the government, but hatred speech is not permitted in a democratic conversation.

  187. Oli Says:

    I’m very sorry, so, so very sorry everybody. I read the bio-hazard sign about not feeding the trolls. In particular those of the genus bungedus-upus due to their tendency to undergo spontaneous, combustible single-cell mitosis. I understand that it leads to a severe individually lowering of their already meagre “pseudo-sentience” (“intelligence” is just scientifically inapplicable to trolls), therby encouraging their spill-over from some nether itchy crotch area of their own bunged-up psyche onto the internet.

    However, I wonder if anybody remember those dolls that are so ugly that people find them cute? I for one simply cannot resist a troll who admits to being a troll, even if it was only obliquely. I find them just so darn huggable and chuckable in those bloody ugly cabbage dolls or fuzzy-haired troll dolls sort of way.

    Whenever I come across a troll I just want to dunk them in a bath of industrial bleach and scrub them with wire brushes, then wrap them up tight in flower diapers and a little pink bow for their hair like they deserve and then just pinch their cheeks and watch them squeal like a little ferkel. They never cease to remind me of those little kids who throw apopoletic tantrums in the supermarket aisles because their mummys are ignoring them. They are seriously either not getting enough of you know what or just simply waaaaaaaay too much mummy love, in a Hitchcock Psycho kinda way, if people know what I mean. ;)

    But either way we should take pity on the lower life forms. It’s not their fault. It’s just the way they are raised. So we should do like the good Christians do and everybody ought to give Jiang Hua a hug.

    So dear Jiang Hua, I HUG you (accompanied by suitably corny hand gestures).

  188. TonyP4 Says:

    Hi Jiang Hua,

    Everything has a price including freedom, doesn’t it?

    There are two kinds of folks in most forums I usually visit: extremists and folks like to discuss and find the truth. Extremists are either Chinese bashers or Chinese apostles (could by a new term). They use foul language often, never accept other opinions, and keep on for ever. This forum is obvious for the later.

    I know you have great ideas, but if you want others to accept them, you need to read the book “How to make friends and influence people”. Sorry sounds like an extremist for the day but I’m telling the truth. :)

    However, I would not go too far to blame our parents for all our ills.

  189. Jiang Hua Says:

    (deleted for repetition)

  190. Wahaha Says:

    Shoeprotestor,

    Do you know how France and German helped Saddam Hussein tyrannical regime ?

    You dont see their agenda, that is your opinion, we see their agenda everywhere, otherwise why even Wikipedia distorted fact about Tibet, why BBC misled their people; why CNN still lied about what happened in 3-14 riot.

    They care about democracy and human right ? give me a break, read this :
    ____________________________________________

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran

    In 1951 Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh was elected prime minister. As prime minister, Mossadegh became enormously popular in Iran after he nationalized Iran’s oil reserves. In response, Britain embargoed Iranian oil and, amidst Cold War fears, invited the United States to join in a plot to depose Mossadegh, and in 1953 President Dwight D. Eisenhower authorized Operation Ajax. The operation was successful, and Mossadegh was arrested on 19 August 1953.
    _______________________________________________

    Why didnt they mind Soharto ruled Indonesia ? Why didnt they do anything to South Korea government after The Kwangju Massacre ? Chun Doo-hwan even visited US the next year.

    I used to give the door man of my building $30 every Christmas, you tell me how much I care about him.

    the agenda is ” love to help you as long as you are submissive and subordinate.” Didnt you see how they treated Chinese in China 20 years ago ? You dont know ? ever heard of a movie “Death on the Nile” ? have a good look of that and see how those British treated Eygptian servants.

    So give us a break, please.

  191. Wahaha Says:

    What you said was a standard CCP propaganda line. In reality it goes much further than that. The censors block lots of things that wouldn’t cause unrest for the mere reason that it challenges the CCP too much. This extends to the history of the CCP, even back to the 1950s. Are those the actions of a party concerned about social order or concerned about maintaining its image? It’s the latter.

    Raj,

    We know that.

    Do you know we know that ?

    Dont you feel tired after having repeating that millions of times ?

    Stop being carried away by your hatred, that is not good for your health.

    NOW, I like to know how your media portrayed what Britsh did to Iran people in 1950s. More like about maintaining its image, didnt it ?

    Wipe your own @$$ clear before complaining about smell, OK ?

  192. Jiang Hua Says:

    (deleted for spamming)

  193. Wahaha Says:

    “And as a growing society everyone needs to learn how to exercise their rights with responsibility ..”

    Miaka,

    You know 84% of cities in USA are in money trouble, right ?

    http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/04/news/economy/city_troubles/index.htm?postversion=2009020412

    What caused that ? the union, the “people” you talk about, where has been their sense of responsibility , EVEN NOW ? Dont they know they had asked too much and ruined thousands of cities in US ?

    I am not questioning if your idea is right or wrong, I merely ask you “does it work ?”

    Like the traditional communist economic system, the assumption sounds great that under that system people will take only what they need, and they will contribute to society as much as they can.

    So the question is “DOES IT WORK ?”

    The answer is it doesnt.

  194. Jiang Hua Says:

    (deleted for spamming)

  195. Wahaha Says:

    (deleted for profanity)

  196. Wahaha Says:

    (deleted for spamming)

    any trouble with that ?

  197. Wahaha Says:

    (deleted for spamming)

  198. Wahaha Says:

    (deleted for spamming)

  199. Jiang Hua Says:

    Yep because the people are more important than the government, so I agree with it!

    BTW if you want to have anal fun with those Wu Mao fuckers, go to:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9QNKB34cJo&feature=PlayList&p=4143CC27D800F4A7&playnext=1&index=2

  200. Wahaha Says:

    Huh ?

    You dont have a point, do you ?

    Who cares Wu Mao Dang ? Are you living on the money provided by anti-china organization ?

    you are a Falun follower, arent you ?

    Answer the qusetion : Are you a Falun follower ?

  201. Wahaha Says:

    (deleted for spamming)

  202. Wahaha Says:

    (deleted for spamming)

  203. flags of the republic Says:

    @Everybody

    Jiang Hua is a Goner. Just ignore him.

    @Admin

    I know it is a core policy of FM not to ban anybody from posting. Maybe it is time to reconsider that position. Since people have to login to vote, why not extend that to posting comments.

    You know, even when Jiang Hua comments gets deleted, he nonetheless successes in driving away meaningful exchange. That in itself is a win in a Goner’s book.

  204. S.K. Cheung Says:

    To Flags,
    agreed. Even when stuff is deleted, it’s still annoying to have to scroll through pages of nothingness.

    And perhaps Mr. W from NYC should be reminded to rein in the classy lingo as well.

  205. Wukailong Says:

    @SKC: I agree with your last line, though I have to say that the variations of the spellings of the word “ass”, as well as the seemingly constant rage of said person, cracks me up without end.

  206. Steve Says:

    @ All: He’s been banned from the site, though he didn’t go away easily. You have no idea how much you DIDN’T see!

  207. rory.luolei Says:

    @ Wahaha and anyone else who doesn’t believe that “Western” journalists (and their readers) criticise their own countries just as harshly as their supposed “enemies”:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/02/charlie-brooker-politicians?showallcomments=true

    Yes, Brooker is technically a humourist, his arguments are exaggerated to the extreme at points, and he’s probably not actually trying to incite a summer of violent protest. But there’s genuine anger behind this piece. It’s also one of the most popular articles on the Guardian website right now.

    To return to the actual topic of discussion here, I agree that Shiho Fukada’s photos could just as easily be used to illustrate a story describing typical new year celebrations. But that doesn’t mean that what Edward Yang says in his story isn’t true. In fact, his points are backed up with direct quotes from monks and ordinary Tibetans. Unless you’re suggesting that he just made these quotes up, then I’m not really sure what you’re disputing here Allen.

  208. rory.luolei Says:

    @ EvilWang123:
    Umm… if it’s me you’re talking to, it’s not actually my website, it’s the Guardian Newspaper. Here’s a link to the article without the comment section, it should be easier to load:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/02/charlie-brooker-politicians

  209. Wahaha Says:

    rory,

    I have long claimed that under west democracy, politicians are puppets of riches, they dont control countries, riches control the country. Read the following before we continue :

    http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/national.html

    Please pay attention to the following :
    ___________________________________________________________________________________
    ….There are three primary indicators of power, which can be summarized as (1) who benefits? (2) who governs? and (3) who wins?….
    __________________________________________________________________________________

    Your right of voting and bashing politicians doesnt in any way prove you have power over those who really have power, it doesnt in any way prove that the elected government is people’s government, except that you have the right of fighting for what is left by riches.

    then read this :

    http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

  210. Wahaha Says:

    I don’t know how much real or fake political influence our aboriginal peoples have in Canada. But I do know each one of them has the same vote I have, to use of their own free will. That would appear to be about 1.000 votes more than what your average Tibetan, or PRC Chinese citizen,

    SKC,

    By the rule of democracy, majority rule. so their voices are ignored.

    Thx for clarification.

    and read this :

    http://www.psac.com/what/humanrights/june21factsheet1-e.shtml

  211. rory.luolei Says:

    @ Wahaha:

    Thanks for the lesson in basic politics, but believe it or not the idea that the rich have more power in US politics is hardly revolutionary. I read through the articles that you posted, and I think there is probably a lot of truth in what professor Domhoff says; however, it is only relevant to the US political system, NOT to western democracy as a whole. If the title of this series of articles (“Who Rules America”) isn’t clue enough, the second paragraph of the first article makes it clear.

