National Geographic got into the propaganda act?
Filed under:-guest-posts | Tags:China, July 5, protests, Uyghur, xinjiang
Add comments
Writer Matthew Teague photographed these Uygur men, advancing upon Chinese forces, moments before they were shot.
Many people carry cameras these days. Some have uncommon courage. On page 36 of this issue, in the story “The Other Tibet,” there is a photograph taken with a cell phone. The photographer was not a professional. She was a Uygur woman who documented the shooting of a Uygur man by Chinese security forces on a street in Urumqi, capital of China’s Xinjiang region. She later gave the picture to National Geographic’s photographer Carolyn Drake.
Like their Tibetan neighbors, the Uygurs have a history of struggle, but when Carolyn began covering them more than a year ago, she had no idea that the conflict would explode into one of China’s most deadly uprisings since the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989. By June of this year, she thought her coverage was finished; she returned home to Istanbul. Then hints of unrest began to filter back to her. “At first I didn’t realize the severity of it. I started sending emails to my translator and friends in Kashgar, Hotan, and Urumqi, but no one responded.” She anxiously searched news sources, but the picture of what was going on seemed incomplete and unclear. There was only one way to fi nd out: return to China. She did so in July.
Carolyn, writer Matthew Teague, and a Uygur woman with a cell phone camera all took great risks to bring us the story of a struggle for human rights. Many people carry cameras these days. Sometimes they help us find the truth.
Yes, sounds like the human rights abuse Chinese police are at it again. If picture is worth a thousands words, maybe the picture would better explain why.
Here’s the link to the blog.
http://blogs.ngm.com/blog_central/2009/11/editors-note-uncommon-courage.html
Of course the blog is a story about the ‘human rights’ struggles in Xinjiang and the July 5 protests.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/12/uygurs/teague-text
Even in the colorful story in the National Geographic magazine, they didn’t explain about how the so called ‘protests’ got ugly and almost 200 people died, namely by those knife wielding maniacs whom National Geographic refers them as ‘protesters.’
I have seen some other propagandized reporting such as this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/22/china-executes-tibet-protesters
But this National Geographic article takes the cake.
There are currently 2 comments highlighted: 54127, 55798.
November 24th, 2009 at 1:36 am
That’s two of the three men involved in the 7/13 mosque attack:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scjN0eAiWcI
– The men in above photo were seen in 00:13, 00:18 of the video smuggling weapon into a mosque. One of them seen whipping out a mechete in the mosqu at 01:04, attacking worshipers who rejected their call for violence
– The men in above photo were see from police vidoe scaling divider and charging the police with weapon at 03:44 & 03:54
NatGeo please report fact not fiction.
November 24th, 2009 at 4:59 am
Thanks Charles,
I saw this on ESWN. I guess you’re right that this happened in 7/13 and not at 7/5. It is really sad that this happened this way, what’s worse the way that National Geographic reported it.
November 24th, 2009 at 6:25 am
OMG. Is there more than one version of the English language? And is the “alternate” version the preferred form on this blog for commentators such as those that precede me on this thread?
Certainly, the National Geographic article (“the Other Tibet”) does not espouse what amounts to be the preferred narrative of many folks in these parts. So I can see how some would get their knickers in a twist about it.
HOwever, on page 7 of the link, it makes reference to violence beginning on July 5. Later on the same page, it refers to “two days later, (many) Hans take to the street”. On page 8 of the link, it mentions that “eventually, military police descend on the region”. Only then does it reference the 3 guys coming out of the mosque. At no point does it seek to represent that this shooting occurred on July 5. In fact, it never specifies a date for when this occurred. If you say it’s the 13th, great. July 5 + 2 days + “eventually” could certainly equal July 13. So, where is the fiction? And of the entire article, your main quibble is with the timestamp? First of all, NG hasn’t even made a mistake. Second, even if they had mistaken the date, that’s the basis for disavowing the contents of the entire piece? Are you guys that desperate?
Second, the blog article link is not referring to the machete-wielders as being “courageous”. THe reference is to the woman who took the photo. To be honest, if you’re going to charge at police with a machete, you have to expect to be taken down by force, and quite possibly lethal force. But it’s still quite a feat for a bystander to capture that on camera, particularly if there was a hail of gunfire as alluded to in the article. I’d say it is pretty courageous to be taking pictures rather than ducking for cover in such a circumstance. So where’s the problem here?
BTW, I think it was fine that these guys were referenced as “protesters”, since they were, as far as I can tell, protesting. Besides, we can always count on you folks for the more descriptive terminology, like, how you say, “knife-wielding maniacs”, I believe?
November 24th, 2009 at 6:37 am
SKC, I disagree. IMHO they are not “protester”, since they first terrorized and attacked unarmed worshipers inside a mosque. And NatGeo is both incorrect and inflammatory to use this photo in reference to an article about the 7/5 riot without fact check.
Speaking of fact check, the writer of “The Other Tibet” made the insinuation that Hans were allowed to take revenge two days later, is false. Carolyn Drake’s peer, Peter Foster of London Telegraph reported police in Urumqi protected Uyghurs from Han protesters following the 7/5 riot:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peterfoster/100002643/urumqi-criticism-and-credit-for-the-chinese-police/
“Han crowds on Tuesday effectively were allowed to go round and round in circles, exhausting themselves in the hot sun while never actually being allowed to reach the objects of their anger. To my mind, this was very smart policing.
Then on Wednesday, after an overwhelming show of force, the police made sure that the Han protestors largely stayed off the streets.”
November 24th, 2009 at 7:22 am
Charles, Pugster – Do you actually have anything to say about . . . . you know . . . . China? This does happen to be what the main purpose of this blog, or at least I thought it was. If you want to manufacture reasons to be angry, I believe antiCNN.com is probably a better place to do so.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
@SKC,
HOwever, on page 7 of the link, it makes reference to violence beginning on July 5. Later on the same page, it refers to “two days later, (many) Hans take to the street”. On page 8 of the link, it mentions that “eventually, military police descend on the region”. Only then does it reference the 3 guys coming out of the mosque. At no point does it seek to represent that this shooting occurred on July 5. In fact, it never specifies a date for when this occurred. If you say it’s the 13th, great. July 5 + 2 days + “eventually” could certainly equal July 13. So, where is the fiction? And of the entire article, your main quibble is with the timestamp? First of all, NG hasn’t even made a mistake. Second, even if they had mistaken the date, that’s the basis for disavowing the contents of the entire piece? Are you guys that desperate?
The NG article refers nothing to the date to July 5 but to ‘July riots’. Second, nowhere did me or Charles allude about the July 5 + 2= 13 nor any of us quibble on the timestamp. Charles linked the youtube video to the picture matches the 2 ‘machete wielding’ maniacs who eventually got shot, and according to the video, it happened at July 13. The NG blog did not clarify the date when it happened.
The NG article conveniently omitted about the violent riots in July 5 where almost 200 people died, and somehow allude to some ‘human rights’ issue by the Hans, that’s why I call this propaganda.
Second, the blog article link is not referring to the machete-wielders as being “courageous”. THe reference is to the woman who took the photo. To be honest, if you’re going to charge at police with a machete, you have to expect to be taken down by force, and quite possibly lethal force. But it’s still quite a feat for a bystander to capture that on camera, particularly if there was a hail of gunfire as alluded to in the article. I’d say it is pretty courageous to be taking pictures rather than ducking for cover in such a circumstance. So where’s the problem here?
The problem is not the ‘courageous’ woman who took the picture. The problem is what the article describes as some kind of ‘human rights’ issue regarding the 2 people getting shot when it is not.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
To Charles:
alrighty then, if you don’t like “protester”, then what’s your choice of terminology? And again, you’re moving from one trivial point to another. First, it was the date/timeline. Now, it’s a word. Is this the extent of your displeasure with the NG article, or is there something a little more substantial?
BTW, those 3 “protesters” certainly seemed to have terrorized the worshipers. So maybe “worshiper-terrorizing protesters” would satisfy your penchant for nit-picking.
Second, this article isn’t about the riot. It’s about the “other Tibet”, with about half the article devoted to the history of Xinjiang and how it became such a restive area. In that context, the riot and the events that followed are chronicled. I think you’d find the photo more apropos and less inflammatory if you read the article more carefully and less selectively. In fact, you folks could do us all a big favour by reading the articles you link to, cuz most times, it seems a truck can be driven through the holes in your arguments. I’ve done such driving on multiple occasions already.
As for the “insinuation”, it appears Mr. Foster disagrees with Mr. Teague. That’s terrific. You can take comfort in your set of “facts” if you wish. Not the first time.
To FOARP:
couldn’t agree more. It seems people have their ready-made conclusions, and are simply constantly on the lookout for evidence that purportedly fits their conclusions. It’s like science, done backwards. Perhaps they could be characterized as “backwards-scientists”, or perhaps mad ones. What’s more, the threshold for such “evidence” needn’t be all that high either, as shown by this thread.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
To Pugster:
“The NG article refers nothing to the date to July 5 but to ‘July riots’.” —well, that’s interesting. Here’s a little snippet from page 7 of the link YOU provided that you might find informative:
“This spark lit a fire 2,000 miles away, in Xinjiang. On July 5 thousands of Uygurs—the numbers reported varied widely—took to Urumqi’s streets to protest the treatment of the Uygur workers. The authorities were caught off guard.”
“nor any of us quibble on the timestamp” — and this is you in #2 (“I guess you’re right that this happened in 7/13 and not at 7/5.”)
“The NG blog did not clarify the date when it happened.” — no it didn’t. Which was part of my point in #3. You can’t complain that the article was wrong about the date when the article didn’t mention a date for the photo.
“The NG article conveniently omitted about the violent riots in July 5 where almost 200 people died” — true. But here’s a news flash. It isn’t a news article. It’s another one of those narrative pieces that you folks love to hate. And boy you guys do it often, if only not so well.
“that’s why I call this propaganda.” — you guys call most things propaganda, it seems. What is this particular article propagandizing, pray tell.
“The problem is what the article describes as some kind of ‘human rights’ issue regarding the 2 people getting shot when it is not.” — yes, boiled down, it’s 2 people getting shot. I suppose boiled down, TAM is just about a few people getting shot as well. So I guess you object to the larger context. Well, you should. But instead of complaining about people who herald human rights, maybe on occasion you can complain about the people who suppress it.
November 24th, 2009 at 7:14 pm
Pug, “The problem is what the article describes as some kind of ‘human rights’ issue regarding the 2 people getting shot when it is not.”
Exactely. And while you are at it check the comments in the cited NGM blog – they are overwhelmingly critical of the choice of photo and words (except few like Richard from PKD, defending those who terrorize others.) Here are some examples:
Sean – “Am I missing something? I thought it is every bit of a right decision for police force to shoot down an aggressor wielding a long knife in the middle of a city street.”
rsyl – “You can find what should be the corresponding video at a Hong Kong ATV news report:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cUc8ZjPNMI”
no courage – “…It seems to be a human right to kill chinese. Even AI appealed to let the terrorists.., ah protesters, continue their peacefull protest of cutting little chinks children throats…”
tad – “Mob Killing civilians should NEVER, EVER be justified.”
November 24th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
For a Western “journalist” to report on China is actually very safe. I don’t recall Western “journalists” dying doing stories in China. Unlike what the US military does in Iraq or Afghanistan, the Chinese military would not “accidentally” fire at the bunkers of journalists they don’t like, or throw them into Gitmo like they did to that one unfortunate AP photographer.
When it comes to reporting for the Western audiences, what takes courage is actually do a fair story on China. In the case of Uighur riot, that would be to actually report from the Han angle. You would think that because the majority of the victims of this riot were Hans, there would be a lot more interviews with the han victims to better grasp what had exactly happened. But no, most of the western “journalists” would much rather interview anyone but the actual Han victims because of political reasons; if a Western “journalist” does a piece remotely deviates from the big, bad China script he would be called a “china-appeaser” in no time and he can kiss his career goodbye. In order to avoid this from happening and to continue reporting, the safe thing for the journalist to do is to write 10 articles with heavy bias towards the Uighurs while write one article from the Han angle.
November 25th, 2009 at 1:06 am
SKC,
“The NG article refers nothing to the date to July 5 but to ‘July riots’.” —well, that’s interesting. Here’s a little snippet from page 7 of the link YOU provided that you might find informative:
“This spark lit a fire 2,000 miles away, in Xinjiang. On July 5 thousands of Uygurs—the numbers reported varied widely—took to Urumqi’s streets to protest the treatment of the Uygur workers. The authorities were caught off guard.”
I guess they forgot to mention about the machete wielding maniacs who killed almost 200, instead NGM wants to portray as a bunch of pissed off Uyghurs protesting instead of rioting.
“nor any of us quibble on the timestamp” — and this is you in #2 (”I guess you’re right that this happened in 7/13 and not at 7/5.”)
I’m not complaining about the timestamp, instead you come up with the fuzzy math 5 + 2 = 13 thing.
You can’t complain that the article was wrong about the date when the article didn’t mention a date for the photo.
In case if you haven’t noticed I didn’t complain about the date of the photo. Nowhere it mentions the date of the photo when it was taken until Charles clarified it. And, no that’s not an issue.
yes, boiled down, it’s 2 people getting shot. I suppose boiled down, TAM is just about a few people getting shot as well. So I guess you object to the larger context. Well, you should. But instead of complaining about people who herald human rights, maybe on occasion you can complain about the people who suppress it.
That’s right, if you can’t defend what you say, deflect the issue and talk about TAM instead.
November 25th, 2009 at 1:16 am
To Pugster:
are you having trouble reading too? Is there an epidemic among you folks?
“I guess they forgot to mention about the machete wielding maniacs who killed almost 200” — I wrote this in #8, see if you recall it (“true. But here’s a news flash. It isn’t a news article. It’s another one of those narrative pieces that you folks love to hate. And boy you guys do it often, if only not so well.). Translation: it’s not meant as a news article. It’s an opinion piece. Is that a hard distinction for you?
“you come up with the fuzzy math 5 + 2 = 13 thing.” — gosh, it would sure be nice to argue against people who can read. Charles claimed the article was wrong, since the photo was on July 13. He felt that the article suggested it was on July 5, which is an interpretation I’ve already shown to be incorrect. In the article, the riot was July 5, 2 days later Hans were roaming about, “eventually” security forces moved in, culminating in what happened on July 13. C’mon, people, this isn’t rocket science here. Are you pretending to be thick because you’ve nothing better to do?
“if you can’t defend what you say” — perhaps you would be kind enough to show me what I can’t defend. All these random references without the benefit of the specifics of what I said are a little annoying to follow. Take your time.
November 25th, 2009 at 1:31 am
SKC,
are you having trouble reading too? Is there an epidemic among you folks?
Deflection #2, if you can’t talk about the subject at hand, talk about the poster.
I wrote this in #8, see if you recall it (”true. But here’s a news flash. It isn’t a news article. It’s another one of those narrative pieces that you folks love to hate. And boy you guys do it often, if only not so well.). Translation: it’s not meant as a news article. It’s an opinion piece. Is that a hard distinction for you?
Okay, so it is an opinion piece. So? Did I complain because it is an opinion piece? So to make it politically correct, I am complaining about the ‘opinion piece’ and not the ‘article.’
gosh, it would sure be nice to argue against people who can read. Charles claimed the article was wrong, since the photo was on July 13. He felt that the article suggested it was on July 5, which is an interpretation I’ve already shown to be incorrect. In the article, the riot was July 5, 2 days later Hans were roaming about, “eventually” security forces moved in, culminating in what happened on July 13. C’mon, people, this isn’t rocket science here. Are you pretending to be thick because you’ve nothing better to do?
Okay, then why are you complaining to me about something that Charles posted? Instead, you are trying to deflect the issue by talking about the 2 days later Han protest thing, which I said it was not an issue?
perhaps you would be kind enough to show me what I can’t defend. All these random references without the benefit of the specifics of what I said are a little annoying to follow. Take your time.
I said that the shooting of the 2 uyghur men isn’t about human rights, and somehow you have to bring up the issue of shooting at TAM analogy wasn’t about human rights also. The question is that why do you have to deflect the issue and bring up the issue of TAM when I didn’t mention anything about TAM?
November 25th, 2009 at 2:37 am
To Pugster:
“Deflection #2, if you can’t talk about the subject at hand, talk about the poster.” — well, I think it’s pretty clear what my impression is of you, and of folks like you. NOw, what’s the deflection that you’re referring to?
“Did I complain because it is an opinion piece?” — no, but you did complain that the piece didn’t include some of the facts you felt were important. But you see, that’s the thing with opinion pieces. The writer gets to choose what he/she includes. So if you recognized that it’s an opinion piece, then you shouldn’t be complaining that the writer gave short shrift to some “facts” that you would’ve considered vital.
“then why are complaining to me about something that Charles posted?”
a. I already did this in #3.
b. But if you’re gonna take up the fight for him, as you did in #6, then you’re fair game too.
“Instead, you are trying to deflect the issue by talking about the 2 days later Han protest thing, which I said it was not an issue?” — what am I deflecting now? I’m simply drawing out the intestines, as it were, relating to the requisite math in question. You seemed to be having difficulty with the addition.
“The question is that why do you have to deflect the issue and bring up the issue of TAM when I didn’t mention anything about TAM?”
—you’re right. I was drawing a parallel to make a point, and it was unnecessary. So I’ll retract that comparison.
“I said that the shooting of the 2 uyghur men isn’t about human rights” — as I already stipulated in #8, it’s 2 people getting shot. That they were shot is not a human rights issue. But the blog article says this is a “story of a struggle for human rights”. Translation: it’s not that they were shot, it’s about what they were protesting for that got them shot. Is that a little clearer now? Now, I suspect your response will be “they weren’t shot because they were protesting, it’s because they did so with machetes” to which I had luckily already responded in #3 (“To be honest, if you’re going to charge at police with a machete, you have to expect to be taken down by force, and quite possibly lethal force.”). So maybe what they should’ve written is a “story about an ill-conceived episode in the struggle for human rights”. Try that on for size.
November 25th, 2009 at 2:48 am
@SKC – Dude, stop, it really isn`t worth it. This whole discussion isn`t worth spending another ounce of effort on, you won, Pugster looks like a fool, and that`s it. Trying to get him to actually realise it is impossible and not worth trying.
I guess it could be worse, antiCNN.com has already talking as though Southern Weekend were a colour revolution front, check it out:
http://www.accn.com/?action-viewnews-itemid-4178
November 25th, 2009 at 3:14 am
SKC,
Errr okay, so when I say “The problem is what the art… Opinion describes as some kind of ‘human rights’ issue regarding the 2 people getting shot when it is not.” You say “story about an ill-conceived episode in the struggle for human rights”. I don’t know what’s the difference, but I stand corrected.
FOARP,
I’ve said that SKC filled this thread nothing but mumbo jumbo to a conversation. Except that SKC was trying to be politically correct.
November 25th, 2009 at 4:00 am
@FOARP: Sima Nan is an interesting example of strange bedfellows. He’s apparently a good friend of James Randi because of their mutual interest in exposing fraud and hoaxes in the spiritual business, and he’s a staunch nationalist that has chosen Nanfang Zhoumo as his arch enemy (and perhaps “universal values” as the term he hates the most).
It would be interesting to map out these nationalists and their loyalties.
November 25th, 2009 at 4:21 am
More from Sima Nan in an interview about Obama’s visit, and how he bowed to the Japanese emperor:
“从小受到伊斯兰教信仰影响的奥巴马先生，就个人心理特点而言，对于带有某种神秘色彩的权威，心头一热，鞠躬角度大了一些，似乎是可以理解的。”
“Mr. Obama, who was influenced by the islamic education he received as a kid, has a psychological tendency to get excited and bow deeper to people endowed with mystical powers, which is quite understandable.”
What a genius. I’m sure he does a lot to dispel incorrect thinking with theories like these. And it gets better, with this patriotic self-indulgence:
“中国人奉行“听其言而观其行”，中国人对于夸夸其谈的家伙向来不缺少警惕。中国人民的伟大领袖毛主席给自己的两个宝贝女儿取名字，一个取名李敏，一个取名李讷，这是取自孔夫子“敏于行而纳于言”的意思，就是说我们更注重的是行动。”
“Chinese people believe in “listening to what people say and watching what they do.” Chinese people have always been skeptical towards people who talk big. The great leader of the Chinese people, chairman Mao, when he gave names to his daughters, chose Li Min and Li Na, which comes from Confucius’ [dictum] to “be quick to do and speak less”. That is to say that we believe more in actions.”
Personally, I’ve always been surprised at the Sino-American love for bragging and talking big, so I would like to see some more action from both sides here. Or maybe that’s just me.
November 25th, 2009 at 5:41 am
To Pugster:
“I don’t know what’s the difference” — that’s where the reading comprehension comes into play.
“I’ve said that SKC filled this thread nothing but mumbo jumbo to a conversation.” — actually, it’s to try to demonstrate that being precise with your language is a good thing. I guess critiques to which you have no response is “mumbo jumbo”. To each their own.
“Except that SKC was trying to be politically correct.” — actually, it’s trying to keep you guys honest so you debate what a piece says, and not what you hope it had said.
Here’s the thing. I would imagine that there might be a logical argument to be made for the virtue of the CCP mode of governance beyond the economic improvements of the PRC over the last 30 years. But my gosh you guys haven’t been able to make it. And from what I’ve seen, i seriously doubt you guys are the ones who should even try.
To WKL #18:
that’s a good one. You can’t even make this stuff up. Particularly enjoyed your last sentence.
November 25th, 2009 at 7:15 am
Here’s the fact of the case – NatGeo used a photo of two criminals who attacked a mosque and terrorized unarmed worshipers in a piece about “struggle for human rights”. The overwhelming critical response in the blogpost says it all.
November 25th, 2009 at 7:52 am
Wow Charles. Listening to the voice of popular opinion. How very democratic of you. Didn’t really seem your style…well, as it pertains to what PRC citizens need/want anyway.
I’m glad you’ve finally established the “facts of the case”, and it only took 20 comments this time. You guys are getting better at it. Maybe someday, you guys will get it right with the OP itself. For the reach should exceed the grasp, as they say…
So in fact, the picture has nothing to do with it. The whole problem is what those guys were doing before the picture was taken…I get it now. But then that renders this statement in the OP (“If picture is worth a thousands words, maybe the picture would better explain why.”) somewhat out of place. Aw shucks.
Oh, one more thing. The picture goes with the blog post, which, for the sake of refreshing your memory, was primarily about the courage of the photographer. The opinion piece, “the other Tibet”, is where they mention more about what these guys were doing before and during their kodak moment. Well, better luck next time, folks.
November 25th, 2009 at 9:09 am
It really isn’t worth such an amount of speculation. It is clear: the western media mentioned is pretentious and self-righteous. Although it is not a bid deal, it’s good to know it. I personally has gone through the idea that western media represents justice and fairness. And it is this kind of incident that makes me chnage mind. And along with this change, I have different perspectives on China and its problems. That is why this is not just about anger. It matters, at least for us.
November 25th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
@S.K. Cheung #3, @pug_ster OP-#2, @Charles Liu #1-4
Holy cow!
SK, you wrote:
Apparently so, on both counts. There is English for the discerning, and English for the cognitive dissonant. The CDers have preconceived notions, biases, worldviews, viewpoints or whatever which are like Linus van Pelt’s security blanket. Anything that threatens their preconceived notions, etc., is like trying to steal their security blanket and serves to dramatically aggravate their anxieties. Thus, they meet this threat by discounting what they don’t like and don’t believe, latching onto what they like and believe and, if necessary, constructing realities which are soothing to themselves.
Shame on you, SK and NatGeo’s Matthew Teague, for trying to steal their security blanket! ::LMAO and tongue seriously in cheek::
Pugster, you wrote in the OP:
Perhaps you should have checked the caption of that photo in the actual article. It says,
“Documented on a bystander’s cell phone, a Uygur man lies in a street in Urumqi, shot by security forces after charging them with what appeared to be a sword.”
Strangely, I don’t see the term “protester” or “human rights” in that caption. Sounds to me like you are intentionally trying to twist photojournalism here.
Pugster, did you read the article, or just the editor’s note? The editor’s note mentions human rights. Teague never does in his article.
Funny, Pugster, there is no mention of the word “protesters” in Teague’s article.
And since Teague of NatGeo was not present for the July 5 incident, he does include this in his article.
“But this National Geographic article takes the cake.”
Sorry, Pugster, you take the cake by a mile, a long mile!
Charlie, you wrote,
NatGeo’s Teague reported this, Charlie:
Sorry, Charlie, it looks like NatGeo’s Teague reported it.
“what’s worse the way that National Geographic reported it.” (Pugster #2)
So, Pugster, what is wrong with the way Teague reported it? Care to provide examples and commentary?
Charlie, it is unclear if they terrorized and attacked fellow Muslims in the mosque. Check Teague’s account above.
Charlie, where exactly does Teague claim that the photo is from July 5?
Chuck and Pugster, do you ever read these articles you cite? It seems to me that you suffer from some form of intellectual laziness. Let’s hope it is not also intellectual dishonesty.
This is absurd and bizarre. ::ROFL::
IMHO, Teague wrote a lucid article that gives a flavor of the situation in Uyghurstan (Xinjiang). It is also an intriguing look at the Uyghurs and their area. Just a while ago, they were very invisible to most of the world. Thanks, Matthew Teague and Carolyn Drake for the article and the pictures.
November 25th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
DM @ 22, “pretentious and self-righteous”
Exactely. Now Jerry is defending terrorist with “it is unclear”, as if that exhonorate these people and somehow qualify them as “protesters”, so the article didn’t use photo of terrorists who smuggled mechetes into a mosque, attacked and terrorized others inside the mosque (fist, raising of mechete), and finally was gun down when they charged the police with mechetes raised.
All these are facts caught on video, I really don’t know what reason there is to say “it is unclear”:
One of the three men struck a worshiper inside the mosque is caught on video @ 00:59 (see citation in comment 1.) I would urge Jerry to actually watch the video, and report back if it’s still unclear.
Let’s stick to the facts, not useless nit picking, red herring argument, personal attack (which I will not respond). The fact is these people terrorized a mosque during worship, and went after the police with mechetes raise. And NatGeo is wrong to have used their photo in reference to “struggle for human rights”.
November 25th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
@Jerry 23,
You want to go line by line and scrutinize and disagree what I said, that’s fine. But overwhelming the people who commented on the blog believes the author is trying to whitewash the story blaming it on the Chinese for the incident, somehow placating the blame of the death of the 200 people on the Chinese. It is no different from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who believes whole Holocaust incident is a hoax. Maybe you don’t believe that Western Media is capable of manufacturing propaganda because it is a ‘free’ country.
November 25th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
@ Charles #24 & Pug_ster #25: Gentlemen, Jerry wrote a line by line critique of points you both brought up, and your replies were vaguely dismissive, ignoring practically everything he wrote. Why don’t both of you reply to him line by line? If he has a point, tell him so. If you disagree with his specific conclusion, tell him so. You were the ones who made the original points. Aren’t you willing to stand behind them?
Charles, you talk about “useless nitpicking” and “red herring arguments” but you never define what these are. Why not go back to the specific points to clarify? Pug_ster, you bring up Ahmadinejad out of nowhere but never address any of the very specific arguments Jerry made. That’s disingeneous. And the number of commenters on this particular post has consisted of only seven individuals, not exactly a large sampling of our bloggers. Of these seven, four tend to agree with you. Do you call that “overwhelming”? I do not. Beyond that, the number of people who agree with either side does not constitute accuracy of an argument.
When someone uses specific arguments to justify a position that rebuts yours, it is incumbent on you to use specific arguments to rebut their rebuttal. Ignoring their specific arguments does not rebut them. All it does is make you look like you have no answer and got caught with your pants down.
November 25th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
Steve,
The problem is that it pulls away from the whole debate about the National Geographic and instead critiquing what I said, word for word. SKC, said that I should not use the word ‘article’ instead using the word ‘Opinion’. Then he is complaining my reading comprehension. Now Jerry said that why I used the words ‘protesters’ and ‘Human rights’ these words are not mentioned in the National Geographic article. Yes it does not mention the word ‘protesters’ but mentions about the protests in the article. The article does not mention the world ‘Human rights’ in the article, but it mentions about the human rights abuses toward uyghurs. This is what Charles mentions about the ‘useless nitpicking’ that SKC and Jerry are doing. After the useless debate with SKC, I rather not go thru this same kind of debate with Jerry.
Edit: The reason why I brought up the Holocaust thing is that Jerry usually likes to bring this issue up about his Jewish roots. If this comment is unwarranted, I apologize.
November 25th, 2009 at 6:52 pm
Steve, please watch the youtube video footage I cited (with time markers noted throughout) and you tell me if Jerry’s “it’s not clear” holds any water?
SKC and Jerry twist my words and make claims I have not made (I stated these men were attackers from the 7/13 Urumqi mosque incident, and they shouldn’t be refered to as protesters, that’s it, nothing to do with any dates in the NG article. The date part in “in reference to the 7/5 riot” has nothing to do with the photo’s date or any dates in the NG article).
IMHO these dishonest argument, obfusication, redirection are not worth my breath, but since a FM moderator stepped in, I thought I should clearify my position. Also Admin privately asked me to be less confrontational, and I choose to take his advise by walking away from what I consider BS retort and stick to the facts.
Anyway, are you going to police other people’s comment? For example FOARP just brought up Northern Ireland in another thread, something completely irrelevant – are you going to say something? If you don’t then it’s obvious to me you are playing partisanship with FM readers, and that’s exteremely unfortunate given you are an editor and moderator.
November 25th, 2009 at 7:00 pm
Steve, Jerry,
Here’s an example of an ‘useless nitpicking’ response:
Pugster, did you read the article, or just the editor’s note? The editor’s note mentions human rights. Teague never does in his article.
I have read it. But why the author put an editor’s note about Human rights but not in the article? The article didn’t the word ‘human rights’ but said “Two days later a group of Han—apparently numbering in the thousands—took to the street with meat cleavers and clubs and knives. They in turn attacked Uygurs.” That’s not a human rights issue because the word ‘human rights’ is not mentioned, right?
Funny, Pugster, there is no mention of the word “protesters” in Teague’s article.
You’re right. It does not mention the word protesters, but mentions the word protests. So in your logic, protesters don’t protest, right?
And since Teague of NatGeo was not present for the July 5 incident, he does include this in his article.
Also, Teague was probably not in Xinjiang when the riots/protests happened during July 2009, so how can he be a credible source to write this story if he was not there?
Sorry, Pugster, you take the cake by a mile, a long mile!
What do you mean I can take the cake? I can pick up the cake tomorrow? What kind of cake is it?
November 25th, 2009 at 7:14 pm
So Steve, are you going to police the “cake is never defined”? Is anybody’s pants down around the cake? What is a “long mile”? As opposed to “short mile”? What is their clear definition? Metric or English system?
Moderation is supposed to be impartial, and I am EXTEREMELY disappointed in your appearant partisanship exhibited here.
Not to mention you’ve completely distracted the discussion from the FACT NatGeo used photo of two criminals who smuggled mechetes into a mosque, attacked and terrorized innocent people, charged the police with mechete raised – in an blogpost/blog/articlewhatever supposedly about struggle for human rights.
(BTW no date/time is mentioned/argued/claimed/whatever here, implicitely or explicitly. You milage(clearly defined as generic expression) may vary (clearly defined as non-specific degree of variance.)
Looking foward to your point-by-point rebuttal, but since I’ve lost all respect for you now, forgive me for not wasting my time with you. You may have the last word.
November 25th, 2009 at 8:54 pm
Charles & Pug_ster: I wasn’t “policing” or “moderating”, I was commenting. Personally, I couldn’t care less about the Nat Geo article. All I was saying is that if you make comments and those comments draw responses, you ought to defend what you originally wrote. Neither of you did after Jerry’s comment.
Pug_ster, you responded in #29 to Jerry’s points which was all I was looking for. Charles, you haven’t responded to anything Jerry said but why am I not surprised? As usual, you completely change the subject from what I wrote to something about being moderated. And how did I “moderate” you? Did I collapse anything you said? Did I delete part or all of what you wrote? Did I threaten you with either? I just made a comment. You can choose to do what I asked or you can ignore it; I don’t particularly care either way.
How am I partisan? Did I agree or disagree with anything Jerry wrote? Did I agree or disagree with anything you wrote? Talk about a “straw man” argument!!
I guess our feelings of disrespect are mutual since most of what you respond to is your own made-up complaints. I certainly won’t lose any sleep over it.
November 26th, 2009 at 3:03 am
As one smart man once said: “Believing is seeing.” — Think about it…
In other words, I don’t think the sole question is whether NatGeog, or any of the commentators, is right or wrong (I’m not saying this isn’t important, and I do appreciate the detailed engagement/analyses of this issue in the comments).
Yet, other questions that pop into my mind after closely reading the comments: Why hasn’t it been possible to actually talk *with* each other? How can we (humans) even dream of building some sort of solidaristic future as long as we prefer to engage in whatever one might call what is evident in the comments stream (comments 1 thru 30)?
Just my 2 cents, please don’t accuse me of “moderating” or something like that. I’m just some guy curious about the commentators’ takes on those two questions.
November 26th, 2009 at 3:59 am
I see nothing wrong with the National Geo post. If you look at their issues from the 1930s you’ll see they covered human rights issues in Asia and were very critical of Japans expansions.
November 26th, 2009 at 4:40 am
@Jay,
I don’t see what’s the point of going back to the 1930’s when the 2 countries, US and China was very different then. At the time, both countries have pretty good relations. Relations between US and China was good also between 1972 to the TAM incident.
November 26th, 2009 at 5:00 am
As always with Tibetan/Uighur sympathizer’s articles, their censorship of the involvement of CIA underground group, NED is frequently not cited.
Finally portraying Uighur as the victim and Han are the devil is always their MO.
For example: “200 people died” Where’s “most of them are Han?”
And giving Uighurs a full page story of the beatings by the Han but nothing about Uighur butchering a whole Han family:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6677379.ece
And of course, portraying Rebiya Kadeer as this gentle and kind old women but nothing about her distortions (which Peter Foster from Telegraph Blogs caught her in the act for lying).
November 26th, 2009 at 6:17 am
@Jay
Comparing Xinjiang, a long time Chinese sovereign territory, and Japanese imperial expansion and invasion of it’s sovereign neighbors is a very poor comparison.
Forgive me for the vague missive, because the deficiency in logic should be obvious.
Let’s stick to the fact – these men attacked a mosque, terrorized people with mechete, and tried to kill police – and NatGeo highlight their death as “struggle for human rights”?
November 26th, 2009 at 7:10 am
To Charles:
“And NatGeo is wrong to have used their photo in reference to “struggle for human rights”. — why can’t people who write posts, in Pugster’s case, or read posts, in your case, actually read the article to which the post is linked? As I already told you in #21, and several times earlier, the photo was in reference to the courage of the amateur photographer. Teague’s piece refers to the events that transpired before the photo is taken, but does not use the photo itself. So, once again, are you even clear about exactly what it is you and Pugster are complaining about. I believe I summarized your complaints for you in #21. But the crux of your complaint does not mesh with the actual content of the 2 articles as presented. Once again, you guys have a complaint and simply find something that supposedly fits in order to justify your complaints. And yet again, your “example” doesn’t actually fit. It’s becoming habit-forming for you 2 good folks.
“Let’s stick to the facts, not useless nit picking, red herring argument” — the fact is that, yet again, you 2 have failed to read an article carefully enough to make a logical point. Although, based on what you guys write, I can see how “logic” falls under the “nitpicking” category in your minds.
To Pugster #25:
“But overwhelming the people who commented on the blog believes the author is trying to whitewash the story” — I guess a lot of people read as “carefully” as you and Charles. Admittedly not a happy state of affairs, but it is what it is.
To Steve #26:
“Aren’t you willing to stand behind them?” — I’m sure they stand behind them. As long as such standing does not require the support of logical arguments.
“All it does is make you look like you have no answer and got caught with your pants down.” — that’s a good one.
To Pugster #27:
“The problem is that it pulls away from the whole debate about the National Geographic” — ahhh, there’s the reason. You want to debate NG….but not necessarily what NG published, only what you think/hope they published. That should make for a rousing debate.
“This is what Charles mentions about the ‘useless nitpicking’ that SKC and Jerry are doing.” — umm, here’s a hint. Say what you mean, and mean what you say. If you can’t even achieve precision in your use of words, concepts, or logic, how good of a debate do you think you’d be able to offer. Well, I guess I can judge based on what you 2 have offered up so far…
“IMHO these dishonest argument, obfusication, redirection are not worth my breath” — ohhh, and you’re so worth mine. But I don’t mind being a good Samaritan and try to help others with their fuzzy thinking.
To Pugster #29:
“But why the author put an editor’s note about Human rights but not in the article?” — LOL. You’d have to ask the author. But is this an example of you wanting to debate what you HOPED the author had said, rather than what he actually said? Priceless.
To Charles #30:
“are you going to police the “cake is never defined”” — you guys are amazing. Are you now saying that you’re not familiar with the phrase “takes the cake”, especially since Pugster used it in the OP himself? BTW, I don’t think “mile” exists in metric; and it’s the imperial system, not “British” system. If that was an attempt at turning the tables (would you like a definition of “table”, cuz I’ve got one), that worked well.
“in an blogpost/blog/articlewhatever supposedly about struggle for human rights.” — you know, I usually refrain from saying this, but in this case, I think you and Pugster should definitely go back and read the blog and the article again. I don’t think it “took” the first time.
Your last statement in #30 was cute. If something that is lost had never been sought, does it really matter?
To Charles #36:
“NatGeo highlight their death as “struggle for human rights”?” — still not reading, I see. Oh well, I tried.
November 26th, 2009 at 7:21 am
Okay, before we flog this dead donkey any further, Charlie and Pugster – do the decent thing and quote the sections of the National Geographic article that you object to, and explain why you think they are offensive. You have so far totally failed to do this, instead accusing Nat Geo of saying things that, as far as any one here can work out, they did not actually say.
November 26th, 2009 at 9:28 am
To FOARP:
doing the decent thing? Defending their position? It may not sound like you’re asking for much, but it’s probably like asking for the moon when it comes to those 2.
November 26th, 2009 at 11:16 am
@S.K. Cheung, @pug_ster, @Charles Liu
Some comments.
Charlie in #24:
“Let’s stick to the facts, not useless nit picking, red herring argument, personal attack (which I will not respond).”
Perhaps you need to follow your own advice. Kind of like “practice what you preach”.
‘Now Jerry is defending terrorist with “it is unclear” ‘
You must be kidding. Chuck, this is another inane attempt at twisting words.
####
Pugster, in #25:
I am sorry for overwhelming you, Pugster. Did it hurt? ::LOL:: Next time maybe you should read the article. Then I would not have to overwhelm you with excerpts from the article you apparently never read.
The author, not the editor, (Unless Teague is writing about himself using the third person, which I doubt.), wrote the following, which again, you either did not read or can not comprehend. BTW, this is in #23, so I am repeating myself at the risk of overwhelming you, again.
Teague writes, “which apparently devolved into a mob attacking Han on the street.” What is unclear about that? He is saying that the Uyghur mob attacked the Han. Got it? He is not placing blame for “the death of the 200 people on the Chinese”. This is getting ridiculous.
“It is no different from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who believes whole Holocaust incident is a hoax.”
Pugster, your weak, goyish attempt at a punch never landed. I could care less about the Iranian president. That said, I seem to remember that you live in NYC. There are some Jews in NYC, especially Orthodox Jews, Hassidim, Kahanists and AIPAC members who consider the mention of Ahmadinejad as anti-Semitic. This could get you into a whole lot of trouble if you toss his name around flippantly. Some of these guys are rather volatile, to say the least.
####
Pugster #29
“But why the author put an editor’s note about Human rights but not in the article?”
I don’t know why the editor put that in his/her notes. But I doubt that Teague is his own editor. See above.
Again, I ask, did you actually read the article or are you having problems comprehending the thrust of his article? The violence is not the whole story, the riots are not the whole story.
He quoted a young woman’s account of July 5 in the article.
“I spoke to a young woman named Arzigul, who had attended the protest.”
####
Chuck #30 to Steve
“Looking foward to your point-by-point rebuttal, but since I’ve lost all respect for you now, forgive me for not wasting my time with you. You may have the last word.”
Pshaw!
####
SK #37-39
Thanks, SK. You saved me a lot of work. From your lips to God’s ears.
OMG, I wonder what that means? Is this cryptic, like “take the cake” and “by a mile”?
LMAO. ROFL.
November 26th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
FOARP,
Okay, before we flog this dead donkey any further, Charlie and Pugster – do the decent thing and quote the sections of the National Geographic article that you object to, and explain why you think they are offensive. You have so far totally failed to do this, instead accusing Nat Geo of saying things that, as far as any one here can work out, they did not actually say.
When you ask the question “Do you actually have anything to say about . . . . you know . . . . China?” in #3. I assume that you got an F in geography class because you didn’t know that Xinjiang is in China yet? Right? Instead you are trolling this thread by talking about me, Charlie, and dead donkeys, which reflects your intelligence. Good job.
Jerry,
I am sorry for overwhelming you, Pugster. Did it hurt? ::LOL:: Next time maybe you should read the article. Then I would not have to overwhelm you with excerpts from the article you apparently never read.
The author, not the editor, (Unless Teague is writing about himself using the third person, which I doubt.), wrote the following, which again, you either did not read or can not comprehend. BTW, this is in #23, so I am repeating myself at the risk of overwhelming you, again.
Dhhh, I did read the article, and no you did not overwhelm me, but your kind of questioning makes me laugh. If Teague is writing about himself, didn’t he write an autobiography? The editor did not mention it in the thread, nor did Teague mention this in the article.
But why the author put an editor’s note about Human rights but not in the article?”
I don’t know why the editor put that in his/her notes. But I doubt that Teague is his own editor. See above.
Also, Teague was probably not in Xinjiang when the riots/protests happened during July 2009, so how can he be a credible source to write this story if he was not there?
Again, I ask, did you actually read the article or are you having problems comprehending the thrust of his article? The violence is not the whole story, the riots are not the whole story.
I don’t have problems comprehending the thrust of this article. The problem is that the author whitewashing the violence portion (by the Uyghurs) so that they can write a favorable story, that’s why it is called propaganda. Also, you didn’t fully answer my questions in #29.
Teague writes, “which apparently devolved into a mob attacking Han on the street.” What is unclear about that? He is saying that the Uyghur mob attacked the Han. Got it? He is not placing blame for “the death of the 200 people on the Chinese”. This is getting ridiculous.
Attacking and killing are 2 different words and in the same paragraph he did not mentioned how they are killed. Thus the author is whitewashing this whole incident.
Pugster, your weak, goyish attempt at a punch never landed. I could care less about the Iranian president. That said, I seem to remember that you live in NYC. There are some Jews in NYC, especially Orthodox Jews, Hassidim, Kahanists and AIPAC members who consider the mention of Ahmadinejad as anti-Semitic. This could get you into a whole lot of trouble if you toss his name around flippantly. Some of these guys are rather volatile, to say the least.
First of all, I retracted my previous statement. Since you want to talk about Jews, the only reason why these NYC Jews are ‘trouble’ is that they a bunch of complainers and victimizers like you.
November 26th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
An I’m assuming you got an E in English and a “did not compete” for logic. You wrote about Nat Geo, and what you assume to be their ‘propaganda’ – not actually about China.
And you still haven’t properly identified the sections of the Nat Geo articles that you objected to. For god’s sake, you wrote this article, you accused them of propaganda, but you cannot even be bothered to identify the sections you object to?
November 26th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
FOARP,
An I’m assuming you got an E in English and a “did not compete” for logic. You wrote about Nat Geo, and what you assume to be their ‘propaganda’ – not actually about China.
And you still haven’t properly identified the sections of the Nat Geo articles that you objected to. For god’s sake, you wrote this article, you accused them of propaganda, but you cannot even be bothered to identify the sections you object to?
Read #41 above about Jerry’s comment.
November 26th, 2009 at 11:07 pm
. . . . . . . . where you failed, again, to quote or even actually identify what sections of the articles actually offended you. Jerry actually quoted the piece, you merely responded by saying that ‘attacking is not the same as killing’ – although anyone reading the piece would have understood it to mean exactly that.
November 27th, 2009 at 12:26 am
To Pugster #41:
you continue to offer weak and pathetic stuff.
“I assume that you got an F in geography class because you didn’t know that Xinjiang is in China yet? Right?”
— first of all, I’m not even sure where FOARP supposedly wrote that. But it wasn’t #3 of this thread, cuz that was my comment.
Anyhow, even if FOARP did say that somewhere, on what basis do you make this “assumption”? You know what they say about “assume”…but in this case, the word may as well be “assu”. See if you can figure that one out.
“I did read the article,” — really? Could’ve fooled me.
“If Teague is writing about himself, didn’t he write an autobiography” —- dude, the point is that he is NOT writing about himself. So your “if”, once again, is completely pointless and irrelevant. It is mind-boggling that you would even attempt make such an argument…you must be like the eighth modern wonder or something.
“The problem is that the author whitewashing” — they omit your favourite pet fact, and that’s a whitewashing? Interesting standard. I’ll be sure to apply that to the next article you link to, which you may or may not have read.
You know, if you’re at all worth your salt, you should just ignore all the various arguments that have been laid before you 2 (well, you’ve pretty much been doing that, so carry on), and just focus on FOARP #38. Even though you’ve quoted that entire comment, you’ve yet to even begin to take up the challenge.
November 27th, 2009 at 4:52 am
FOARP 44,
. . . . . . . . where you failed, again, to quote or even actually identify what sections of the articles actually offended you. Jerry actually quoted the piece, you merely responded by saying that ‘attacking is not the same as killing’ – although anyone reading the piece would have understood it to mean exactly that.
Maybe the problem that you didn’t really didn’t my response in #41. So here it is.
“I don’t have problems comprehending the thrust of this article. The problem is that the author whitewashing the violence portion (by the Uyghurs) so that they can write a favorable story, that’s why it is called propaganda.”
November 27th, 2009 at 5:19 am
Pug_ster, I think your time can be better spend on other things. I seriousely doubt Steve is ever going to ask his lot to stop the silly, volumn-based personal attack, red herring argument, insults:
“weak and pathetic” – will you see Steve criticizing SKC for being unclear?
“E in English” – will you see Steve criticizing FOARP for his constant belitling of others?
“Pshaw!” – is this even a word? In what sense does this denigrating insult contribut to a debate on the subject factually?
Just don’t feed the trolls. Let’s quote SKC here – his lot can do what they please, I will do what I please.
Let’s stick to the facts – these men attacked a mosque, terrorized people with mechete, and tried to kill police – and NatGeo highlight their death as “struggle for human rights”?
Even with video footage of the mosque attack cited, and timestamp of attacks highlighted, Jerry still say ‘it is unclear” if these men terrorized others. What else is there to say when the fact is right there?
November 27th, 2009 at 5:43 am
To Pugster #46:
oh I see. So it’s not really that he made a sin of commission; it’s that he made an apparent sin of omission. No wonder you can’t actually quote an offending passage. So everything he did write is good to go; it’s what he didn’t write that is the problem. Well golly gee, I imagine there were a lot of details that the author omitted, and only a fixed number that he did include, seeing how his article was of finite length and all. I can definitely see now how you would be hot and bothered by that. In this way, I suppose you would object to just about any piece, since i doubt any mortal could write anything that includes every detail of every event related to the topic at hand. And in this case, his omission of your one pet fact renders his piece to be a whitewash of “the facts” and defines it as “propaganda”? Interesting. But hey, everyone has standards…
To Charles:
““weak and pathetic” – will you see Steve criticizing SKC for being unclear?” — if you had read beyond the first line of #45, you would have been met by a list of weak and pathetic arguments gleaned from Pugster #41. Take your time. Enjoy.
““E in English” – will you see Steve criticizing FOARP for his constant belitling of others?” — umm, but Pugster’s “F in geography” would be ok? Sounds pretty consistent to me…
“Let’s quote SKC here – his lot can do what they please, I will do what I please.” — by all means. But when you serve up stuff like you 2 have done here, this is the response you should expect. Goes right back to the beginning when Buxi was around (and I paraphrase): if you say something silly (or worse), you should expect to be called on it. I believe they’re paging you overhead as we speak.
“NatGeo highlight their death as “struggle for human rights”?” — still not reading. Oh well. If at first you don’t succeed…
November 27th, 2009 at 6:15 am
To Pugster:
“A week earlier an ethnic clash had broken out here, killing almost 200 people in one of China’s most deadly protests since the Tiananmen Square” (page 1)
“Each side says the other struck first, but at some point the authorities tried to quell the crowd, which apparently devolved into a mob attacking Han on the street.” (page 7)
Now let’s compare to what seems to be your pet fact in your OP: “they didn’t explain about how the so called ‘protests’ got ugly and almost 200 people died, namely by those knife wielding maniacs whom National Geographic refers them as ‘protesters.’”
—so when you want an explanation of how things “got ugly”, what exactly are you looking for? It seems to me that the very facts you claim are “whitewashed” are in fact right in the article, as I’ve annotated. Did you want them bolded, in a different font? Were you looking for a tabulation of cause of death?….let’s see, 50 were stabbed in the chest, 50 in the neck, 50 died of blunt force trauma to the head, and 50 were trampled…would that have sufficed?
“he did not mentioned how they are killed. Thus the author is whitewashing this whole incident.” (you in #41). So in your mind, in order to prevent a “whitewashing”, you literally need autopsy reports in the text of the article? Are you kidding me? This is your argument?!?
If such is the threshold for “western media propaganda” in your alternate reality, then it’s no wonder that you see shadows around every corner, and jump when something goes bump in the night.
— these “knife-wielding maniacs” in the NG photo that you love so much, how many of those 200 do you have proof of their responsibility for?
November 27th, 2009 at 8:17 am
@S.K. Cheung, @pug_ster, @FOARP
Pugster #41
Let me clarify the editor/author issue. Usually, the editor and author are two different people. In the editor’s note, he writes:
So, Pugster, if Teague was actually the editor, he would be referring to himself in the third person. That was a cute trick used by Nixon, when he referred to himself as “the President”, rather than using, “I” (first person). For this reason, I doubt that Teague was the editor.
“If Teague is writing about himself, didn’t he write an autobiography?”
Usually, an autobiography is written in the first person, “I” or “We”.
That is an amazing leap to a conclusion. Before you issue your QED, you might want to conclusively demonstrate your point.
Here is what I think. You want to prove that the “Western Media” is “biased” against China and uses propaganda; that is your preconceived notion. You go looking for little snippets which, when taken out of context, prove what you believe. You discard the rest of the article because it does not agree with your preconceived notion. Thus, your beliefs are intact and I am just a “victimizer” and a “complainer”. That is cognitive dissonance, or as Wu Di in #32 so aptly put it, “Believing is seeing.” I like Wu Di’s term a lot.
This is why I never expect to have a lucid, cogent discussion with you, Pugster. Or Chuckie. Diatribes, rants and vituperations, yes! Lucid, cogent discussion, no! So, I just write what I want and have no expectations beyond your normal level of discussion.
####
Pugster, you wrote in #25
“It is no different from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who believes whole Holocaust incident is a hoax.”
To which I responded in #40
It was just a piece of advice that there are some Jews in NYC (not all) who will fly off the handle when they hear the name, “Ahmadinejad”. That is all.
To which you so inappropriately responded to me in #41:
Here is your retraction in #27.
That is not a retraction; that is waffling and equivocation, if I ever saw it.
Jews don’t complain, they kvetch. And we love to victimize people who play the victim role so convincingly. NOT! ::LMAO::
Pugster, I couldn’t care less and then some if you don’t like me. I don’t care if you have a problem with my behavior or the way I write or what I write.
But when you lump the Jews into a bucket, “the only reason why these NYC Jews are ‘trouble’ is that they a bunch of complainers and victimizers like you”, that is where I draw the line. Lumping Jews into a bucket is racism. Lumping Jews into a bucket is anti-Semitism. If you want to call me a kvetcher, schmuck, putz, or victimizer, that is ok with me. Just don’t lump the Jews or any subset thereof into one of your racist buckets.
I would never dream of drawing conclusions about a group of Chinese people, your family, the whole Chinese race or any subset thereof based on what I think of you. You are you. I couldn’t care less what your race is.
If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen. If you can’t take what you dish out, stop dishing it out!
November 27th, 2009 at 8:24 am
@Charles –
“his lot “
And what `lot` would that be? Steve is American, and I`m British, and proud of it. If you want to engage in us-and-them thinking do not be surprised if you are somewhat left out in the cold.
“Pshaw”
If you know English, which I am beginning to seriously doubt, you would know that this is a somewhat 19th-century style exclamation – not an insult. Oh, and whilst I`m at it: Pugster – “flog the dead donkey” means to continue working apon something without obtaining the desired result. It is also not an insult.
“Let’s stick to the facts – these men attacked a mosque, terrorized people with mechete, and tried to kill police – and NatGeo highlight their death as “struggle for human rights”?”
Can you actually quote the section where they did this? You have so far totally failed to do so, nor have any of us been able to find such a passage.
Guys, I`m going to take a stab at guessing what happened here – someone on antiCNN.com or the like stumbled on this article, took one look at the title and posted a link on that site. The usual pile-in ensued of which Charlie and Pugster were part. Pugster then published the above post on this site. At no point did they actually bother to confirm the original accusation. I could be wrong about this, but having seen the way that sites get flamed by nationalists of all persuations this seems to be the way it usually goes.
November 27th, 2009 at 9:22 am
@S.K. Cheung, @pug_ster, @FOARP, @Charles Liu
Charlie #47
Charlie, I watched your video link. It is still unclear what happened in the mosque. The submitter of the video apparently marked up the video. They are not shown attacking the people in the mosque. They brandished machetes in an apparent attempt at fomenting unrest among the people. They were apparently angry. But it does not look like they chased or attacked their fellow Muslims. And the submitter says that Chinese authorities may have leaked the video.
Sorry, Charlie.
“Pshaw” is an 18th/19th century English exclamation. I used it colloquially. And “colloquially” is a word, too. Why don’t you look it up on Baidu, as is your wont. “Wont” is an actual word, too.
SK #48
LMAO. Thanks, SK. A little humor and sarcasm to brighten up my day.
SK #49
ROFL. Thanks again, SK.
FOARP #51
LMAO. One reason, even though Jewish, I went to a Jesuit high school. My parents and I believed in high quality education. So sorry, Charlie.
Thanks for the laugh, FOARP.
November 27th, 2009 at 10:48 am
I am always learning something new every day.
1.Protesting can be “sword-wielding”
2.”Han security forces stood in ranks along every street in the city’s Uygur quarter.” It was so true. I thought the security force were also stood in ranks along every street in the city’s Han quarter. Someone once told me:” white policemen always wandering around in China town with guns” . I laughed.
3.”Many hadn’t had time to pull on their shoes and ran in just their socks. ” It’s good to know that people could rush out without pulling their shoes full of joy. Once again let me aware of my limited life experience.
4.”the angle of the running man, his shirt billowing behind him, the strange coolness of the air—were etched by a sound: a gunshot. But the three Uygurs did not stop in the face of destruction. They tilted toward it.” What a heroic image we often see on Hollywood and CCP propaganda movies.
I see the joy from some of the comments of praising the article .
I am just speechless and disgusted.
November 27th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
@BMY #53
Some random thoughts:
I wasn’t there. I can only imagine.
Many in Urumqi were full of trepidation because of the earlier riot on July 5. The police, the Uyghurs, the Hans. The place was ready to explode. Some exploded by fighting. Some by martyrdom. Most people just wanted to run and hide. And explode it did again.
‘1.Protesting can be “sword-wielding”’
In their own weird way, those 3 described were martyrs. It was their way of protesting: they wanted the police to make them martyrs for the Uyghur people and Allah. Not my or most people’s idea of a smart move.
The author wrote.
IMHO, wielding a sword is not protesting. Nobody that I know here has equated wielding a sword with protesting. Killing Han is just that; killing Han. Maybe they saw that as their way of protesting on July 5. Maybe those Uyghurs who carried swords felt so desperate and had nothing to lose. Maybe they were afraid of being pounced upon by Hans. Who knows? I don’t know.
OK, you are speculating here, so I will, too. Again, we have a very tense, explosive situation in Urumqi. Many people are probably as allergic to unnecessary pain and suffering as I am. Some loonies show up at my mosque, exhorting us to rush the police, who have loaded guns. “Wow”, I think, “these guys are loonies.” “Plus the government has set up CCTV in the mosque and the police are watching every move we make.”
My thoughts, “Get the hell out of here, quick and hide!” So what if I am bare-footed or just have my socks on? Self-preservation dictates to me to forget putting on the shoes.
“What a heroic image we often see on Hollywood and CCP propaganda movies.”
I thought that the author, Matthew Teague, was trying to give us a flavor for the situation. Not a sequel to “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid” or “The Magnificent Seven”. IMHO, he painted a vivid picture of the situation.
You are entitled to your perceptions and opinions and view of reality, as you may so choose. I am just not very surprised. Again, I have no idea what you are talking about. To me, you are just gesticulating and waving your arms about for show with no substance. Just so you can feel good about saying “I am just speechless and disgusted.”
About what? What examples of joy are you describing? What praise are you describing?
Or are you just interested in writing a modicum of double-talk and emotionally-charged terms as some kind of rationalization and justification for your opinions? They are opinions, and need no justifications. And your opprobrium, IMHO, is meaningless!
I praised the article in #23:
November 28th, 2009 at 4:02 am
“What a heroic image we often see on Hollywood and CCP propaganda movies.”
I thought that the author, Matthew Teague, was trying to give us a flavor for the situation. Not a sequel to “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid” or “The Magnificent Seven”. IMHO, he painted a vivid picture of the situation.
@Jerry it’s a funny defence, if bloggers in National Geographic or other mainstream American media try to give their readers such kind of flavor for the situation or vivid picture of the situation of the Fort. Hood shooting. it will be double fun.
November 28th, 2009 at 7:36 am
@Willy – Except people write such descriptions all the time, when they are there to see it. All Teague does is describe how they could have dropped their weapons then and maybe have lived, but seemed to consciously decide to die. No journalist witnessed the Fort Hood shootings and hence no report of this kind will most likely come out.
Once again, it just seems like people are getting angry over this without even bothering to identify why they believe that anger to be justified.
November 28th, 2009 at 8:35 am
To BMY #53:
“I see the joy from some of the comments of praising the article .” — I’ve yet to see someone here “praise” the article. To me, it doesn’t seem like Pulitzer Prize stuff. In fact, if I were to suggest that this article was totally awesome, it would behoove me to provide some support for why I felt that way. Similarly, if someone is going to criticize the article, some justification would be nice. Sadly lacking thus far.
As FOARP suggests in #56, there seems a great haste to affix labels like “propaganda”, no doubt owing to this ubiquitous “western media bias”. And in this haste, the logic gets left behind. Do that once – well, everyone has a bad day every now and again. Do that twice – well, stuff happens. But man, you’d think there’s an epidemic of “stuff” and “bad days” going around these parts, at least among some folks.
Also, people should distinguish their distaste for the events in question, or that for the participants, and their feelings for an article and a photo that seek to describe them.
November 28th, 2009 at 9:36 am
Guys,
I’ve highlighted Jason #35 comments. I think for the average Chinese perspective, Jason’s view is probably more in-tuned. And I’ll quote his question:
Hi Jerry, S.K. Cheung, FOARP,
I’d be interested in you guys take on that. I think in fewer words, that’s what pug_ster and Charles are after. It seems this thread can continue the way it has and everyone’s ignoring Jason #35.
November 28th, 2009 at 10:48 am
@Jerry #54
I think I am disgusted by the article as much as you are pleased by it, meaningless or not.
November 28th, 2009 at 11:06 am
@SKC #57
you said “Similarly, if someone is going to criticize the article, some justification would be nice. Sadly lacking thus far.”
I totally agree with you in principle. But haven’t we read enough what had happened in Urumqi from all sources? Haven’t we known enough that innocent lives got butchered by so called (some) “protesters”? I feel no need to bring up the facts again.
November 28th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
@Dewang – My take on Khan is that she is both untrustworthy as a source of information and most likely irrelevant as a political actor in Xinjiang. My take on this article is that it is a mood-piece on Uighurs in Xinjiang, not in-depth analysis or historical perspective. I certainly don’t think that it represents the opinions of all Uighurs (although it does represent the opinions of all the Uighurs I have ever had the opportunity to ask about the situation in Xinjiang – all three of them).
@BMY – No. This article isn’t actually about the riots, so your opinions about the rioters have nothing to do with it. The article is about the way at least some Uighur feel about what is happening in Xinjiang – and trying to describe why people would get angry enough to try to take on armed police with rusty machetes. Before you ask, yes, I have read similar articles written about Palestinians, Lebanese, Chechens, Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland, Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq as well as many other groups around the world.
As it happens, the people I know who have lived in that part of the world – both Chinese and expats – have little sympathy for the Uighur community, find their customs hopelessly chauvinistic, backward, and violent.
November 28th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
As it happens, the people I know who have lived in that part of the world – both Chinese and expats – have little sympathy for the Uighur community, find their customs hopelessly chauvinistic, backward, and violent.
@foarp distorting the fact can only compromise the cause and the value you are defending.i think i am not the first telling you that, well, it’s your freedom to blind your eyes to make yourself feel good.
November 28th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
Willy, to be quite honest I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I have in my time only ever asked three Uighurs what they thought about the situation in Xinjiang, their opinions were similar to those mentioned in the Nat Geoarticle. I have also asked non-Uighurs with experience of living in Xinjiang what they thought about the situation there, none of whom had much sympathy for the Uighurs. Where have I ‘blinded’ myself?
November 28th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
@FOARP
I would be very interested if you asked 3 of your fellow Uighurs (I have a very nice Uighur friend, Abudullah in Urumqi), do you think Chinese government suppression and this tightly atmosphere has to do with the United States taxpayer’s money given to Kadeer and WUC?
For those questioning that Han has taking their jobs, ask them if they can copy the Shanghainese way of going overseas or going other places to China to look for a job since foreigners has taking jobs for Han in Shanghai.
November 29th, 2009 at 1:36 am
To BMY #60:
if I understood you correctly, your objection is to the existence of yet another article espousing the Uyghur perspective in Xinjiang. Fair enough. One could say the article is redundant. One could say it offers nothing that is substantively new. I would have no problem with that. But that is quite different from accusing the author of “whitewashing”, or smearing the article as “propaganda”, simply because the author chose not to include certain facts that some folks apparently would like to repeatedly see. In fact, the very existence of articles like the Times piece in Jason #35 would make the type of article Pugster would have preferred to have appeared in NG to be rather redundant as well.
To Dewang #58:
yes, the Times article is disturbing. And it likely does represent the “average” Chinese perspective, since it likely represents the Han perspective, who, by virtue of their overwhelming majority, would dominate the determination of such an “average”. Whether it represents the Uyghur perspective (who are also Chinese) is less clear.
Yes, that may well be what Pugster and Charles are after (well, who knows for sure, but it seems like a good guess). But if that’s the perspective they’re after, they already have it in the flesh in the form of the Times article. Does that make any alternate perspective by definition a “whitewash” and “propaganda”? Is it a whitewash and propaganda simply because they don’t agree with it? Well, I suppose it does/is to them, for what that’s worth.
To Willy #62:
What “fact” is FOARP distorting? He’s speaking about the views held by the people he knows, Do you happen to know the same people he knows in “that part of the world”, and can confidently vouch that he is misrepresenting the views of his acquaintances? Gosh, it must be a small world after all.
November 29th, 2009 at 2:09 am
@Jason – “I would be very interested if you asked 3 of your fellow Uighurs”
Errrmmmm . . .. . I would have thought that this was pretty obvious, but I’m not an Uighur. The rest of what you say (foreigners taking jobs from Chinese – are you kidding?) can also be filed in the looney-tunes draw.
November 29th, 2009 at 3:38 am
@FOARP
foreigners taking jobs from Chinese IS MUCH DIFFERENT than foreigners taking jobs from Chinese in Shanghai which is a fact. No bull.
Don’t distort my words.
November 29th, 2009 at 8:20 am
What “fact” is FOARP distorting? He’s speaking about the views held by the people he knows, Do you happen to know the same people he knows in “that part of the world”, and can confidently vouch that he is misrepresenting the views of his acquaintances? Gosh, it must be a small world after all.
@S.K. Cheung previous discussion has provide enough evidence to prove NG and Foarp distort the fact. what they do can only compromise the cause they are defending for.
November 29th, 2009 at 8:26 am
Comparing with Tibetan, Uighur can enjoy more diverse culture, because they are free from “culture politicalization” of American Tibetaness consumers and Dalai Lama.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfMhDIwOFWM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQBNSJJ_678
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1NQwGZ9qGU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiEJff8WpMQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqmIrhhr6vs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eXqx5vXeC0
November 29th, 2009 at 11:13 am
To Willy,
in #62, you quote this from FOARP #61 (“As it happens, the people I know who have lived in that part of the world – both Chinese and expats – have little sympathy for the Uighur community, find their customs hopelessly chauvinistic, backward, and violent.”)
You then suggest that FOARP is “distorting the fact”.
Now, in order for paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 of your #62 to make any sense at all, the “fact” to which you refer has to be the opinions of the people FOARP knows who have lived in that part of the world.
Then, in #68, you say this: “previous discussion has provide enough evidence to prove NG and Foarp distort the fact”, to which I have questions –
1.once again, what “fact” is FOARP distorting?
2. what “fact” is NG and FOARP distorting together, in cahoots and all?
3. leaving FOARP out, what has the “previous discussion” proved regarding NG’s apparent distortions? Are we once again returning to this issue that the NG has “distorted” simply because the article has not reported ALL of your preferred facts?
November 29th, 2009 at 11:21 am
@Jason – This is so OT it’s unbelievable, but just so you know, it’s pretty much impossible for a foreigner to ‘take’ a Chinese person’s job – at least if they arrive in the country via legal channels. For that to happen a company would have to get rid of a local and recruit a (almost always more highly paid) foreigner to fill his position, baring all the risks of having the guy do a runner back to his home country (which an amazingly high percentage of foreign recruits do) as well as meet some or all of the expenses of having the foreign recruit come to China and find accommodation there. Not only that, but they would have to justify the recruitment to the authorities during the visa application, who insist that no foreigner should be hired if they can fill the position using local labour. If you had ever worked as an expat in China you would know that the truth in this.
I’ve been hearing people complain about foreigners ‘taking’ Chinese people’s jobs since I first arrived in China back in 2003: it’s nonsense, plain and simple – low level positions can be filled locally much more cheaply than they can by bringing in foreigners, only positions where particular skills (in most cases the ability to speak English) are needed which cannot be found locally are foreigners hired. Even in Shanghai this makes no sense.
Now, perhaps you’ve seen foreigners working as barmen or the occasional bell-hop, but all of the ones I’ve ever spoken were students from poor countries trying to hustle a bit of cash to help with their studies, or people looking to make business/social connects. Hell, when I was a student in Nanjing I worked at real-estate conventions, did advertising, bar jobs and the like – but I wasn’t ‘taking’ anyone’s job because the positions were not ones that could have been filled locally as they all involved being a fluent speaker of English. Later on I worked doing technical/legal work, but once again, the only reason why any such company would cough up the money to hire an expat is because they couldn’t fill the position locally.
Last I looked – which admittedly was back in 2004 – the foreign population of Shanghai didn’t even make one percent of the total, and they were paying about 30% of the income tax collected in the city. Unfortunately the Shanghai Daily piece in which I read this is behind their pay-wall, but you can get the gist of the story here: http://www.shanghaidaily.com/search/result.asp?title_key=income+tax&search_keyword=&source=&category=&sub_category=&author=&date_from=&date_to=&range=&page=2
To my mind, foreigners in Shanghai in the main create jobs, they don’t take them, and I think the above statistics show that this is the case. But hell, if you actually have any evidence that foreigners are ‘taking’ Shanghai jobs away from locals, write a post about it so we can discuss this properly.
@Willy – I’d be much obliged if you could actually point out where I ‘distorted’ the facts. Since making random accusations which you can’t back up seems to be in fashion nowadays I’m not holding my breath waiting for this to happen.
November 29th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
BMY Says: 4.”the angle of the running man, his shirt billowing behind him, the strange coolness of the air—were etched by a sound: a gunshot. But the three Uygurs did not stop in the face of destruction. They tilted toward it.” What a heroic image we often see on Hollywood and CCP propaganda movies.
Jerry Says:I thought that the author, Matthew Teague, was trying to give us a flavor for the situation. Not a sequel to “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid” or “The Magnificent Seven”. IMHO, he painted a vivid picture of the situation.
Willy Says: it’s a funny defence, if bloggers in National Geographic or other mainstream American media try to give their readers such kind of flavor for the situation or vivid picture of the situation of the Fort. Hood shooting. it will be double fun.
FOARP Says: No journalist witnessed the Fort Hood shootings and hence no report of this kind will most likely come out.
@FOARP there are lots of news about the Fort Hood shootings in American mainstream media, even they journalist didn’t witness the shooting. but you reply me with”hence no report of this kind will most likely come out.” as you don’t mind to use such a ridiculous excuse, i don’t think you want to discuss, you just want to chant vague slogan to make yourself feel good. that’s why the others don’t want to join this discussion any more. if you do want to help your Uighur friend, you shall ask them to read more academic research from anthropology scholars in the United States. such as Dru C. Gladney’s book http://books.google.com/books?id=ddddmhXofKoC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false
so that they can understand distorting the fact can not help them, just as depicting the Fort Hood shooter as a muslim hero protesting unjust war can not enhance understanding of different communities.