    In any case, I wasn’t commenting on your views about democracy. I was responding to your specific claim (in post 36) that the western media only care about human rights in China, not in their own countries. I don’t really see what your response has to do with my comment at all.

  212. Wahaha Says:

    rory,

    Please read the link I provide in 210, Canada is one of those countries that should look at mirror first, THEN HAVE A LOOK OF THEIR REPORTS ABOUT CHINA.

    I never see any US media reports any dissatifaction from the native in Canada.

  213. Steve Says:

    @ Wahaha #210: I have to disagree with your evaluation of democracy. Democracy is a system to elect government officials. It is not majority rule. Constitutional republics usually have checks and balances built in to protect minorities. The fact that the USA has two legislative bodies is testament to the fact that smaller states did not want to be outvoted in a Congress determined by population, so voting was equalized in the Senate regardless of population. There are numerous rules built into Senate deliberations that give the minority power beyond their numbers, the filibuster being one example. Right now Congress is trying to pass legislation that gives the District of Columbia a vote in the House. This will be challenged in the court system and I’m sure be declared unconstitutional, since a Constitutional amendment should be the basis for this change. Again, the “majority” will be stopped by a “check” on their power from the Supreme Court.

    The professor you linked to has an opinion as to how power is derived in the United States, but I personally I didn’t think much of his reasoning. I also doubt many Americans share his opinion, but he’s certainly entitled to it and if you agree with him, more power to you. I thought his analysis was pretty selective in terms of his examples but that’s MY opinion and worth no more and no less than everyone else’s. :)

    Thanks for the Aboriginal information. I learned a lot from the article since I wasn’t very informed on their plight, though I have seen TV programs about life up there. I wonder if it’s really possible for such isolated communities to support such large population growth since corresponding job growth is all but impossible. Is it best to encourage the youth to migrate to the population centers of Canada so they more easily find work? I’d think the key would be to improve education there so they are able to qualify for jobs in other areas. Well, it has nothing to do with Tibet so I’ll stop here.

  214. Steve Says:

    @ Wahaha #212: I agree with you in that I rarely see newspaper reports about the aboriginal situation in Canada, but I have seen quite a few TV documentaries about it. American newspapers don’t spend much time on foreign news in general, so TV is what most turn to if they want to be informed.

    On the last show I saw, the Inuit had shot a seal and used every part of it with absolutely no waste. It was really a bloody mess, but they’re used to it and it’s a part of their culture.

  215. Wahaha Says:

    Steve,

    I dont have time now, I will reply later,

    Just give you a link to prove that your media is controled.

    http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/01/10/Sharon3.html

  216. Steve Says:

    Wahaha, an Ariel Sharon quote isn’t proof. BTW, thanks for linking to a Jewish hate website. Most media organizations are conglomerates. Because Americans in general are strong supporters of Israel doesn’t mean Israel controls the US.

    A friend of mine from Israel was actually one of the key figures responsible for ousting Sharon the first time he was Prime Minister. It was during the war in Lebanon many years ago and my friend, who was a Colonel, put an ad in major Israeli newspapers along with two other officers and something like 300 soldiers saying that Sharon’s version of what was happening in Lebanon was a bunch of BS. He thought at the time he’d end up in jail, but as it turned out public opinion turned against Sharon and forced his ouster. He along with most liberals in Israel think Sharon is a fool.

    Politics is never simple; it is always complex and nuanced. Any time you read, see or hear someone trying to paint something black/white, take it with a huge grain of salt. Isn’t the purpose of this website to show nuance in China’s government and culture? Isn’t the major complaint (and one that you’ve expressed) that China is being protrayed in a black/white manner? Aren’t we doing exactly the same thing by painting America’s (in this case) media as controlled? Let’s not, as Shakespeare once said, “be hoist by one’s own petard”.

  217. Wahaha Says:

    Steve,

    My apology, I had no idea the website was a Jewish hate site, my bad,

    Please google “who control America” and “Corporate media.” You will know that I didnt create those thought by myself, I am not capable of doing that.

    BTW, I dont think Chinese people are more sensitive of being offended than any other people in the world. Think of that, we had kept silent all the time till March last year, which, in my opinion showed that we understood the problems in China. But what West media had done before Olympic had cast serious doubt about the integrity of media and WHAT WEST REALY WANT FROM CHINA.

  218. Allen Says:

    @rory.luolei #207,

    You asked what I am disputing.

    Well – technically I was focusing on the captions of the photo slides … and technically I don’t think there was any reference to any source – just made up airy opinions.

    But yes, I think we can expand my point a bit.

    If you do go to Ed’s article – there are indeed several quotes from monks from monasteries that the article itself identified as “locus of resistance” last year.

    Note: I am not disputing (nor agreeing with) the authenticity of the source. But if you want to go to “locus of resistance” and interview monks who are sympathetic to the DL and use what they say as the basis of pronouncing that Tibet is undergoing a Day of Mourning… well, I guess that is another “locus” of my contention.

  219. Steve Says:

    @ Wahaha #217: Hey, no problem. I’ve accidentally quoted from a couple of dubious websites in the past, usually when I’m as rushed as you were. :P

    If you type “who controls america” into Google you’re guaranteed to come up with a host of “conspiracy” websites, definitely of dubious viability so the search would yield the result. Now I’m not disagreeing with you about what drives corporate media, which is a quest for profit more than a quest for truth. When I was younger, CBS had a reputation for seeking out the truth, started in the old Murrow days and continuing through the Cronkite era. But with the change to Dan Rather and the rise of cable news stations, American news is more entertainment than hard news. The lines have been blurred in the quest for ratings.

    That’s why when Michael Steele called Rush Limbaugh an “entertainer” and “incendiary”, Limbaugh went nuts because he IS an entertainer who poses as a political expert (which I’m sure he believes) and both simplifies and trivializes political issues to appeal to his audience. It’s the same for Olbermann, Hannity, Franken, O’Reilly, Maddow, etc; liberal and conservative media are just two sides of the same coin, making everything a “we’re right, you’re wrong and if you disagree with us then you’re an idiot” mentality. That criticism is definitely justified. but I can also use the same criticism on 99% of websites and blogs that do exactly the same thing, take complex, nuanced issues and paint them black and white.

    So where exactly is the real story? Usually in quality magazines like the Atlantic and books by authors who know their field. But very few people take the time to seek these out. So though nothing is censored, the sources that appeal to the masses and need high ratings are not the best places to go searching for the truth. Most of the issues you cite for lack of coverage are actually covered if you know where to look. Just because something isn’t censored doesn’t mean it’s going to be on the front page or nightly newscast.

    The “west” doesn’t want anything from China, because there is no such thing as the “west”. That’s a catch phrase that gets bandied about when someone wants to “prove a point” but doesn’t want to get too specific. We might as well say “the planet”. Do you like it when China is lumped in with Japan, Korea, Vietnam and the Philippines as one entity, the “far east”? Are you saying all those countries are pretty much the same culture? The whole “west vs. east” thing seems like a pretty cheap and intellectual lazy argument to me. And I’d disagree that China’s been silent until March of last year. China has never been one to be silent.

    I actually think Chinese are more sensitive to criticism but I find it understandable that they are. For 30 years, it’s like China was in a cocoon they themselves had spun and when they emerged, it was as an infant on the world stage. As China becomes more and more a part of the world, the society is maturing as a world player. I see HUGE progress today from even ten years ago. I expect China to continue to mature as a world power and while doing so, be able to give and receive criticism without getting all worked up over it.

    For a different viewpoint from what you normally hear, this video with George Friedman gives a good explanation of geopolitics and mentions China several times. There is no praise or condemnation, just a straight appraisal of a certain world viewpoint.

  220. S.K. Cheung Says:

    To Wahaha #210:
    “By the rule of democracy, majority rule. so their voices are ignored.”

    Your assumptions, as are often the case, are wrong on several levels:
    1. you assume that natives have one perspective, and non-natives have another, regardless of the issue at hand.
    2. I would submit that there would be many issues where a “typical native” opinion might in fact be part of the majority
    3. having a voice in the matter at hand, but ultimately not having the decision go in your favour, is NOT the same as having your voice ignored…at least in a democracy, your familiarity with which I question more and more with each passing day.

    And even if one stipulates that not having your voice rule the day is the same as having your voice ignored (which I don’t, BTW), it’s still better to have a voice to begin than to not have one at all, a la your typical Tibetan, or PRC citizen for that matter.

    Hope that clears things up for you.

  221. HongKonger Says:

    # 219

    Steve, Now that is a very good comment!

  222. S.K. Cheung Says:

    To Allen #218:
    Edward Wong’s article was an opinion piece; maybe not an op-ed, but certainly not meant to be taken as an “Edward Wong reporting live from Tibet” segment of the 6PM news. I think most people reading it would take it as one (ie. Mr. WOng’s) point of view.

    Similarly, your People’s Daily link presents an alternate point of view. I can read both and decide for myself where I think the “reality” lies (any guesses?).

    But if you want to take issue with one report, the credible thing would be to take issue with both, since they are birds of a feather that just happen to espouse different points of view.

    And since we’re on the topic of credibility, let’s look further. The NYT article is attributable to Mr. Wong. It’s not from the US State Department. The People’s Daily link is sourced from Xinhua. So if one party is trying to feign an “air of legitimacy” (to use your phrase from another thread), which one do you think is more guilty of such?

  223. rory.luolei Says:

    @ Allen:

    OK, fair point – Wong’s article only looks at one side of the story, and he chose to report from areas where negative opinions were more likely. However, the article itself does not claim that all of Tibet was in mourning, it merely says that many Tibetans were boycotting Losar. This is probably true. As for the slideshow, the captions either paraphrase or quote directly from the article (and slide 9 does include a quote from a monk.) The two are clearly related.