November 29th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
“you don’t mind to use such a ridiculous excuse”
What, my ‘excuse’ for no journalistic play-by-play description of the the Fort Hood shootings similar to the description of the three men in the Nat Geo article coming out was the fact that there were no journalist witnesses? How ridiculous.
“you want to discuss, you just want to chant vague slogan to make yourself feel good”
Where have I chanted a slogan? All I have asked is that people actually quote the section of the article which says what people claim has been said. Nobody has yet done this.
“if you do want to help your Uighur friend, you shall ask them to read more academic research from anthropology scholars in the United States”
. . .. . because? All I have said is what their opinion is. I neither agree nor disagree with their opinions, I merely stated what their opinions are.
Willy, you accuse me of ‘distorting facts’ but then don’t say what facts I have distorted. You accuse people of lying and then don’t say what their lies are. You accuse people of propaganda without actually ever saying what exactly it was that they said which constituted propaganda. Do you ever take responsibility for what you say? Or is the mere repetition of phrases which make you feel good your one aim in being on this forum?
November 29th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Since the discussion get into stagnation, for more amusement, let’s turn to the “real Tibet” from “another Tibet”. this is an academic research from Tibetan anthropology scholar in the University of Colorado. “Exile meets homeland: Politics, performance and authenticity in the Tibetan diaspora.” Let’s see how the Dalai Lama and those Tibetaness consumers baffle Tibetan enjoy the amusement of culture by politicalize the “culture”
For most of the show, I sat listening with several former new arrivals and a few other Tibetans who had arrived in California from Lhasa. They appeared to be having a tremendously good time, singing along, clapping frequently, and making remarks such as “Today is just like being at the Norbulinkga” (the summer palace of the Dalai Lama in Lhasa, where summer picnics are frequently held); “it’s just like being at Zholdon” (a yoghurt festival held in Lhasa every August); “it’s just like being at a nangma” (a Tibetan-style karaoke popular in Lhasa); and even “for those who haven’t been to Lhasa, this is just like taking them there for the day!” One woman, who had just received political asylum in the USA, exclaimed to me that this was her happiest day since she had arrived in the United States two years earlier, because “it’s just like being back in Lhasa”.
Immersed as I was in my friends’ pleasant nostalgia for Lhasa, memories of which flooded back to them as they listened to the Tibetan singers, I assumed that everyone present was enjoying the music. When I walked around, however, I realized that this was not the case. A mother and daughter, both participants in TUSRP, complained to each other about the way the performers sang in such a strangely un-Tibetan way, their tones too high, and their smiles and gestures too perfect and too dramatic. The daughter then said that she had had enough of this, and suggested, “let’s go watch a Hindi movie”. When I later asked other long-time exiles about their reactions, some said that they “didn’t know whether to laugh or to cry, whether to be happy or sad”. Although they were happy to see Tibetans perform, they felt strongly that everything about the way these Tibetans had been trained – from the way they opened their mouths and smiled, to the way they stressed certain syllables in their songs, to their use of nasal tones?was ‘very Chinese’.Whatever happiness they might have expected to feel upon their encounter with those from the homeland for which they have been longing was dissipated by the alienness of what they saw and heard. Indeed, according to several, it was only a measure of their graciousness and goodwill that helped them refrain from laughing at the performers.
http://spot.colorado.edu/~yehe/society%20and%20space.pdf
November 29th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
@FOARP #56, @S.K. Cheung #57, @Willy #55, @BMY #59-60, @dewang #58
Yep, FOARP. Part of this I lay at the doorstep of cognitive dissonance; “Believing is seeing”. Part of this I lay at the doorstep of insecurity. When you challenge an insecure person’s beliefs, their anxieties are aggravated. Anger is a common response. I am not sure if they need to justify their anger. But it sure would be nice if they explained some of their responses.
####
SK, you are right. It is not Pulitzer Prize material, but it is interesting. Even if NatGeo is sponsored by the NED. LOL. I would love to have somebody like Robert Fisk, T.R. Reid, Bill Moyers, Sy Hersh or Chris Hedges write about this subject. They are truly investigative journalists.
You can say that again. Or as Tom and Ray of CarTalk would say, “Writing without the benefit of the thought process!”
Amen. That also goes for teabaggers, birthers and many GOPers.
####
“I think I am disgusted by the article as much as you are pleased by it, meaningless or not.” (#59)
BMY, I will tell you what disgusts me. The killing of innocent Tibetans, innocent Hans, innocent Uyghurs, innocent soldiers at Fort Hood, innocent Palestinians, innocent Lebanese, innocent Iraqis and innocent Israelis, to name just a few.
Willy, I don’t think the death of innocents is funny or doubly funny (#55).
But I did think that Qin Gang, (spokesman for the foreign ministry) was funny (see Dalai Lama Retire thread). He made the following statement regarding the possibility of Obama meeting with the DL, “The opinion of Chinese people should not be humiliated”. In addition to being funny, I thought it was ridiculous.
I commented at the thread, “I think this statement is ridiculous. To me, this is a blatant attempt at manipulation, which is nothing new in the foreign relations game.”
####
BMY, you wrote to SK, “I totally agree with you in principle.” Unfortunately, not in practice.
BMY, outside of the Chinese government-controlled media’s reports, there are very few other sources reporting from Urumqi, mostly because they lack of access to the area. Innocent lives were lost by both Uyghurs and Hans, not just butchering by some so-called protesters (I assume you are referring to Uyghurs). What facts are we talking about? I have seen conjecture, emotionally-charged terms and viewpoints. But very few, if any, relevant facts. If they exist, it would be nice to report them once, let alone again. So I assume you have no substantiated, relevant facts.
####
That is imaginative and nonsensical, Willy. I have no idea what you are talking about. Maybe FOARP (#63) and I are slow on the uptake and blinded by your brilliance.
####
Dewang, I read the story. It is very sad that stories like this exist. But, it seems to be a fact of life, a very unfortunate fact of life. I know of similar stories which occurred to my own Jewish family in Russia in tsarist times. I have heard the stories of Jewish annihilation by the Nazis. I have read similar stories from Ireland, the South during the Jim Crow era and Civil Rights era, Tibet, Serbia, Kosovo, Mulugeta Seraw who was savagely beaten to death in Portland, Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, the West Bank, Gaza, Lebanon, Guatemala, Chile, just to name a few. They all are tragic and very sad.
Unfortunately, there is hate and violence from both sides in Xinjiang or Uyghurstan (as the Uyghurs seem to prefer). And like Teague’s story, Macartney’s article is a report from her point of view; which is all that one can expect from a journalist. No one article is totally inclusive and conclusive, and that is fine. Each article is a mere piece to the puzzle.
“I think in fewer words, that’s what pug_ster and Charles are after.”
As far as what Pugster and Chuckie want, honestly, I could not care less. They have preconceived notions, which they wear like impenetrable shields. That is their choice and that is ok with me. As far as I care, there is no hope of cogent or lucid discussions with them. I can live with that.
Regarding Jason’s question:
No journalist has an obligation to be impartial. Honest, yes. Writing with integrity, yes.
Let me quote again from Bill Moyers’ book, ”Moyers on America” (I wrote this earlier on the Lou Jing thread). Moyers is a lifelong journalist, a much respected journalist and an ardent defender of a free, robust and diverse press.
II am not sure what is, “I think for the average Chinese perspective, Jason’s view is probably more in-tuned.” I don’t know what is the “average Chinese perspective” and I don’t know if we should care about what is the “average Chinese perspective”. I mean, after all, what is the average perspective of Israeli Jews, Palestinians, Iraqis, Lebanese, Muslims, Christians, Americans, Washingtonians, Seattleites, Russian Jewish Americans or even my own family? To me, it is irrelevant and meaningless. I speak from my perspective, alone, and my perspective is subject to change. To me, diversity is good. To me, the search for the average or LCD is the path to mediocrity, the undistinguished, and the unexceptional. Or, in other words, the “go along to get along” mentality or that old Chinese “harmony quest”. Borrrrring! Meaningless to me, IMHO!
Furthermore, I would never have the temerity to state what the average perspective is for any group.
November 29th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
@Jerry i just think your ridiculous sophistry was extremely funny. unfortunately your sophistry just make the other debater quit the discussion of this thread.
Of course, you are satisfied with “No journalist has an obligation to be impartial”, American hold the media hegemony, American citizen needn’t worry their mainstream media will describe the Fort. Hood shooter as hero.
and i shall remind you, western media journalist poured into Urumqi right after the riot. but i know there are quite a few American don’t believe Obama was born in American, so i wouldn’t be surprised that you think the other debater’s evidence is not substantial enough. Okay, chanting your slogan as you want.
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2009/11/02/091102crbo_books_kolbert
November 29th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
To Willy #72:
“if bloggers in National Geographic or other mainstream American media try to give their readers such kind of flavor for the situation or vivid picture of the situation of the Fort. Hood shooting. it will be double fun.”
— IF such an article were to be written, it may well be an interesting read. In fact, if you’re so hot to trot, you should write it. But rather than speculate on suppositions, perhaps we can focus on what NG has written. And when I refer to what NG has written, I’m referring to the actual words on the page/screen, as opposed to what some people may have hoped had been written so as to buttress their supposed arguments.
“so that they can understand distorting the fact can not help them”
—- now you’re accusing FOARP’s acquaintances of “distorting the fact(s)” too? You’ve yet to respond to #70, so I imagine it will be way too much to expect you to identify exactly which facts FOARP’s acquaintances have distorted. But if you ever do take up the challenge, maybe you can elaborate also on how they have performed such distortions.
To FOARP #73:
Your last paragraph is full of very good questions. I’m guessing that the individual in question is not equipped with very good answers…hence the deafening silence.
To Willy #76:
“American citizen needn’t worry their mainstream media will describe the Fort. Hood shooter as hero.” — but if Xinhua wants to, or it Al-Jazeera wants to, or if you want to, they and you are free to fly-at’er. If someone wishes to do so, and is prepared to make a reasonable argument in support of such a position, power to them. It’s pointless to suggest that “America has big media and can get away with stuff” without identifying examples thereof, and in this case, even when you and others suggest that such an example is at hand, it behooves you to show how this example fits your argument. But you guys haven’t. And it doesn’t.
“i know there are quite a few American don’t believe Obama was born in American” —LOL. Too bad these people you know aren’t Supremes.
To Willy #74:
not sure what you’re trying to say with your link. Tibetans of different backgrounds have differing perceptions of what it means to be authentically Tibetan. And your point is?
And while we’re at it, I’m wondering if the Northern Californian concepts of what Chinese people want and of “Chinese-ness” is in fact a low-fidelity replica of the real things, their protestations and assertions notwithstanding.
November 30th, 2009 at 3:10 am
@Jason #64-67
While that may be a factor, I suspect there is a bigger factor, Jason. Mr. Teague wrote in the article:
That may be as volatile an issue as the Israeli settlements in the West Bank.
Just curious! So which jobs have the foreigners taken from the Chinese in Shanghai? Or is this just an inflammatory retort, Jason?
A fact, Jason? Examples, please. Or is this just another inflammatory retort, again?
November 30th, 2009 at 3:21 am
OT, but it appears in this thread, so… After reading on this site and a couple of others, the following statements seem to have become the new benchmarks of trolling:
* You distort facts (without describing how)
* Do some research before you make claims (again, without describing exactly what is wrong)
* This is too hard to explain for a non-native
* I’ve made my claims, now you can go on with your nonsensical ramblings (or any similar version)
November 30th, 2009 at 3:37 am
@dewang (#58): I agree that Jason’s comment is the mainstream take on this in China. Since I haven’t been outside China that much for the last four years I’m actually not sure what the common take is on the Uyghur riots in the Western world; I would assume they are about human rights and secession but not as much as the Tibetan case because of the fact that the Uyghurs are muslim.
So I agree with your highlighting, not because I think Jason’s comment was particularly good, but because it highlights (no pun intended) a different narrative than the one in the article.
I have read many similar articles about Israel and Palestine, and the way they describe each other. It’s very much the same thing. A protester in one person’s eye is a terrorist in another’s.
November 30th, 2009 at 6:12 am
Hi Wukailong, Jerry, FOARP, S.K.Cheung, All,
Thx for the replies. I think the thing we all agree on was the riot was a sad event and made the situation over-all a lot worse.
And, sure, Wukailong, “a protester in one person’s eye is a terrorist in another’s.” In some ways, that roughly sums up the back-and-forth on this thread.
The main comment then I’ll add is people should not do things to make the situation worse.
For example, I read a WUC member was charged and convicted recently by the Chinese authorities for spreading false rumor about the number of Uighur deaths in the factory brawl to further incite hatred.
Some on the other side of this debate might say the Chinese government should not have prejudiced policies against the Uighurs.
The National Geographics article not having the nuance about the 200 deaths suffered primarily by the Han ethnic group is a grave bias in my opinion. I saw the pictures of the victims in some Chinese BBS’s. I wish the author had seen them. Anyways, this is simply a huge clash of perspectives between the one advanced by National Geographics and the mainstream one in China.
[Jerry/SKCheung – I meant “mainstream” when I said “average.” Thx Wukailong.]
I urge everyone to try to seek facts and try to articulate what’s known.
November 30th, 2009 at 6:14 am
@Willy #76, @Wukailong #80
You know, Willy, one man’s sophistry is another man’s well-reasoned argument. And as usual, I have no idea what you are talking about. But you are a master of the inflammatory term. Maybe, mudslinging, too? LOL!
Funny, the quote I used from Cobbet (about “no obligation for impartiality”) is from the 1790’s, when America did not possess “media hegemony” (that is if it possesses it today, IYHO).
“i shall remind you, western media journalist poured into Urumqi right after the riot.”
You may be right, but there seems to be a dearth of first-hand Western accounts.
“i know there are quite a few American don’t believe Obama was born in American, so i wouldn’t be surprised that you think the other debater’s evidence is not substantial enough.”
Talk about sophistry and speciousness and “looney-tunes”. Let me quote from the last paragraph of the New Yorker link you so kindly provided.
I concur with Elizabeth Kolbert. So, Willy, to what other conspiracy theories do you subscribe. There are lots of juicy conspiracy theories about the Jews and they are all true. ROFL!
####
WKL, you are obviously smarter than I am on the mindset of the Chinese. I just don’t know. And I guess common, mainstream, average and prevalent mindsets don’t matter much to me. So I have little, if any, motivation to explore the collective mindsets of any group of people. It is a different matter with the mindsets of those individuals with whom I wish to converse.
And I agree that it is worthwhile to post Jason’s comment, “not because I think Jason’s comment was particularly good, but because it highlights (no pun intended) a different narrative than the one in the article.” But then again, the comments of Pugster and Charlie also provided a “different narrative”.
I have never been to Israel or the Middle East. And I have many friends who are Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs. Some of the hard-cores subscribe to the “terrorist/protester” type of discussions. Other Israelis and Palestinians wish to have more productive dialogues. Some just don’t want to talk about it. The situation in Israel is complex, volatile, and painful, to say the least. And there is a tendency, on the part of the various “leaders”, to demand monolithic allegiance to whatever cause they supposedly lead. But smarter, reflective, thoughtful people usually know different. Similar to the dialogue between Chomsky and Said. Even a hard-nosed military man like the late PM Yitzhak Rabin saw the need for working towards a peaceful, equitable solution for all. Primarily because of this, he was murdered by the hard-core right-wingers in Israel. He was a great man. His death brought great sorrow to me.
I suspect, but do not know, that the same situation exists in Tibet and Xinjiang.
November 30th, 2009 at 6:56 am
@Jerry: Thanks for reminding me of this line of Willy’s:
“i shall remind you, western media journalist poured into Urumqi right after the riot.”
I’m pretty sure all journalists in the vicinity of New York poured into the downtown area after the planes struck, but that doesn’t mean they were cohorts of Al-Qaeda. In the same way… well, I guess everyone can work out what I’m saying. There’s no conspiracy when a journalist goes to an area with riots, disasters or other news-worthy events.
I agree that this discussion is awfully polarized and it’s hard for people to see anything outside their categories. It looks pretty close to the Israel/Palestine question, and if we’re unlucky, it might very well develop into something like that.
November 30th, 2009 at 8:23 am
To Dewang:
“The National Geographics article not having the nuance about the 200 deaths suffered primarily by the Han ethnic group is a grave bias in my opinion.” — that’s essentially what Charlie/Pugster said, and you’ve got a pretty good idea of what I think of their argument. But I’m encouraged that you kept it to “bias” and steered clear of the “whitewash” of “propaganda”.
As WKL aptly suggests, “A protester in one person’s eye is a terrorist in another’s.” The same applies to articles in NG and the like, I suppose.
Obviously, the NG article does not represent every perspective. Nor should it. However, one could similarly say that Jason’s Times article is similarly biased, because that also does not represent every perspective. So when someone shouts “bias” simply because an article does not espouse their preferred perspective, do you think the moniker better applies to the article, or to the person doing the shouting?
November 30th, 2009 at 8:34 am
@Wukailong #83
“There’s no conspiracy when a journalist goes to an area with riots, disasters or other news-worthy events.”
Obviously, you are not up on the current conspiracy theories about the Jews, the NED and mainstream media reporters. Much like Wycliffe Bible Translators were a front for the Rockefeller Foundation, the mainstream media is a front for the Jews, AIPAC and Israel First. We are going to take financial control of China just like we did with the US. And since we are so cheap, we got NED to finance this. Better watch your back, buddy. LMAO and ROFL! And then some.
I agree with you. There is no conspiracy by the journalists. They just report their perspectives as best as they know how.
“I agree that this discussion is awfully polarized and it’s hard for people to see anything outside their categories.”
Yeah, polarized in 12 dimensions and counting! But it is ok. This is all part of the process. Hopefully, someday we can all look back at this and laugh!
If this becomes something “pretty close to the Israel/Palestine question” … Meshuggina! Oy vey!
November 30th, 2009 at 9:39 am
@FOARP
In Old Shanghai? I didn’t think so. Foreigners took away businesses from Shanghainese. What drive them away with the Japanese occupation and later the communist revolt.
November 30th, 2009 at 9:48 am
I have a update on the Times Online article:
The Uyghur murderers were caught thanks to the help of local Uyghur volunteers:
http://gb.chinareviewnews.com/doc/1010/3/4/5/101034584.html?coluid=45&kindid=0&docid=101034584&mdate=0729164506
December 1st, 2009 at 1:32 am
Willy, you and I know Jerry’s lot is completely ridiculous, and that’s enough for me. Thanks.
I mean, even after I pointed out that “One of the three men struck a worshiper inside the mosque is caught on video @ 00:59 (see citation in comment 1.)” Jerry still insist it’s not clear. I mean how riciculous do you have to be to not admit to the fact the guy punched another man and whipped out a mechete? It’s on the video for Buddah’s sake. Raising a mechete, a deadly weapon, and charging is not clear? If that happened in US shooting by police will be completely justifiable.
Willy, will you look at the video (especially around 00:59) and tell me if you see the punch? Let’s stick to the facts – from the video it is clear what happened inside and outside the mosque.
December 1st, 2009 at 1:49 am
Jason @ 87, here’s a quote from your artcle, maybe NatGeo can do an update on this:
7月7日，一名维吾尔族群众来到派出所，含泪讲述了他目睹的一切。他说：“暴徒将粮油店的大门反锁，放火烧了店面，一家5口人被活活烧死，太残忍了。整整两个晚上，一闭上眼睛，眼前就是火光冲天的那一幕。不说出来，我的内心永远不得安宁。”
July 7th, a Uyghur man came to the police station, and recounted what he saw. He said: “the rioters locked the grocery store from outside, then burned the store. Such cruelty, a family of five where torched alive. For two nights, whenever I close my eyes, all I see is the flame shooting towards the sky. If I don’t tell someone, I will never have peace of mind.
And the editor of NatGeo has the gall to write “struggle for human rights” in his blog? Such bias is yet another example of our media’s habitual reinforcement of our POV and “official narrative” on China – IMHO completely fitting the description of “propaganda”, as the OP stated.
December 1st, 2009 at 2:13 am
It appears NatGeo have deleted all the negative comments.
December 1st, 2009 at 2:38 am
@Charles Liu #88
Oooooh doctor, one-track Chucky is back! You are beating this horse deader than dead. Poor damned horse just wants some peace. And like it really matters to this world what you and I think. Pshaw! Keep on trolling for friends, Chuckie, if that is what makes you happy. 😀
I wish I were the intellectual giant you claim to be, Chucky ! I guess I will just have to languish in intellectual mediocrity! Furthermore, my “lot” and I have been relegated to being “completely ridiculous”. How sad! I guess “that’s enough for me”, too. LMAO!!!
December 1st, 2009 at 2:48 am
And let’s see if the same bar and outrage on “censorship” applies to our own media.
For those who are interested, Google have some of the critical comments cached:
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:d-eLb13Go0QJ:blogs.ngm.com/blog_central/2009/11/editors-note-uncommon-courage.html+http://blogs.ngm.com/blog_central/2009/11/editors-note-uncommon-courage.html&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
December 1st, 2009 at 5:04 am
Charles: That’s very interesting. It’s stupid of your media to remove comments, I agree (I won’t silly because that implies some sort of innocence).
I would separate censorship into three kinds:
1. Done by the web owners themselves because they don’t like dissenting voices.
2. Done by the web owners themselves because the government asks them to.
3. Done by the government directly.
Note that you’ve mentioned (1) here, but in China we also have (2) and (3). I know you can use a proxy to go around (3), but as you know very well it gives an inferior experience, slows down the loading of webpages and doesn’t work very well with dynamic content. If you use Tor or similar services you can view dynamic content, but it’s still very slow.
If you have a sina blog, anything that’s considered sensitive can be removed by the blog administrators. I’m sure you can find examples of this in your country, but it simply isn’t as pervasive as it is over here.
December 1st, 2009 at 6:53 am
To Charles #88:
“the guy punched another man and whipped out a mechete” — gosh, all along I had been getting the impression that these guys had hacked up worshipers before taking the show out onto the street…at least based on the indignation you had expressed earlier.
“Raising a mechete, a deadly weapon, and charging is not clear? If that happened in US shooting by police will be completely justifiable.” — I didn’t think that was a point of contention. Based on my reading of the articles in question, as well as the comments, the fact that these guys were shot is not a human rights issue. I had also said this way back in #3 (“To be honest, if you’re going to charge at police with a machete, you have to expect to be taken down by force, and quite possibly lethal force.”). So I wonder if you are yet again arguing against a point that no one is making.
“the editor of NatGeo has the gall to write “struggle for human rights” in his blog?” — umm, perhaps you can show me where the editor said that the burning of this particular shop and the killing of this particular family was the exemplary moment of this struggle. Let’s make this easy for you to understand: does the event depicted in the TImes article mean that there is no struggle for human rights in Xinjiang, or that there doesn’t need to be?
Here’s something I wrote in #84 that has your name on it: “So when someone shouts “bias” simply because an article does not espouse their preferred perspective, do you think the moniker better applies to the article, or to the person doing the shouting?”
To Charles #90:
at last, you do have a legitimate complaint. It is extremely petty and small-minded to try to silence criticism. This is true of magazines, and is true of countries.
To WKL #93:
interesting points. I’ll hazard a guess that the Googlers are looking for links between the US government and NG as we speak.
December 2nd, 2009 at 6:07 am
@Charles Liu #90,92
Chucky, in your headlong rush to spew opprobrium at NatGeo’s “censorship”, you missed one simple, obvious (at least to me) factor here. And that is “Occam’s razor”.
So, Chucky, I wrote to the good people at NatGeo and they so kindly responded. Beth Foster, Director of Communications, wrote:
So, Charlie, you will find that all the comments, including yours, are back up at Editor’s Note: Uncommon Courage.
So, Chucky, who, in your own words, is “completely ridiculous” now? LMAO!
Damn, the NED and NatGeo are so sneaky. Your own eagerness blindsided you, Charlie. 😀
I would like to quote from Simon and Garfunkel’s wonderful song, the 59th Street Bridge song, “Slow down, you move too fast.”
And I am “feeling groovy”! LMAO! ROFL! 😀 😛
December 2nd, 2009 at 6:48 am
Wow Jerry, you really are da bomb.
First you were onto Dewang with his misinterpretation (for which he graciously apologized). Now you’ve knee-capped Chuckles in his eagerness to share his Google cache with the world. These are definitely examples of things that Mastercard can’t buy. I also enjoyed how you were able to make a point without a single reference to a Google click-counter. So it can be done! Who knew?!?
December 2nd, 2009 at 3:06 pm
“So, Charlie, you will find that all the comments, including yours, are back up at Editor’s Note: Uncommon Courage.”
I was curious enough to do a comparison between the cache version and the recovered version. They don’t match. The recovered version has less comments than the cached version. Of course, we can always blame everything on a technical glitch, as I always told my customer “Sorry I couldn’t call you back earlier due to a computer problem”.
December 2nd, 2009 at 5:08 pm
Cissy, the “technical glitch” excuse does not fly:
1) the original url without the “-2” remains broken.
2) the new, url with the “-2” was introduced without any comments
3) on 10/30, the comments I submitted in “-2” version were removed from the moderation queue
4) the comments now reappear, all dated 10/16, even the ones I wrote on 10/30
5) the article rating from the original remains missing in the “-2” version.
6) comments from other blogposts were unaffected, only this one with critical comments.
Cissy, you can compare the google cache of original and the new “-2” version – why the original link remain 404 is beyond me – evidence suggests it is not a technical issue.
Looks like they decided to put the comments back after the censorship revelation was made public. And the original link remain broken IMHO might be an attempt to discourage commenting; moving the article to “-2” renders other’s blog links broken.
December 2nd, 2009 at 6:42 pm
@Jerry
1)So, Willy, to what other conspiracy theories do you subscribe.
I believe cooperation, I believe, in the future, Chinese will not be afraid of American goods will dominate China market, because Chinese can buy share of American company in American stock market, vice versa. I believe American expect China become a stable affluent democracy country just as they expect Canada stable and rich. so i don’t think western countries try to sabotage China. in fact, i am satisfied with American government, no matter Cliton, or, Brush, or Obama administration. even there are so many shoddy news about China in American media, but the American government seems know China very well, especially in human right issue. i don’t mind how many narrow-mind American keep their prejudice on China, they wouldn’t cast their ballots to a narrow-minded presidential candidate, that’s enough. of course, i will try to communicate with them, but they do want to keep the narrow mind, i will just tell them, okey open your mouth, chant!
2)one man’s sophistry is another man’s well-reasoned argument.
why shalll a man sophisticate? sophisticate to win? but i don’t need to win a sophistry, i come here just looking for qualified argument. why shall i win a sophistry?
3)You may be right, but there seems to be a dearth of first-hand Western accounts.
Isn’t it a sophistry, it seems that you like to understand people in different communities, when you talked with your Jews or Arabian friend, did you try to understand them in this way. nevertheless i think you don’t care about Xinjaing enough, there were western accounts, just their stories may be what American media wanted, they cover it up. For example, BBC cites an English teacher who witnessed the Uighur mobs initial attack the policemen.
BBC: Peter is an English teacher living in Urumqi with his Chinese wife. They were out shopping on Sunday when the violence started.
The protesters’ route was blocked by the police, not in a menacing way, just as if to make it clear that they could go no further. The protesters stopped about 30m away for a few minutes, and then without warning some of them came forward and started throwing rocks at the police.
The police tolerated this for maybe a couple of minutes, and when it became clear the throwing of stones wouldn’t stop, they charged.
I have to say that the police dealt with the matter the same way our own riot police would. They were not excessively violent, nor did they attack unprovoked.
You can visit the BBC webpage by yourself
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8138709.stm
4)Funny, the quote I used from Cobbet (about “no obligation for impartiality”) is from the 1790’s, when America did not possess “media hegemony” (that is if it possesses it today, IYHO).
Your know, a quotation will be used in different place in different time, different people have different interpretations. Yet you quote it at 2009. all power corrupt, there is lack of check and balance, when it come to international affair covering. Michael Moore didn’t mention medicare and mediaid in his documentary Sicko, but American can know them in other media. Just in international affair covering, if the journalist tells a “half true”, their audience were difficult to know another “half”, they are not only biased but also even prone to fabricating, because of lack of check and balance. Usually they do it just for appease their audience at home. Can you know Iran civilian can visit facebook and tiwitter, Iran has opposition party from American mainstream media before the Iran election controversy?
I visited Xinjiang at June, most of expat wouldn’t talk about politic with Chinese, because it’s hard to explain the “context” of each other. So I didn’t deliberate talk about it. when I talked about abuse of police authorities with a Chinese, an Uighur beside us said, China will have more parties, not just one as now. I believe China will become a democracy country, just it needs time. I said many multiparty countries were corrupt too, he became nervous. I just wanted to know his knowledge of democracy, but maybe he though I was not agree with him, maybe his Chinese was not good enough to express what he think. to avoid further misunderstanding, I changed the topic. Most of Uighur were extremely friendly and polite to me. I think most of them wanted to cooperate with the government, the man talked about multiparty with me represent an “internet generation”. But Chinese usually can perceive bottom line of the government more precisely, severe conflict will be more unlikely to happen. Xinjiang will not become Palestine, Chinese government will not allow any alien force meddle Xinjiang and Tibet. Yet everyone wants to hand in Palestine, how can this area calm down.
December 2nd, 2009 at 7:57 pm
S.K. Cheung, #96,
Interesting you brought me into this. I was wrong to misquote. But, there was still validity in my argument. Fallows response to the NPR question about why there is a lack of “Star Power” (as the type received in Europe) for Obama’s visit in China were:
partly Chinese people did not know him
partly racism
Has there been any foreign president with “Star Power” in China in the past? Obviously not. Could there be any foreign presidents in our world today visiting U.S. with “Star Power”? I don’t think so. One could argue he didn’t put an “and” between those two reasons he stated. I still find this kind of thinking condescending and almost racist itself against the Chinese people.
Sorry guys, this is spill-over from the other thread. But I am not sure if S.K. Cheung caught this point.
December 2nd, 2009 at 9:32 pm
DW@ 100, “condescending and almost racist itself against the Chinese people”
You are not kidding. Today’s racism isn’t the overt, obvious kind, but this seemingly ratonal, justifiable kind. Would NatGeo use photo of known Palistinian attackers in an article that mentions “struggle for human rights”? Both you and I know the ADL will have a field day with it.
But it’s okay to do it to the Chinese. The fact is NatGeo should’ve fact checked and found out the descripton of the photo given to them was propaganda, and the two men in the photo were in fact terrorizing people on the streets, after assulting and terrorizing people inside a mosque.
December 2nd, 2009 at 9:45 pm
Natgeo is just another part of the biased western media, let’s not forget. They exist to sell subscriptions, and that usually means the easy path of rubbing people’s biases and sensitivities the wrong eay. Also, how many of you know that Rupert Murdoch owns part of NatGeo channel. He is one to always forgo journalistic integrity to sell another paper. And finally, the western liberals (of which you could group NG into due to their environmental and cultural bent) hate China. Never make the mistake thinking that liberals can’t be racists.
December 3rd, 2009 at 1:42 am
You are right Cissy, there are some comments missing. Most have been restored. Why? I don’t know. If the current group of comments is representative of an act of censorship, why did NatGeo restore all those negative comments, including Chuckles’ comments? If censorship is NatGeo’s intent here, they have failed miserably. If NatGeo want examples of exemplary censorship, they can always turn to the master of censorship, the CCP/PRC government. The CCP does a bang-up job of controlling Chinese media and disseminating propaganda.
Charles, you are right, the URL which you mention 404s. And you are right, the blog ratings and number of raters are different.
Chuckles, your acute, intense desire to find the sinister in all things NatGeo and American never ceases to amaze me. Your barrage of comments out at FM and your hints at conspiracy theory speak to me of paranoia and insecurity, at least IMHO. Oh well.
I can imagine all sorts of reasons for the comments problem at NatGeo. But why imagine, when we can turn to Occam’s razor to seek the actual reason(s). So Cissy and Chuckles, why don’t you follow my example and ask NatGeo. See what NatGeo says.
December 3rd, 2009 at 5:32 am
To 101 and 102:
That is a good point there about the apparently contrasting attitudes towards the purported oppression meted out by Israelis as opposed to the purported oppression meted out by the CCP. I would agree that we are unlikely to see a Palestinian militant being chronicled in a struggle for human rights. In many ways, the plight of Palestinians appears more dire than that of Tibetans or Uyghurs (though from where I sit I obviously have no appreciation at all of the plights of any of those people), so I would imagine that the Palestinian struggle is as real as that of any other oppressed people. The differences I see are that: (a) Palestinians militants use guns and bombs, not machetes; (b) some Palestinian militants want not only Palestine, but to wipe Israel from the face of the earth; some Uyghurs and Tibetans may want their land back for themselves, but I don’t think they wish the demise of the rest of China and her citizens; (c) Palestinian militants take their fight into Israel proper, and bring death and destruction there; I don’t think Tibetans and Uyghurs have rained fury beyond their provincial boundaries. Nonetheless, Israel does seem to get leeway that the US would not otherwise extend to other countries, and if standing up for the weak and defenceless was the only criterion, then the US seems not to apply themselves equally in all circumstances. Suffice to say that there appear to be other criteria at play.
However, that’s a LONG way from racism against Chinese…unless of course you’re using a way-different definition for racism than that to which I’m accustomed. Though based on the version of English you two sometimes choose to employ, the latter is a distinct possibility. Is the NatGeo “prejudging” CHinese people based on their 2 articles in question here? What kind of covert, rational, and justifiable racism is at play here, pray tell? If you stipulate that there is a struggle for human rights, is that struggle against the CCP, or against all Chinese people? It seems once again that, while in this case you had the makings of a potentially reasonable point vis a vis the Palestinian comparison, you’ve simply chosen to fall back onto the old comfy rhetoric.
Oh, and Charles, how is that photo “propaganda” again? Was it photoshopped or something? All this time, and you’ve still neglected to justify that statement.
And Colin: “Natgeo is just another part of the biased western media, let’s not forget” — so I heard. How are “they” all biased again? Oh, I forgot, biased to you just means you don’t agree with what they’re saying. Got it.
“Never make the mistake thinking that liberals can’t be racists.” — well, anyone can be racist. The question is whether they behave that way or not. Perhaps you can complete this sentence for me: “Nat Geo is being racist in this case because”…. (I can’t wait)
December 3rd, 2009 at 6:16 am
To Dewang #100:
huh?!?
This is what Jerry had transcribed for us in #63 of that “Chinese propaganda machine” thread: “Fallows: Yes, I understand from my friends who are in Beijing and Shanghai now that he is popular while there. But clearly during the election, there was coolness to him compared with the reaction in Europe or South America or the Middle East. And partly it was unfamiliarity that people did not know about him. Partly it was simple racism. I would have quite educated Chinese academics or officials saying, “But how could you have a black person running the country and do they study hard enough, etc.?” So I think that it is a factor that nobody who has seen the situation there can deny. ”
This is what you wrote in #100: “I still find this kind of thinking condescending and almost racist itself against the Chinese people.”
I ask again….huh?!? ONce again, how do you get from what Fallows said to what you think he said? You’re not still in your car driving to work, are you?
He said it was in part because Chinese people weren’t familiar with Obama. At the time, “during the election”, Obama wasn’t president, just some guy trying to become one. I wonder how familiar Chinese people are with John Kerry.
He also said it was in part racism, as he relates the sentiments shared with him by “Chinese academics and officials”. And frankly, the sentiment which he attributes to these individuals is certainly racist (black people shouldn’t run the country because they don’t study hard enough).
How is he being condescending? How is what Fallows said an example of racism against Chinese people?
What you wrote here is very similar to what you had written in #59 of that other thread. Your first misinterpretation occurred before Jerry set you straight on what Fallows had actually said, rather than what you thought he said. And yet you seem to make the same point now. Did you forget what Fallows had actually said? I’m not sure what point of yours i’m supposed to catch, though whatever it is/was seems in response to something Fallows didn’t say.
Sometimes I really wonder…
December 3rd, 2009 at 7:42 am
Hi S.K. Cheung, #105
If Fallows left at it as: “And partly it was unfamiliarity that people did not know about him.” That would have been fine with me. But “Partly it was simple racism.” He was asked about the Chinese peoples take on Obama. So, few officials said racist remarks. How does that translate into all Chinese people? And of course, I know you don’t give a damn about the intense political correctness phenomenon that gripped the “West” that which I am not sure the Chinese will get to go through for a while or ever.
“You’re not still in your car driving to work, are you?”
Wow! That’s not going to make my point go away, you know. That’s lame and I am done responding to that kind of nonsense.
Hi Charles, Colin
“Never make the mistake thinking that liberals can’t be racists.”
This is something that’s been said a couple of times on FM lately. I think I used to make that kind of mistake. Now that you have reminded me, I’ll try not to fall for it. 🙂
December 3rd, 2009 at 7:47 am
Hi Jerry, #95,
In our last exchange, we talked about self-reflection. I haven’t followed all the comments thus far on this thread closely, but I think #95 seems a bit un-called for. What do you think?
December 3rd, 2009 at 7:53 am
Hi Jerry, #103,
“The CCP does a bang-up job of controlling Chinese media and disseminating propaganda.”
I thought it’d be interesting if you go to Xinhua and pull some headline stories and share with us what the “propaganda” are. We then do something similar with “Western” media headline stories. Let’s see how they stack up. I think that’d be educational for all of us.
Also, what’s up with calling Charles Liu, “Chucky”, “Chuckles”, “Chuck” etc?
December 3rd, 2009 at 8:01 am
To 106:
“Wow! That’s not going to make my point go away, you know.” — as far as I’m concerned, your “point” hasn’t arrived yet. Besides, the GPS whereabouts of your “point” is of little concern to me.
“How does that translate into all Chinese people?” — perhaps you would be so kind as to show me where Fallows says that all Chinese people are racist. I seem to have missed that part.
“So, few officials said racist remarks.” — and perhaps you can render an opinion on how pervasive the attitudes characterized by those remarks would be in China. In case you’re stumped, perhaps I could suggest that you peruse the Lou Jing thread.
It seems the scourge of reacting to what you hoped someone said, rather than what they actually said, is spreading around these parts. That’s an encouraging development.
December 3rd, 2009 at 1:45 pm
@dewang #107
“but I think #95 seems a bit un-called for. What do you think?”
Dewang, you are entitled to your opinion. Here is what I think, “No, it was not uncalled for.”
I guess we disagree.
December 3rd, 2009 at 2:39 pm
@dewang #108
Dewang, you wrote in #108:
Nice attempt at misdirection here, Dewang. Instead, let’s go back to what I actually said. My topic is the CCP’s “bang-up job”.
So let us revisit a man who knows far more about Chinese propaganda than I do, or for that matter, than I want to know. I am referring to David Bandurski of The University of Hong Kong’s Journalism & Media Studies Centre. Bandurski wrote an article in May of this year out at China Media Project titled Is Communist Party “propaganda” a relic of China’s past?. Below is an excerpt in which Bandurski comments on and quotes from the May 10 edition of the Beijing Daily.
I first saw mention of this article by FOARP out at FM’s “Chinese Writer — Nobel Prize” thread.
Enough said. Liu Qi provides us an exemplary, bang-up demonstration of CCP media control and propaganda. Thank you, David and thank you, FOARP.
December 3rd, 2009 at 8:26 pm
Hi Jerry, #111,
I remember reading something like that too in the China Daily or People’s Daily some days ago.
“media control and propaganda” in the “West” usually is associated with malice, evil, bad for society, and bad for the world.
But, the Chinese narrative do not have this bad and nasty connotation to those things. They could, but not automatically so.
And therefore, as I suggested previously, you would have to look at the news directly from the Chinese media and compare them against the news from “Western” media.
Only then can you judge which version is better.
December 4th, 2009 at 6:35 am
To Jerry:
love that quote. I know you’ve used it before (and I didn’t realize it came via FOARP), but it still gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling every time I read it.
To 112:
“the Chinese narrative do not have this bad and nasty connotation to those things.”— that may be because that’s all they know. Until they experience something different or better, they wouldn’t know to think of what they’re stuck with as bad or nasty.
How do you judge who’s news reporting is “better”? Are we back to the old standby that, if the reporting doesn’t jibe with your preferred perspective, then it’s probably bad, and definitely biased?
December 4th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
@S.K. Cheung I say sorry to you. Maybe we misunderstand each other.
1)I accuse FOARP of distort the fact in #62, because he replied me at#56. he said” All Teague does is describe how they could have dropped their weapons then and maybe have lived, but seemed to consciously decide to die. No journalist witnessed the Fort Hood shootings and hence no report of this kind will most likely come out.”
2) FOARP said at #71 “I’d be much obliged if you could actually point out where I ‘distorted’ the facts.” So I replied hime at #72
3) you can see the 4th paragraph of #72, I point out what FOARP distort is “No journalist witnessed the Fort Hood shootings and hence no report of this kind will most likely come out” too.
4) (a)NG whitewashed the terrorist attack to innocent civilian in 13/7, NG has trespassed fundamental conscience of human being. (b)Even the other part of the article is true, it still can not justify terrorists attack on civilian. That’s one side’s point, while the opponents always answer (a) with a sophistry, then insist (b) is the fact. So the discussion got into stagnation. So I thought I don’t need to your question at #70
After all, it’s my fault. I shall make it clear at #62: I agree with that “….little sympathy for the Uighur community……”, but distort the fact as NG and FOARPat#56 do will only compromise the cause. I say sorry to you.
Since you are so fond of “the other fact”, so let’s see they are true or not.
(1)percentage of the population 75%via5%. That’s half true. Uighur only dominated in southern Xinjiang at 1940s, they still dominate there until today. Most of Chinese new immigrants inhabit in northern Xinjiang. Uighur could not enter to Ili valley until Manchu wiped out Mongols in the1700s. Urumqi was always a Chinese city even 200 years ago. (Xinjiang: China’s Muslim borderland by S. Frederick Starr ISBN-13: 978-0765613189), Uighur obviously didn’t want to declare independence without northern Xinjiang, because most of southern Xinjiang were merely barren desert at that time. Since international society acknowledged Xinjiang was Chinese territory, Chinese didn’t want to live there at 1947, it doesn’t mean Chinese can not live there after 1947, especially Chinese go along well with minorities such as Kazak, Mongols, Hui(usually Hui were considered as Han-Chinese by western journalists), you think Israeli can claim the land in the Mideast, even they left there thousands of years ago, Chinese are more justifiable to claim Xinjiang, because the inhabitants before Chinese Han empire were the Saka people, Iranic, not Turkic. More interesting is “Uighur” this term did not appear until the 1920s. If an Uighur told you “they were suppressed”, you had better ask them “do you want a referendum? Do they want self-determination? Can they take any advantage in northern Xinjiang in a referendum? If they can not leave without northern Xinjiang, they shall think how to go along well with other ethnics in all of Xinjiang.
(2)Han-Chinese took job from Uighurs? which jobs have the Chinese taken from the Uighur? According Sweden scholar who live there at the 1930s, southern Xinjiang had not any modern industry at all, (Return to Kashgar: Central Asian Memoirs in the Present by Gunnar Jarring )I don’t think Chinese can take handicraft jobs from Uighur, but of course, the government can do much more to help Uighur find a job. Anyway the government provides safe net to Uighurs, they are far from needing to die. “Xinjiang’s Muslims are well aware of the ethnic and political conflicts in Azerbaijian and Tajikistan, and that many of them are better off economically than their coreligionists across the border.” (Dislocating China: reflections on Muslims, minorities and other subaltern By Dru C. Gladney).
(3)Religion suppression? As I know most of Uighur don’t eat pork, just for they don’t like it. but they don’t mind alcohol which is a sin worse than eat port according Koran. Student can go to school with headscarf which is banned in French. It’s very easy to find a mosque in resident district. Yes, the government heavily controls the religious activity, but if the activity is just trying to persuade their worshipers to love their neighbor, love their parents, love the god, do you think the government will crackdown these activities? Because the government is afraid of Religious organization help followers protect their human right? But you know, religious organization meddle into political affair always causes more trouble than they can help in Islamic countries. Although Christian countries, such as American, can avoid negative impact of religious organization intertwine politic, but it needs a mature institution. Even American has such a mature institution to regulate the religious activities, cult and religious extremist still harm many American, such as Minnesota Somali terrorist, the people’s temple. Uighur can enjoy a safety religious environment, isn’t it a good thing for them?
(4)To Willy #74:
not sure what you’re trying to say with your link. Tibetans of different backgrounds have differing perceptions of what it means to be authentically Tibetan. And your point is?
Don’t Dalai lama and his Tibetaness consumers in western world often accuse Chinese of “cultural genocide” in Tibet. So what is the original Tibetan culture that was genocided by Chinese? If the Tibetan music was genocided, we can see Tibetan love those “very Chinese” Tibetan theme song. The scholar described a Tibetan woman listening to these songs as: “One woman, who had just received political asylum in the USA, exclaimed to me that this was her happiest day since she had arrived in the United States two years earlier, because “it’s just like being back in Lhasa”. How can Dalai Lama deprive Tibetan of enjoying the songs they love because of political cause.
#88 Willy, will you look at the video (especially around 00:59) and tell me if you see the punch?
Actually, I don’t mind. Because it’s very clear, they tried to dispense machete to other worshippers, but the others’ reject. That’s enough to prove they are terrorist. It seems that one of them did slap (punch) a man’s face with his hand. From another clip of ATV, I can see they chase the worshippers, they wouldn’t kill Uighur, but the mosque is in Uighur district, they couldn’t find Chinese, policemen obvious don’t want to kill them, they tried to keep them alive to furnish information.
After all, I want to tell NG and its supporter: “He who digs a pit for others falls in himself”, NG sympathizes terrorist attack on civilian in Communist countries, it just assures extremists in American believe attacking American civilian can be justified too. you can see many terrorists, in fact, grew up in western countries.
December 5th, 2009 at 12:18 am
I love how Jerry and SKC is enjoying their gloating of Chinese government’s eagerness to make “Western media” to Chinese government’s side.
But they forgot to tell us how Obama administration had a full-out Fox-bashing blitz couple of weeks ago of how Fox News isn’t a news organization but opinionated organization that causes Obama administration to fret. Obama administration was blind-sided by their OWN media for not letting Fox News attend one of Obama Administration’s meetings.
What a tool.
Or that Bush administration threaten to take out the “so-called liberal media”:
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=28559
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=28553
December 5th, 2009 at 1:03 am
Wow, if it’s not ol’ “Squirt n’ run” Jason. Still waiting for any justification for your ‘foreigners stealing Shanghai jobs’ statement.
December 5th, 2009 at 4:41 am
@FOARP
#86 if you are interested.
Your sarcastic tone: arrghck!!!!!
December 5th, 2009 at 5:43 am
To Willy #114:
you certainly didn’t need to apologize. Thank you for clarifying your points.
#1-#3 seem to be with respect to Fort Hood and how that incident compares with what’s alluded to in these NG pieces. I’ll leave you to discuss that with FOARP.
Point #4 is today’s entry in the ongoing story of agreeing to disagree. I would only say that I don’t think NG is “justifying” attacks on civilians with their pieces here.
Regarding your points:
1. “If an Uighur told you “they were suppressed”, you had better ask them “do you want a referendum? Do they want self-determination? Can they take any advantage in northern Xinjiang in a referendum? If they can not leave without northern Xinjiang, they shall think how to go along well with other ethnics in all of Xinjiang.” — I think it would be great if those questions were put to the Uyghurs, and even better if their answers translated into action from the authorities.
2, ““Xinjiang’s Muslims are well aware of the ethnic and political conflicts in Azerbaijian and Tajikistan, and that many of them are better off economically than their coreligionists across the border.”” — I would imagine that, if #1 ever came to pass, that such information would factor prominently in how Uyghurs made their decisions. And I think their interpretation of the realities on the ground would be more relevant to them than Mr. Gladney’s.
3. “Uighur can enjoy a safety religious environment, isn’t it a good thing for them?” — from an purely paternalistic standpoint, it would appear to be. But again, it seems more relevant to ask how Uyghurs would like to conduct themselves religiously than for the CCP to tell them that she knows what’s best for them.
You mention how religious organizations foment discontent and unrest. However, do you think such organizations create such discontent and agitation where none would otherwise exist, or are they simply the conduits for the expressions of such sentiments?
4. I am unclear about what you’re trying to say here. Tibetan music has lived on thus far, and hopefully will continue to do so for their benefit. But I think the Dalai Lama represents only half of the reason why he himself is in exile.
As for your point about Charles’ video link, it’s a punch, so certainly constitutes assault. But Charles seems to want it to convey so much more than that.
“NG sympathizes terrorist attack on civilian in Communist countries, it just assures extremists in American believe attacking American civilian can be justified too.”
a) NG describes the event. I’m not sure about sympathizing with it. The ” attack on civilians” was a punch, followed by 3 guys marching out onto the street and justifiably getting shot by police. As terrorist attacks go, that one was pretty tame. And I’d be careful about using “communist” to describe China…we all know Charles disapproves.
b) even if we stipulate that NG is doing what you accuse it of doing, that’s sufficient justification for a copycat scenario? Since Fort Hood was brought up, do you think the shooter can use the “NG” defense?
To Jason:
“Chinese government’s eagerness to make “Western media” to Chinese government’s side.” — no idea what you’re talking about. But Jerry’s quote of Liu Qi in #111 is fairly priceless, wouldn’t you say? C’mon, must’ve brought out a chuckle…..though from your perspective, maybe more of a cringe?
“But they forgot to tell us how Obama administration had a full-out Fox-bashing blitz ” — sorry, didn’t realize I had signed on to keep you informed. Not exactly the type of work I was looking for. Besides, this is relevant how? OK, so Obama went on a media offensive targeting Fox. How does that compare with, say, state media-control, state censorship, and pathetic freedoms of speech? You know, if China allowed the media to do what they please, and report what they please, and blitz the odd one that rubs the CCP the wrong way, that would already represent a light-year improvement. Please help to keep me informed by notifying me when that comes to pass. Thanks.
December 5th, 2009 at 9:45 am
@SKC
Did you not read the last sentence?
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/10/escalation_white_house_tries_t.asp
December 5th, 2009 at 10:10 am
To 119:
the last sentence of what? Your last post? Yep.
The last sentence of your current link? Well, no, not at the time that I wrote #118, since I’m not clairvoyant and cannot discern in advance what you will be linking to in the future.
Now that I’ve read your latest link, your point is….? Well, whatever your point is, let’s take the gist of your latest link, and apply it to China, whilst keeping the format from #118, shall we?
So, if the CCP will allow media outlets to publish what they want, when they want, on just about whatever topic they want, and broadcast such publication to whomever they want, in exchange for the ability to exclude one particular outlet from the official daily news briefing/media scrum, I think that would once again be a light-year improvement on the current arrangement.
You know what’s even better, in the US, the media can criticize the government for the government’s conduct toward the media. As far as the CCP is concerned, that must be a real head-scratcher.
So, what was your point again?
December 5th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
@SKC
What Liu Qi said is exactly what the liberals and Republicans have said about their opposing media.
What “CCP will allow media outlets to publish what they want” is irrelevant since outsiders and insiders with VPN can access those banned outlets.
December 5th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
To 121:
“What Liu Qi said is exactly what the liberals and Republicans have said about their opposing media.” — and I look forward to the day when China can have opposing media, and that there will be multiple Liu Qi’s representing more than 1 point of view. Right now, China has 1/2 of what the US and other countries have.
““CCP will allow media outlets to publish what they want” is irrelevant since outsiders and insiders with VPN can access those banned outlets.” — if it’s as rosy as you suggest, then why have “banned” outlets to begin with? Give everyone in China VPN access, or make VPN access unnecessary for all PRC citizens, then we’ll talk. The current situation is light-years away from that.
December 5th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
“and I look forward to the day when China can have opposing media”
Did I see something of a state-controlled magazine that criticize the black jails?
What about Apple Daily or the South China “fake news about Chinese govt banning Blacks in bars” Morning Post
Speaking of censorship, why does Western media omit (NED-funding) when they speak about Hu Jia, WUC, DL and his brother’s cronies in 1954?
Why does Western media omit Tiananamen in Tiananamen Massacre since it never happened on the Square itself but happened elsewhere?
Why does the Western media omit the Clinton-Jiang Zemin debate LIVE on every Television network of the openess of talking 1989 Massacre?
Of course when this happened, every newspaper from the Western outlets was caught off guard but now they are back to their old ways of why Chinese government officials think 1989 Massacre is wiped out from their history.
Why do Western media never acknowledge that Jet Li is Tibetan Buddhist who is not being oppressed from his religion?
Why do Western media not report any tension between some Tibetan’s disgusting behavior against the Hui?
Why do Western media not report Li Hongzhi who tells his practitioners that “Don’t use medicine, I’ll heal you with my palm” that lead many practitioner dead?
December 6th, 2009 at 1:13 am
“Did I see something of a state-controlled magazine that criticize the black jails?” —- you certainly did. And that’s a great start. Hopefully it will start happening in far more places with far greater frequency. The fact that the Outlook story stands out is because it is such an unusual occurrence. The day that stories of that nature become run of the mill will be a fantastic day indeed.
“What about Apple Daily or the South China “fake news about Chinese govt banning Blacks in bars” Morning Post” — what about it?
“Speaking of censorship, why does Western media omit (NED-funding) when they speak about Hu Jia, WUC, DL and his brother’s cronies in 1954?” — speaking of censorship, this isn’t it. Omitting it is one thing; censorship is being told to omit it, and that’s quite another.
“Why does Western media omit Tiananamen in Tiananamen Massacre since it never happened on the Square itself but happened elsewhere?” — i think the exact details of TAM will depend on who you talk to. And how is this censorship? Perhaps we can compare/contrast with the CCP’s handling of information surrounding the TAM incident.
“Why does the Western media omit the Clinton-Jiang Zemin debate LIVE on every Television network of the openess of talking 1989 Massacre?— I don’t know. But did the Clinton admin prohibit them from broadcasting it? If the government didn’t interfere in journalistic decisions, maybe you can explain to me how that constitutes censorship.
“Why do Western media never acknowledge that Jet Li is Tibetan Buddhist who is not being oppressed from his religion?” — maybe because he’s Jet Li. Do you think his particular experience is representative of the experience of Tibetan Buddhists in general, if practitioners are not international action-movie stars?
“Why do Western media not report any tension between some Tibetan’s disgusting behavior against the Hui?” — don’t know. If you want to know, you might want to ask “western media”.
Your last question is more of the same, and the answer will be likewise. And after all this, I still have no idea what your argument is. If the argument is that “western media” does not report all things all of the time, that’s an “argument” that’s been dispensed with long ago. If your argument is that such non-reporting represents “censorship”, then you first have to show that journalistic decisions were interfered with by the government. Just because an outlet doesn’t report any given event does not mean they were prohibited from doing so. Therein lies the difference between “western media” and China.
December 6th, 2009 at 2:49 am
@SKC
I do see Western media omitting anything from above is a form of censorship.
Just because the Western media (precisely the Mainstream media) is not controlled by the government doesn’t gave them a freebie out of censoring subjects that deem detrimental to their Anti-Chinese govt cause.
December 6th, 2009 at 6:32 am
Well, once again it seems the English language has failed us. When a word like “censorship” can become a double-entendre, it does make communication difficult.
Suffice it to say that censorship in my book means something quite different than in yours, apparently. Censorship to you is journalistic discretion to me. China’s version of censorship to me, would merely be a different “form of censorship” to you.
December 6th, 2009 at 7:55 am
Since Westerners criticize Chinese government media not informing the Chinese of 1989 Massacre as a form of censorship, I see reason to equate the Westerners for not being informed by the things I listed above by their media that seems detrimental to their media.
December 6th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
@ S.K. Cheung it’s very obvious, they tried to distribute machetele to their fellow Uighurs, you needn’t wait them to really kill somebody to call them terrorists. you know, policemen in western countries always foil terrorist plots before the terrorist stake action, the policemen will arrest terrorist even they just buy some legal material that can be used to make a bomb. what’s more, tell “half true” is a kind of fabricate, just like only describe how the Fort Hood shooter was shot dead, don’t mention what he did previously. i won’t wast more time on this point, i just wish American needn’t another 911 attack to remind thier media picking up fundamental conscience of human being, God bless American.
As how to represent Uighur’s voice. proportional representation, caucus, referendum? which system can represent Uighur’s voice better, instead of voice of Uighur politician? Instant democracy always fell. many countries have a universal suffrage much earlier than Taiwan and Korea, but their people still can not enjoy the benefit of democracy. while people in Taiwan can no only enjoy better material life in the dictatorship times, but also enjoy more substantial democracy when it’s ripe. i can’t see conscience in those westerners chanting vague slogan, yet ignoring the reality. In the morning of 4th June 1989, i opened TV, i heard HK journalist speak in sobbing, telling the anchor in Hong Kong what was happening in the streets nearing Tiananmen Square, my heart crushed immediately. i began to learn outside world through HK media, i know what is public broadcast organization in a phonein program discussing corporatization of RTHK, i believe western democracy is true democracy, but democracy is not simply cast ballot. there was no universal suffrage in HK, but HK Chinese under alien rule can enjoyed more substantial democracy right than any other Asia countries except Japan in the 1980s. democracy is good thing, but even foster a group of citizen knowing to criticize media with proper skepticism is not an easy task. 49 percent of citizen believe Obama was not born in American is Okay, but if 51 percent of citizen don’t believe Obama was born in American, no matter how substantial the evidence is. the democracy institution of this country will collapse. the nuance between democracy and populism can decide whether the citizen of the country can enjoy real democracy or not. nowadays, i still have little sense of belonging with performing art of China mainland, but i have strong sense of belonging to the country, because i believe the Chinese government has tried hard to promote democracy in China. the government did littel political reform in the 1990s, but it privatized the economy, you may not know democracy is impossilbe in a state-owned economy dominate country. several HK journalists resigned to defend their editorial independence, they can easily find a new job in other newspaper. how can journalists in the mainland find a new job in the 1990s. i am still satisfied with the government today, because i think most of the internet users still don’t know western countries well, some English websites will translate discussions in Chinese forum into English, i could only feel populism instead of democracy in those forum. As i know, most of Chinese with the experience of 8964 and know outside well have similar viewpoint as mine.
i visited Xinjiang at June, i think Uighur were more openminded than Chinese consider. it’s so sad that most of Chinese think them as hotblooded separatists. but NG and many western media just grasp several frames to fabricate anti-communist hero.i don’t think they want to help Uighur, they just want to appease their western readers with sensational fiction. peaceful struggle is the only way for Uighur, i think the Chinese government has tried to foster well-informed Uighurs to struggle for their right in a peaceful way. bilingual Uighur website uighurbiz was shut down for several times, but open again, the last time was at 5th July.
you can see a “In this image provided by un-named citizen” in this webpage of Guardian.co.uk, i first see this picture at the Uighurbiz at the night of 5th July, you can see in this picture the government sent female police to confront with the protesters at the beginning.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/05/china-uighur-riots-xianjing
what’s more,Peter, an English teacher, told BBC: The protesters’ route was blocked by the police, not in a menacing way, just as if to make it clear that they could go no further. The protesters stopped about 30m away for a few minutes, and then without warning some of them came forward and started throwing rocks at the police.The police tolerated this for maybe a couple of minutes, and when it became clear the throwing of stones wouldn’t stop, they charged. I have to say that the police dealt with the matter the same way our own riot police would. They were not excessively violent, nor did they attack unprovoked. it’s unfortunately, just like most of Chinese, Uighur faced too little political turbulence,some of Uighur get irritable in the demonstration. anyway, ignoring the violence of the Uighur rioters can’t help Uighur struggle for their right in a peaceful way.
i think critics from outside is needed, however most of critics in western media about Uighur and Tibet are groundless. you have agreed the Tibetan culture will keep growing, so what’s cultural genocide? the change of social structure and relationship? but even Dalai Lama said, he just want Tibet become democracy, a democracy society, of course, will has new social structure and relationship of its own. fabricating history? after i read well-recognized western historian’s academic research, the only fact the Chinese government distort is old Tibet was not as bad as the government describe, but it still is not a good system. what’s more, it’s not the first time, the Dalai Lama didn’t recognize Panchan Lama, Dalai had done that for several times in history. western media often said let Tibetan say their own stories. in fact, they just induce Tibetan telling a lie.
you can see Tibetan describing a vivid picture how Chinese force Tibetan sterilize. http://www.tibettruth.com/birthcontrol.html
but if you read academic research by world recognized Tibetan scholar Melvyn Goldstein, such as
Fertility and Familiy Planning in Rural Tibet http://www.case.edu/affil/tibet/booksAndPapers/fertility.and.family.planning.in.rural.tibet.pdf
China’s Birth Control Policy in the Tibet Autonomous Region: Myths and Realities
http://www.case.edu/affil/tibet/booksAndPapers/china.birth.control.policy.in.the.tibet.autonomous.region.pdf
After field research and prudent analysis, he draws conclusion, no forced abortion and sterilization on Tibetan. he said: “thus, we suspect that a combination of these possibilities accounts for the reports of alleged abuses collected by Avedon and Kerr, and conclude that the persistence of allegations of pervasive human rights violations in Tibet in the area of birth control reflects not the objective presence of a policy of systematic and coercive birth control in Tibet but rather the highly emotional atmosphere surrounding the struggle of Tibetan refugees and their supporters against the Chinese. The reports appear to be an illustration of how easily strong political emotions can misinform objectivity”
i had to say those Tibetan campaigners in western world have not any sympathy on Tibetan. they are just selfish Tibetaness consumers.
December 7th, 2009 at 7:06 am
To Jason,
“Chinese government media not informing the Chinese of 1989 Massacre as a form of censorship,” — absolutely, because the government is/was preventing the dissemination of information by those who otherwise may have chosen to disseminate it.
“Westerners for not being informed by the things I listed above by their media that seems detrimental to their media.”— first of all, how are those “things” detrimental to “western media”? And second, here you are saying that censorship can refer to the disseminators of information choosing not to disseminate certain pieces of information. Like I said before, that’s just journalistic discretion….ie you can’t report on all things all of the time, so the reporting media has to make such choices daily; otherwise there isn’t a newspaper thick enough or a news program long enough to do “the world’s” news. If you want to call that “a form of censorship”, be my guest.
So you have a choice. You can discuss China’s censorship vs “western media” practices; or you can discuss China’s “form of censorship” vs “western media’s” “form of censorship”. The bottom line is they are still two very different things.
December 7th, 2009 at 7:46 am
To Willy:
para 1: as WKL has said, one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist. So you can use the label you prefer, as can I, as can NG, as can anyone else. But if you are suggesting that NG’s article can be used somehow as justification for another 9/11, that is a complete and total non-starter, and suggests an utter loss of perspective regarding scale that is simply mind-boggling.
para 2 seems essentially to say that China may not be ready for democracy today. If that’s the case, we’ve heard that tune before. On one level, if she’s not ready, then what needs to be done to improve her readiness, and might she be ready tomorrow, the next day, or the day after that? On another level, perhaps none of the examples of democracy on display suit her unique needs; in that case, what improvements/alterations to the model should be made to create a product that will serve its purpose, Chinese-style? I can just rattle these off because this discussion’s been had many times before. Let’s just say I have posed more questions than people seem to have answers for. As for the Uyghurs, an Uyghur politician is nice, but one who is chosen by the Uyghur people and represents Uyghur interests would be even better.
“NG and many western media just grasp several frames to fabricate anti-communist hero.” — but surely no one would think, whether they read NG or not, that all Uyghurs share the sentiments or the methods of those depicted in the articles. If Chinese people really wanted to know what Uyghurs think, I suggest you ask them. See last sentence of previous paragraph.
Not sure what your point is with the last 3 paragraphs and links.
December 7th, 2009 at 8:43 am
It’s pretty obvious that those things are detrimental to the mass media. If they print that, it’s a political suicide.
The mass media relies on their government’s foreign policy talking point and will print a positive image for a country that has a Democratic system and a negative image for a country that don’t.
You can see clearly the propaganda they spew against Russia and fault Russia in the South Ossetia conflict and treated Georgian president like he has invincible powers. That is before liberals and conservatives started to make rash opinionated nonsense and their brainless media followed suit.
But a German newspaper started to question the timelines and explains the Georgian president was the INSTIGATOR of the war, then DOJ in America concurred after 8 MONTHS!!!
Then their brainless media somewhat followed suit but still criticize Russia for standing up.
Just recently, I still remember the brainless media started to take the lobbyists of WUC’s talking point but after some discrepancy from Kadeer which is been debunked by Telegraph Blogger, Peter Foster which at that time was in Urumqi. Then the brainless media started to provide articles from Xinhua as “truthful sources”–SHOCKING!!
Truth to be told, mainstream Western media is controlled by their government’s talking points and various lobbyists. But when something gone awry, the Western media flip-flops.
December 7th, 2009 at 9:17 am
“It’s pretty obvious that those things are detrimental to the mass media. If they print that, it’s a political suicide.” — how is “mass media” even in a position to commit “political suicide”? Is “mass media” running for office?
“The mass media relies on their government’s foreign policy talking point” — I suppose this is true. In order to report on the government’s foreign policy, one would certainly need to base one’s report on said policy. But I’m not sure how that relates to the other part (“will print a positive image for a country that has a Democratic system and a negative image for a country that don’t.). Besides, if “western media” likes democracy, is it so surprising that she would find a country that practices it to be more appealing than one that doesn’t, all things being equal?
“That is before liberals and conservatives started to make rash opinionated nonsense and their brainless media followed suit.” — you may not agree with their opinions on South Ossetia. But what makes them “rash” and “nonsensical”, apart from the fact that you disagree with them? And if the media (that anonymous yet apparently homogeneous thing) agreed with such opinions, that makes them “brainless”? Interesting metrics you use.
“Truth to be told, mainstream Western media is controlled by their government’s talking points and various lobbyists.” — is that the truth? Really?
You know, you tend to make a lot of statements. And you affix a lot of labels. But at the end of the day, I don’t see any argument, only a display of your tendencies when you disagree with something.
And here’s the thing. All your arm-waving and gesticulations about what “western media” is and isn’t in no way affects the reality of what China’s media is and isn’t. You may want to avert your eyes; you may want to distract yourself and others; but it’s still there.
December 8th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
I think we can all agree that China should open up its media a little, or a lot more when it comes to censorship. At the same time, the anti-Chinese rhetoric from the foreign reporters should be toned down a lot more. If anything, the Chinese government allowing foreign reporters to access the areas right after the riot was a smart move.
I still don’t have the slightest clue as to why so many folks here actually think that foreign reporters are any more credible than Chinese state media though. Looking at the results of this riot the Chinese state media reporting is clearly more accurate when it comes to body counts, the usage of photographs, and captioning. I do think that the foreign news analysts can be a lot more truthful when it comes to analysis but if you look at the pure facts reported by the foreign media and those reported by the Chinese media I would say the later has been a lot more accurate.
At the end of the day, if a person ONLY reads reports from foreign sources and do not visit the place, I have no doubt in my mind that the person would not have a remotely accurate picture of China. Articles like this one from NatGeo only contribute to this distortion. As more and more people visit China you will only see more and more complaints from this angle.
December 8th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
hzzz, as additional comments in the reloaced “-2” blogpost pointed out, all the links to the Chinese police photos are removed. So much for NatGeo editor’s “truth” and “struggle for human rights”, as long as the fact where mechetes like those men in photo were waving have landed, is censored.
December 8th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
@Willy
Although post 74 was off topic it was a fantastic read. I can only hope that a Tibetan (let it be exiles or homeland) can write up something on this.
@FORAP
“I’ve been hearing people complain about foreigners ‘taking’ Chinese people’s jobs since I first arrived in China back in 2003: it’s nonsense, plain and simple – low level positions can be filled locally much more cheaply than they can by bringing in foreigners, only positions where particular skills (in most cases the ability to speak English) are needed which cannot be found locally are foreigners hired. Even in Shanghai this makes no sense.”
I have never heard anyone complaining about foreigners taking Chinese people’s jobs in Shanghai but I personally I do believe that many if not most expats are getting paid way too much for what they do. I remember last year we were looking for someone to teach the staff some business English, the lowest offer we could find from the expats was somewhere around $20k rmb per month, which is actually around the same as what we were paying for our mid level manager with a Phd from Xinghua. But then, many people in China do believe that a native English speaker (preferably white, of course) is worth this price, capitalism at works I guess.
I can see the general resentment from the locals against the expats though. Many expats are racists (including Asians) and are hardly appreciative of the perks they got for working in China, although it was their choice to work there in the first place. While foreign capital does bring massive jobs, it is also the key driving force behind real estate speculation (specifically investors/speculators from Hong Kong and Taiwan).
December 9th, 2009 at 4:34 am
To hzzz:
“If anything, the Chinese government allowing foreign reporters to access the areas right after the riot was a smart move.” — agreed. Hopefully it marks the beginning of an ongoing trend.
“Chinese state media reporting is clearly more accurate when it comes to body counts, the usage of photographs, and captioning.” — what is the gold standard for “accuracy”? “western media” credibility, I suppose, is in the eye of the beholder. However, “western media” seems to have an incentive for maintaining its credibility. If any given outlet is felt to be offering up shabby reporting, readers/viewers can turn to alternate sources. “Chinese state media” seems not to have this incentive. Furthermore, it’s one thing to suggest that an outlet lacks credibility in its reporting of facts, since those very same facts act as a good metric. But it’s odd to suggest that an outlet lacks credibility in its opinion, simply because someone might disagree with it. And that doesn’t even begin to address the oddities of people conflating the opinion of one journalist with that of an entire news organization, or worse yet, the cumulative sum of all “western media”.
“Articles like this one from NatGeo only contribute to this distortion.”— and what is this distortion of which you speak?