    Moreover, as S.K. points out, the People’s Daily page you linked to tells a story that is no less one-sided than Wong’s; this is hardly surprising on a mini-site that was established solely to promote the CCP view on Tibet-related issues. As for the Xinhua slideshow you posted, it doesn’t have any photos from Tibet at all.

    So, can the NYT be criticised for not balancing this article by reporting on celebrations in Lhasa, and celebrations by ethnic Tibetans in other provinces? I suppose so. But which story is more important? That some Tibetans in central provinces and more integrated (and closely-controlled) areas in Tibet like Lhasa celebrated Losar as usual, or that some Tibetans resent the persecution they have faced at the hands of the government and have boycotted the celebration in protest? If you’re interested in the future safety and security of the region, then the latter story seems far more relevant to me.

  224. Allen Says:

    @rory.luolei #223,

    Hmm … I guess for some, quotes from a few monks can become good proxy for relating to the future safety and security of the region…

    And biased stories – presented to a foreign audience – can help in ensuring the future safety and security of the region….

    Stories like this actually make an opposite impression on me – it is propagandist to the extent of endangering future safety and destabilizing future security of the region.

    If you want to find stories that are relevant to peace and security, I advise trying to understand the issues using a balanced perspective, and seeing the future with an eye on practical realities…

  225. Allen Says:

    @SKC #222,

    I agree (YES I AGREE) with you on at least two points.

    1. Ed Wong’s piece is a merely opinion piece.

    2. Xinhua and the People’s Daily should be given an air of legitimacy that is much more than those of short-sighted, profit-motivated institutions like the NY times (at least their gossip columns, which seem to be everywhere these days…).

  226. William Huang Says:

    @ S.K. Cheung #222

    “And since we’re on the topic of credibility, let’s look further. The NYT article is attributable to Mr. Wong. It’s not from the US State Department. The People’s Daily link is sourced from Xinhua. So if one party is trying to feign an “air of legitimacy” (to use your phrase from another thread), which one do you think is more guilty of such?”

    Your example is true for US but not necessary true for Britain, Japan and Canada. As an example, BBC, NHK and CBC are all owned by their respective governments. So there are plenty of “government’s mouth-pieces” going around in democratic countries. The question is; if Chinese CCTV should turn private to gain its credibility among its citizens, should not Britain, Japan and Canada be considering privatization of the national broadcasting? If the answer is yes, why not now?

  227. HongKonger Says:

    ” short-sighted, profit-motivated institutions like the NY times ”

    Credibility?

    It’s all diversionary entertainment to me…..

    If you know Cantonese (Tony, SK Cheung etc) … or can read Chinese (Subtitles)

    http://www.tudou.com/playlist/playindex.do?lid=3981942&iid=19046415

  228. rory.luolei Says:

    @ Wahaha:

    I am aware of the plight of the First Nation peoples in Canada; I’ve actually visited a reserve in Northern Ontario. However, I don’t live in Canada, and I don’t have enough exposure to Canadian news sources to comment on whether they give this problem sufficient coverage or not. Also, I don’t really see why the US media has any specific duty to cover this, unless a topical issue comes up. Finally, please note that the US is not representative of “the west”; as Steve rightly points out, “the west” does not exist at all, except perhaps as a straw man for people to attack.

  229. rory.luolei Says:

    @ Allen:

    Political problems that arise through ethnic or religious persecution do not just disappear if you pretend that they don’t exist. It is the duty of a responsible media to report on such sentiments; it is the duty of a responsible government to take appropriate measures to deal with them. Do you genuinely believe that it is reports in the NYT which lead to violent uprisings such as the one seen in Tibet last March, rather than the reverse? How many of the Tibetans involved in the riots last year do you think have read the NYT, or even heard of it?

    I do make a concerted effort to look at this issue with a balanced perspective, as I do with any issue related to China. Believe it or not, I don’t actually support Tibetan independence. But neither do I think that ignoring problems and hoping that they go away is a viable solution.

  230. Allen Says:

    @rory.luolei #229,

    You are right: I don’t think NYT articles will directly incite too many Tibetans to rise up against the gov’t, but it just may indirectly.

    Let me explain.

    While NYT cannot incite Tibetans to cause trouble, a few DL loyalists can cause trouble.

    I don’t need to dig into history about CIA and DL – but the fact is that because of history and geopolitical maneuvering, the CCP rightly sees DL as a separatist movement closely associated with Western gov’ts.

    Stories like the NYT articles do not incite Tibetan violence, but they do inflame Western public sympathy for the DL, which emboldens the DL and exiles to continue to carry on separatist activities outside and inside of Tibet.

    Oh … by the way, while I don’t advocate inflaming ethnic tensions, I also don’t advocate becoming blind to ethnic tensions.

    I just don’t think the NY Times article – in its zeal to focus on a disgruntled monks – provide real insight to issues concerning real Tibetans – i.e. the real issues in Tibet.

  231. rory.luolei Says:

    @ Allen:

    Fair enough. But you are assuming that you personally know what the real issues in Tibet are, while the NYT does not. No offense, but unless you are an ethnic Tibetan living in Tibet, then I doubt that this is the case.

    I am not suggesting that anyone who wants to get a balanced view on Tibet-related issues should rely on the NYT alone – I certainly don’t, and I don’t think anyone actually in a position to influence events in Tibet does either. But I do think that reports like these serve an essential function that the Chinese media do not, and indeed cannot, fulfill at present.

  232. Shane9219 Says:

    #228

    The concept of West exists since ancient times. However, its coverage may differ at different times. Modern day West, I think, collectively are those developed countries (except Russsian if they think they belong to that pact).

  233. Allen Says:

    @rory.luolei #231,

    Ok – you’re also being fair enough. I admit I am not an ethnic Tibetan nor am currently living in Tibet – so to the extent that blinds me, I accept the point.

    I will still respectfully disagree that reports like the NYT serve an essential function … except perhaps for paving the way for conversations like the one we are having…

  234. rory.luolei Says:

    @ Shane9219:

    Which developed countries? Never mind the fact that Australia and New Zealand are firmly situated in the Eastern hemisphere, what about Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong – do they count as being part of “the west”? Even if you take “the west” to mean Western Europe and North America, the fact is that the political, legal and media institutions found in these countries differ significantly. Lumping them all together and claiming that they, as a group, have a vendetta against China is just ridiculous. So is considering the United States to be a proxy for this group of countries as a whole.

  235. rory.luolei Says:

    @ Allen:

    I guess we can agree to disagree on the validity of the content in the NYT :)

    But I do agree wholeheartedly with your final point – stimulating debate on major issues is possibly the most important function that the mainstream media serves.

  236. S.K. Cheung Says:

    To Allen #224:
    may I suggest you take the last 3 paragraphs of your post, but replace “foreign” with “domestic Chinese” in paragraph #2, then consider it with the People’s Daily report (rather than the NYT article) in mind. I submit that the result might be enlightening.

    To Allen #225:
    are you seriously suggesting that Xinhua is a legitimate news source, as opposed to merely being a propaganda organ of the state? Wow! Not much of what you say surprises me anymore, but that one still had that effect.

    To William #226:
    I meant to confine my comments only to the article at hand, and didn’t intend to draw parallels with other national broadcasting organizations. I don’t know enough about the British and Japanese equivalents to comment. Certainly, the CBC is heavily subsidized by the Canadian government, although perhaps less so now with the economy and resulting budgetary constraints. I suppose, if one wants to accuse the CBC of being the Canadian government’s mouthpiece on the basis of their financial arrangements, one is certainly free to do so. But I don’t think one would come to that conclusion if one looked at the nature and quality of CBC reporting. Perhaps you would beg to differ. However, I don’t think people’s disdain for Xinhua/CCTV comes from who funds their work, but from the nature and quality of that work. A privately-owned Xinhua/CCTV changes nothing if it remains a propaganda organ.

    But again, in this case, we have one journalist of one newspaper reporting one opinion to the exclusion of others, and people are up in arms. Where’s the indignation about a national news source similarly reporting one opinion to the exclusion of others? Or does the nature of the Xinhua report help to soften the indignation of some folks around here?

    To Rory #231:
    well-said response particularly to the last sentence of Allen #230. I wonder how the People’s Daily article adds to the discovery of real issues in Tibet.

  237. Wukailong Says:

    @rory.luolei: The West is a favorite topic in many discussions, and I agree with some of your points, but I’m not sure it’s entirely right.

    Let’s try to make out an ostensive definition:

    * The West currently consists of the US, Canada, Australia, New Zeeland, Western Europe, Scandinavia and Southern European countries.
    * There are generally two kinds of political systems: the Anglo-American of laissez-faire and low welfare (I know some people will shoot me down for this) and ones with more paternalistic welfare states. A lot of countries come in between, but it’s either capitalism or social democracy that’s in.
    * Colonial history in Western+Southern Europe.
    * A strong belief in liberal democracy and human rights (then again, this is quite recent).
    * A strong “disbelief” in communism (though not necessarily socialism).

    As for views about China, reports tended to be mostly about economic growth and human rights problems when I grew up. This has changed to more in-depth reporting, but it’s still quite flat. Because of the lingering sense of China being “communist”, news reports about China are by definition critical, even more so than the typical reports about local leaders.

    Some Chinese criticism against Western media is correct, I would say, but the belief that the Western world (as described above) is out to make China chaotic is most probably untrue. I believe there is a hope in some circles China could be contained, but the era of colonialism is over – these days the outcome of chaos in China would be economic downturn in the rest of the world.