December 10th, 2009 at 11:57 pm
@SKCheung
“And what is this distortion of which you speak?”
Are you serious, even after reading the article? Here are some of my observations:
1) At the beginning of the article there was a mention of the armed Ughur men charging towards the military who fired at them. This is just another attempt at painting a picture of police brutality, by removing the context entirely. The reality is that before the military moved in hundreds of people, mostly hans, were already murdered by the Uighurs. Of course, the article could not mention this because it would establish some justifications for the military to fire upon these Uighurs, who charged at them.
2) The article stated that China used 9/11 Terrorism as a propaganda tool to control the Uighurs while writing off entirely the angle that the Uighur militants did commit some serious terrorist activities. The author did mention about bombings and assassinations, but actually tried to justify the terrorist activities by framing into a different context. The author wrote: “In 1997 hundreds of people in a city called Gulja marched to protest repression of Islamic practices and were arrested; the number of casualties is unknown. Other examples abound, including bus bombings and assassinations.”
3) The article mentioned about the Uighur Gitmo prisoners in the following sentence “In December 2001, 22 Uygurs were captured in Pakistan and Afghanistan, where they may have received weapons training with the intent of battling the Chinese military back in Xinjiang”. May have received weapons training with the intent of battling Chinese military? Why does the author assume this angle? Given the Al Qaeda training camp’s previous record, if anything they train people how to kill civilians and not to battle the military.
4) This article, like so many articles on Tibet and Xinjiang, blames the government for the cultural shift in the region.
“Uygurs still make up most of the city’s population, but their culture here is embattled. The government is working fast to tear it down.” I see this as one of the biggest distortions because the government cannot simply tear down cultures. The Cultural Revolution affected hans and all other Chinese minorities equally. It wasn’t only the Tibetan or Uighur artifacts which were destroyed but those belonging to other Chinese groups as well. Yet you don’t hear people complaining that the Han culture was destroyed by it like you hear it about Tibetans or Uighurs. Regardless of how people choose to keep their cultures and there will be shifts overtime. I remember reading somewhere where Dalai Lama was complaining that Chinese government was destroying Tibetan culture and the example he gave was that Tibet has more brothels (which have long existed since beginning of civilizations) and Karaoke bars (product of Japan, actually). That is the one of the dumbest statements I have seen him making because at the end of the day the Chinese government did not force anyone to go to brothels or bars. Nor can anyone expect the culture to remain static over time.
5) From the article “The department store held special significance for the Uygurs. It belonged to their heroine Rebiya Kadeer, the laundress turned mogul who had become beloved after she began to speak out against China’s treatment of the Uygurs.”
At the time Rebiya Kadeer is the hero to the Uighurs? Really? From other articles (including a few posted here on FM) it’s pretty obvious that not many people in the region even know who Kadeer is, let alone her being their heroine. The author actually mentioned this briefly in a later paragraph: “The Western world knows of the struggle for freedom by Tibetans largely because the Dalai Lama presents a warm and charismatic embodiment of his people. The Uygurs have remained obscure, in part, because they have no such figure. But the Chinese government’s recent efforts to demonize Rebiya Kadeer have lifted her into a representative role.” So how does the department store hold a special place for the Uighurs if at the time they don’t even know who Kadeer is because the Chinese government have yet to blame anyone?
The distortions that I see are one sided efforts to justify the Uighur militants in the region and the simplification of the whole cultural shift debate. There is no point to sugarcoat terrorism and the Chinese government is hardly the entity which is “killing” the cultures in the region. If everything was so black and white there would be world peace by now.
December 11th, 2009 at 12:09 am
@SKC
“However, “western media” seems to have an incentive for maintaining its credibility. If any given outlet is felt to be offering up shabby reporting, readers/viewers can turn to alternate sources. “Chinese state media” seems not to have this incentive.”
The issue is that anytime when the “western media” is proven to be wrong readers still do not turn to alternative sources because the alternative source is the Chinese media, a source which people such as yourself do not trust. So in reality many times there are no alternative sources. If you want to talk about incentives the “western media” is more about making a profit than anything else, and if FOXNEWS’ popularity is of any indication the Western audiences in general are more concerned about hearing/reading news they would like to hear, rather than facing the truth.
December 11th, 2009 at 6:24 am
“the Western audiences in general are more concerned about hearing/reading news they would like to hear, rather than facing the truth.”
A small, minority population against the mighty Han is always a romantic Western fairy tale.
December 11th, 2009 at 7:24 am
To hzzz #137:
Point 1: “This is just another attempt at painting a picture of police brutality” — where is it suggested that those 3 guys getting shot is police brutality? Again, if you criticize an article, it should be based on what is said, not what you hoped it had said. And the article does not include all the information about all the aspects of the riots, the underlying events, and the aftermath. Too bad, so sad. But where’s the “distortion”?
“the article could not mention this because it would establish some justifications for the military to fire upon these Uighurs, who charged at them.” — that’s nonsense. The justification for the police firing at these guys was that they were approaching them with machetes. You don’t need any further justification than that. Whatever happened during the riots has no bearing on the justification for these guys getting shot. Let me put it to you another way. Just because the riot happened doesn’t mean that the police would’ve been justified in shooting these 3 guys if they had approached the police line with flower baskets instead of machetes.
Point #2: so you acknowledge that the author does in fact make reference to some of the events in question, but simply frames it in a different way than how you would’ve done it. Well, if a POV different than yours constitutes a “distortion”, then I suppose that’s what it is. But let’s just say that isn’t a very robust standard.
Point #3: “Why does the author assume this angle? Given the Al Qaeda training camp’s previous record, if anything they train people how to kill civilians and not to battle the military.” — fair question. So again, you disagree with the author’s interpretation of certain facts. That’s fine. Please explain to me again how that constitutes “distortion”.
Point #4: “I see this as one of the biggest distortions because the government cannot simply tear down cultures.”— this seems a thorny issue for some folks here. Is the government actively tearing it down, or simply allowing it to decay by neglect and minimal efforts at preservation. That’s to-may-to vs to-mah-to. End result is the same. You may disagree with the author’s characterization, but i fail to see how that’s a distortion, since it is, after all, the author’s opinion.
Point #5: “At the time Rebiya Kadeer is the hero to the Uighurs? Really?” — I don’t know. Do you? With certainty? Besides, your beef here boils down to whether Kadeer is considered a hero to Uyghurs? Do you have the pulse of how Uyghurs feel towards her?
Clearly, you disagree with the opinions of the author, and how they are presented. Fantastic. But if any opinion contrary to your own is a distortion of some thing or another, sure makes for a short conversation.
“The issue is that anytime when the “western media” is proven to be wrong readers still do not turn to alternative sources” — i think it’s less common that “all” of the “western media” have gotten stuff wrong on exactly the same thing in exactly the same way (though the lead-up to Iraq might be an example at least in part, if you only looked at the US; suffice it to say there were lots of naysayers in places like Canada, for instance). So if one “outlet” seems to have it wrong, one can always turn to another outlet.
“Chinese media, a source which people such as yourself do not trust.” — boy, you’re not kidding…
“if FOXNEWS’ popularity is of any indication the Western audiences” — may I remind you that “western audiences” is made up of more than just Americans. So Fox is one network that has an audience in one country, but it is not the mother ship in all of the “western world”, whatever that is. Far too often, way too many folks of your ilk are way too keen to paint with way too broad a brush, and you end up with statements like that one. Besides, i think Steve brought up in another thread a while ago that, while Fox has the highest numbers among cable networks in the US, it still pales in comparison to the traditional networks. And the absolute percentage of Americans who turn to Fox for their daily Kool-Aid is actually a small one. Gosh, if I didn’t know any better, I would characterize your insinuation that Fox caters to the opinions of many/most Americans to be a bit of a “distortion”.
December 11th, 2009 at 7:58 am
@hzzz #133, @S.K. Cheung #136
Hzzz, you wrote in #133:
Hzzz, I think it was a splendid idea that the Chinese government let in foreign reporters after the riot. That is a great start at building trust. I see the journalists’ perspectives, biases, views show through in their reporting; that is perfectly natural for any human. As far as intentionally spewing anti-Chinese rhetoric, I just don’t see or feel that, IMHO.
If the Chinese government censors their own media and blocks foreign journalists from covering stories, mistrust, skepticism, and cynicism will follow. How do you trust the Chinese government when Liu Qi and his compatriots can so freely, blatantly mandate government censorship and mandate journalistic/media policy? IMHO, you can’t.
Trust takes a long time to build. It also takes a long time for foreign journalists to get the grasp of the situation in a foreign country. A long time. That very fact makes James Fallows and the like valuable for their insights into China. It has taken Robert Fisk and took T. E. Lawrence a long time to learn the intricacies of the Middle East.
It is definitely not clear to me, hzzz. Nowhere close, IMHO. We know what the Chinese state media has reported. What they did not report, we don’t know. In China, media control and propaganda make me very, very skeptical of relying on the Chinese state media. How do you corroborate their reports? How can we be sure that they did not “Photoshop” a number of the pictures?
It may be clear to you. I just don’t trust the Chinese reports, until we can get some credible, independent corroboration.
Please explain what are the “facts reported”. All I see are perspectives. Furthermore, on the Chinese government side, I see a need to carefully control that perspective.
Like SK in #136, I fail to see the distortion. What I see is a journalist coming from a different culture, a different perspective, with all the normal biases any person develops over their lifetimes. It seems that you see glaring omissions and commissions committed by the author. I don’t. Do I interpret Teague’s writing as fact(s)? No, I interpret this as his perspective, what he saw, how he interprets it.
December 11th, 2009 at 9:19 am
@hzzz #137, @S.K. Cheung #140
Hzzz, you wrote in #137:
I have re-read the initial passage many times and now once more. I thought the author, Matthew Teague, did a nice job of setting the context for the incident around noon time.
Teague showed how suicidal these 3 men were, ignoring both the police and the warnings of fellow Uyghurs. And yes, he did not mention the details of the July 5 riot; he was not there. In fact, Teague wrote about those 3:
Like SK wrote in #140, I think you want to find “what you hoped it had said”. There is no hue and cry about police brutality in this article, at all. IMHO. And speaking of removing context, why did you not mention the previous oppression and transgressions against the Uyghurs, whatever they may be. You know, hzzz, a Uyghur does not wake up one day saying, “I know my life is wonderful and I am very happy. I think I will become a terrorist today and attack the Hans. I have nothing better to do.” Not likely. Terrorism has roots and we seem to know very little about those roots in Xinjiang (Uyghurstan).
Here is what Teague actually wrote. He wrote his perception and perspective.
Hzzz, you wrote:
Again, Teague set up his “tear down cultures” comment with these contextual remarks, which you omitted.
In this light, it is easy to see why Uyghurs feel their culture is under attack from the Hans.
It is not obvious to me. I have read conflicting reports and articles on Kadeer. I have not concluded much.
It seems to me that you have set up yourself as some kind of sole arbiter. You are entitled to be your own arbiter. But in no way, shape or form, are you my arbiter. You are entitled to your own opinions, biases and perspectives. So is Teague. So am I. So is SK.
And speaking of opinions, I repeat:
Feel free to construe whatever is written (or not) to whatever you would like it to be; such is teleology. It is a free country. Be my guest.
Oh, progress is slow. Mais, c’est la vie! Well, it is a start. Well, maybe it is a start. And maybe not!
December 12th, 2009 at 12:56 am
@Jerry “It may be clear to you. I just don’t trust the Chinese reports, until we can get some credible, independent corroboration.”
Laughable at best.
You are not suggesting Peter Foster and Jane Macartney is paid by the CCP and what they wrote is about the same reporting as to state-media.
But of course, Jerry…you will highly trust “independent” meaning Anti-CCP bull from WSJ and AFP which has entirely been debunked by those two English journalists who happened to be in Urumqi.
Teague was never there in the first place. He doesn’t know anything. Mostly of what he said about the riots is nothing but assumption pulled by anonymous Uighurs who may not even been on the scene.
December 12th, 2009 at 4:17 am
@Jason Hu #143
LOL. Jason, your athletic leaps to conclusion and your powers of assumption are pretty good.
I forgot about reading Jane MacCartney’s article. I wrote about it in #75. I don’t know who Peter Foster is.
That said, Jane’s article was a human interest chronicle of one man’s search for his family. And the story is so sad. And, no, I am not suggesting that the MacCartney was paid or was pandering to the Chinese government.
Jason, to make a point, you have ignored the context in which I made that remark. And that seems to be pretty typical around here. I wrote in #141 in response to hzzz:
Isn’t it funny how my remark sounds different when you take the context into account?
MacCartney reported an account of July 5 by a Han neighbor of the Zhang family; the neighbor related details of attacks on the Zhang family by Uyghurs. She did not attempt to corroborate body counts or the like. She wrote about the tragic story of an innocent Han family who were attacked by Uyghurs, as the story was told to her by others. She apparently was not present at the July 5 riot.
It seems to me that you and I have different standards for “corroboration”. I can get corroboration from many independent accounts from various media in the West (I wish that the MSM in the US was less consolidated, but it is still independent; and then I also have sources in the alternative media, Europe and Canada, too.) That is what I consider to be my standard of “corroboration”; many independent sources verifying what I find in one account. I sense your standard is much less stringent than mine.
Here is where your propensity for amazing leaps to assumption/conclusion comes out in all its glory.
I rarely read AFP or WSJ. As far as “has entirely been debunked”, I don’t know. Everybody writes their accounts from their own perspectives, biases and perceptions. Perhaps your comment is a tad hyperbolic?
I really have a low regard for the CCP. That said, I respect the Chinese people and their country. The people are the country; the government is not the country. But I digress.
Nor, apparently, was MacCartney there on July 5. They both legitimately write from their own perspectives, biases and perceptions. And such is the diverse media located in the West. I sense you wish to discredit the Uyghurs. And such is your right. And I have the right to point that out.
So much for laughability, at best!! 😛 LOL.
December 12th, 2009 at 5:27 am
>> Jerry: “That said, I respect the Chinese people and their country. The people are the country; the government is not the country.”
That is a kind of typical childish tantrum thrown out by unsatisfied and confused western people. I encountered a few personally myself here.
What they don’t understand is that the majority of Chinese people firmly support CPC, and CPC is the nucleus of Chinese society.
Any bad feeling about that hard fact? go get a drink for yourself 🙂
December 12th, 2009 at 7:06 am
tanjin: so good point… westerners always believe its like in their country with people against government, “government is evil”, clamoring about so called “human right” and “freedom of speech” etc. lol. we stand firmly behind our government and we know that it will always do good job… not like the government of west with financial cricis, always discuss forever before doing decision, journalists always against etc.
western can never understand China. that is because their history of arrogance and always take what they want. now china is stronger and stronger. i can see west trembles… your country will soon lose. also because your thinking is too simple. you lack our longer understanding because you only have 200 years of history. we have 5000
we just have completely different ideas and society. we value harmony and serve your elders. the communist party is like a parent providing for us. in return we give loyalty. westerns despise their parents and just throw stones at their government. good luck with that. i prefer the party and our army any day.
jerry you tried to win our loyalty and throw our greatest success out? no way. it is like saying your country is only your people not your government. you think obama is not of your people lol?
December 12th, 2009 at 7:07 am
“What they don’t understand is that the majority of Chinese people firmly support CPC, and CPC is the nucleus of Chinese society.” — that’s fantastic news. It would be even more fantastic if such an “opinion” can be objectively substantiated. And it would be even more fantastic still if this apparent Chinese sentiment remained in the presence of an alternative to the CCP, of which there currently is none. I think such pieces of nuisance information would greatly alleviate the apparent confusion of “western people”. Wake me up when some members of the “Chinese people” around here can come up with such “hard facts”.
It’s also amusing that some members of this “Chinese people” are also so keen on representing “hard facts” in the absence of any, yet so quick to yell “distortion” simply in the face of contrarian opinion. Alas, best to leave that for another day. Besides, i suspect the next example of such behaviour will not be a long time coming….
To Hainan:
sounds like you took a long swig of the Kool-aid today.
PS. Now that tanjin is back, i wonder what the over/under is on how long it will be before his “twin” chimes in again.
December 12th, 2009 at 8:21 am
@tanjin #145, @hainan89 #146, @S.K. Cheung #147
Oh, tanjin! (#145)
Pardon me for my tantrum and confusion. NOT! LMAO!
Well, I certainly don’t know that as fact and I can easily imagine that you don’t either. I can’t speak for the American people, even though I am an American. And I can’t speak for the Jews either, even though I am a Jew.
Fortunately, I don’t have to. In the US and Israel, the people have elections for leaders at all levels of government. And there is a vibrant, free media in both countries. I would like even more independent media in the US. (I always have been greedy!) And people in both countries can express their opinions on all matters and issues. Without being arrested. And you are free to be a teabagger, a birther, a neo-fascist, a protester, whatever your politics. I believe the same is true for Canada, but I will leave that to SK. What great countries.
Can you say that about China? I don’t think so. Give the Chinese people elections at all levels, freedom of speech and a free, diverse media. Then it will be a lot easier to know China’s thoughts. And they will probably have diverse thoughts. And that is wonderful.
What “hard fact(s)” are we talking about? IMHO, you have demonstrated none.
BTW, how is Jpan doing? What are his thoughts on the matter? 😛
####
Hainan in #147
The Jews have over 4,000 years, for whatever that is worth.
Fundamental difference here. Americans elected Obama. Governments, at all levels, are chosen by the people. But I still say America, the country, is its people. And China, the country, is its people. And your great successes came mostly from the people, not the government.
Thankfully, by luck of birth, I was born into a wonderful Jewish family in the US. And, also thankfully, neither the Republican nor the Democratic parties are my parents.
I will take the US any day, even on its worst day. I have no use for fundamentalist, doctrinaire dogma of any stripe.
BTW, my girlfriend, who is Taiwanese Chinese, read your response, Hainan. She just said to me, “You can be loyal to the party and also have 2 wives and mistresses. Isn’t that wonderful!?”
####
SK: Amen, amen, amen and then some! Well said!
December 12th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
jerry and s.k. cheung: your whimsical rants are getting worse by the day. you have no arguments but just run in cicrles around your faulty governments and ideas of “freedom” and “human rights”. jerry did your tawanese girlfriend go to us because she dislked china also? i’m not surprised you prefer us you are a typical westerner. you live where you live and i live where i live. no problem in that and then we have no quarrel.
but you go on about china being bad and our party being bad and different from our country. not true! the party works without rest for the country. being patriotic and loving the party is very close. some of my friends are not interested in politics but they would agree with me on this. ask any of the 1.3 billion people in China!!!
you say you are jewish. then i think you sould agree with what i say because your people suffered in history just as we Chinese suffered at western hands! the party stands in your way now. no wonder you dislike it.
also so-called human rihgts and democracy is “fundamentalist, doctrinaire dogma” of western stripe to me. we have other values
December 12th, 2009 at 5:53 pm
To Hainan:
do you have an argument? Cuz I’ve yet to see one from you. Wake me up when you come up with something…however small and trivial…it’d be a start.
“the party works without rest for the country” — do you write slogans for the CCP? If you don’t, you should start, cuz you seem to have the gift. And the CCP can always use more slogans.
Maybe you can share with us some of those “other values”, since they don’t seem to include “human rights”, “freedom”, and “democracy”. I’m guessing “unity”, “stability” and whatever else Liu Qi had said that Jerry likes to quote, but I imagine there are others.
“some of my friends are not interested in politics but they would agree with me on this. ask any of the 1.3 billion people in China!!!” — you know, it’s interesting that you would claim to know something without ever having, or even needing, proof of same. That bespeaks less of science, and more of faith. Does anyone else find it ironic that the CCP is becoming a religion to some in China?
December 12th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
@Jerry
Go look at Peter Foster, the blogger for London’s Telegraph.
If you really want an independent journalist that is ON THE SCENE in Urumqi at the same moment as the riots happened. I suggest you to look more deeply and closely.
More concise and detailed-oriented and much more than you “independent” news media outlets that gave respect to Kadeer and WUC “bull.”
December 12th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
>> Jerry / SKC
For boring people like you guys, if you are out to look for mistress, you don’t need to search from afar. Just look at NY governor Spitzer and SC governor Sanford, they are high on political chain. if that is not plenty, you can follow the step of Tiger Woods.
These people are very typical They are mirrors of the deep sickness in western society.
ACTUALLY, IT IS NOT A SHAME BY REFLECTING ON YOURSELVES, IT’S A REAL SHAME HOWEVER TO FINGER-POINTING OTHERS WHILE YOURSELVES ARE ALL NAKED AND DIRTY.
December 12th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
.. AND, THE SAME ALSO APPLIES TO POLITICAL SUBJECTS …
It’s high time for western folks to have some soul searching about their “wonderful democracy” … these people should realize much of that has been playing out like a soap opera ..
December 13th, 2009 at 12:48 am
To the tanjin twins:
huh?? Well, since I’m happily married and Jerry seems to be happily dating, I doubt that either of us are looking for a mistress, as you say. Not sure where that came from.
As usual, I have no idea what your “argument” in #152 and 153 is supposed to be…and I’m using “argument” extremely loosely. In fact, legitimate arguments might take offense that I lumped your 2 things into the umbrella of “arguments”, and to them, I apologize.
OK, so Spitzer and Sanford got caught with their pants down. You know what, I’d hazard a guess that there are many other politicians who are getting their pencils sharpened by someone other than their spouse. I’d also suspect that CHinese politicians are as capable as any other in this regard (see, I’m giving Chinese politicians their due). And while Tiger has certainly demonstrated impressive prowess with his putter, I suspect he is not the most prolific pro athlete when it comes to spreading the joy around. Wilt Chamberlain and Magic Johnson come to mind. And I wonder if pro Chinese athletes aren’t just as capable in this regard, although I’m not sure if pro athletes are held in as high a regard as they are in the US, so perhaps Chinese women may be less inclined to throw themselves at these guys as their US counterparts.
However, if your “point” is that philandering is a “western sickness”, then surely you’re not giving your comrades enough credit. If you’re trying to suggest that Chinese men don’t cheat on their wives, then you’re living on a different planet.
As for your other “argument” (and I’m not sure writing in CAPS makes it any more compelling, but whatever floats your boat, pal), I don’t see the relevance, since this thread was never about which society has more philanderers. And if you’re trying to make a connection between husbands cheating with NG’s piece on the 7/5 aftermath, well….good luck with that. If husbands cheating is supposed to relate to the comparison of CHinese vs “western” political systems, or to the comparison of Chinese vs “western” media, again, that connection is only perceptible to those on powerful medications. Nevertheless, you do what you gotta do.
To this gem (“THE SAME ALSO APPLIES TO POLITICAL SUBJECTS …”), I’d ask what does, and in what way? You take your time. While you’re at it, you might want to enlighten us on how you figure that extra-marital affairs is related to the functioning of “democracy”, since you obviously have such a good grasp of the latter. This I gotta see…
December 13th, 2009 at 2:24 am
@hainan89 #149, @S.K. Cheung #150
Hainan, SK and I are not ranting, whimsical or not. You are merely dismissing points without the benefit of the thought process.
BTW, I live in Taipei.
Sometimes I wonder if you actually read and comprehend what I write. Oh, well!!
Wow! Truly amazing! This is a truly exemplary demonstration of blind, mindless allegiance to dogma. And to think that you are omniscient, knowing the minds of all 1.3 billion inhabitants of China. I am in accord with SK’s remarks in #150. I truly hope that your adherence to this dogma is an isolated anomaly and I hope it is not prevalent.
First of all, that is an amazingly athletic leap to a conclusion.
We Jews have suffered greatly at the hands of gentiles and goyim. We have suffered at the hands of some of our own leaders, too. Palestinians and Arabs have suffered at the hands of the Israeli government and at the hands of their own leaders. The Chinese have suffered greatly at the hands of foreigners. The Chinese have also suffered at the hands of their own Chinese leaders. Chinese and Japanese immigrants have suffered from racism in the West. The same goes for Tibetans, Uyghurs, Kosovars, East Timorese, Vietnamese, Native Americans, Maoris, Aborigines all over the world, Cambodians, the Irish, etc.; the list goes on and on. Very sad!
That said, I don’t agree with your mindless dogmatism. In no way, no shape or no form!! At all! Blind allegiance, and obedience without the benefit of the thought process are not my cup of tea. In fact, to my Jewish soul, your words are very troubling; we have heard this so many times before. Your wording and your kind of dogmatism are prime examples of why, many years ago, we establish B’nai Brith and the ADL.
The Jews have endured much suffering, death, destruction and havoc from such mindless dogmatism and the hands of its adherents. Thus, many of us Jews are very wary of any indications of such dogmatism!
Would you please explain to me how “human rihgts and democracy” are in the same league as your mindless dogma? Human rights and democracy take a lot of thinking, work, diligence, and vigilance. Furthermore, they are dynamic. That is much different than your brand of dogma, which sounds to me like it is set in some kind of authoritarian concrete.
BTW, your dogmatism is reminiscent of what we encountered before and during WWII. I just hope that this is not some fascist reincarnation, some kind of CCP Jugend, similar to Hitler Jugend in the 1920’s through the 1940’s.
December 13th, 2009 at 3:07 am
No, Jew and Chinese are distinctly difference especially for later part of history. Jew “leap” to the dark side while Chinese merely want to live their own life. Of course we have some Jew that are willing to stand in the middle and try to enlighten us the good and bad but context wise, they uphold the western values that are strange to us and the weird part is, they expect us to “leap” instead of walk like the many “leap” of logic we read here in FM.
No doubt everyone will choose America and Canada over China as destination of migration and the reason is a straight and simple one, America/Canada is rich and take care of it citizen, what if I ask you whether you prefer India or Indonesia, both democratic countries, or China, the authoritarian state, would you have an obvious answer like you people did in the past?
December 13th, 2009 at 4:41 am
yes even if jews might understand some of Chinese suffering, the fact is they are still western and can only think in western ways. as i said Chinese have other values. s.k. cheung you asked what those values are: unity, stability, respect your parents, love country. we have a saying “strong army rich people” which is what we truly want.
jerry i dont read the mind of all Chinese, the fact is that people of the world hate murder and steal, everybody thinks that, you don’t need any proof. we Chinese love unity and the party that gives us this. only a small group of people want otherwise, they are recruited by western to think so. so you live in Taiwan province, they are still under influence of us and confused. but culturally they share our sentiment and will one day come back to the motherland. what will you and your girlfriend do then lol?
i’m not mindless doctrinaire. when i see a beautiful scene or hear good music i think “it is beautiful”. so when i see what the party does and thinks i think “it is good”. what is mindless about that? when you hear about democracy and human rights you might think “it is good” but it is not because you got rewards from it, rather it is because you learned it in school. THAT IS MINDLESS DOCTRINES!!!
WWII was created by fascists, those ideas were western, we would never do the same. so that comparison is an insult! jerry you should apologize.
December 13th, 2009 at 5:10 am
“those values are: unity, stability, respect your parents, love country” — those are all good values. But I don’t see how they need to exist to the exclusion of things like human rights and freedoms. “western”/”democratic”/”wealthy” countries seem capable of managing all 6 of those things. If China aspires to the wealth of those “wealthy” countries, can she not aspire to some of those other characteristics (as always, applied in her own unique way, whatever that means)?
“so when i see what the party does and thinks i think “it is good”. what is mindless about that?” — nothing. But it’s a different story when you assume that all other Chinese citizens share your sentiment.
“when you hear about democracy and human rights you might think “it is good” but it is not because you got rewards from it,” — umm, we more than simply “hear” about it. We live it, on any given day of any given week. Not only is it not the school-based indoctrination of which you speak, it is actually so ubiquitous that we probably take it for granted.
December 13th, 2009 at 6:20 am
>> SKC “To this gem (”THE SAME ALSO APPLIES TO POLITICAL SUBJECTS …”), I’d ask what does, and in what way? You take your time. While you’re at it, you might want to enlighten us on how you figure that extra-marital affairs is related to the functioning of “democracy”, since you obviously have such a good grasp of the latter. This I gotta see…”
So … you don’t agree with the assessment that “western democracy” is just a Tiger Woods commercial — looks fashion and squeaky-clean on the surface, but ALL naked and dirty underneath … LoL … and laugh more … 🙂
December 13th, 2009 at 7:30 am
“you don’t agree with the assessment that “western democracy” is just a Tiger Woods commercial ” — no, I don’t agree.
However, you’ve got your comparisons all mixed up. For starters, Tiger Woods may have a raunchy personal/extra-marital life, but I’ve yet to see a raunchy Tiger Woods commercial where he’s being the pitch-man for a product. If you mean a commercial where Tiger Woods is pitching himself, I’ve yet to see one of those as well. Regardless of how Tiger Woods manages his endorsement portfolio, that has nothing to do with what “western democracy” is or isn’t. And you’ve certainly offered nothing in the way of justification for your apparent characterizations thereof. So you’ve marginally answered the “what”, but have hardly addressed the “in what way”. That said, everyone is entitled to their opinion…even you. That’s the benefit of living on this side of the pond.
December 13th, 2009 at 9:35 am
@Jason Hu #151
Jason, thanks for suggesting Peter Foster. It appears that he started writing from Urumqi on July 7, 2 days after the July 5 riots. What follows is a brief recap of what I read.
####
On July 7, Foster wrote about the Han hunting for Uyghurs during the Han protest on July 7; there were 1000’s of Han armed with machetes, axes and hammers. The crowd chanted for “revenge for our dead’. He wrote about how the July 5 riot began as a peaceful protest by ethnic Uyghurs and then spiraled out of control. He wrote that rumors fuelled both riots, first on the 5th and subsequently on the 7th. He reported that 156 lives had been lost since the July 5 riots.
On July 7, Foster wrote about another protest arising, this time with 300 Uyghur women. It followed the arrests of some 1,400 suspects. The women were demanding the release of their men. Foreign journalists were being escorted on buses. The journalists started taking notes, recording notes, taking pictures and the like. One Chinese policeman berated the reporters for reporting about the Uyghurs. He wanted them to report on Chinese deaths. One Han told his story about how he and his wife were attacked on July 5. The situation sounds very confusing.
On July 7, in another report, he relates how Beijing has swiftly moved to calm the streets and corral the large assemblage of international journalists into one hotel. He also noted that China has speeded up their reporting of casualty figures; many foreigners were surprised at their speed. He attributes that to the fact that the security forces, unlike in Tibet, were not responsible for the bulk of the deaths and injuries. Government-guided tours of hospitals allowed the reporters to see the injuries inflicted on the Han.
Foster also gave some government statistics for the number of injured in those hospitals. He noted that it was still unclear whether police actions on July 5 in breaking up the Uyghurs initially peaceful demonstration had helped to provoke the subsequent riot by the Uyghurs.
On July 8, Malcolm Moore, in Shanghai, wrote that his Twitter account remains blocked and that Peter can not receive calls or text messages.
On July 9, Foster wrote some criticism and some praise for the Chinese authorities. He said that the police had to walk a fine line between preventing the Han mob from attacking Uyghurs while allowing them to vent their legitimate anger and frustration. They also subdued the angry Uyghur women while backing off before they provoked the women.
Then on Wednesday, they generally kept the protesters, both Han and Uyghur, off the streets.
He criticized the police for being taken by surprise on July 5 and for a while on July 7.
####
Peter Foster, Malcolm Moore, Jane MacCartney, and Matthew Teague all provide us with parts of the picture, pieces to the puzzle. They all have their unique perspectives, viewpoints, biases and perceptions, from whence they write. That is not a conspiracy; it is human nature.
Jason, aren’t we the angry camper here? It takes time and patience to assemble the “big picture”, to corroborate reports. I am not in some “all fired up”, “hell bent for election” rush to judgment. I am going to take my time. Thanks for providing another piece to the puzzle, another viewpoint.
Jason, are you in some rush to disparage all that does not please you?
December 13th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
To Jerry;
“Jason, are you in some rush to disparage all that does not please you?” — that sounds about right. If the viewpoint is different from their own (and heaven forbid it be opposite to their own), then it is by definition biased, and uttered by an individual hell-bent on distorting the “facts”, probably at the behest of evil “western governments” who apparently have CCP-level control of the devil that is known as “western media”. Probably summarizes the “thinking” of the whole lot of these folks.
December 13th, 2009 at 10:12 pm
@Jerry: Peter Foster, Malcolm Moore, Jane MacCartney, and Matthew Teague all provide us with parts of the picture, pieces to the puzzle. They all have their unique perspectives, viewpoints, biases and perceptions, from whence they write. That is not a conspiracy; it is human nature.
Actually Moore and Teague never gave the reader any accounts from their own experiences in the riots.
In fact Moore on his blog apologizes for distorting the majority of the deaths that he assumes are Uighurs after he saw Foster’s rebuke of Kadeer’s falsified claims on Murdoch owned Wall Street Journal.
Teague’s analysis of the riots is nothing and has no credibility since he wasn’t even there when the riots happened.
“Jason, are you in some rush to disparage all that does not please you?”
I see no credibility of journalists to seek a sensationalist opinionated account of the riots when he/she wasn’t even there and also in bed with the falsified accounts by the World Uyghur Congress media hawks like Moore and Teague.
December 14th, 2009 at 2:46 am
@Jason #163
I never said that they did. I said, “Peter Foster, Malcolm Moore, Jane MacCartney, and Matthew Teague all provide us with parts of the picture, pieces to the puzzle.” I still have not seen any first person accounts of the July 5 riots from Foster and MacCartney, or even a mention by them of having been there on July 5.
Yes, Malcolm does apologize. Here is what he wrote on July 8.
Funny, Jason, this is not quite the way you represented him. Moore apologized “… for running ahead of the facts, but the idea that Chinese troops had been unable to prevent the Uighurs from murdering Han Chinese honestly never occurred to me.” Apparently, Kadeer’s unsubstantiated claims had little or nothing to do with his original conclusion.
“Rebuke”? Not quite the tool one would find in the typical reporter’s/journalist’s tool bag. Actually Malcolm used the word, “dismissed”. Now, that is more like a professional reporter or journalist. And, while he mentions Foster later, he does not specifically mention Foster’s “rebuke”. 😛
Perhaps you are trying to inflame the situation here with your hyperbole, a la O’Reilly and Beck.
BTW, it is hard to believe that a professional journalist like Foster would stoop to write for or associate with the “Murdoch owned Wall Street Journal”, who you previously “rebuked“. LOL! 😀
You are entitled to your opinion. And opinions are fine. And your statements are just opinions until you credibly substantiate your claims. If you think I will buy into your opinions, “hook, line and sinker”, just because you say so, you are living in a different universe than I. 😀 Ain’t going to happen!
Furthermore, as for the “hawkish” Malcolm Moore, he seems to be doing a rather poor job of touting Kadeer and the WUC in his July 8 report. I hope they knocked some sense into him. 😛 LOL!
Jason, unless I have missed my guess, your hatred and anger are showing through. And that diminishes your credibility. C’est la vie.
December 14th, 2009 at 3:06 am
@S.K. Cheung #162
Yep, SK, that kind of sums it up for me, too. But as a Jewish barbarian, I am used to being “evil incarnate”. And we Jews have had many centuries of abuse, criticism, hatred and persecution heaped on us. So we have thick skins. Comes in handy when I am purveying my own brand of evil. LOL! LMAO! 😀 😛
Furthermore, it seems that we own those governments and the media. At least that is what the conspiracy theorists say.
Some day I am going have to take myself more seriously. 😀
December 14th, 2009 at 5:00 am
To 163:
“Actually Moore and Teague never gave the reader any accounts from their own experiences in the riots.”
“Teague’s analysis of the riots is nothing and has no credibility since he wasn’t even there when the riots happened.”
—-hmmm, that’s an interesting standard. If I understand it correctly, that means that, unless someone was actually “at the scene of the crime” as the crime is occurring, and is thus in a position to render a first-hand account, any such account, analysis, or opinion otherwise lacks credibility. In an ideal world, that sounds pretty good. In our real world which by all accounts is anything but ideal, that seems seldomly attainable. If that’s the standard we use, then our newscasts can probably be pared down to about 5 minutes in length, and our newspapers would also be very thin (it would be a great way to save trees and the environment, come to think of it), cuz let’s face it, how often are reporters on scene as news is happening, as opposed to showing up after the fact in order to cover it? And op-ed pieces would probably cease to exist, since these columnists often weren’t there, and present their opinion after synthesizing the experiences of others. Perhaps a dearth of op-ed pieces is just the way you like it. Well, you’re free to apply any standard you want. Needless to say that is not a standard I share. But whatever standard you use, I do hope you apply it evenly, in all circumstances, and find opinions to lack credibility on that basis whether you agree with said opinion or not.
December 14th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
@ Funny, Jason, this is not quite the way you represented him. Moore apologized “… for running ahead of the facts, but the idea that Chinese troops had been unable to prevent the Uighurs from murdering Han Chinese honestly never occurred to me.” Apparently, Kadeer’s unsubstantiated claims had little or nothing to do with his original conclusion.
Seeing the apological statement from Moore again has strengthened my point that Moore was in bed with WUC and Kadeer’s op-ed piece in WSJ before. But when one of his colleagues told him the real events of what happened, he backtrack on his claims. What a coward!
The statement that Chinese troops failed to protect Hans being attack from Uighurs does not diminish whatsoever Moore’s (initial claim) point that most Uighurs were killed.
From what I can tell, Moore’s is still denying the majority of Hans were killed with that statement.
December 15th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
@SKC 141 Jerry 142 on
The points which I brought up were simple observations of mine to show how the author of article is opinionated rather than sticking with the facts. Most of your responses to my points were in the line of “it’s the author’s opinions and it’s different than yours so that’s not distortion” so my take is that at least we can agree about the abundant amount of opinions laid out in the article. Now, think about this simple logic: If you only present an issue with one single angle and that angle only that opinion will get distorted. Ask yourself this: on the Tibet/Uighur issue, how often do you see a different angle (let me spell it out explicitly, from a Han angle) being presented in the Western press?
In your comments you have done plenty to argue about the benefits of having “different/alternative” views so it’s pretty obvious that you do think it’s good to look at things from all angles. This is something which I believe in as well. My frustration (and I think this is something which shared by many) is that the alternative view on the Tibet/Uighur issue, one which deviates from the standard “Free Tibet/Stop China from killing its minority cultures/Chinese police brutality” angles are hardly if never presented in any serious Western publications. This to me clearly create distortions, especially when most of the articles from the Western media on Tibet/Xinjiang (at least the ones which I have read, and I read NYT/LAT/WaPo somewhat regularly) tend to have heavy one sided political overtones even when they are not about politics like this NatGeo article.
Speaking of what you hope to believe rather than the actual facts, the stuff reported from the Chinese state media is not always wrong, and you have no idea whether how often it would be wrong or that it’s better/worse than the foreign media. Logically speaking local reporters would have better knowledge of the subject and area, as well as more access to the local government and facilities. Foreign media on the other hand tend to be far more selectively and interview only a handful of the dissidents/activists.
On FOXNEWS, SKC you are missing my point: That the general audience wants to hear things which they LIKE to hear rather than hearing facts which they don’t like to hear. Judging from your comments here you are not much different: You only like to hear stories from a certain angle and scream “propaganda/lies ” when you hear things which you don’t like rather to dig into the actual points.
December 15th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
@SKC #147
““What they don’t understand is that the majority of Chinese people firmly support CPC, and CPC is the nucleus of Chinese society.” — that’s fantastic news. It would be even more fantastic if such an “opinion” can be objectively substantiated.”
This may upset you but there are plenty of surveys which show that majority of Chinese (86%, according to one which was referred to recently by NYT’s david brooks) support the country’s current direction. They are not even hard to find.
Think for once, never mind the economy China’s improvements in terms of literacy, infant mortality rates, life expectancy, etc. have been dramatic in the last few decades. According to World Bank China has lifted more people out of basic poverty in the last two decades than the rest of the world combined.
I know that many of folks do not like the Chinese government and talking about its accomplishments however objectively is painful, but attitudes like yours is the exact reason why so many people can never get China. If you cared to look around it should be plain obvious why so many Chinese people support its government. The term “it’s the economy stupid” is universal but it actually goes deeper than that in China. I have written this before but having only one government in power is a double edged sword: If things go wrong you can’t blame anyone else, but if things are going right you take all of the credit.
December 15th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
@Jerry
Since you brought up your heritage, imaging that most if not all of the media coverage on the Israeli/Palestine crisis involve interviews ONLY with Palestinian victims whose homes were destroyed by the Israeli army, and where all the news items are filled with political bias favoring the Palestinians. Would you not say that any additional article which interviews with another widow whose husband was killed by an Israeli sniper (without giving the context that the husband is suspected to be a bomber maker) only contributes to the overall distortion of the facts?
Even with the existing coverage many Jews are still upset because they think too much attention has been given to the Palestinian plight rather than the Israeli one, while many others feel that attacking Israeli government’s policy equates to attacking on Jews as a whole. You can find the terms “muslim propaganda” and “anti-semitism” thrown around all the time in news threads. My complaints are similar in nature, except that I feel the world media’s coverage of the mideast conflict is exponentially more fair than ones involving China/Tibet/Xinjiang. If the Chinese military assassinates a Uighur suspected of making bombs like the Israeli army often does with Palestinian militants the Western media would have a field day trashing China with little or no mention of the context.
On another note, I didn’t read all the stuff on politicians cheating on their wives but in the US the infidelity polls varies wildly from 10% to 70%. What’s not disputable is that the divorce rate in the US around 50%, and most divorces are results of cheatin’ spouses. But going back to China, let’s just say that I don’t know too many male expats living Shanghai who are not in multiple relationships at the same time, or do not often have massages with happy endings, although guys from Taiwan are the most notorious for having a second wife in mainland china.
December 16th, 2009 at 12:42 am
To hzzz:
“to show how the author of article is opinionated rather than sticking with the facts” — well, not so fast. The author is sticking with the facts….his opinion is reflected in how he interprets those facts. That’s entirely different than trying to suggest that his opinion and “the facts” are two mutually exclusive things.
“think about this simple logic: If you only present an issue with one single angle and that angle only that opinion will get distorted” —- then you should think about this: as one columnist writing one article, how many different opinions should he be expected to present? When I read an opinion piece, I expect the grand total of one opinion to be presented – that of the author’s. In order to get a broad flavour of any topic, the expectation should not be to obtain it from any one article; the expectation should be that you need to read many articles.
“how often do you see a different angle (let me spell it out explicitly, from a Han angle) being presented in the Western press? ” — that’s a good point. Maybe you should write one. However, the “official” CCP position ought to suffice, and that position is not difficult to identify.
“one which deviates from the standard “Free Tibet/Stop China from killing its minority cultures/Chinese police brutality” angles are hardly if never presented in any serious Western publications.” — that’s true to a point. Maybe these publications should consider hiring columnists who are sympathetic to your point of view. But again, doesn’t the reporting of a Xinhua press release achieve the same thing?
“the stuff reported from the Chinese state media is not always wrong” — no, not always. And maybe someday, this “state media” will have gone through enough of an evolution to start to receive the benefit of the doubt.
“Logically speaking local reporters would have better knowledge of the subject and area” —- this makes sense. But I don’t think the dispute is with the quality of the local reporters. The concern is what those reporters are allowed to report, what they are not allowed to report, and what they are told to put in their reports. You can queue up Liu Qi’s quote that Jerry has referenced several times if you like.
“You only like to hear stories from a certain angle and scream “propaganda/lies ” when you hear things which you don’t like” — umm, it’s ironic that you accuse me of screaming “propaganda/lies” when it is folks like you screaming “distortion” at opinions that contradict your own, and the post author suggesting “propaganda” for similar reasons. But whatever floats your boat.
“plenty of surveys which show that majority of Chinese (86%, according to one which was referred to recently by NYT’s david brooks) support the country’s current direction” —- was that the survey that selected its sample from about 40% of the population? Anyhow, surveys (even the good ones) are great, and accurate within x percentage points, 19 times out of 20. For starters, a survey that properly randomly sampled the entire country would be nice. But why just stop at surveys….
“Think for once, never mind the economy China’s improvements in terms of literacy, infant mortality rates, life expectancy, etc. have been dramatic in the last few decades.” — like I suggested long ago, there are conceivable reasons why PRC citizens might be satisfied with their current direction, and the current stewards of that direction. And like I’ve long stated, if you are so confident of this, you should be seeking to pose just such a question to all those folks. Better yet, offer the possibility of an alternative in addition to the status quo, and see what people think. That’d be putting your money where your mouth is.
“If you cared to look around it should be plain obvious why so many Chinese people support its government.” — see above.
December 16th, 2009 at 4:02 am
@SKC @171
““to show how the author of article is opinionated rather than sticking with the facts” — well, not so fast. The author is sticking with the facts….his opinion is reflected in how he interprets those facts. That’s entirely different than trying to suggest that his opinion and “the facts” are two mutually exclusive things.
“think about this simple logic: If you only present an issue with one single angle and that angle only that opinion will get distorted” —- then you should think about this: as one columnist writing one article, how many different opinions should he be expected to present? ”
How about your average Western journalist just stick with the facts and present a well balanced essay with views from both sides and let the readers decide which side they want to believe? If you read your average story in NYT the reporters do at least makes attempt at talking with people from both sides because the paper consider that practice standard journalistic practice. Why is this due diligence lacking when it comes to certain coverage in China?
““how often do you see a different angle (let me spell it out explicitly, from a Han angle) being presented in the Western press? ” — that’s a good point. Maybe you should write one. However, the “official” CCP position ought to suffice, and that position is not difficult to identify.”
So at the end of the day you do agree that there the Western media lacks an alternative voice when it comes to reporting on China. Now think a little further, by hiding/ignoring/not reporting on alternative view points with politically charged issues, wouldn’t that be the same as distortion of the facts? I do think so and you apparently don’t, although if I find that odd considering that your main criticism of the Chinese media is that it does not offer an altnerive view.
Don’t be naive about the “offical CCP position” either, in the case with the Uighurs the official CCP position is that your average Uighur loves the Hans like brothers and sisters, that only a tiny minority are actually upset. That’s just plain silly. What I ask for is an alternative view of the events and basic due diligence. It would be something like interviewing some Hans living in Xinjiang and get their angles on the whole riot, or maybe even asking them about why they moved to the area, how they feel about the Han cultural dominance and the government’s policy towards the minorities. Mind you, these are simple, simple questions to ask. The Chinese government stays away from these questions because they are afraid that would hurt their unity message, but what’s the Western journalists’ excuse?
““Logically speaking local reporters would have better knowledge of the subject and area” —- this makes sense. But I don’t think the dispute is with the quality of the local reporters. The concern is what those reporters are allowed to report, what they are not allowed to report, and what they are told to put in their reports.”
It’s funny because I sense the exact same issue with the Western media when it comes on reporting on Tibet/Xinjiang. You can argue that where the Chinese media the government tells the report what the write, and I can argue that with the Western media the reporters tend to let their own political bias get in the way of reporting. Eitherway the results are the same: people get one sided view of the events and as the result their knowledge on these events are distorted.
“was that the survey that selected its sample from about 40% of the population? Anyhow, surveys (even the good ones) are great, and accurate within x percentage points, 19 times out of 20. For starters, a survey that properly randomly sampled the entire country would be nice. But why just stop at surveys….”
I think someone other than you (maybe Jerry?) wrote the same thing when I linked a survey conducted by PEW research on attitudes in China. What do you think the purpose of a survey is? It’s to make generalizations on the entire population using data only from a smaller set. Surveys exist because it would be simply too costly and statistically pointless to ask every person for their opinions. While I would not say these numbers are totally accurate, they are certainly a lot more objective and credible than anything which you have provided so far to back up your argument. And speaking of putting my money where my mouth is, a good portions of my relatives are still in China including my own parents who have returned there to run their business, and I have invested a portion of my hard earned savings there as well. I would not be surprised that I stand to have a lot more to lose than you do should China fail and falls into chaos for whatever the reason.
December 16th, 2009 at 5:28 am
“If you read your average story in NYT the reporters do at least makes attempt at talking with people from both sides because the paper consider that practice standard journalistic practice.” — you know what, it really is high time that some of you folks learn to distinguish a “news” article vs an op-ed piece. A news article reports the news, and is supposed to be impartial. Hence the expectation that both sides of a story (assuming there are only 2 sides) are told. However, an opinion piece is a reflection of the opinion of the author. The author has no duty to be impartial, since he/she is presenting their opinion. And you read such an article with the understanding that it is the author’s opinion. Not only do you folks have a tendency to lump all of “western media” under one title, which is such an obvious fallacy that it should require no mention (though in these parts it does); but you also expect that all articles be written in exactly the same way, regardless of their nature, and the authors’ intent. Now, it’s pretty evident to me when I’m reading a news article vs an op-ed; but maybe for purposes of clarity and for the benefit of folks like you, they should identify an op-ed in bold, and maybe in a bright colour, so as to avoid any further confusion.
“Western media lacks an alternative voice when it comes to reporting on China” — there seem to be ample reports of what the CCP does, or at least what xinhua says it does (ie news reports). What might be lacking are opinion pieces that, and columnists who, categorically support the CCP position and CCP’s actions (ie pro CCP op ed pieces). Are you suggesting that columnists be told to take a pro-CCP stance for the purposes of at least some of their op-ed columns? Perhaps what should happen is that they hire some folks who already espouse that view…I see a job opportunity there for you….
“What I ask for is an alternative view of the events and basic due diligence.” — you should check out Jason’s link in #35. Another op ed, completely different opinion.
“maybe even asking them about why they moved to the area, how they feel about the Han cultural dominance and the government’s policy towards the minorities” — agreed. These would be good questions to ask.
“You can argue that where the Chinese media the government tells the report what the write, and I can argue that with the Western media the reporters tend to let their own political bias get in the way of reporting.” — my “argument” hardly seems in dispute. Your “argument” is likely true of op-ed pieces, because again, one’s opinion is likely the cumulative result of one’s biases, political or otherwise; however, I don’t think political bias gets in the way of reporting of news/”facts”. Again, 2 different things.
“Surveys exist because it would be simply too costly and statistically pointless to ask every person for their opinions.” — which is why i said earlier: “why just stop at surveys…”. BTW, a survey that only samples among 40% of the population is hardly one whose data I would find generalizable. When I said “put your money where your mouth is”, I was not referring to investing there; it was in reference to supporting a desire to verify that PRC citizens are indeed the happy clams that you think/claim they are, and furthermore would remain so even in the face of an alternative to the status quo.
December 16th, 2009 at 5:40 am
Western media normally do a good job on finding the facts, but they also normally do a lousy job on putting those facts into context. So basicly all we have are accurate facts blowing out of proportion, which technically are called half-truth…
December 16th, 2009 at 5:47 am
To Jimmy,
I’m not so sure about your “technical” definitions.
Otherwise it’s more of the same. I suspect you find the context a lot more apropos when you happen to agree with it. Around here, that’s hardly unique.
December 16th, 2009 at 6:04 am
The point about context is interesting because Western media’s biggest audiance are Western countries, In order for the audiance to understand their story, everything has to be framed in the Western cultures and values. I remember when studying cultures, it is how you frame a story, instead of the facts, determine the main ideas. You really can’t blame the Western media on how they frame the stories, but sometimes you just wish they could think outside of the box.
On another hand, I did pushed the half-truth definition a bit…there is no intention of malice, but the result is still not the whole truth.
December 16th, 2009 at 6:55 am
“In order for the audiance to understand their story, everything has to be framed in the Western cultures and values.” — that seems like a fair statement. But isn’t that just a truism – things are easier to understand for anybody when it is framed in a way to which they are accustomed.
“You really can’t blame the Western media on how they frame the stories, but sometimes you just wish they could think outside of the box.” — but each columnist will frame things in a manner to which they are accustomed, likely as a reflection of their opinions and biases. You’d be asking these folks to try to be someone else for a day. I think a better bet would be to hire more people of differing opinions, who are nonetheless otherwise qualified for the job.
December 17th, 2009 at 6:50 am
@hzzz #168
What are “the facts”? A journalist reports, from “their unique perspectives, viewpoints, biases and perceptions”, as I have noted before. Any fact reported or related is a product of the aforementioned. It is the human condition. 12 different journalists report from 12 different sets of “perspectives, viewpoints, biases and perceptions”. If that is distortion, then so be it.
Most media outlets, in the West, determine what they are going to cover. They send out reporters/journalists to cover that aspect. Such is the “free world”. You claim that this will cause distortion. You seem to think that, if the reporter does not write a report which is balanced, totally comprehensive, and impartial, then the report is naturally distorted. To me, that is not distortion. Distortion, for example, is Fox News, where people like O’Reilly and Hannity distort what they report. They are being dishonest, they are intentionally sensationalizing stories, they are being unfair, they intentionally distort. Why? They seem to do that to pander to an audience that wants to be informed with distorted reporting which supports the audience’s belief systems. IMHO, they are pandering in order to increase ratings and their own pocketbooks.
Let’s compare that to NatGeo and Matthew Teague. Teague’s job was to help demystify the Uyghurs, a virtually unknown people outside of China and Central Asia. He was not sent to write a report which was balanced and impartial, whatever that may be. He was not asked to cover all aspects of the situation in Urumqi; that would be one hell of a long report. He was asked to report about the Uyghurs and to give us his perspective. To report his perspective honestly, fairly and credibly.
Newspaper publisher, William Cobbett, in the 1790’s, had some things to say about impartiality and reporting (#75 above). He was quoted by Bill Moyers; I have included some of Moyers’ comments about Cobbett and his time. Cobbett’s and Moyers’ words are still applicable today, IMHO. Cobbett wrote over 200 years ago and Moyers 4 years ago.
Moyers writes in “Moyers on America” (starting on page 167 in the paperback first edition)
BTW, I would not worry too much about Fox News. O’Reilly’s show, the most popular “news” show on primetime cable TV, drew a median audience during the 2008 election of 3.75 million viewers. This is less than 2% of the American population. Primetime cable news on Fox, CNN and MSNBC had an overall median audience of 3.64 million. Their ratings plummeted after the election to levels slightly above a year earlier. I rarely even pay attention to these networks. I don’t even watch CNN over here.
I believe you are quite right; it is not always wrong. But therein lies the rub. IMHO, credibility and trust increase dramatically if the media is free, diverse and uncensored by the government. Unfortunately, Chinese media outlets give us messages dictated by government media policy. Lacking credibility and trustability, Chinese media outlets remove themselves as sources of alternative views for a number of us Westerners. IMHO, I just don’t spend much time trying to discern whether or not to trust whatever Chinese media outlet article I read. Color me skeptical, circumspect and very cautious, when it comes to the present state of Chinese media.
That to me is why the CCP’s government media policy is sad. They end up invalidating the hard work of their own journalists, IMHO.
December 17th, 2009 at 7:29 am
This argument is still going on? It would seem that having failed to ever find anything substantive written in the Nat Geo article people have taken to railing against their chosen bug-bears – “western democracy” and “media bias”. Folks, give it a rest.
December 19th, 2009 at 8:33 pm
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/12/19/world/AP-AS-Cambodia-Fleeing-Uighurs.html?hp
I find it funny of how these Uighurs are portrayed as refugees when they somehow got themselves out from Xinjiang and ended up in Cambodia. Makes me wonder what other countries are harboring these terrorists.
Edit: looks like Christian Missionaries are helping these Uighurs escape, thru Vietnam.
http://www.persecution.org/suffering/newssummpopup.php?newscode=11316
December 19th, 2009 at 11:15 pm
Here we go again, Pugster.
“I find it funny of how these Uighurs are portrayed as refugees” — pardon me, but where’s the humour exactly?
“harboring these terrorists.” — are all Uyghurs terrorists? Are all Uyghurs who seek asylum in other countries terrorists? Is there proof, or has it been proven, that the individuals in question here are/were “terrorists”? Have you such confidence in the Chinese justice system (in itself as hilarious a euphemism as I’ve ever heard) that these asylum seekers will have a fair day in court for whatever transgressions they may be accused of? The other question, of course, is how you affix a label of “terrorist” on these people, even if they were somehow involved in the riots. Usually, people who riot are called rioters. But I should know by now that precision in language seems not to be your forte.
December 20th, 2009 at 2:25 am
SKC,
That’s your assumption that the Chinese justice system is flawed. Since these people ran shortly after riots, I think some of these people have something to hide. Maybe you don’t know what is the definition of a refugee, which does not cover suspects of a crime.
And I never said that every one of the 20 something Uighurs who ran away are terrorists, as I won’t be surprised that the Terrorists probably took their wives and kids to Cambodia.
December 20th, 2009 at 3:21 am
“That’s your assumption that the Chinese justice system is flawed.” — I’d say that’s a pretty good assumption. Wouldn’t you? Heck, the Canadian justice system is flawed; the difference is in the magnitude of said flaws, or should I say orders of magnitude.
“I think some of these people have something to hide.” — maybe they did; then again, maybe they didn’t. Maybe they saw the situation on the ground, and thought it better to get outta there for their own safety. Now, if we were dealing with a robust and transparent justice system, there might be some hope of accurately determining the charges, and their guilt. However, we’re not dealing with such a system. So the verdicts will be death penalty for the whole lot of them (except maybe they’ll spare the kids…even the CCP might cringe a little bit at that prospect), regardless of what the charges are and what the evidence might be.
So, how were the rioters “terrorists” again? I missed your response.
December 20th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
So, how were the rioters “terrorists” again? I missed your response.
I thought you knew the definition of a terrorism. Terrorism are referred as violent acts which intends to create fear (terror.) Since terrorists cause terrorism, I don’t suppose that these so called rioters/terrorists caused these violent acts which intends to create fear in the July 5th incident, does it?
December 20th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
“Terrorism are referred as violent acts which intends to create fear (terror.)” — interesting. Well, I imagine that rioting causes fear among the non-participants. But on what basis do you say that the rioters were “intending” to cause fear, and not expressing their discontent.
Sure, the rioters rioted. But you seem to prefer to affix the more inflammatory labels a little more freely than me. Best to keep it that way.
December 21st, 2009 at 4:39 am
@SKC:
Discontent of what? The worker who spread the false rumors-arrested. Hans were arrested in brawl. They were punished not let go. This case is not ethnic hatred of what WUC is telling their followers and sympathizers. This is a case of rumor of what the worker heard a woman screaming but was not aware of the woman was startled when entering a wrong room.
If those people were discontent, they are free to apply for visas and fly to other places instead they opt the easy way out of consulting a illegal (under Chinese Constitution, churches needs to State-approved) underground Christian group to smuggle as illegal immigrants to Cambodia.
(courtesy of Charles Liu)
The former factory worker who started the false rape rumor online against the Uyghur workers was arrested on 6/28:
http://www.xici.net/b1007315/d93539372.htm
散布谣言引起2死120伤群架 广东韶关肇事者被拘留
…
２８日，警方查获在“市民心声”栏目的发帖者朱某。朱某对其在网上发布《旭日真垃圾》虚假信息的事实供认不讳，称其原为旭日玩具厂员工，辞职后再次应聘被该厂拒绝，因此心怀不满发布了该帖文。目前，警方已对朱某依法实行刑事拘留。
Spreading Rumur Caused Two Death 120 Injuries In Brawl, Guangdong Shaoguan Troublemaker Arrested
…
On [June] 28th, police found Mr. Zhu’s posting on “Citizen Voice”. Zhu posted on the website “Xuri Is Trash” article with false information, who was Xuri toy factory worker, but was not rehired after he resigned. Because of this, he posted the article out of contempt. Right now, Police has arrested Zhu according to law.
2) 13 of the 15 people involved in the Guangdong brawl were arrested before 7/5:
http://news.qianlong.com/28874/2009/07/07/2502@5067701.htm
13名韶关626集体斗殴事件犯罪嫌疑人已被刑拘
…
截至7月5日，已经有13名参与集体斗殴事件的人员被公安机关刑事拘留，其中新疆籍人员3名，其他地区人员10名
13 Shaoguan 6/26 Group Brawl Suspects Are Arrested
…
As of 7/5, 13 group brawl participants have been arrested by police, including 3 from Xinjiang, 10 from other areas
December 21st, 2009 at 6:14 am
@SKC 185,
There’s a major difference between a riot and a terrorist act. A riot is a form of civil disorder characterized by disorganized groups lashing out in a sudden and intense rash of violence against people or property whereas a terrorist act would be a well thought out organized plan that to kill as much people as possible. That’s exactly what happened in the July 5th incident.
December 21st, 2009 at 6:49 am
To Jason:
“Discontent of what? ” — good question. That’s for the Uyghurs to answer. I was referring to what they may have been discontented about leading up to 7/5, not the events that occurred thereafter.
To Pugster:
“a terrorist act would be a well thought out organized plan that to kill as much people as possible. That’s exactly what happened in the July 5th incident.” — and the evidence of such a plan of such coordination and malice aforethought is where exactly? Of course, I’m referring to more than simply that which the CCP accuses them of.
December 21st, 2009 at 9:32 pm
Jason @ 186,
You are absolutley right (not because you quoted my citations) – what some have done, in varying degrees, is trying to justify the violence. Does “discontent” really justifying targeting and killing innocent Hans?
It wasn’t the case when innocent Americans died in 9/11, so why should it suddenly be okay now? And it is wrong for NatGeo to use photo of the mechete weilding mosque attackers in an article where “struggle for human rights” is uttered.
Pug @ 187,
You are absolutely correct. The Chinese police had footages of Uyghur dressed up in burkas (unusual for Urumqi) directing the attach and handing out mechetes (like those in the mosque attach photo NatGeo used) hidden under the burkas.
This is but one of many lines of evidence the Chinese police produced to show it is in fact organized.
December 21st, 2009 at 9:56 pm
@SKC
Still, if they are discontent of what they are living, they can drive or fly with the proper ID. But they were enticed by a group of illegal underground Christian group who tries to smuggle them as “illegal immigrants” to Cambodia.
December 22nd, 2009 at 8:02 am
“Does “discontent” really justifying targeting and killing innocent Hans?” —whoa, wait a second. The “discontent” may have led to the riots. During the riots, some people did some deplorable things. But it doesn’t follow that this “discontent” justifies those deplorable things. Not sure who you think is making that argument.
Good grief, after 190 comments, we’re still conflating this. The photo was about the amateur photographer’s bravery, or whatever they called it. The narrative of what those folks were doing is but one aspect of the description of this “struggle”. Man, when you get a fixation, you sure are fixated.
To Jason:
“But they were enticed by a group of illegal underground Christian group who tries to smuggle them as “illegal immigrants” to Cambodia.” — I haven’t read all the links, so maybe i missed it. But I didn’t see a suggestion that this railroad group “enticed” these people to leave; I got the sense that these people wanted to leave, and this “railroad” group provided the means. I could be wrong on that one. Also, at the time they were leaving, I’m not sure how practical it would have been to expect to simply show your papers and be allowed to walk out of the PRC, especially that region of the PRC.
December 22nd, 2009 at 10:21 pm
@SKC
It doesn’t need a brain surgeon to suggest the Christian group lured the Uighurs to illegally smuggle them to Cambodia since you can see from various media outlets depicting WUC are fuming over their failed attempt and associating with this Christian group.
If the discontent Uighurs doesn’t have anything to hide, they can simply drive or fly to Cambodia which you seem to be defensive without any substance.
December 22nd, 2009 at 10:44 pm
@ Jason Hu #192: Jason, I’ve read in several places that there is an unofficial policy to deny passports to ethnic Uighurs until they retire, especially if they are trying to get to Mecca for the hajj. So in that regard, it would be impossible for them to drive or fly to a foreign country. Now why anyone would smuggle them to Cambodia beggars belief since Cambodia and China are close allies, so I”m not surprised that they’ve been repatriated. Repatriation is based on agreements between individual countries so whatever agreement China and Cambodia have should govern the process. If that agreement allows repatriation of accused criminals, then it seems logical to me that Cambodia would send them back.
The Christian group is irrelevant to the repatriation process; they are an internal Chinese matter. What is relevant here is the agreement between Cambodia and China.
December 22nd, 2009 at 11:08 pm
BTW pug, you should update the blog link with “-2”, since the original link no longer works. And to date, some comments with link to the police photo showing where the “wooden sticks” have landed, remain censored.
That’s right, as one commenter has pointed out, the page 2 of the main NatGeo article describes the mechetes weilded by the mosque attackers as “wooden sticks”.
Another fact check that might have led to more honest reporting of metal sticks with sharp edges – opps wait, that might have exhonorated the Chinese police shooting of these men “struggling for human rights”.
We can’t have that now can we?
December 23rd, 2009 at 1:48 am
To 192:
“It doesn’t need a brain surgeon to suggest” it, that’s for darn sure. But it might take something closer to that level to prove it, or to substantiate such an assumption. I’ll leave that part to you.
Whether an Uyghur can simply show up at the border and traipse across, I also can’t say for sure. I’ll also leave that assumption to you, since you’re on a bit of a roll in that department. But if you are an Uyghur who has personal experience in engaging in such traipsing, then by all means let me know, cuz that would add notably to your credibility in this regard.
As Steve suggests, however, you’d have to be pretty desperate to accept a lure/enticement/offer to go to Cambodia. If one had their druthers, it would’ve been preferable to go someplace without extradition arrangements with China, or at least a place not as prone to easily bow to pressure from China.
To 194:
at the risk of sounding repetitive (though that’s never stopped you before), here is another gem: “might have exhonorated the Chinese police shooting of these men: — umm, where have the police been chastised for their actions in this case?
“describes the mechetes weilded by the mosque attackers as “wooden sticks”.” — I’m well aware that you’ve never been one to carefully read an article, but simply given to cherry-pick the odd phrase here and there. Which might explain why you missed this line later on on that same page you linked to: “They still held up what were, more likely, rusted swords.” Maybe one of these days, you might actually read an article in something approaching its entirety. Someday…
December 23rd, 2009 at 2:56 am
@194. Charles,
How do I update the link? I don’t think I have rights to do that.
December 23rd, 2009 at 1:12 pm
@hzzz #135
in this wonderful world, nothing is impossible. if you want to know Tibetan’s response to this article, you can visit Titbetan activist Woeser’s blog
http://woeser.middle-way.net/2009/09/blog-post_14.html#comments
some of them are so angry, they even want to dash to University of Colorado to debate with the author. if they do so, it shall be a fantastic dialogue, i have not watched such a great game since “M.A.Jones VS pro-Tibetan campaigner in PBS”
http://discussions.pbs.org/viewtopic.pbs?t=68073
@S.K. Cheung #130
(1)
since NG was wrong, disguising terrorist as freedom fighter breached fundamental conscience of human being. i won’t do the wrong thing as NG did, i certainly won’t support any other do it. you said you want to do that, i just want to remind you: “Curses always come home to roost”
(2)
as i said in #128 since Hong Kong Chinese under alien rule can enjoy more substantial democracy than citizen in other Asian countries with an elected government. so i don’t think an Uighur politician will surely be better for Uighur.
(3)
how do you know i have not ever communicated with Uighurs. although i said i didn’t discuss politics with Uighurs when i visited Xinjiang. but it doesn’t mean i can’t observe, it doesn’t mean i have no Uighur colleague, it doesn’t mean i can’t make friends with Uighur on the Internet, it doesn’t mean i can’t observe Uighurs’ discussion on Uighur’s forum. my conclusion is the same as Mr. Gladney:“Xinjiang’s Muslims are well aware of the ethnic and political conflicts in Azerbaijian and Tajikistan, and that many of them are better off economically than their coreligionists across the border.” (Dislocating China: reflections on Muslims, minorities and other subaltern By Dru C. Gladney). even the book was published in 2004, most of Uighur still believe cooperation with the government can benefit more for themselves.
what’s more. as i know many Chinese commiserate 911 terrorist, obviously they will tolerate a mainstream media whitewash 911 attack. but shall i agree with them? so even some Uighur support NG, it doesn’t mean they are right.
(4)
of course, inconvenient truth is always hard to face with. i am not surprised you don’t want to face with it. but just as Obama doesn’t need all of American support his healthcare reform. Chinese just need American’s president understand China. according President Obama’s journey to China, obviously Obama knows Tibetan plight is just a swindle.
December 23rd, 2009 at 4:24 pm
@ pug_ster #196: I’d be happy to update the link for you but I’m not sure which particular link Charles was referring to. Please let me know the specifics and I’ll make the change. Charles, thanks for finding a solution to the bad link.
December 23rd, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Willy @ 197, “inconvenient truth is always hard to face with. i am not surprised you don’t want to face with it”
Well said. I too am not suprised that the NatGeo article’s “rusty sward”, seemingly to gloss over the repeated “wooden stick” with something equally dull and somehow less lethal – to me they stand out as contrast to the glistening silver edge on the mechetes in the mosque attacker photo they used.
Is it any wonder NatGeo censored reader comment links to the police photo showing the clean cuts on dead Hans? That would further disagree with their dull “rusty sward” propaganda wouldn’t it?
December 24th, 2009 at 1:31 am
@Steve
Utter nonsense.
“several places” my butt. The only reference is from race-baiting Shannon Kirwin. No one else has verify this outrageous claim.
It’s utter despicable that you two SKC and Steve has diverted attention to a unverified claim to prove your points that Chinese government restrict passports for Uighurs.
December 24th, 2009 at 7:28 am
@ Jason Hu #200: I’ve never heard of Shannon Kirwin.
Refugee Review Tribunal
NY Times Article
Freedom House
BBC Article
“It’s utterly despicable that you” make stuff up to try and prove your point. It took me all of five minutes to reference these articles so obviously you can only see what you want to see and just ignore whatever disagrees with your position. You seem to have a strange conception of the term “no one else”. If you want to disagree, no problem but why not try disagreeing without being disagreeable?
If you bothered to read what I wrote in #193, you might have noticed that I took China’s side in this controversy.