  238. Allen Says:

    @SKC,

    You wrote:

    are you seriously suggesting that Xinhua is a legitimate news source, as opposed to merely being a propaganda organ of the state? Wow! Not much of what you say surprises me anymore, but that one still had that effect.

    Yes – of course I am saying that Xinhua is a legitimate news source … and I am glad I am still able to surprise and perhaps entertain sometimes… ;-)

  239. Shane9219 Says:

    @rory.luolei #234

    I personally regard modern-day West as those major developed countries. Korea and Japan are certainly not included.

    Scholars may have more clear definition on the term “western world”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_world#Modern_definitions

  240. Steve Says:

    @ Shane: Read the wiki definition of the “west” and it suddenly dawned on me who was causing all the problems….the Bolivians!! :P

  241. Wahaha Says:

    SKC,

    If you had put 95% of weight on the 2nd half of the sentence “so their voices are ignored”, you wouldve know what I meant.

    What is the distance between Canada and Britain ?

    What is the distance between Canada and France ?

    What is the distance between Canada and Germany ?

    annnnnnnnnnnnnd what is the distance between Canada and USA ?

    annnnnnnnnnnnnd what is the distance between Canada and Tibet ?

    There are about 1.2 million native aboriginals in Canada, which is about 3.6% of population of Canada; there are about 5 to 6 million Tibetans in China, which is about 0.5% of the population in China. While any ‘ bad ‘ thing happens on the other side of earth is all over the media in UK , France, Germany and USA, annnnnnnnnnd in Canada, Westerners annnnnnnnnnnnnnd Canadians know little to nothing what have happened to the native in Canada.

    What is even funnier is that Canada politicians dont even know (do they know? )what is going on in their own country, and they enthusiastically (and shamelessly if they know what is going on in their own country) bash China with straight faces. Are you still trying to argue with me that the west media holds their integrity when they talk about Tibet ? are you still trying to argue with me that west politicians and media really care about human rights in China ?

  242. TonyP4 Says:

    @ HKer, #227.

    The video is very funny. James Wong was a legend. His former wife might forgive his leaving her with a baby inside her – most artists are like that. That’s why I am not an artist, haha. The rumor of some later songs were composed by a Canadian no body – how true is that? His songs Chinese Ghost Story, Night Breeze… are quite good.

    I included the link to my blog for March http://tonyp4joke.blogspot.com/2009/03/youtube-for-march.html. It also includes one on Philippine ladies in HK that is quite good too.

  243. huaren Says:

    I had a different comment, but decided to edit.

    lol, I have decided to refrain from attacking the “activist” scums.

  244. neutrino Says:

    I don’t think there is much need to criticize Ed’s op-ed piece being biased, it is so by definition. There is no need, either, for Chinese people to get offended — Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson quote this or that “hurt the feeling Chinese people” way too frequent and it borders comedy.

    I want to make a point that’s probably been made by others before, i.e., the “passionate” reporting on Tibet throughout the mainstream media in US and Europe, created a false hope and impression that the the US and European goverments are doing substantial things to help the tibetans gain independence, which could not be farther from the truth. None of them even ever (Britain being an ambiguous exception til recently) recognized tibet as an independent country, before the communists took over. But if you talk to some tibetan exiles, they should make it sound like that the opposite is true.

    Let’s face it, China is not going to let Tibet to become independent. The fallout (domino effect which could probably lead to civil war and millions of deaths) is far too grave to contemplate. Are tibetans the unfortunate victims of geopolitics? I’d say yes. And they are not alone. Some people rise from tragedy, some people wait for salvation til eternity. Which is better? If I see a dead end in one way, I’d sure turn around.

    Does this one op-ed piece have any real impact either way? I don’t think so. But the continued one-sided reports from mainstream western media, magnified back within the tibetan community — don’t use the censorship argument, if there is one tibetan who reads these reports, soon all tibetans will know nowadays– does create this mirage that one day US/Europe would sacrifice their lives to liberate the tibetans from the tyranny of Han Chinese. Anyone want to bet?

    What did Chinese do when they were conquered by nomads from the north? They sinicized the conquerers. The best way forward is for Tibetans to embrace the opportunities already existent within the Chinese society, while retaining their culture –for which countries like US, Canada, or australia might actually be able to provide real assistance –, instead of dreaming of a revival of the pan-tibet empire. It might not be probable for tibetans to tibetanize the Chinese, but with increased interest in anything tibetan, there sure exist ways for tibetans to gain more appreciation and support from other chinese people.

    Ed certainty believed that he is helping the tibetans by reporting their plight from certain angles, as do most of other reporters (on both sides). The reality of the current geopolitics, and the stage of chinese social/goverment development, is also something you can not evade. Is the Chinese goverment the most enlightened (or even remotely close to it). Not really. But to change that, is certainly not a job that can be done overnight. Instead of complaining, why don’t we all do sth. that will have real, positive effects on the tibetans lives and their cultures, despite the blunders of the chinese policies, instead of bemoaning how awful they are, how sinister the chinese have been?

  245. kui Says:

    To admin

    I have been unable to vote. I forgot my password therefore I could not register. I tried to obtained new password but when I replied to activate my account there was technicall failures. Could you sort this out?

  246. William Huang Says:

    @ S.K. Cheung #236

    I understand your point and I believe that CBC reporting is more open and objective than, say CCTV and Xinhua. But my point is that it’s all relative. Canada, Britain and Japan may look down on China for government controlled media but they need to look up to US for no government control at all. While the rest of the world is impatient with China’s progress, they should have looked at themselves first.

    @ neutrino #244

    You made a lot of good points there and I would like to add few on top of that with respect to Chinese media and how it affects the lives of Chinese people including Tibetan.

    Many people don’t understand is that people in China, we have always known what was reported outside of world. They might not have everything but enough. Even before China opened the door, people still read “Reference News”, a Reader’s Digest alike daily news paper that publishing excerpt of western media publication. It was not sold on the street but issued to party members. Since it’s unclassified, everybody read it you could find out from election results to who wins Oscars each year. 99.99 % of people never expected government news media to tell the whole truth. Therefore, there are other means to find out what happened as though the news paper is just an official party document. So if it’s not on the news paper, it goes from mouth to mouth as Chinese called it “small street news”. Today the news opinions are much open (still needs improvement though) and there is very little control on the news (opinion piece is different).

    What really opened China is not media but ordinary citizens’ contact to the outside world. This changed everything and it is like opening a flood gate with no point of return. Every year, tens of thousand of people go in and out of China coupled with the advent of internet, everything happened outside and inside of China is to be known one way or another. How Xinhua and CCTV can cover anything of hide anything? The leaders in the government are not princess grown up in Forbidden City and they were once ordinary people like the rest of us. They know too well what people know and what they don’t. Maybe outside cannot hear too much from Chinese people but Chinese people (including Tibetans) hear plenty from outside. So it is mistake to think, somehow, once the voice of freedom gets inside of China or Tibet, things can change.

    Even in the west, where all the information is readily available, how many people chose being informed over being entertained? So for a Tibetan in China, if he/she chose to know what outside world is saying, he/she can know more than average person who lives in US or Canada about “passionate reporting” on Tibet. I am sure educated and well informed middle-class Tibetans have already read Edward Wong’s article.

  247. S.K. Cheung Says:

    To Wahaha #241:
    “If you had put 95% of weight on the 2nd half of the sentence” – in the future, if 50% of something you wrote deserves 95% of my attention, and the other 50% deserves only 5, perhaps you can so stipulate in advance so that I may apportion my attention accordingly. That being said, point #3 of my post #220 seems to address your concerns.

    Now, using my new-found ability to read your mind, I am still unable to discern what on earth you are trying to get at with your 5 geography questions. What, may I ask, is the distance between those questions and something remotely approaching relevance? I’d say that would be a substantial distance.

    For a person who lives in NYC and really doesn’t know all that much about Canada, it amuses me that you feel qualified to comment on how much Canadians know about Canadian issues. What’s funnier is that you disparage nameless Canadian politicians about their fund of knowledge, without much conviction about what their fund of knowledge might be (…that Canada politicians dont even know (do they know? )…). So really, is this yet another one of your pathetic attempts to divert attention from the topic of the thread at hand, which is about Tibetans?

    Listen, I’ve said this before, but looks like I’ll need to say it again. Politicians and citizens of any country can choose to acknowledge and address their internal issues, while shining a light on international ones. And they can do so with a straight face, or while wearing the funny glasses with the big nose and bushy mustache. I think it’s high time you stop whining about it…haven’t you whined enough about it yet?

    The “west media” (whatever that is) is doing a fine job of pointing out abuses in Tibet, and have nothing to apologize for. I believe “western politicians” and “western media” care about human rights issues in Tibet to the same extent that “chinese politicians” and “chinese media” don’t. And i’m not arguing with you; I’m telling you.

    Now that we’ve got that diversion straightened out, perhaps you can ponder what I wrote in #131:
    “And while you show a curious, though perhaps convenient, interest in the well-being of aboriginal peoples in Canada, which is in and of itself very worthy, where is your outrage or lamenting of the inability to discover similar “truths” about Tibetans?”

  248. admin Says:

    @kui,

    Sorry about that. It’s all set now. Please email me if you encounter any problems.

    We were under a heavy attack 2 days ago by an angry troll who posted nearly 200 spam comments using various handles and IP addresses. In addition, he registered multiple accounts to vote down comments. It took a lot of time for our editors (big thanks to Steve! ) and me to block and delete his junk.

    In light of this, I decided to manually verify all new accounts for now. I am also going to discuss with our team on how to implement a long term solution.

  249. S.K. Cheung Says:

    To William #246:
    I wouldn’t say the US has no government control of media. In Canada, we have the CRTC that regulates all media. I believe the US has a comparable body but the name escapes me right this second. So media content is regulated, but not expressly generated for the benefit of the government. I think that’s what distinguishes us from China in this regard.

    In addition, there are many other TV networks, not to mention radio stations and print media, that are financially independent from government. They are governed by the same rules as the CBC. I have no problem with some regulation of media; and I think Chinese media would need some regulation as well; but the current status of Xinhua goes WAY beyond regulation, at least in the sense with which I’m familiar and find acceptable.

    And I must say that I’m seldomly envious of US media, with the exception of Super Bowl commercials, and the Daily Show and Colbert. Having said that, the CBC has the Mercer Report, which is also very good.

    To Neutrino #244:
    nice post.

  250. William Huang Says:

    @ S. K. Cheung #247

    The “west media” (whatever that is) is doing a fine job of pointing out abuses in Tibet, and have nothing to apologize for. I believe “western politicians” and “western media” care about human rights issues in Tibet to the same extent that “chinese politicians” and “chinese media” don’t. And i’m not arguing with you; I’m telling you.”

    I am not sure “west media” has done a fine job on Tibet. This is a very subjective view that some people feel strongly in the west, but certainly not Chinese people. Yes, “western politicians” and “western media” care about human rights issues in Tibet but do they care about the human right in Iraq or sometimes even their own countries? If they do, why all the killings and miseries are still out there considering their government works for them?

    If being a Canadian by definition knows more about Canada than others as a general rule, would a Chinese, by definition know more about China which includes Tibet than say, “west government” and “west media”?

  251. Steve Says:

    @ William Huang #250:

    I agree with you, I don’t think non-Chinese media has done a very good job reporting on Tibet. But do you think Chinese media has done a good job reporting on Tibet? Since you’ve labeled it as “west media”, are you saying that you think media from India has done a good job reporting on Tibet, since they are not “west media”? That’s why I used the term “non-Chinese media”, since I haven’t been able to find accurate stories about Tibet from any country’s media. Non-Chinese countries are not allowed into the areas and Chinese media has to write what the government dictates. For me, neither is trustworthy.

    I think people care about human rights in Iraq and in their own countries. That’s why human rights abuses have been lessened over the years. Iraq is a unique situation because after Saddam was oustered, a civil war ensued which seems to be coming to an end. I just finished a book about Gertrude Bell that taught me a lot about Iraq’s historical situation, since Bell practically created the country from a series of tribes living there after the English had thrown out the Ottomans. It’s amazing how little has changed over the past 90 years. The problems she discussed in the 1920s are exactly the same ones discussed today.

    Why are there killings and misery? Because there are still people and people kill and create misery. Governments are made of people so no government can ever be perfect as no people can ever be perfect. Just think back to when you were in high school; just about every deviation known to man was probably represented in the student body. :P

    “If being a Canadian by definition knows more about Canada than others as a general rule, would a Chinese, by definition know more about China which includes Tibet than say, “west government” and “west media”?”

    In general, I’d agree with your statement except that there are Canadians who know very little about the conditions of the Inuit because they live far away, they have no interest, and they’ve never been there. I can guarantee you from personal experience that most Americans living in the eastern US have no earthly idea about Indian tribes in the west. Anyone who lived in another country but had an interest in those tribes and maybe had visited the reservations on holiday would know much more.

    Also, just because someone is of Chinese ancestry doesn’t mean they know more about China than anyone else. Many times they know less because they carry around historical ideas that don’t exist among the Chinese themselves. I’ll give you an example. After I came back from Taiwan, I was at a wedding reception in San Diego with 150 people of which 2 weren’t Chinese and after the reception, a few of us were talking. One of the guys is a professor at a university here and originally from Taiwan. He was saying things about Taiwan that were true years ago but weren’t true at all these days. I knew far more than he did about Taiwan because I had just come back from two years of living there! He clung to old ideas where his ancestral experience actually inhibited rather than facilitating his understanding of the present situation.

    That’s why I really enjoyed FM’s translation of Back to Lhasa. The woman who was actually there had a great understanding of the Tibetan people. I felt I learned more about Tibet from those two translations than from any other source or post. She was “in the trenches” rather than arguing out of a history book. So I think that a Chinese who takes the time to learn about Tibet, then travels there to see for him/herself and especially one who lives there, knows more than anyone else.

    In the end, the “west government” and “west media” need to have eyes and ears on the ground to really know about Tibet. Since this is not allowed at this time, can you really blame either one for their lack of knowledge?

  252. neutrino Says:

    I’d like to recommend two books
    1. Tibet, Tibet, by Patrick French, former leader of the Free Tibet Campaign (in UK). I have a proof copy. :)
    2. Virtual Tibet, by Orville Schell. You can get this one for $0.38 on amazon — used copy, of course.

    They are both good reads. YOu don’t have to agree with the authors, but their perspectives are unique and interesting.

    Both also provide their explanations about how the Tibetan exiles became the darling of media in US/Europe, compared with the other oppressed people throughout the world. To those not so fortunate to have a charismatic leader such as the DL, there is no end to the starvation/ruthless_murders/…. Maybe they should find one ASAP that speaks good english, wears saffron (or other colorful) robe and start to hang out with celebrities. (For anyone who might be offended by the preceding sentence, you need to read book 2 “Virtual Tibet” on my recommendation list to get the joke/sarcasm). But again, how could any of those oppressors be more fitting for the role of a villain than a “universally-accepted-as-evil” party in the name of Chinese Communist. If you think about it, it’s really similar to entertainment and movie making in terms of how much attention each oppressed groups receive. Standing up to the Chinese, on the side of the oppressed, provides quite a thrilling and feel-good emotion, doesn’t it?

    I really don’t want to sound too cynical. But my heart aches for the suffering of the most unfortunate. Tibetans, however, do not rank high there. Millions of unwarranted but preventable deaths every year in the African continent VS hundreds or a couple of thousand political prisoners in tibet, within the context of limited resources and very short media/public attention. I’d pick the former at any given time.

    I once met a Tibetan friend/acquaintance who’s traveled around the world and settled in southwest US. He hated the Chinese government because they taxed his family in China in the amount of 200 sheep/yr. Of course, they maintain a 5000 sheep/yak herds, a summer home and a winter home. I suggested, which he agreed, that his parents should sell all of the herd to avoid the tax, and live a very rich settled life … Well, the older generation cannot let go the old way of lives. (So much about the demise of the old way of lives at the hands of the evil communists) — BTW, I dont know about the tax. Is 4% really so high that deserves hatred? Was the tax instituted to discourage nomadic lives? Maybe someone one this board could explain.

    I’d like to know if those tens of millions of starving Africans, a lot of whom can vote, would like to trade with these oppressed but increasingly richer Tibetans, or other Chinese as a whole. Maybe, maybe not. But it should be a good case study.

    @S. K .Cheung

    Tks for you compliment. I’d agree with you to certain extent that some western media and politicians do care about human rights; However, It’s this larger than fair-share of attention, that the tibetans receive, compared with other more unfortunate groups, that oozes perhaps underlying hypocrisy, at least in the eyes of some Chinese people.

  253. colin Says:

    @252 neutrino

    Your post was very informative. And I do agree that the tibetan issue is overdone in the west. 2 million Rwandans were raped and murdered in the nineties, and NOBODY in the west gave a bloody damn. Ask any ten random americans if they know what happened in Rwanda, and I bet you none of them, NOT ONE, will know what you are talking about.

  254. miaka9383 Says:

    @Colin
    Not one? Are you sure? I am sure Steve and I know about what happened in Rwanda and many other peacecorp workers….. It didn’t get Western Government’s attention… but it doesn’t mean that there are not people down there that are citizens of the west that pay attention…. Dont’ confuse the government with its citizens

  255. colin Says:

    @254 miaka

    “Not one? Are you sure? I am sure Steve and I know about what happened in Rwanda and many other peacecorp workers….. It didn’t get Western Government’s attention… but it doesn’t mean that there are not people down there that are citizens of the west that pay attention…. Dont’ confuse the government with its citizens”

    Great, that makes all seven of you!

    Sarcasm aside, you’re arguing a technicality of my sentence rather than the point. Did it matter how many of you (us) knew about it? Did it stop the 2 freaking-million atrocities?

    And regarding gov’t vs the people: is not the “democratic” western governments the voice of the people?
    Either it is:
    -and the western peoples really didn’t give a rat’s ass about the dying in central africa
    or it is not:
    -and western “democracy” is a farce

  256. miaka9383 Says:

    Yes.. Seven.. at least 7 care… and that is better than none and no it didn’t stop the atrocity…
    No I wasn’t arguing against the technicality but just to be sarcastic…
    I feel with Rwanda U.S SHOULD have done something… EVERYONE knew….. but they left it up to the UN Peacekeepers(worthless) and few volunteers…. but probably most of them end up dead…. one way or the other….. either way.. the atrocity wasn’t stopped.
    Now U.N and the U.S is trying to intervene in Sudan but China said “we don’t interfere in another countries internal affairs” to be consistent. I wonder what you think about that? Is it too little too late? or should China boycott Sudan ( maybe it isn’t in her best interest to not support sudan)
    As for the govt vs. people…

    Democracy is the voice of people, BUT don’t group everyone together because you don’t know who cares and who doesn’t.
    I mean Belgium is part of the Western world and they sent peacekeepers until their peacekeepers got killed… Is Red Cross a western organization? Yes, and they ahd volunteers there… So don’t group all “western” people together…

  257. shel Says:

    Western society is no East Asian society. Westerner feel no shame in breaking others family. Just look at lawyers handling divorce cases. Lawyers will do whatever to convince their client to go ahead with the case to make big money. You know the major responsibility of CIA and NED is to create confusion, chaos, and internal conflict and breakup of almost every nations in the world other than their own. These people take it as a profession, while east asian take these as an evil act. We have a special name for such western behaviour, Xiao Ren. Nobody can stop them from wanting to be a Xiao Ren.