December 24th, 2009 at 9:23 am
To Willy #197:
well, let me start by sharing with you my appreciation for having to re-read my #130, which was written more than 2 weeks ago in response to your utterly forgettable #128, which I also had to re-read. Having to re-read your pointless post from more than 2 weeks ago certainly constitutes an activity for which the time spent I will never get back.
“since NG was wrong” — since you’ve yet to establish that in any meaningful way, the rest of that paragraph can also go into the circular file.
“so i don’t think an Uighur politician will surely be better for Uighur.” — maybe; maybe not. Too bad Uyghurs don’t get to try it out for themselves, and instead have to settle for the expert opinion of good folks like you. If it were me, I’d let the Uyghurs decide who they want to represent them. But that’s just me.
” I suggest you ask them.
how do you know i have not ever communicated with Uighurs.” — wow, that’s fantastic that you’ve made anonymous friends with Uyghurs on the internet. I wonder if you’re one of those types who likes to accumulate lots of “friends” on Facebook. But when I said “you”, I’m not referring to you, the Willy-meister, pounding the pavement; and when I said “them”, I’m not talking about all the Uyghurs you can personally round up. I’m, of course, referring to something on a much larger scale. It’s not surprising that you wouldn’t recognize the concept.
“of course, inconvenient truth is always hard to face with.” — well, not sure what this “truth” is all about. There’s the perspective of Peter the English Teacher, and some stuff on population control in Tibet. Once you figure out what “truth” you’re trying to sell, maybe you can share it with us. Let’s just say, however, that your “truth” probably isn’t worth much to me.
To #199:
glad you finally made it to the bottom of page 2. If you keep it up, and read only 7 more pages after that, you will have finished reading the entire article. And based on what you’ve said about it so far, that would likely represent your first time actually reading the entire article. Enjoy.
“Is it any wonder NatGeo censored reader comment links to the police photo showing the clean cuts on dead Hans?” — are you now suggesting that the 3 guys described in the article are responsible for any of that? You never cease to amaze with your creative reading.
To #200:
“It’s utter despicable that you two SKC and Steve has diverted attention to a unverified claim to prove your points that Chinese government restrict passports for Uighurs.” — still waiting for your personal anecdote depicting the experience of how you, as an apparent Uyghur, were able to casually traipse over the border. Will i be waiting long, cuz I can do something worthwhile in the meantime…like sleep.
December 24th, 2009 at 9:10 pm
@Steve
It’s funny that Refugee Review Tribunal is on my side on this one. No proof and goes to explain in better details than these three untruthworthy news outlets.
It’s not that Uighurs cannot go Mecca. They can go expect than are monitored.
Don’t blame China for being careful against Uighurs and their religion; blame National Endowment for Democracy stealing taxpayer’s money and given to US/Pakistan/German government-funded group World Uighur Congress.
Look at Hui; they are free to go anywhere. Why? They aren’t funded by NED and they don’t have a history with association with CIA/betrayals to their country like Uighurs did.
December 24th, 2009 at 10:12 pm
@ Jason Hu #203: As usual, I have no idea what you’re talking about. I gave you four sources, you dismiss three of them. Why? Because they dared to not support your position?
As to the one you did quote, when I read it I saw these passages:
These grounds have allowed for the denial of passports for those suspected of political and religious activity. Anecdotal evidence suggests that Uighurs have had their passports denied to prevent religious pilgrimages and also as punishment for political insurgency. Uighur political activists abroad have also documented the denial of passports for their family members in China.
The government permitted legal emigration and foreign travel for most citizens. Most citizens could obtain passports, although those whom the government deemed threats, including religious leaders, political dissidents, and some ethnic minority members continued to have difficulty obtaining passports.
(U.S Department of State 2005, Country Reports on Human Rights Practice 2005 – China, 8 March – http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2005/61605.htm – Accessed 7 February 2007 – Attachment 8).
Passports appear to be generally denied to Uighurs on grounds of religious and political activity.
Uighurs who have political active family members abroad may also be denied passports. Amnesty International details this passport restriction:
Amnesty International has long been aware of measures reportedly taken by the Chinese authorities in the XUAR to monitor and restrict contacts between local Uighur families and their relatives abroad…measures include denial of passports or other travel documents to family members who remain in the XUAR, effectively preventing them from visiting or joining their relatives abroad unless they travel illegally.
Recent reports suggest that levels of control and repression have been stepped up
over the last two years, as the authorities have apparently targeted families in an attempt
to force Uighur exiles to return or prevent them from engaging in political activities
abroad. One exile Uighur activist who works as a journalist told Amnesty International
that… authorities had also apparently threatened other members of the family that they would not be given passports if he continues with his activities abroad.
(Amnesty International 2004, People Republic of China: Uighurs fleeing persecution as China wages its “war on terror”,p.34-35, 7 July – http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engasa170212004 – Accessed 6 February 2007 – Attachment 1)
The Congressional Human Rights Caucus (CHRC) also provide examples of family members of political fugitives being denied passports even in instances where immigration has been approved to a third country:
My name is Muhtar. I was born in the city of Gulja in East Turkestan, and what is now Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region in People’s Republic of China. First of all, I would like to give you a brief introduction of my background and the reasons why I escaped China and finally came to seek refuge in the United States of America….
Even since I escaped China, I missed my wife and baby daughter very much. I always wanted them to reunite with me in freedom. The first thing I did in Turkey after my arrival was to invite them to come and visit me. However, the Chinese government refused to issue my wife and daughter passports. The Chinese police told my wife that they were not eligible for a passport since I was a political fugitive. Obviously, without a passport they could not travel to anywhere outside of China.
After I came to the United States in May 1999, I immediately sought political asylum. The United States Immigration & Naturalization Services approved my asylum application along with my petitions application for my family. INS sent an invitation to my wife and daughter to immigrate to America. However, the Chinese government once again refused to issue my wife and daughter passports.
(‘Testimony of Mr. Muhtar A Uighur Asylee in the U.S’ 2002, Congressional Human Rights Caucus, October 16 – http://lantos.house.gov/hor/ca12/human+rights+caucus/briefing+testimonies/107/testimony+of+mr+muhtar.htm – Accessed 7 February 2007 – Attachment 10).
Passports have also been denied to Uighurs on religious grounds. The Chinese government has prohibited and confiscated passports for Uighurs planning on undertaking the Hajj-journey. Human Right Watch has reported on the denial of passports for religious pilgrimages:
In Xinjiang, where the predominant Muslim group is made up of Turkic-speaking Uighurs, local officials have shut down religious activities on the pretext of contributing to the fight against international terrorism…In keeping with Article 43 of the regulations, which prohibits self-organized overseas “pilgrimages,” local authorities confiscated passports from Uighurs planning to spend Ramadan in Mecca; only state-sponsored Hadj pilgrimages were permitted, and government employees and retired government officials were not allowed to make the journey without special permission.
(Human Rights Watch 2006, China: A Year After New Regulations, Religious Rights Still Restricted Arrests, Closures, Crackdowns Continue, 1 March, http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/03/01/china12740.htm – Accessed 7 February 2007 – Attachment 11).
In conclusion while no information was found in the sources consulted regarding the confiscation of all passports in Xinjiang it is clear that the Chinese government does confiscate and deny passports on certain grounds. These grounds include national security concerns caused by political and religious activity and apply especially to ethic minorities such as Uighurs.
December 24th, 2009 at 11:51 pm
To #203:
“Look at Hui; they are free to go anywhere.” — so are you at last stipulating that Uyghurs maybe don’t get the free pass as you had suggested earlier? Cuz gee, that would seem to make the railroad a little bit more necessary for those who choose to partake.
“Don’t blame China” — heavens no. It’s never her fault. The voices in her head made her do it.
To Steve:
I think Jason shares in the very common trait of selective/creative reading. Well, i don’t think it’s very common overall. But it’s certainly very prevalent among those good folks who are sampled here.
December 25th, 2009 at 1:19 am
@SKC
Let’s go back a bit. Steve said that he read “various reports” that Uighurs (all disregarding the report saying political detractors are denied passport) goes to Mecca or elsewhere.
Then Refugee Review Tribunal said that Uighurs migration needs govt-monitors *wink wink: US Patriot Act.” Steve as well as NYT/BBC/Freedom House deceptively chose their wording that says Uighurs are PERMANENTLY not allowed to travel to Mecca without providing information that these trips that can be accomplished by govt-monitored.
@I think Jason shares in the very common trait of selective/creative reading. Well, i don’t think it’s very common overall. But it’s certainly very prevalent among those good folks who are sampled here.
I love how you accuse me of selective/creative reading while Steve cited a women who is a ESCAPED illegal immigrant because she refuse to be govt-monitored in the States (that’s why China refused her passport).
Get into your heads: request Govt-monitored migration or deny passport.
December 25th, 2009 at 4:22 am
@Jason Hu, @S.K. Cheung, @Steve
Steve, you wrote in #204:
Yes, I find that to be Jason’s MO.
SK, you wrote in #205:
I hope it is not common in the general population. But I heartily agree that it is surely prevalent out at FM. Especially when reading the actual article from NatGeo.
I am always left with these lingering questions:
• If a person seemingly hates all things Western, especially articles/reports which challenge his/her concept of “China the Myth”, why does he/she bother to read those articles/reports?
• And if living in the West is so onerous, so odious, so despicable, why does he/she live in the West?
Fortunately, I do not lose sleep over these. The questions are pleasantly amusing and cathartic to me. And before you suggest that my ponderings are recommendations, they aren’t. They are just ponderings. You are free, at least in the US, to live or read as you wish! Wonderful country!
Jason, you wrote in #206, “*wink wink: US Patriot Act.”
I find the Patriot Acts I and II, most odious, despicable and reprehensible. It reminds me too much of the Orwellian, authoritarian dictatorship which today is China. And China is home to the titanic, euphemistically-named, “Golden Shield”!
“It’s not that Uighurs cannot go Mecca. They can go expect than are monitored. (#203)”
“I love how you accuse me of selective/creative reading while Steve cited a women who is a ESCAPED illegal immigrant because she refuse to be govt-monitored in the States (that’s why China refused her passport). (#206)”
“Get into your heads: request Govt-monitored migration or deny passport. (#206)”
Wow, living in China must be so wonderful for the Chinese, Uyghurs and Tibetans.
Now, get this into your head, Jason. The Chinese people in China live at the whim and pleasure of the CCP government, an authoritarian, at times malevolent and maleficent, dictatorship.
Of course, Jason, that is merely a rhetorical remark. I doubt you have one iota of space for discordant, paradoxical thoughts.
Merry Christmas.
December 25th, 2009 at 6:00 am
To #206:
“all disregarding the report saying political detractors are denied passport” — ok, I can see how a country might deny ENTRY to a person who they have reason to believe might cause trouble. But if they’re already in your country (ie China), why deny them a passport and the ability to leave? I guess China does love her Uyghur brothers so. And again, their being denied a legitimate avenue for leaving would be the raison d’etre for an underground railroad.
“Uighurs migration needs govt-monitors” — and why is that? If I want to move from one part of my country to another, I don’t need government clearance. If you want to move from one part of your country to another, you don’t need government monitoring or clearance. Why is it that Uyghur migration gets the deluxe treatment?
“Get into your heads: request Govt-monitored migration or deny passport.” — I’ve love to get it into my head. Unfortunately, things that make no sense are automatically rejected from my head. Government-monitored migration (whatever the heck that means) would be one such thing. BTW, are you subjected to “government-monitored migration”? I have no idea what that means. But if you’re currently not subjected to it, you should try it, cuz it does sound like a real good time. Have fun!
To Jerry:
“And if living in the West is so onerous, so odious, so despicable, why does he/she live in the West?” — dear god yes. Many of the good folks who frequent these parts should be asking themselves that very question at least on a daily basis, if not even more frequently.
December 25th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
@Jerry/SKC
As always with “blame China” crowds, you seem to forget the past history of Uighurs and the CIA and how Uighurs uses political leverage on these so-called “refugee” to use on their political gains as of today. China was stupid enough to let Kadeer off to the States and now the media and the US uses her for their political agenda to attack China.
My personal belief that any group (any individual who is in the group regardless of connection of NED-grants ie. in a case of a political-ploy) or individual who enters a political agenda meaning getting bribed by the NED or Democrat and Republicans grants or USaid is STRIPPED their civil rights and human rights under the Chinese Constitution.
I see no reason for Chinese govt officials stripped an individual civil rights and human rights who is making money under their OWN business in China or a Chinese businessman or any donations from mainlanders to help their political cause.
Happy Hanukkah and new year; Jerry
Merry Christmas and new year; SKC
December 25th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
To Jason:
“you seem to forget the past history of Uighurs and the CIA and how Uighurs uses political leverage on these so-called “refugee” to use on their political gains as of today” — as I said earlier, I can fathom the justification for denying a person (Uyghur or otherwise) the right to entry into China or to free passage within China, if there was reason to believe that such a person was a threat to the state (and that’s already taking into account that China can see a threat where most wouldn’t, she’s that perceptive).
But how does that justify any such restrictions on people just because they’re Uyghur? Unless your argument is that all Uyghurs by definition are a threat to the state, because some Uyghurs may have tried to subvert the state in the past. That’s taking guilt by association to a whole new level…that’s guilt by birth. I’m not sure if that’s your point in paragraph 2, but if it is, that’s bizarre to me.
December 25th, 2009 at 10:24 pm
@SKC
Too bad. It’s the East Turkestan Independence Movement for taking an China’s enemies money. That’s what they get for betrayal and cause Uighurs to suffer. Today Western media accuse China for human rights on Uighurs. Bull! It’s Westerners who were the culprit for this tension.
Hui people aren’t like the Uighurs people. They like their country. They have no history of betrayal. What did they get in return? They aren’t being harassed or monitored.
————
Let me ask you a question: What if a Chinese intelligence disguised as a NGOs and ask Chinese taxpayers to give money to Scotland and Ireland independence groups?
The English Parliament would extradite these people for treason in a second.
December 26th, 2009 at 12:25 am
To 211:
“Too bad. It’s the East Turkestan Independence Movement for taking an China’s enemies money. That’s what they get for betrayal and cause Uighurs to suffer.” — you are completely and utterly nuts, and you take prejudicial thinking to an other-worldly level. Note also that I’m using “thinking” extremely loosely in this case. “racism” doesn’t begin to describe what you’re spewing here.
“Today Western media accuse China for human rights on Uighurs.” — and so they should, and rightfully so, and if Chinese people thought even remotely like you, such justification will have little chance of receding in the foreseeable future.
“Hui people aren’t like the Uighurs people. They like their country.” — well, i imagine some of them do. Just as I imagine not all of them do. Well, anyhow, so much for those 56 ethnicities all being treated like brothers.
“What if a Chinese intelligence disguised as a NGOs and ask Chinese taxpayers to give money to Scotland and Ireland independence groups?” — they should knock themselves out.
It’s always the same thing with you people. Persecute a race because some among them may harbor discontent and may have acted upon it. When you’re called on it, justify it by saying these “people” (many of whom are “guilty” by nothing other than birth) brought it onto themselves. Your mode of thinking is an embarrassment. And I’m really hoping that your mode is not representative of the average Chinese person…although it may well be representative of at least some of those on this blog.
December 26th, 2009 at 1:23 am
@SKC
Thinking discontent Uighurs may defect to anywhere as a political ploy for the exiles is not racist. This is just wishful thinking on your part.
If you don’t want the Chinese government to look down upon some of the discontents, shut down WUC immediately and any Uighur-in exile groups around the world. Turn them into a philanthropy for study for cultures and education in Xinjiang or any Uighurs living abroad that can better their own lives. Shut down all CIA activities in China and reveal top-secret activities starting on 1956. Shut down NED and make a public apology in China for the tension between Uighurs. Ban all taxpayer’s money from those organizations. Allow donations from citizens.
Shut down every meeting between top government officials and heads between WUC members.
If these can’t be done, the Westerners has no respect for a better human rights for Uighurs.
December 26th, 2009 at 3:18 am
“If these can’t be done, the Westerners has no respect for a better human rights for Uighurs.”
Who’s talking about us?
December 26th, 2009 at 4:49 am
@Jason Hu, @S.K. Cheung
Jason, you wrote in #211:
Jason, that is odious, prejudicial, insidious thinking, IMHO. So let us take your line of “thinking” (Similar to SK, I use this term very, very loosely) and apply this to other groups and situations. This will show how preposterous, absurd, prejudicial and insidious your line of “thinking” is.
Jason, as your example and my examples (which implement your line of “thinking”) above show, your line of “thinking” is not only preposterous and absurd; it is also racist, odious and insidious. Some humanitarian you are, Jason! NOT!!
And, Jason, in case your level of English reading comprehension is lacking, I do not espouse the examples above. I despise them. I made them for illustrative reasons only. I despise your contempt for the Uyghurs. I despise your line of “thinking”.
Yes, I believe that the British authorities should deal decisively with the perpetrators and the perpetrators only. They should not treat all Chinese-Brits or Chinese Nationals as the enemy. Jason, I fear if you were British in this situation, you would treat all Chinese as the enemy. And that is hogwash.
BTW, if the CCP government wanted to try to infiltrate secessionist groups in Britain, more power to them. And more power to the consequences and fallout, whatever they may be.
Jason, I do not buy “guilt by association” at all. It seems that you not only bought “guilt by association”, you swallowed it “hook, line and sinker”.
Your “thinking” is an abomination and as SK said, “Your mode of thinking is an embarrassment.” (#212) And, Jason, I concur with SK when he writes:
December 26th, 2009 at 5:05 am
To #213:
“Thinking discontent Uighurs may defect to anywhere as a political ploy for the exiles is not racist.”
— okay, first you suggest the Uyghurs can simply stroll across the border, hence there was no need for a railroad to sneak them into Cambodia (at least you’ve had the sense to leave that alone ever since Steve provided you with those links for which you had a whimper of a response). Then you suggest that all Uyghurs deserve to be monitored, have their movements restricted, and probably should be considered to be guilty of something or other without a shred of proof, simply because some among them have taken an opposition to the CCP. Now you seem to suggest that Uyghurs who want to leave don’t do so because of unhappiness with their current lot, but rather as some grander political posturing (all without even a whiff of proof, of course). Gosh, if I were to engage in wishful thinking, it would be that the odd person might remove their rosy glasses when looking at China, so that they may stop blaming others for stuff of China’s own doing. But you’re right, I should dream on…
“If you don’t want the Chinese government to look down upon some of the discontents, shut down WUC immediately and any Uighur-in exile groups around the world.” —- if you’ve been paying attention at all, this is the point. If China wants to target Uyghurs who have committed a crime (even accounting for the fact that some “crimes” in China are of a fairly imaginary nature), that’s at least defensible. What’s not defensible is to treat every Uyghur as a criminal for no other reason than their birth.
“Shut down all CIA activities in China” — and maybe China can cease to spy on others.
“Shut down NED and make a public apology in China for the tension between Uighurs.” — they were supporting what they thought was right.
“Shut down every meeting between top government officials and heads between WUC members.” — why? China objects to people talking now?
“Westerners has no respect for a better human rights for Uighurs.” — once again you’ve got it all wrong. China is the one eroding the rights of Uyghurs. But I can see how someone like you would like to blame others.
December 26th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
@Charles Liu #199
Once an American forwarded me an article from New York Times—Files Vanished, Young Chinese Lose the Future, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/27/world/asia/27china.html he said he was upset for those students lost their academic record files. I reminded him to read the readers’ comment, the 10th and the 17th comment will tell him the truth. Because he run a company in China, so he can easily ask a human resource manager whether the academic record were so important in job market as NYtimes said. If he was living in the states, I even I told him the 10th and 17th comment were true, he could still choose to believe the NYtimes or other comments.
That’s why natgeo doesn’t care about the comments on its website. Because only part of the readers will remembers to read the comment. For those read the comments, most of them won’t invest their time to scrutinize the evidence of each other. Some will doubt the truth of it, but it’s foreign affair, truth or false is not important for them. some discovers it’s a shoddy fiction, but it’s just another unjust thing they met everyday, they just ignore it. what the natgeo will worry about is some press groups, they will demonstrate, send out propaganda brochures and arrange interview in talk show. Another press natgeo facing is the prejudice of their readers. But misunderstanding outside world is the loss of American, I don’t think Chinese shall waste time telling American the truth, China just needs to be strong enough to ignore their vilification.
@Charles Liu #202
No wonder so many American Talibans like to label themselves as freedom fighters.
You know American don’t decide every thing by referendum, especially if Uighur do not want a referendum, how can you force them. I have ever read a dialogue between an American journalist and a strident pro-independence activists Mr. Tuman in California, the Uighur activist said: “A referendum on independence in Xinjiang wouldn’t work because we [Uyghurs] are already a minority there. If there was a vote in Xinjiang, what would happen? We would definitely lose. So the only real hope is for all of China to become a democracy. But I don’t think that’s going to happen in the near future.” (according former journalist of the Globe and Mail Jan Wong in her “Red China Blues”, that will happen in 2015 ). Uighur can not dominate in Northern Xinjiang(they never dominate here in the history) is just one of the reasons Uighur don’t want a referendum. Even strident activist knew western democracy dogma can not help them, let along ordinary Uighur. Maybe you can ask George. W. Brush how to fabricate an Uighur’s opinion that you like to hear.
what I mention is exactly the Uighur mainstream opinion. I didn’t believe what Mr. Gladney said before I visited Xinjiang, I believe it after I communicated with many Uighurs across south and north. Most of my anonymous westerner friends end up visiting me at last, they always told me, they didn’t talk politics with Chinese in mainland, but they felt comfortable talking politics with me. by far, my Internet Uighur friends are still anonymous, because they are new friends, I never think of making friends with Uighur until I visited there and discover most of Uighur are open-minded. It’s not strange they will visit me someday as my westerner friends did.
sorry, Her Majesty. I don’t know you think that’s not important for you. But western media think it’s so important that they repeatedly mention birth control and culture genocide in Tibet. However these accusation are just swindle.
December 26th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
To 217:
“No wonder so many American Talibans like to label themselves as freedom fighters.” — ok, if you say so. I haven’t heard of too many such people, but whatever floats their boat, and yours.
“You know American don’t decide every thing by referendum” — true; but they do get referendums from time to time. Also, you’re forgetting that their opinions are already sought every 4 years. That would seem to distinguish their situation from that of Uyghurs or all PRC citizens, wouldn’t you say?
“especially if Uighur do not want a referendum, how can you force them.” — also true. And you know that Uyghurs don’t want one how exactly?
“So the only real hope is for all of China to become a democracy. But I don’t think that’s going to happen in the near future” — and isn’t that a shame.
“what I mention is exactly the Uighur mainstream opinion.” — oh really? One visit, and you’re the expert? Forgive me for not wagering the farm on what you’ve got to say. What never ceases to amaze is how you folks seem so eager/willing to speak for all these people. My preference is to ask them…but not in your man-on-the-street kinda way. I’m thinking of a more systematic, organized means…again, any guesses?
“I don’t know you think that’s not important for you.” — even if you didn’t know before, you should’ve figured it out after I spelled it out for you.
December 26th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
@Jerry
“odious, prejudicial, insidious thinking”
If that is your opinion:
You should read this article: Namdrub, a man who fought in the anti-Communist resistance in the 1950s, what he thought about the exiled Tibetans who campaigned for his freedom. “It may make them feel good, but for us, it makes life worse,” he replied. “It makes the Chinese create more controls over us. Tibet is too important to the Communists for them even to discuss independence.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/22/opinion/22french.html
It applies to all individuals and groups who are associated with National Endowment for Democracy.
[NED] creates resentment and ill-will toward the United States among millions abroad.
http://www.antiwar.com/paul/paul79.html
So are these people who thinks that the NED-funded groups makes others (resentment against the govt) who may or may not associate with them takes heat more than the people associated with NED-groups “odious, prejudicial, insidious thinking.”
It’s the the truth and people like you can’t handle that.
===========================
All the examples you gave are prejudicial examples that has no relevance of groups who took money from outside intelligence groups to help their political cause.
The one important case in United States 1996 Chinagate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_campaign_finance_controversy
who the US government claimed that these 5 people were working with the Chinese government and funnel money to help Clinton’s political rise. But later concluded that there’s wasn’t any sufficient evidence.
@ SKC
Then you suggest that all Uyghurs deserve to be monitored, have their movements restricted, and probably should be considered to be guilty of something or other without a shred of proof, simply because some among them have taken an opposition to the CCP.
===================================
I said that migrating Uighurs to others needs request for govt-monitoring because Chinese government wasn’t too happy when Kadeer told them she isn’t doing anything political yet we are know that is a lie.
Cautionary procedures are not prejudicial and racist.
If China wants to target Uyghurs who have committed a crime (even accounting for the fact that some “crimes” in China are of a fairly imaginary nature), that’s at least defensible. What’s not defensible is to treat every Uyghur as a criminal for no other reason than their birth.
=====================================
It’s very defensible. NED is an unconstitutional organization that is a governmental; profitable that is meddling in the internal affairs of others which does not constitute as the founder’s goals to open relations and trade with all countries and free from meddling and manipulation in the internal affairs of others.
It creates resentment and ill-will and paranoia and distrust toward the individuals who may or may not receive grants from this group.
======================================
“Shut down all CIA activities in China” — and maybe China can cease to spy on others.
I fully agree with that concession.
======================================
“Shut down NED and make a public apology in China for the tension between Uighurs.” — they were supporting what they thought was right.
I didn’t know an unconstitutional organization has any right has any action of meddling in the elections and internal politics of foreign countries. News to me.
======================================
“Shut down every meeting between top government officials and heads between WUC members.” — why? China objects to people talking now?
Transparent and open to the public with these talks; I like to add.
======================================
“Westerners has no respect for a better human rights for Uighurs.” — once again you’ve got it all wrong. China is the one eroding the rights of Uyghurs. But I can see how someone like you would like to blame others.
Except Western are the primary culprits who made Chinese government this way. This is a precautionary measure that the loose cannon Rebiya Kadeer has inflicted upon others that wanted to migrate.
December 26th, 2009 at 8:58 pm
“You should read this article…” — it doesn’t surprise me that the CCP shares in your mode of thinking.
“So are these people who thinks that the NED-funded groups makes others (resentment against the govt) who may or may not associate with them takes heat more than the people associated with NED-groups “odious, prejudicial, insidious thinking.”” — bizarre sentence structure notwithstanding, the answer is yes.
“Cautionary procedures are not prejudicial and racist.” — precautionary procedures are justifiable. But how does distrust for Kadeer justify distrust of all Uyghurs? For example, some Chinese-Americans have been convicted of espionage; should the Americans now screen and monitor all CHinese-Americans on that basis alone?
“It creates resentment and ill-will and paranoia and distrust toward the individuals who may or may not receive grants from this group.” — how is that a defense for treating every Uyghur as a criminal for no other reason than their birth?
“I fully agree with that concession.” — but in reality, given the easy consensus achieved at something like COP 15, such a bilateral (and verifiable) agreement ought to be in place by the time pigs take flight.
“News to me.” — consider yourself informed.
“transparent”, ok. No reason why talks need to be in secret. However, which government holds talks before the public? That’s a ridiculous expectation.
“Except Western are the primary culprits who made Chinese government this way.” — there you go again. Blaming others for what CHina did and continues to do. You may as well say the voices made them do it.
December 26th, 2009 at 11:19 pm
@it doesn’t surprise me that the CCP shares in your mode of thinking.AND bizarre sentence structure notwithstanding, the answer is yes.
Read the article again. The man was Anti-CCP guerrilla. No connection between him to CCP.
Nice to see you throwing yourself into garbage talk.
“Cautionary procedures are not prejudicial and racist.” — precautionary procedures are justifiable. But how does distrust for Kadeer justify distrust of all Uyghurs? For example, some Chinese-Americans have been convicted of espionage; should the Americans now screen and monitor all CHinese-Americans on that basis alone?
“It creates resentment and ill-will and paranoia and distrust toward the individuals who may or may not receive grants from this group.” — how is that a defense for treating every Uyghur as a criminal for no other reason than their birth?
Here we go again. Comparing apples to oranges. Silly me. Those Chinese-American are charged with espionage to divide Hawaii or some State that Mexico owns or influence American public that communism ideals are the way to go or that they have organizations to overthrow American system.
Lousy attempt to connect them as a pair. But nice try.
Who is trying to say that Uighurs should be treated as criminals since birth. I never said it. You said it. If Uighurs wanted to migrate to other places, follow the strict rules that forbids any political activities towards Chinese system.
These rules were implemented after Kadeer’s lie. These methods is effective to rat out Uighurs who chickened out for a real job and opted out to work for in-exile government.
“consider yourself informed.”
You need to be informed as more than I. When imperial Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, the US moved their non-interference clause in the Constitution aside and retaliate. After WWII was succeed, the US never even looked at the non-interference clause and NED is one of the many.
“ok. No reason why talks need to be in secret. However, which government holds talks before the public? That’s a ridiculous expectation.”
Since technology has been improved, I don’t see why the White House cannot provide a live feed from these meetings as they had done with the townhall meeting with Shanghainese students and Barack Obama.
there you go again. Blaming others for what CHina did and continues to do. You may as well say the voices made them do it.
Here we go again. Let’s not blame the PRIMARY instigator who cause this. Let’s no blame them for the ones who’s fingerprints are all over this friction.
This is like saying the Iran has a destructive political system. Oh yeah. CIA manipulate the public and the media to overthrow Shah because of the US greed on petroleum oil and replace a dictator who murders and jails people. I guess that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad administration copied that authoritative procedure. I wonder what if CIA hadn’t do that, Iran would had their stability back.
December 27th, 2009 at 6:31 am
“Here we go again. Comparing apples to oranges.” — the comparison is that, if you suggest every Uyghur should be monitored for no other reason than being a Uyghur, as a consequence of someone like Kadeer, then all Chinese-Americans should be monitored simply for being Chinese-American, as a consequence of some Chinese-Americans being charged and convicted of espionage. I’m not aware of any Chinese-Americans being charged with trying to sell communism to Americans. So if Kadeer’s “guilt” is some activity against the Chinese state, espionage is the closest parallel I can find for activity against the US state. Admittedly not an exact parallel. But the point should be pretty clear. If you choose to ignore such a clear parallel, whatever floats your boat.
“Who is trying to say that Uighurs should be treated as criminals since birth. I never said it. You said it.” — so riddle me this. If they’re not being treated like criminals, why the government monitoring?
“I don’t see why the White House cannot provide a live feed from these meetings as they had done with the townhall meeting with Shanghainese students and Barack Obama.” — listen, how about this. The White House will send a video link just as soon as Hu Jintao does the same every time he opens his mouth. Such a ridiculous expectation.
“Let’s not blame the PRIMARY instigator who cause this.” — the blame rests on those who ignore and infringe upon people’s rights. Admittedly, the excuses would cast a bigger net.
“I wonder what if CIA hadn’t do that, Iran would had their stability back.” — you can “wonder” to your heart’s content. But the line of responsibility is way more clear wrt China. Good on her.
December 27th, 2009 at 9:16 am
@Jason Hu, @S.K. Cheung
Jason in # 219
Several comments on this point.
First, history is replete with leaders meeting resistance and division within their own ranks. Life is so messy and so full of conundrums, dichotomies and paradoxes. Martin Luther King faced numerous blacks who questioned his leadership of the SCLC. They were afraid things would get worse in the South. Howard Zinn helped transport his Black women students from Spelman College in Atlanta (he also transported young Black students from Morehouse) to civil rights sit-ins at various restaurants and other protests against segregation. He was fired by the Black president of Spelman. The president did not believe his “young ladies” at Spelman should participate in SNCC and civil rights protests. The leaders of the American Revolution faced strident discord from some of their fellow revolutionaries.
Secondly, “It makes the Chinese create more controls over us.” It is really inspiring to see that China has not changed its stripes one iota.
So what is the point of your comment? 😀
Au contraire, mon ami! Israel takes money from the US. Hamas and Hezbollah take money from various Arab and Muslim countries and organizations. Furthermore, they are all examples of your ridiculous and odious defense of “guilt by association”.
So what you are trying to justify here? Is it that if Kadeer takes funding from the NED, China has every right to persecute and inflict suffering upon all Uyghurs? Every single Uyghur is “guilty by association” and that association is that they are Uyghur? Sounds pretty hideous to me! Are you a brownshirt, a Hitler Jugend or a Cossack? That was their line of thinking, too! And I am way too familiar with this “thinking”. It was the reason that the Jews started B’nai Brith and the ADL.
BTW, Chinagate never panned out. And America did not subsequently inflict persecution on all Chinese-Americans and Chinese nationals. The US does not treat people like that. China does.
“Cautionary procedures are not prejudicial and racist.”
Hitler used that line, too. And the Israeli government is using that line to justify the persecution of Palestinians and occupation of their land.
Your line of “thinking” gets more odious, hideous and unacceptable with each subsequent post.
Poor CCP! It is so victimized! You are justifying persecution by the CCP! How? By accusing us baddies in the West of forcing the CCP to persecute the Uyghurs. How unaccountable and miserably immature! My kids were more mature than that when they were 8 years old.
That is quite some nice euphemism: “precautionary measure”. And inhuman! The CCP is so insecure!
Sieg heil, mein herr!
December 27th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
@SKC
Espionage is such a loose word and a vague meaning. There’s so much degrees of espionage. What the Chinese-Americans spies does a violation of export laws and copying military data from the US. It may help the Chinese government with new technology and by selling them to others will be a economic gains.
What the Uighurs and many others who sides with the US and receiving grants from US intelligence, it manipulates the media and public who bashes and weaken Chinese govt and yet they hardly speak of NED’s unconstitutional stance of meddling and shoving NED’s political agenda in people’s throats.
Did Soviet Union grant money to people in 1947-1957 for their support of Communism? It was the agitated and depressed American people who started this from grassroot to an organization.
What the Uighurs are doing is astroturfing as NED lobbying behind while the media as an advertise. Not grassroots.
Also I need to remind you guys that NED has issues grants for Associated Press reporters to manipulate reports to match NED MO’s before: http://www.democracynow.org/2006/1/23/u_s_gvt_channels_millions_through
============
If they’re not being treated like criminals, why the government monitoring?
To rat out Uighurs who chickened out for a real job and opted out to work for in-exile government.
============
listen, how about this. The White House will send a video link just as soon as Hu Jintao does the same every time he opens his mouth. Such a ridiculous expectation.
When a US-in exile has a secret meeting with the Politburo, then we’ll talk about a live feed from the CCP website.
============
Where were the rights group hammering US for their persecution of Communists in their country and the murdering of North Korean communists which has been in secret so many years yet none of their brainless media has covered in Korean War.
Now the human rights activists are accusing of the Chinese government of violation human rights and civil rights. Save the manipulation for themselves and start providing information of the US past on each groups and stop ignoring it.
===============
So what is the point of your comment?
It’s pretty self-explanatory.
WUC is not created as a political engine but rather a philanthropy organization for study for cultures and education in Xinjiang or any Uighurs living abroad that can better their own lives.