  258. Steve Says:

    @ shel #257: What is NED? I’m not familiar with it. As to divorce cases, they are becoming more prevalent in China. I know several people whose parents divorced and it was just as bad there as anywhere else, with the children (my friends) never really getting over it.

    If the CIA was trying to break up China, why would the USA have massive trade with China? Becoming someone’s #1 trading partner is not the usual method of breaking up a country. In what way has the CIA tried to break up China in the last few years? Examples?

    @ neutrino #252: Thanks for the story about the Tibetan family you know. Most of the starving people in Africa have despotic, corrupt governments. Africa is a continent very rich in natural resources so starvation and economic turmoil are a direct result of bad government. But saying “Africa” is like saying “Asia”, too broad to really mean anything. Are you talking Egypt or Kenya? Could you be a little more specific?

    I also thought highly of your post #244. :D

    @ colin #253 & 255: If you think just a few Americans knew about the atrocities in Rwanda, then you just don’t know many Americans or the ones you know aren’t a very representative sample. Every American I knew was aware of the tragedy. You seem to have a problem with the “west” not preventing the atrocities but don’t have any problem with the “east” not preventing them? The Americans pushed NATO into the Bosnian conflict to stop genocide, over the objections of the Europeans and while the UN did nothing, though the people they helped were Muslim. Where was the “east”? Do your standards for helping the unfortunate only apply to certain countries but not to others? China’s response to these conflicts is that countries should not interfere in the internal affairs of other countries, and they use UN vetoes to enforce this policy.

    Now people are dying in the Sudan yet the U.N. still does nothing because of more vetoes. What has the “east” done about it? What countries do you think those Red Cross volunteers came from? Or do you have a double standard here?

    So colin, what did your country do to stop the 2 freakin’ million atrocities in Rwanda? What did you do? Did you do more than thousands of volunteers from all over the world that risked their lives to help the people in Rwanda while it was happening?

    The only farce is your logic skills.

  259. neutrino Says:

    @Steve 258

    I liked you posts too. :)

    When I talked about african suffering, i meant primarily subsahara nations, namely Sudan, Chad, Democratic republic of Congo, etc. The “east” did not do anything militarily to stop their conflicts; As you mentioned, china advocates no-interference of other nations internal affairs. What I found interesting is the different treatment Congo (DRC) and Sudan receives in worldwide media. The second civil war in DRC (still ongoing) has killed more than 5 million people. While the Sudan “genocide”, with much smaller number of deaths, has become a banner issue, probably because it could be partly linked to China due to the oil investment. Again, In DRC, no such “poster-villain” like china could be easily identified. As for the conflicts in Sudan, there’s no denying people are dying. However, US remain the only major powers to brand it as “genocide”, by the Muslim government and its troops against the black-Africans. Could any country have stopped it? I’d say, unless a full long-term occupation implemented brilliantly, you’d have to wait the war to end itself. It’s the Sudanese’s war, and no country has the stomach to fight it for them.

    As for the veto on Sudan, actually, I think, steve, you made a mistake here. China seldom uses veto, and only used it twice in the twenty-first century (once on Zimbabwe, and once on Myanmar, and maybe 6/7 times in total?), never on Sudan. China did support the African-Union backed peace-keeping mission. But even if that’s implemented, I doubt it will be really useful. The US has vetoed the most in the last two decades, on the other hand(Think about Israel). I think it is not fair to brand China to be the obstacle to the peace process in Sudan. After all, her position is mostly no different from other African nations.

    Chinese engagement has nowadays been mostly economical in the African continent. No other non-african countries has build more infrastructure there than China. I believe, the fate of the AFricans lies within themselves. Much like the tibetans. If war is necessary to sort them out, I’d say let’s allow the nature of nation-building take place. If you don’t want to fight the war, then work within the systems.

    Outside interference, however sometimes good intentioned, too often get tainted by politics and replacing one dictator with another corrupt regime. I don’t like a lot of policies by the Chinese government, especially in its own territories. However, their African policies might prove to be more enlightened than given credit for. A lot of countries in Africa have profited handsomely from trading with China; How to best use them, is the job of the Africans, not the Chinese, or the Americans.

    I do want to say that private donations from American citizens contributed a lot of the NGO missions in Africa, and it is commendable and should be given credit for. WHile giving to charities is still a quite new concept to the Chinese. But i think as time goes on, Chinese will catch up on that, probably similar to what the Japanese have done in the past.

  260. colin Says:

    @256 miaka, 258 steve

    “I feel with Rwanda U.S SHOULD have done something… EVERYONE knew….. but they left it up to the UN Peacekeepers(worthless) and few volunteers…. but probably most of them end up dead…. one way or the other….. either way.. the atrocity wasn’t stopped.”

    “If you think just a few Americans knew about the atrocities in Rwanda, then you just don’t know many Americans or the ones you know aren’t a very representative sample. Every American I knew was aware of the tragedy.”

    –So what? Did your knowledge prevent it? Did your protests, screams, yells make one iota of difference? You talk like you are morally superior for knowing and wishing it didn’t happen. Guess what, they’re still dead. If your democracy was so great, and the genocide was so wrong, how did it still happen?

    “Democracy is the voice of people, BUT don’t group everyone together because you don’t know who cares and who doesn’t.”

    – So, democracy is the voice of the people. How did Rwanda happen????

    “So colin, what did your country do to stop the 2 freakin’ million atrocities in Rwanda?”

    – My country, the great US of A ,did f*king nothing. I didn’t do anything, because I didn’t know until it was over. So much for the greatest democracy and the greatest human rights nation in the world, huh?

    “If the CIA was trying to break up China, why would the USA have massive trade with China?”

    – It’s a love hate relation ship. On the one hand, it’s good for the economy and stability. On the other hand, you don’t want china to get too powerful. Breaking up china is a bit extreme, but there are certainly elements of the US (cia included) that will do little things here and there to try slow china down or put china in a weakened position for negotiation. The issues of tibet, sudan, human rights are all part of this operation.

    “Now people are dying in the Sudan yet the U.N. still does nothing because of more vetoes. What has the “east” done about it? What countries do you think those Red Cross volunteers came from? Or do you have a double standard here?”

    – Bingo! The “east” never said they would do anything about it. The “west” did! Following my previous points, Sudan is a political bargaining chip in diplomacy with China. If 2 million died in rwanda, do you think anyone in the west really gives a rats ass about those tens of thousands in Sudan? Alright, maybe you seven :) :) , but so what? Does your government really care? ONLY in that it puts china in a weakened diplomatic position for other negotiations.

    Steve, you have a double standard, not the chinese. The chinese never said they would police the world with human rights and democracy. The US and the west says that to china constantly. They let Rwanda happen, and now complain about Sudan. Why the difference (this is rhetorical)?

    And finally… coming back to original point. The tibetan issue is overdone, not because the west really cares about the tibetans, but because it is another point of leverage against china. Just like Taiwan, human rights, democracy, etc. Seriously, what percentage of the west really gives a rat’s ass about tibetans, especially when there are peoples around the world who are doing much, much worse that no one cares about. Why is tibet such a hot topic compared to all the other greater tragedies happening around the world?

    It’s fine to have sympathy for the tibetans, but realize that harping about tibet just makes you a willing tool of your gov’t’s geopolitical ambitions.

  261. colin Says:

    @256 miaka, 258 steve

    “And regarding gov’t vs the people: is not the “democratic” western governments the voice of the people?
    Either it is:
    -and the western peoples really didn’t give a rat’s ass about the dying in central africa
    or it is not:
    -and western “democracy” is a farce”

    I really want to hear your answer to this.

  262. S.K. Cheung Says:

    To William #250:
    “This is a very subjective view that some people feel strongly in the west, but certainly not Chinese people.” – I agree. Could “western media” do a better job of reporting on TIbet? I think so. But in order to do so, they would need access, which is something that’s a little hard to come by. Ironically, if you want the “western media” to do a better job, you’d need to get permission from the CCP. THe further irony is that if you want Chinese media to do a better job, you’d need to ask the same people.

    “do they care about the human right in Iraq or sometimes even their own countries? If they do, why all the killings and miseries are still out there considering their government works for them?”- Canadians aren’t in Iraq. But certainly a fair question to ask of American politicians. I think Iraq has seriously harmed America’s international standing, and it’s often been mentioned in these parts. I certainly believe that Canadian politicians, and the constituents they represent, care about human rights in Canada. And while killings and misery are everywhere, in Canada at least, I don’t think they’re owing to human rights abuses.

    “would a Chinese, by definition know more about China which includes Tibet” – probably. But if you wanted to know what a Quebecer thought, I wouldn’t pretend to be able to speak for them; instead, I’d suggest you ask a Quebecer. And similarly, if I wanted to know what a Tibetan thought, I’d still think it better to ask a Tibetan.

    To Neutrino #252:
    “It’s this larger than fair-share of attention, that the tibetans receive, compared with other more unfortunate groups” – I agree, they seem to get a disproportionate amount of attention. That’s probably driven by a disproportionate amount of public interest. But I’d say that perhaps more attention is warranted elsewhere, rather than TIbetans needing less.

  263. S.K. Cheung Says:

    To Colin #260:
    “It’s fine to have sympathy for the tibetans, but realize that harping about tibet just makes you a willing tool of your gov’t’s geopolitical ambitions.” – since I can’t imagine Canada’s government to have any geopolitical ambitions, I think I’m good to go. You might also consider that harping against sympathy for Tibetans may make you a similar tool for your government.

  264. colin Says:

    @263 SK

    “I can’t imagine Canada’s government to have any geopolitical ambitions, I think I’m good to go.”

    The US tells your gov’t what to do.

    “You might also consider that harping against sympathy for Tibetans may make you a similar tool for your government.”

    Nope, my government harps for the tibetans and against china.

  265. S.K. Cheung Says:

    To Colin:
    “The US tells your gov’t what to do.” – well then what I do certainly won’t matter to the US government, so I’m still good to go.

    “Nope, my government harps for the tibetans and against china.” – then in that case, I imagine you’re harping on behalf of your adopted government.

  266. colin Says:

    @sk

    “well then what I do certainly won’t matter to the US government, so I’m still good to go.”

    Damn right you don’t matter. No one’s talking about you. The whole point is that YOU don’t matter. We’re talking about your government. And YOU are not your government. You’re just an odious little ***t.

    “then in that case, I imagine you’re harping on behalf of your adopted government”

    And what gave you the impression I have an adopted gov’t? You’re a real Einstein!

  267. Steve Says:

    @ neutrino #259: neutrino.. that’s a great name. Wish I had thought of it. :P

    The Sudanese authoritarian government has been in power for twenty years, Chad’s an authoritarian government with no term limits controlled by a president with unlimited authority who many consider to be the most corrupt country in the world, and the Democratic Republic of Congo is still in the midst of a horrible civil war, almost like China before the war with competing warlords. I couldn’t agree with you more; those are three of the worst run countries in the world. None of them are democracies in the western sense, and all are loaded with corruption.

    I agree with most of what you said about the Sudan. I thought the idea of boycotting the Beijing Olympics because of Darfur was ridiculous. In light of its trade with Sudan, China is the one country that can apply pressure on the government to try and bring the atrocities to an end so lobbying them in that direction makes sense, but I don’t blame China for what is happening there. I blame the people who are committing the atrocities.

    Can it be labeled “genocide”? We had a long discussion on that in another thread and the general consensus was that the word “genocide” is too loaded with too much baggage to be approrpriate. “Atrocities” is probably a better word choice. I’m sure the US government labeled it “genocide” for domestic political reasons.

    After what happened in Somalia, the US isn’t going to engage in any unilateral actions to stop atrocities, genocide, whatever you want to call it, unless there is a US security interest to do so. If there was an international will to stop it, it could be done but there isn’t that will so it’ll end up playing itself out. The time to have stopped it would have been when it began, but that time is past. Plus, there are almost 40 million people living there, as compared to Iraq’s 29 million. It’s too big for outside powers to handle without an enormous committment of time and money.

    The DRC is a whole ‘nother story. No one is going in there. They have 62 million people and no one capable of backing even from the outside. That’ll also play itself out. Isn’t that one of those wars where they sell diamonds on the black market to finance their operations? No matter who you supported, most of your aid would end up in one of the leader’s Swiss bank accounts.

    You are correct; China has not vetoed anything to do with the Sudan. I stand corrected and am sorry to have implied it.

    I’ve read a few accounts of Chinese business dealings in Africa and I think there’s no “there” there, as Gertrude Stein once said. China needs raw materials and Africa has them. Does Chinese money end up in the pockets of African political leaders? Of course it does, same as it has as long as I’ve been alive, no matter who is doing business there. I’ve done a lot of business in China and it’s the same system, pay off the local political guy to get business done, except you do it in a way that keeps your books legal. For Chinese, this is normal business as “a fish cannot live in pure water”, right? ;)

    The leaders of the countries have profited handsomely, but not the people. Again, I don’t blame this on China either. The corruption there has been endemic for decades. The risk for China is if a government is overthrown, the new government might see China as supporting the old one and throw them out, especially if it makes them more popular with the people. China is willing to take that risk in order to import the raw materials today, just as other countries have taken that same risk in the past. I agree that it is hypocritical to say “You can’t do what we did for years.”

    Just a quick note on the Israeli/Palestinian situation. When England was creating this mess back in the 1920s, both Britishers Gertrude Bell and T.E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia) warned the British government not to do it and what the future consequences would be, which they predicted almost exactly. Both sides have behaved atrociously and I can’t see even any possible future solution.

  268. S.K. Cheung Says:

    To Colin:
    The CCP would be your adopted government. Or, at least based on your attitudes, it should be.

    “No one’s talking about you.” – aww, shucks, that’s not true. You seem to be, for starters. And how much, might I ask, do you think you matter? Don’t be shy, embrace your delusions of grandeur, I say.

    Hey look, I’m not going anywhere. Your options, from where I sit, are: (a) like it; (b) lump it. Either way, it matters little to me. And that’s the god’s honest truth.

  269. William Huang Says:

    @ Steve #251

    I agree with everything you said.

    I don’t know much about “non-Chinese-media” in general but I do know that India media has not done good job in this respect either. Most of them repeated what west media had reported but emphasize on the negativity on Chinese part. One writer claimed that current “culture genocide” killed thousands of Tibetans.

    I agree with you that just because you are Canadian or Chinese, it doesn’t mean you know better than others. I am only saying in a collective sense not individual case. However, my driving point wasn’t intended to address who is more close to the truth on particular matter. But rather, for each of us, we should know better and care better about our fellow countrymen first. If some of your own fellow countrymen are in misery, what’s the point for you to worry about someone thousand of miles away whom you know little about? Your effort and focus can be much used in your home front. When Warren Buffet was asked why didn’t he use his power (he invested in Petro-China) to influence Chinese government on improving human rights, he replied, and I paraphrase; “I can’t even influence my own government, how can I influence Chinese government”?

    Hollywood stars like Malone Brando, Charlton Heston and Paul Newman are true humanitarians and they had deep concerns about their fellow countrymen. They risked their popularities and movie careers in ‘60s to support civil rights movement. A lot of white people hated them for that but they didn’t care.

    The opposite example is Mia Farrow. Thousands of innocent Iraq children killed in Bush’s unnecessary war but she says nothing about but when it comes to killing in Darfur, she blames Chinese for doing nothing. What about her own government? Why didn’t she protest? For one, maybe the spot light for that had already been taken or targeting China is just more fashionable. In either case the objective is to make her look good. To me, she is a phony.

    As for news reporting on Tibet, much of the reporting source comes from TGIE. For example, a widely quoted number, so called 1 million Tibetans killed was a fabrication by TGIE. The same is true about the reporting on March 2008 riot. Many reporting were fabrications by TGIE and media. I agree that Chinese government’s policy doesn’t help but it doesn’t change the truth.

  270. William Huang Says:

    @ S. K. Chueng #262

    “- I agree. Could “western media” do a better job of reporting on TIbet? I think so. But in order to do so, they would need access, which is something that’s a little hard to come by. Ironically, if you want the “western media” to do a better job, you’d need to get permission from the CCP. THe further irony is that if you want Chinese media to do a better job, you’d need to ask the same people.”

    Well, if “western media” fabricating photos and quoting made-up stories, it’s not something CCP’s permission would have prevented. In that sense, CCP’s permission will only help if “western-media” wants to do a good job and if they don’t, the permission will only help them to do worse.

    Likewise, just because Chinese media cannot have access to Iraq war activities, it doesn’t give Chinese media the right to make up stories about Iraq.

    “- Canadians aren’t in Iraq. But certainly a fair question to ask of American politicians. I think Iraq has seriously harmed America’s international standing, and it’s often been mentioned in these parts. I certainly believe that Canadian politicians, and the constituents they represent, care about human rights in Canada. And while killings and misery are everywhere, in Canada at least, I don’t think they’re owing to human rights abuses.”

    Canadian politicians care about Tibetan’s human rights but they don’t care about hundreds and thousand of innocent Iraq children killed. They may care about most of Canadians but they care little or nothing about Natives. Otherwise, they won’t take their land to build Olympic site. You may not agree with that assessment but the Native Canadians certainly feel very strongly about it.

  271. S.K. Cheung Says:

    To William:
    ““western media” fabricating photos and quoting made-up stories” – I don’t think those photos were doctored; do you? While I understand that you object to the way the NYT story characterized the situation as being one-sided and biased (in the same way as the People’s Daily piece was one-sided and biased in the other direction), I think it’s quite something else to be accusing the guy of engaging in creative writing.

    And I don’t think “western media” set out to do a bad job. My point was just that they can’t do a good job in Tibet because they’re not allowed to. Until that changes, you know where I’d put the blame for any lack of information, disinformation, or biased information wrt TIbet. If the CCP allowed better access to information, I believe better information would be conveyed. And I don’t think we need to get into a back-and-forth about who can make up stories better…I’d say anything the “western media” can do, Xinhua can do better…you can even put that phrase to song.

    “You may not agree with that assessment but the Native Canadians certainly feel very strongly about it.” – fair enough. But that’s not really my point of contention. My point is that, as an American living somewhere in the lower 48, you have enough access to information to reasonably make such a claim. My point is just that it would be nice to have similar access to Tibet…or China, without the friendly neighbourhood Xinhua filter.

  272. S.K. Cheung Says:

    To William #269:
    “If some of your own fellow countrymen are in misery, what’s the point for you to worry about someone thousand of miles away whom you know little about? Your effort and focus can be much used in your home front.” – this seems to be a variation of Charles Liu’s favourite point. The American government/people/society has their own problems that need fixing, so why are they sticking their noses into China’s “internal affairs”? I’d just say that a government/society/people may have multiple, simultaneous, and concurrent objectives that need not be mutually exclusive. Or perhaps that they can have domestic and foreign concerns. Or simply perhaps that some issues might be of more interest for some people than others. The bottom line is that if someone wants to make Tibet an issue, it will be. And if someone else wants to make the plight of native peoples an issue, that will be too. As for “what’s the point”, I’d say to each his own.

    “As for news reporting on Tibet, much of the reporting source comes from TGIE.” – that may be true. But from the media’s standpoint, if that’s the only source they’ve got, and they’re not allowed to independently corroborate the information, then they’ve got two choices. They can either report single-source info, or they can not report it at all. Your preference (and the CCP’s) might be that they choose the latter; but I’ve always wondered why people on your side of the divide don’t say: hey, why don’t we give these media types a better source of info than what they’re relying on now? Like from the Tibetans themselves!

    Then we get to one of Allen’s favourite fall-back positions: Tibetans have as much access to the outside world (or as little) as all PRC Chinese, and vice versa. Why should Tibetan PRC citizens get special treatment and be afforded better bidirectional access than their fellow PRC citizens? To which I would say: Allen’s right. People should be arguing for unfettered access by all PRC citizens to the outside world, and vice versa. Yet such a response is usually conspicuously absent.

  273. surrender Says:

    “Tibetans have as much access to the outside world (or as little) as all PRC Chinese, and vice versa”

    This is not correct. Tibetans have much more problems when traveling when officials see 藏 in their identity card under ethnicity. Han chinese Wang Lixiong stated himself that he recieved permission to travel abroad, but his wife (Tibetan) did not because she was tibetan. Again, it is best to ask the tibetans about this, not Allen!

  274. S.K. Cheung Says:

    To Surrender:
    perhaps I was unclear. That phrase is what I think Allen might say in that situation, based on his prior arguments. I’m not suggesting that what he would say is necessarily correct. And I think my contention all along is that if you want to know what Tibetans want, it is indeed best to ask some TIbetans.

  275. William Huang Says:

    @ S.K. Cheung #271 #272

    “I don’t think those photos were doctored; do you?”

    These photos are fabricated all right. I have not seen a single Chinese police brutality pictures (maybe you can correct me). They used photo pictures of Tibetan protest and associated police arrest in Myanmar as substitute for what happened in Tibet. Then, for the actual photos taken in Tibet, they labeled ambulance and med-aid workers as police-vehicle and police arresting protesters. A photo depicting a soldier rescuing a teenage boy from riots is labeled as arresting innocent protesters.

    You don’t need me to tell you the old saying, “A picture is worth thousand of words”. I am not talking about some blogs. I am talking about major news organizations including government’s such NPR website. Actually, there were sufficient number of western eye-witnesses spoke up after they left China as initial news break-out. Many of them (including a Canadian couple) stated that Chinese government has show great deal of restraint even after burning and killing started. After the government imposed martial law, suddenly the whole tone in west media changed.

    “While I understand that you object to the way the NYT story characterized the situation as being one-sided and biased”

    I don’t object Edward Wong’s view. No everybody sees thing the same way and it is the collective views that gets us closer to the truth. I have no problem for anybody to criticize Chinese or Chinese government. No body is perfect and I think it’s healthy to criticize. For example, I agree with you that China needs open media access and people need more freedom. But a lot of criticisms (not just on this blog) are not based on facts but ideology and sometimes culture differences. To me, it’s bashing, if you will.

    “And I don’t think “western media” set out to do a bad job. My point was just that they can’t do a good job in Tibet because they’re not allowed to. Until that changes, you know where I’d put the blame for any lack of information, disinformation, or biased information wrt TIbet. If the CCP allowed better access to information, I believe better information would be conveyed.”

    I agree to certain extent. It’s one thing to allocate balm but it’s another to have discussion based on a set of questionable facts. Two wrongs do not add up to one right. Also, media fairness and bias depends on the popular sentiment. Elite often has the power to influence. Needless to say elite is biased which means that media can be easily biased depending on their base. Fox News is a case in point. Also, if dress and cloth has fashion so is the sentiment and ideology, particularly for superficial people. For example, Paris Hilton now is the leading celebrity supporting the Tibet independence cause.

    “My point is that, as an American living somewhere in the lower 48, you have enough access to information to reasonably make such a claim. My point is just that it would be nice to have similar access to Tibet…or China, without the friendly neighbourhood Xinhua filter.”

    I agree.

    “I’d just say that a government/society/people may have multiple, simultaneous, and concurrent objectives that need not be mutually exclusive. Or perhaps that they can have domestic and foreign concerns. Or simply perhaps that some issues might be of more interest for some people than others. The bottom line is that if someone wants to make Tibet an issue, it will be. And if someone else wants to make the plight of native peoples an issue, that will be too. As for “what’s the point”, I’d say to each his own.”

    - I agree. But my point is not that you cannot raise the issue about Tibet. The issue is to what degree and fairness. Let’s say, you and I are colleagues belonging to certain organization and subject of discussion is about my performance (not yours). Yes, I agree that we should focus on the subject, not going around about your performance. It would be my diversion to avoid the real issue. However, if in my view (right or wrong) that your assessment is not factual or you make a mountain out of mole hill, then, it’s only human for me to question your performance in similar regards and your motive. If you are a stranger, I may even question your identity.

    As for the US government’s concern about Human right in Tibet, they go beyond just concerns. For example, each year, NED (National Endowment for Democracy), a US Congress controlled organization provides millions of dollars to TGIE, a government in direct challenge to China’s sovereignty. As a comparison, you can image what an outrage could be if someone run for President of United States with primary financial support from National People’s Congress of China.

    “- that may be true. But from the media’s standpoint, if that’s the only source they’ve got, and they’re not allowed to independently corroborate the information, then they’ve got two choices. They can either report single-source info, or they can not report it at all. Your preference (and the CCP’s) might be that they choose the latter; but I’ve always wondered why people on your side of the divide don’t say: hey, why don’t we give these media types a better source of info than what they’re relying on now? Like from the Tibetans themselves!”

    I have no problem for media to have single source reporting as long as they say it’s from TGIE. I prefer open source to all places but sometimes there are circumstances. Before the March 2008 riot, there were open-accesses allowed for west media to ordinary Tibetan people. There are books and article written and you can have access on internet. BBC just made a documentary last year (“A Year in Tibet”) and the topic covers variety of issues. On the other hands, western country sometimes also restricts media access. US government for example, prohibited photograph of US soldier’s coffins from Iraq returning to US.

  276. S.K. Cheung Says:

    To William,
    regarding the photos, I think we were talking about different stuff. I was just referring to the ones on this thread, but you seem to be referring to the ones from 3/14.

    I think Ms. Hilton should stick to making videos for internet consumption. And I think she would be a terrific journalist for Fox News, their quality such as it is, IMO. My impression is that media can accurately report facts when they are presented with same. I don’t think the O’Reilly Factor and shows of that ilk quibble with such minor concerns as facts, so I’m certainly not vouching for the quality of that type of media. But I think it’s important to distinguish when you’re essentially watching an opinion program.

    “However, if in my view (right or wrong) that your assessment is not factual or you make a mountain out of mole hill, then, it’s only human for me to question your performance in similar regards and your motive.” – I think this is where it comes down to one person’s opinion vs another person’s opinion. I don’t think a divergence of opinion is sufficient to make a person stop talking about Tibet, if that is their inclination.

    “I have no problem for media to have single source reporting as long as they say it’s from TGIE.” – i agree with you that, if someone’s source is the TGIE, they should say so, and not try to pass it off as a neutral or independent source.

    “US government for example, prohibited photograph of US soldier’s coffins from Iraq returning to US.” – I always thought that was nutty. Not allowing pictures of the ramp ceremony etc doesn’t make these soldiers less dead. Of course the official line is to protect families’ privacy, but the real reason IMO is to prevent the decay of public opinion. The Canadian government tried a similar stunt with our war dead from Afghanistan, but they’ve recently reversed their position.

  277. kui Says:

    @ Admin

    Thank you. I am catching my flight to China tonight. My mother is unwell. I will try to write an essay reg 6.4 and may post it in May.

  278. admin Says:

    @kui,

    Have a safe trip and hope your mother is getting better soon.

  279. Wahaha Says:

    #247,

    Hahaha, SKC,

    You have no explanation, do you ?

    Go tell your canadian neighbors, coworkers, anyone on the streets that how native aboriginals in Canada have been treated.

    Take sometimes to write to your politicians, tell them having some self-esteem and shut up about Tibet.

    How can some people be so shameless ?

  280. S.K. Cheung Says:

    To Wahaha:
    as usual, what in the name of rice krispies are you talking about? More often than not, you make no sense whatsoever.

    “You have no explanation, do you ?” – to what do you refer? I thought I was quite clear in #247.

    I will continue to tell Canadian politicians that they should improve the lot of all Canadians, and should continue to shine the light on Tibet, because you certainly can’t count on Chinese like this Wahaha dude to do it.

    BTW, did you forget the question I posed in the last paragraph of #247? I already repeated it once from previously; should I repeat it again?

  281. Paul Bates Photography Says:

    Nice pictures. I like the last one of the students celebrating the Tibetan New Year. I will make it out there some day to take some good pictures.

Leave a Reply

Powered by sweet Captcha