NED is not created by Reagan as a unconstitutional organization of meddling in elections and political favors that deem as friendlies to the US government
China relaxes it’s grip.
==========================
Au contraire, mon ami! Israel takes money from the US. Hamas and Hezbollah take money from various Arab and Muslim countries and organizations. Furthermore, they are all examples of your ridiculous and odious defense of “guilt by association”.
Who created Hamas? Israel with their grants.
Who let Hamas in the election? Bush
Again…I cannot stress enough of the primary culprits who created this situation on themselves.
=================
So what you are trying to justify here? Is it that if Kadeer takes funding from the NED, China has every right to persecute and inflict suffering upon all Uyghurs? Every single Uyghur is “guilty by association” and that association is that they are Uyghur? Sounds pretty hideous to me! Are you a brownshirt, a Hitler Jugend or a Cossack? That was their line of thinking, too! And I am way too familiar with this “thinking”. It was the reason that the Jews started B’nai Brith and the ADL.
WOW! A Godwin’s Law has finally come out of the shadows.
If the Chinese government follows Hitler’s approach, wouldn’t visitors see all Han’s faces on the street? Wouldn’t visitors not see any Uighurs business on the street and see broken glasses on Uighur’s stores? Wouldn’t visitors see Uighurs and Han and Hui mixed in one store or restaurants. Wouldn’t visitors see segregated signs that refuses Uighur’s customers to shop in stores, eat at restaurants, and etc?
Hell Hitler wouldn’t even let Jews, gypsies, disabled, mentally-challenged, non-Arayan individuals migrated, let alone being govt-monitored.
============
The US does not treat people like that.
Really, have you heard of “Operation Kindred Spirit” when Wen Ho Lee was arrested for downloading information that is already out in the public:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/nuclear-spy-scientist-wen-ho-lee-freed-as-controversial-case-collapses-699410.html
When US accuse China of hacking into their database, US makes silly assumption that they don’t have any evidence to back anything of what they say.
After a few days of media blitz on the topic, the US national security should be worried but they put it aside for no apparent reason.
=====================
Hitler used that line, too. And the Israeli government is using that line to justify the persecution of Palestinians and occupation of their land.
Except Hitler/Israel doesn’t offer government monitoring on migrating non-Aryans and Palestinians respectively. Again these pair fails with any connection to the Chinese government.
=====================
Poor CCP! It is so victimized! You are justifying persecution by the CCP! How? By accusing us baddies in the West of forcing the CCP to persecute the Uyghurs. How unaccountable and miserably immature! My kids were more mature than that when they were 8 years old.
That is quite some nice euphemism: “precautionary measure”. And inhuman! The CCP is so insecure!
Sieg heil, mein herr!
I don’t get with you people.
Take Hui people for example, no betrayals before or now. You get no beef with Chinese government on any of the Hui individuals
Uighurs-betrayals before and now. You get a tight grip. Until WUC is being sacked as a political engine and changed to a philanthropy organization for study for cultures and education in Xinjiang or any Uighurs living abroad that can better their own lives. And NED is being sacked for unconstitutional organization for meddling on elections and political agenda for friendlies in foreign nations that deemed not Democratic, then China will loosen the tight grip.
December 28th, 2009 at 8:00 am
To 224:
“it manipulates the media and public who bashes and weaken Chinese govt” — which media, and which public? The CCP seems to have a pretty good grip over Chinese media, so I don’t see how the NED has manipulated xinhua. And I’m not sure how the NED has manipulated the Chinese public. If you’re referring to the American media and the American public, what do you care. How does the American media outlook and American public perception of China “weaken” the CCP/Chinese government? I thought the point was that China shouldn’t worry about what other people think (she certainly doesn’t seem to worry much about her human rights performance, for instance). I think, in your haste to rail against those who “bash the CCP”, you’ve forgotten to make a logical argument.
What on earth is “astroturfing”?
“To rat out Uighurs who chickened out for a real job and opted out to work for in-exile government.” — are you kidding me? First, is it a crime to not go for a “real job”? Clearly it shouldn’t be, but even if it was, how does that justify every Uyghur being monitored? Have all Uyghurs opted out of a real job? Seriously, could you sprinkle a little logic into your “argument” in the future?
“When a US-in exile has a secret meeting with the Politburo” — who knows? Maybe they’ve had one already. That’s why it’s a “secret meeting”. If it’s a meeting you know about, it’s not very secret now, is it?
“Now the human rights activists are accusing of the Chinese government of violation human rights and civil rights.” — cuz that’s what the Chinese government is doing. Ultimately, the US media (or the media of any other democratic/non-authoritarian country) is/are free to report on whatever they please. Such is their discretion. You are not the first to throw a hissy fit about it, nor will you be the last, i suspect. But it’s high time for the whole lot of you to deal with it already. If you don’t like what’s reported, then feel free to join the profession and report on something different.
“Hell Hitler wouldn’t even let Jews, gypsies, disabled, mentally-challenged, non-Arayan individuals migrated, let alone being govt-monitored.” — you’re right, the CCP does sound downright enlightened by comparison.
“Uighurs-betrayals before and now. You get a tight grip.” — good god you’re thick. Some Uyghurs may have been “guilty” of what you accuse them of. Get a grip on those ones. That hardly justifies a similar grip on any and all Uyghurs simply because of their association by birth.
December 28th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
@Jason Hu, @S.K. Cheung
Jason in # 224
I am with SK on this. How does this weaken the government? How is the NED unconstitutional? Down whose throats is the NED shoving their political agenda?
Which Uyghurs are astroturfing? And what is the point of their astroturfing? You seem to be grasping at any term possible to make yourself look good.
I am very familiar with Amy Goodman. This is about Haiti’s elections in 2006 and a Canadian journalist’s reports about NED activities in Haiti. So, what does this have to do with the Uyghurs? Are there elections in China which the NED is trying to influence? News to me!
Edward R. Murrow of CBS News exposed Joe McCarthy and HUAC as liars and predators. What are you talking about? Which N Korean communists were killed? During the Korean War!
So they are accusing China of HR violations? Well, as SK notes, that is because the CCP is violating human rights. By the bucketfuls. If you have valid, credible accusations of American HR violations, please document them.
“Who created Hamas? Israel with their grants.”
Huh? Talk about distortions. Hamas was created by radical Arabs during the First Intifada. It is the largest Palestinian militia movement. It does not recognize Israel and in fact, used to espouse the destruction of Israel. Hamas has launched and sponsored suicide bombings in the past.
Bush encouraged democratic elections in the Middle East. He just never envisioned Hamas democratically winning by a landslide in the Palestinian elections in 2006. They then hatched a plan to remove Hamas from power. The plan failed.
Israel, Hamas, Hezbollah, Palestinians, Lebanon: a very complex situation.
Jason, you sure know how to distort the facts.
Godwin’s Law is actually Godwin’s observations. And such a pseudo-intellectual defense and distortion on your part.
I actually said:
Now, this is about you and your line of “thinking” and what you are trying to justify, not what China or the CCP are trying to justify. (As far as I know, the CCP sees no reason to justify anything, as usual.) And I never said that China was following Hitler’s approach. My point is that your “thinking” is reminiscent and has the stink of the illogic of “brownshirts, Hitler Jugend and Cossacks”. Instead you hide behind China’s petticoats, pretending that I have conflated China with Nazi Germany. I am talking about you and your ‘thinking”.
Hitler was a monster for sure. Now I would like to clear up some facts which you clearly don’t know. He killed over 6 million Jews. But he allowed some to migrate. Why? Because his government was running out of money and he saw Jewish migration as a source of funding. If a Jew and his family could raise enough money to “bribe” (more like extortion) his Nazi government, he would allow them to migrate.
Clever defense, Jason, but specious and meretricious nonetheless.
I remember the Los Alamos Lab case involving Wen Ho Lee. It appears that Mr. Lee was charged with insufficient evidence. Richard Jewell was also falsely implicated in the Atlanta Olympics bombing in 1996. Jewell was eventually exonerated. Eric Rudolph was later captured and convicted for the bombing in Atlanta and 3 other bombings.
And lo and behold, the American justice system, whose wheels grind slowly, triumphed. Lee was released from prison. Jewell was exonerated. Rudolph was incarcerated. Fat chance that such justice would ever occur in China. America is surely not perfect and has defects that need fixing. But, America, with all its warts and imperfections, is much more advanced when compared with China, IMHO!
And we did not put the clamps on all Chinese-Americans and Chinese nationals living in the US, just because one man, Lee, was under extreme suspicion. And our justice system is far more transparent and just than the pseudo-justice system in China.
I don’t get you either, Jason. Will you please provide some proof that the WUC is seriously disrupting the lives of residents in Uyghurstan/Xinjiang? Direct, documented, incontrovertible, substantiated, corroborated proof, please. Not specious, undocumented claims and assertions.
Would you also please supply direct, documented, incontrovertible, substantiated, corroborated proof that the NED is unconstitutional? Or would you rather just throw around emotionally-charged, unsubstantiated terms like “unconstitutional”?
Based on your previous responses, you seem to enjoy throwing around many unsubstantiated assertions and claims. The lack of substantiation makes them opinions, and in some cases, tantrums.
And SK, you asked Jason to “sprinkle a little logic into your (Jason’s) “argument” in the future?” Good luck. I wish the same. I am not holding my breath.
December 29th, 2009 at 12:40 am
NED highlights the naivety of many international media organizations, whose actions suggest that they believe that receiving such aid is unproblematic so long as there are no visible strings attached to their funding. However, this misses the point, as for any organization to be a successful accomplice in any efforts to promote polyarchy it is vital that they act autonomously. This is because media groups that the NED and its cohorts find geo-strategically useful can potentially dominate civil society when provided with the right resources, even if prior to receiving aid they were not the most popular group. In this way, powerful external actors can manipulate (or fake) civil society by providing support in multiple ways to groups and individuals, whose interests are already aligned with their own.*
Reference:
*INCITE! Women of Color Against Violence (2007). The revolution will not be funded: beyond the non-profit industrial complex. Cambridge, Mass.: South End Press; Roelofs, J. (2003). Foundations and public policy: the mask of pluralism. Albany: State University of New York Press.
=============
Why do I care? Isn’t US loudly preaching free press on top of their lungs, yet they fail to do that on themselves?
At least China stays true to their political system.
US media are not free. US media is paid by lobbyist groups which results in millions of distortions and jumping into conclusions that are later false.
===============
What on earth is “astroturfing”?
Astroturfing is a political relations campaigns that are formally planned by an organization, but designed to mask its origins to create the impression of being spontaneous, popular “grassroots” behavior. Meaning NED is pulling the strings on Uighurs not Uighurs themselves.
Take New Tea Party for example. These protests were funded by Freedomworks and Dick Amey while Fox News advertises.
Comparing to the “oust Don’t ask, Don’t tell” protest. These protests were funded by individuals from their own pockets.
===============
First, is it a crime to not go for a “real job”? Clearly it shouldn’t be, but even if it was, how does that justify every Uyghur being monitored? Have all Uyghurs opted out of a real job? Seriously, could you sprinkle a little logic into your “argument” in the future?
It’s a crime regardless of the 56 ethnicities that works for an organization that grants from NED; IRI; USaid; etc under the Chinese government.
====================
good god you’re thick. Some Uyghurs may have been “guilty” of what you accuse them of. Get a grip on those ones. That hardly justifies a similar grip on any and all Uyghurs simply because of their association by birth.
When Kadeer and WUC stop kowtowing to the US government, the lesser grip will be.
====================
@Jerry
Are there elections in China which the NED is trying to influence? News to me!
Are you serious? I wonder why is Liu Xiaobo is arrested corruption after he took 2.1 million RYB from NED and draft a charter that undermine the rapid growth of the economic system devised by Deng Xiaopeng and hit the middle and poverty line the hardest? (I will talk about more on Open Thread if I have any time)
Where’s the language of “protecting sovereignty” regardless of any political affiliation that is elected by Chinese citizens in Charter 8?
======================
So they are accusing China of HR violations? Well, as SK notes, that is because the CCP is violating human rights. By the bucketfuls. If you have valid, credible accusations of American HR violations, please document them.
These human rights violations from the Chinese government is due on the US presence of these groups to weaken the Mainland. Just like the Portuguese and British did to Macau and Hong Kong. Just how Reagan weaken Soviet Union for splitting many provinces. Now they are doing with Tibet and Xinjiang.
=======================
Huh? Talk about distortions. Hamas was created by radical Arabs during the First Intifada. It is the largest Palestinian militia movement. It does not recognize Israel and in fact, used to espouse the destruction of Israel. Hamas has launched and sponsored suicide bombings in the past.
Bush encouraged democratic elections in the Middle East. He just never envisioned Hamas democratically winning by a landslide in the Palestinian elections in 2006. They then hatched a plan to remove Hamas from power. The plan failed.
“Hamas, to my great regret, is Israel’s creation,” says Mr. Cohen, a Tunisian-born Jew who worked in Gaza for more than two decades. Responsible for religious affairs in the region until 1994
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123275572295011847.html
Knowing how corrupt Abbas is, how could ANYONE not envision Hamas would taking control of Palestine? Not only Bush let Hamas win the election, he made a terrorist group have international rights. Meaning when Israel drones kill any political figurehead of Hamas, Israel is violating international rights.
================
Would you also please supply direct, documented, incontrovertible, substantiated, corroborated proof that the NED is unconstitutional? Or would you rather just throw around emotionally-charged, unsubstantiated terms like “unconstitutional”?
From: George Washington’s Farewell Speech to the American People with respect to his views toward America’s future foreign policy
The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation.
Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?
Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.
It is our true policy to steer clear of entangling alliances with any portion of the foreign world.
~ George Washington
======================
I don’t get you either, Jason. Will you please provide some proof that the WUC is seriously disrupting the lives of residents in Uyghurstan/Xinjiang? Direct, documented, incontrovertible, substantiated, corroborated proof, please. Not specious, undocumented claims and assertions.
I have given you this article: “It may make them feel good, but for us, it makes life worse,” he replied. “It makes the Chinese create more controls over us. Tibet is too important to the Communists for them even to discuss independence.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/22/opinion/22french.html
This applies to Uighurs as well.
===========================
Fat chance that such justice would ever occur in China.
But, America, with all its warts and imperfections, is much more advanced when compared with China, IMHO!
Actually Xu Zhiyong was released on suspicion of money on foreign grants and got a slap on the wrist of not paying taxes.
Yet an Gitmo-locked Uighur insults the American justice system: “In China, at least I would have a trial and sentence.”
http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2009-09-29.asp
==========================
Hitler was a monster for sure. Now I would like to clear up some facts which you clearly don’t know. He killed over 6 million Jews. But he allowed some to migrate. Why? Because his government was running out of money and he saw Jewish migration as a source of funding. If a Jew and his family could raise enough money to “bribe” (more like extortion) his Nazi government, he would allow them to migrate.
Good to know.
December 29th, 2009 at 2:00 am
“However, this misses the point, as for any organization to be a successful accomplice in any efforts to promote polyarchy it is vital that they act autonomously.” — so let me get this straight. If the funding comes “with strings attached”, you would say that the NED has unsavoury direct influence. But when funding comes without strings, you get this argument. So if the NED wants to fund something (as is their right and their prerogative), how would you prefer they do this? I realize what you want is for them to fund nothing; but your wants probably don’t matter to them.
“Isn’t US loudly preaching free press on top of their lungs, yet they fail to do that on themselves?” — they are promoting free press. An alternate voice to the CCP party line seems like a pretty good start.
“US media are not free. ” — here we go again.
“When Kadeer and WUC stop kowtowing to the US government, the lesser grip will be.” — your “argument” still boils down to justifying the routine presumption of guilt for all Uyghurs on the basis of their birth, because of the alleged actions of a few among them. That’s a disgusting position to take….and it’s all yours.
“I wonder why is Liu Xiaobo is arrested corruption ” — he was convicted of “subversion”. How is it corruption if it wasn’t China’s money that he allegedly took?
“These human rights violations from the Chinese government is due on the US presence of these groups to weaken the Mainland.” — here we go again. “it’s not my fault; the voices made me do it”.
“This applies to Uighurs as well.” — insofar as one opinion being applicable to “all Uyghurs”.
December 29th, 2009 at 9:12 pm
@SKC
Wrong. I have no problem with donations not federal money especially foreign that helps the lives of those minorities in China or abroad to improve education purposes and some money as a foundation to better start their lives by themselves.
@They are promoting free press. An alternate voice to the CCP party line seems like a pretty good start.
YAWN! Not when they are covering foreign affairs. US “alternate voice” for the opposition are BLOGS that most people wouldn’t even bother to look at; nothing in mainstream newspaper or mainstream online newspapers.
The U.S. media is not free of constraints. American journalists cited a host of forms: pandering to the publishers’ corporate and government links; to the public mood; to the media marketplace (telling the public what it wants to hear, and giving the advertisers what they wish to see); even submitting to various forms of governmental pressure (the famous Condi Rice phone calls to publishers and editors were cited).
“When Kadeer and WUC stop kowtowing to the US government, the lesser grip will be.” — your “argument” still boils down to justifying the routine presumption of guilt for all Uyghurs on the basis of their birth, because of the alleged actions of a few among them. That’s a disgusting position to take….and it’s all yours.
//
here we go again. “it’s not my fault; the voices made me do it”.
You should ask Kadeer and WUC on what were they thinking of betraying the country when you receive federal money from foreign countries and get away without repercussions. And foresees Chinese government to treat Uighurs on suspicion of join their groups abroad as a replacement of the members who fled without repercussions.
How is it corruption if it wasn’t China’s money that he allegedly took?
Any foreign grants especially NED are corrupting any political cause that an individual is seeking. If Liu Xiaobo stays true to his own political cause, he would first starts his own business since he’s soooo smart to gain the $300K grant he received. Then he would start his own NGOs and go from there.
I have a strong dislike on those political activist. They are a bunch of cop-outs, they inflict the severe punishments on themselves.
December 30th, 2009 at 2:42 am
“I have no problem with donations not federal money” — ok, so it’s not that NED uses money with strings attached, or that it uses money without strings attached. It’s that it’s “federal money”. Well, if the federal government wants to use federal money, I’d say that’s their prerogative.
“nothing in mainstream newspaper or mainstream online newspapers.” — then it’s high time for you to stop wasting time here, and to start writing for the mainstream newsies.
“The U.S. media is not free of constraints.” — and no one said it was. The difference with China is in the orders of magnitude.
“You should ask Kadeer and WUC on what were they thinking of betraying the country when you receive federal money from foreign countries and get away without repercussions.” —- since that gets your goat so much, maybe it’s you who should ask them.
“And foresees Chinese government to treat Uighurs on suspicion of join their groups abroad as a replacement of the members who fled without repercussions.” — that is as patently ridiculous as anything you’ve said thus far, and simply reaffirms my summation of your position. As I’ve said before, it’s a disgusting position, and it’s all yours.
“Any foreign grants especially NED are corrupting any political cause that an individual is seeking.” — first of all, “corrupting” is not the same as “corruption”. Second, for your point to have any basis, you would have to suggest that an individual has no a priori stance, and simply assumes a position as a result of funding from NED or any other source? And what is your basis for such an assumption? I think it’s much more plausible that someone starts with a position, and seeks the support of like-minded individuals/organizations.
“I have a strong dislike on those political activist.” — whatever floats your boat. But your “strong dislike” does not necessarily equate to legal justification for jailing a guy for 11 years for writing something that apparently no one cared about, and apparently no one read….except in China of course.
December 30th, 2009 at 8:05 pm
“I have no problem with donations not federal money” — ok, so it’s not that NED uses money with strings attached, or that it uses money without strings attached. It’s that it’s “federal money”. Well, if the federal government wants to use federal money, I’d say that’s their prerogative.
The “aid” money National Endowment for Democracy spends is usually spent trying to manipulate elections overseas so that a favored foreign political party wins “democratic” elections. This does no favor to citizens of foreign countries, who vote in the hope that they may choose their own leaders without outside interference.
then it’s high time for you to stop wasting time here, and to start writing for the mainstream newsies.
So you admit that MSM newspapers does not have opposing viewpoints that tells the public doesn’t want to hear in foreign affair categories.
and no one said it was. The difference with China is in the orders of magnitude.
I see no difference of Chinese government’s viewpoints regarding to US friendlies in China publishes in newspapers than US MSM pandering to the publishers’ corporate and government links; to the public mood; to the media marketplace (telling the public what it wants to hear, and giving the advertisers what they wish to see); even submitting to various forms of governmental pressure (the famous Condi Rice phone calls to publishers and editors were cited).
since that gets your goat so much, maybe it’s you who should ask them.
I once heard that one Chinese student ask that question (but no exactly) to Dalai Lama about his CIA activities. DL admit this situation and later he was fuming and he vows he won’t talk to any Chinese interviewee.
Who knows what will WUC and Kadeer handle harder questions that Western media is to cowardly to ask? Maybe their heads will explode.
first of all, “corrupting” is not the same as “corruption”. Second, for your point to have any basis, you would have to suggest that an individual has no a priori stance, and simply assumes a position as a result of funding from NED or any other source? And what is your basis for such an assumption? I think it’s much more plausible that someone starts with a position, and seeks the support of like-minded individuals/organizations.
Let’s see. America’s civil liberties organization ACLU’s funding:
Of that total, 87% was from donations and dues from the public, 1.8% from program services, including awards of legal fees, royalty income, and literature sales, and the remainder from investment income and income from sale of assets.
Hmmm….I see no funding of any foreign intelligence group funding this organization.
If those so called “activists” ever needs some advise of organizing a political-related organization, ACLU would be a good example of how LEGAL funding works.
@But your “strong dislike” does not necessarily equate to legal justification for jailing a guy for 11 years for writing something that apparently no one cared about, and apparently no one read….except in China of course.
The jailing is a statement for those who involves in receiving grants from the NED. I doubt Chinese is jailing this guy for the Charter 8 paper which only works in provinces in Beijing and Shanghai.
@that is as patently ridiculous as anything you’ve said thus far, and simply reaffirms my summation of your position. As I’ve said before, it’s a disgusting position, and it’s all yours.
Then Kadeer and WUC members should turn themselves in and faces the death penalty of espionage.
December 31st, 2009 at 12:40 am
“This does no favor to citizens of foreign countries, who vote in the hope that they may choose their own leaders without outside interference.” — since when did China/Uyghurs get elections? On the broader point, that is a problem with how the US conducts her foreign policy. And if the US people disapprove of how their government is going about things, they have a means of expressing such disapproval.
“So you admit that MSM newspapers does not have opposing viewpoints” — not true at all. Look at Iraq, or even Afghanistan. Plenty of American opinions critical of the US government abound. When it comes to China, there are probably fewer viewpoints sympathetic to the CCP position, but this is also probably because there are a scarce few people who would share such viewpoints (once again, present company excepted).
“I see no difference of Chinese government’s viewpoints” — hey, if you want to walk around believing that press freedom is better in China than it is in “the West”, far be it for me to spoil your lovely party.
“Who knows what will WUC and Kadeer handle harder questions that Western media is to cowardly to ask?” — any such question would still be irrelevant to your justification that all Uyghurs can and should be treated like criminals and subjected to government monitoring simply on the basis of their birth. No matter how you spin it, you can’t slip away from your disgusting position.
“you would have to suggest that an individual has no a priori stance, and simply assumes a position as a result of funding from NED or any other source? And what is your basis for such an assumption?” (from me in #230)
“Let’s see. America’s civil liberties organization ACLU’s funding…I see no funding of any foreign intelligence group funding this organization.” (you in #231). That factoid is fascinating…but how does it answer my question?
“The jailing is a statement for those who involves in receiving grants from the NED.” — and this is exactly the problem with China’s politically-driven “justice system”. A conviction has less to do with innocence and guilt, and so much more to do with what message the CCP would like to send. You’ve literally made my point for me, so thanks for that. At least you had the honesty to admit to the shortcomings of Chinese “justice”, so kudos for that.
“Then Kadeer and WUC members should turn themselves in and faces the death penalty of espionage.” — and then Uyghurs will no longer be considered guilty until proven innocent, is that it? Your world view is….interesting, for lack of a better word.
December 31st, 2009 at 7:53 pm
@And if the US people disapprove of how their government is going about things, they have a means of expressing such disapproval.
Even if they protest, there’s no control of “power of the people” to stop the funding that the government takes out of people’s pockets. Their protest would be useless.
Grayson-Paul Federal Audit Bill, a bill would monitor Congress funding, is a good start since it is been approved by the House. But there’s some lagging behind the Senate roll vote.
@ Look at Iraq, or even Afghanistan. Plenty of American opinions critical of the US government abound.
Except after the Abu Ghraib torture scandal, the critical opinions became mainstream and acceptable to most people’s views.
Before it, it was unwanted, ridiculous accusation perpetrated by liberal fanatics that is playing politics.
@ hey, if you want to walk around believing that press freedom is better in China than it is in “the West”, far be it for me to spoil your lovely party.
So far, with the riots in Tibet and Xinjiang as well as the case of Liu Xiaobo, and unexpected reveal of “black jails,” Xinhua news corp has been more trustworthy than any Western media regarding Chinese issues combined.
@any such question would still be irrelevant to your justification that all Uyghurs can and should be treated like criminals and subjected to government monitoring simply on the basis of their birth. No matter how you spin it, you can’t slip away from your disgusting position.
If Kadeer and WUC can go back in time and change their espionage tendencies, I wouldn’t have the so-called “disgusting position.”
@That factoid is fascinating…but how does it answer my question?
Of course you think it doesn’t answer the question. I’m pointing out that US civil liberties organization does not get funding from outside intelligence groups like NED does to foreign political organization.
If ACLU does get funding from outside intelligence groups, that would violate Espionage Act. This also is related to Liu Xiaobo’s 11 year jail time and questioning your thinking that sentencing individuals who receive espionage funds are not political-driven.
I ask why could Chinese political activists do the same funding process as to ACLU?
@and then Uyghurs will no longer be considered guilty until proven innocent, is that it? Your world view is….interesting, for lack of a better word.
Yep. Just like the other Muslim group in China, Hui people.
December 31st, 2009 at 10:23 pm
“Even if they protest…” — and we won’t know unless and until they make such a protest. Until such time, the US government will do what the US government sees fit, with the US government’s purse.
“the critical opinions became mainstream and acceptable to most people’s views.” — you wanted mainstream media with opposing viewpoints, and viewpoints that opposed the government, and you got some. That the criticisms had merit, gained traction, and ultimately became mainstream themselves doesn’t detract from the fact that they were criticisms nonetheless.
“Before it, it was unwanted, ridiculous accusation perpetrated by liberal fanatics that is playing politics.” —and yet they still existed, as you even acknowledge. So in fact, even to you, insofar as Iraq and Afghanistan at least, there were opposing viewpoints abound. You can’t complain both that they were initially considered “fanatical”, then later “mainstream”.
“Xinhua news corp has been more trustworthy than any Western media regarding Chinese issues combined.” — again, far be it for me to spoil that little party in your head. The fact that the revelation of “black jails” was so unexpected and so deviated from the norm speaks volumes about the nature of said norm.
“If Kadeer and WUC can go back in time and change their espionage tendencies, I wouldn’t have the so-called “disgusting position.”” — and yet again, “it’s not my fault; it’s somebody else’s fault”. You sure get good mileage out of that mode of thinking.
“I’m pointing out that US civil liberties organization does not get funding from outside intelligence groups like NED does to foreign political organization.” — that’s most wonderful indeed. However, my question was why you would assume that people who purportedly take funding from NED do so at the expense of taking up the NED’s position, rather than having a position to begin with, then reaching out to like-minded sources for support. Now do you see how you haven’t answered my question?
“I ask why could Chinese political activists do the same funding process as to ACLU?” — they could, of course. However, support for the ACLU probably doesn’t land you in jail. Chinese people in China supporting Chinese political activists may not be so lucky.
“Yep. Just like the other Muslim group in China, Hui people.” — like I said, your world view is “interesting”. I can think of better words, but they would all contravene the blog rules.
January 3rd, 2010 at 11:54 pm
@and we won’t know unless and until they make such a protest. Until such time, the US government will do what the US government sees fit, with the US government’s purse.
Do you see any action after protest for smaller government and spending? Certainly not. I certainly doubt US govt would budge when protest on NED.
@you wanted mainstream media with opposing viewpoints, and viewpoints that opposed the government, and you got some. That the criticisms had merit, gained traction, and ultimately became mainstream themselves doesn’t detract from the fact that they were criticisms nonetheless.//and yet they still existed, as you even acknowledge. So in fact, even to you, insofar as Iraq and Afghanistan at least, there were opposing viewpoints
The government is extremely effective in secretly censoring the news by using devices such as “embedded reporting” in nations like Afghanistan and Iraq which the U.S. government invades, occupies, and governs.
In Iraq and Afghanistan the reporters are embedded with the military to prevent such free lancing and the soaring dangers of guerrilla attacks almost totally prevents their even trying to circumvent the official censorship. Of course, none dare call it censorship for fear of being fired. While in Vietnam, U.S. and other national reporters could hop a ride on U.S. or other vehicles to cover anything they wanted to cover, which led directly to their exposing the Big Lies of the U.S. military and politicians about what was going on there.
@The fact that the revelation of “black jails” was so unexpected and so deviated from the norm speaks volumes about the nature of said norm.
“so unexpected and so deviated from the norm”: Isn’t that what Western media characterized about the debate between Jiang Zhemin and Bill Clinton on live television about the 1989 Massacre?
These words I characterize are suppose to be a teasing joke on the Western media itself
@and yet again, “it’s not my fault; it’s somebody else’s fault”. You sure get good mileage out of that mode of thinking.//However, my question was why you would assume that people who purportedly take funding from NED do so at the expense of taking up the NED’s position, rather than having a position to begin with, then reaching out to like-minded sources for support. Now do you see how you haven’t answered my question?//like I said, your world view is “interesting”. I can think of better words, but they would all contravene the blog rules.
These words to me thinks that espionage laws is unheard of in your world or you think it’s legal and perfectly fine for any individual to break it. You also have a “interesting” position.
NED doesn’t support socialistic characteristics and neither does any activists who receive grants from them.
@Chinese people in China supporting Chinese political activists may not be so lucky.
Private entrepreneurs from the manufacturing, financial or commercial industries are one of the donors of China Democratic National Construction Association.
If a Chinese political activist’s position holds these two key positions:
From the India Constitution: Free speech and expression is subject to restrictions under sub clause (2), whereby this freedom can be restricted for reasons of “sovereignty and integrity of [PRC], the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States
Continue economic model regardless of any party affiliations.
I would be very happy and finally see those activists has grow up and free from any outside intelligence groups like NED.
January 4th, 2010 at 4:05 am
“I certainly doubt US govt would budge when protest on NED.” — fantastic. You’re certainly entitled to your “doubts”. But in the end, we’ll see, if and when it happens.
“The government is extremely effective in secretly censoring the news” — it never fails to amaze me how you folks seem so dialed in on what the government does and does not do “secretly”. Either the government isn’t very good at doing stuff on the sly; or you guys have better access than one could ever dream of. I guess the third possibility is that you guys have a lot of voices in your heads. Besides, you still haven’t offered any counterpoint to the obvious observation that, in fact, opinions critical of the government are on display. What isn’t on display often are opinions singing the praises of the CCP. Too bad; so sad. I guess not too many people have those opinions, present company yet again excepted.
“are suppose to be a teasing joke on the Western media itself” — again, to each their own. Personally, I find the official Chinese media to have far greater comic potential.
“NED doesn’t support socialistic characteristics” — they are free to choose what they do and do not support. That’s the way it works on this side of the pond. Best for you to get used to it.
“this freedom can be restricted for reasons of “sovereignty and integrity of [PRC], the security of the State” — and this would be China’s excuse for just about anything. Even a charter that apparently no one read, and no one cared about. Gosh, imagine if someone wrote something that people actually cared about, were made aware of, and allowed to read. That person would really be in line for some serious butt-kicking (much more so than 11 years in the slammer). I’d say those are pretty adult consequences for fairly imaginary (to most sane folks) transgressions.
I see that you have at least stopped trying to justify the assumption of guilt for Uyghurs on the basis of their birth. You weren’t getting very far with that one.
January 5th, 2010 at 12:46 am
@fantastic. You’re certainly entitled to your “doubts”. But in the end, we’ll see, if and when it happens.
You know why I’m 100% positive on this?
Take the Palestinians protest of US aid which is taxpayer’s money to revamp Israel’s stronghold of Palestinians and Israel oppression.
Did US stop giving Israel money? No they continue to ignore the protester’s demands.
The US government will be DAMN sure that NED protesters will be ignored.
Free Press: US v China
In the 1990s is that the Chinese people have learned to read between the lines, to pick up subtle hints in news articles which honest journalists have learned how to slip into their carefully controlled reports. They have also developed a sophisticated private system of person-to-person reporting called “back-alley news.”
Now there is the internet, which, while it is systematically controlled via what has become known as China’s “Great Firewall” but still allows the flow of email. This is nearly impossible to monitor, particularly when the messages are not bulk mailed to large numbers of addressees.
So in China, reports of corruption, of local rebellions or strikes, of internal struggles within the government or party, or of important news about the outside world that the government wants to keep at bay, manage to circulate widely inside China despite a huge state censorship apparatus.
This alternative highly-personal news network works because the Chinese people know they are being lied to and kept in the dark, and they want to break through that official shroud of secrecy and control.
In the US, in contrast, we have a public that for the most part is blissfully unaware of the extent to which our news is being censored, filtered and controlled.
But given that most people get their news either from corporately owned newspapers or from corporate radio and TV stations, it doesn’t really matter what journalists critical of the Establishment write because it won’t appear in the corporate media. Since most Americans, unlike most Chinese people, assume that they live in a society with a free press and no censorship or control of information, they don’t even bother to look beyond the information that is spoon-fed to them by corporate media sources.
Some primary examples:
Do Americans know, for instance, that all the other modern western Democracies in the world have some form of national health care – either a state-run system like that in the UK or a single-payer model like that in Canada, or some hybrid like they have in France or Switzerland – and that in all those countries, the systems are so popular that they have survived decades of conservative governments? No. Our corporate media instead report on the crank critics of those systems and allow us to believe they are hated by their citizens.
Do Americans know that Al Qaeda was actually a creation of the CIA? No. This important bit of information doesn’t get mentioned in the US media, which always starts the organization’s history at 1988, when it got its name, when actually, its early origins date to the arming of the mujahideen by the CIA and the CIA-linked Pakistani intelligence service, the Inter-Services Intelligence Agency, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, when the US wanted to create and support resistance to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.
And of course, we rarely get to see the slaughter of women and children that our beloved soldier “heroes” are conducting in Iraq and Afghanistan in our name.
@That’s the way it works on this side of the pond. Best for you to get used to it.
And yet they practice socialism when they get money from taxpayers rather than donations. How hypocritical!
@I see that you have at least stopped trying to justify the assumption of guilt for Uyghurs on the basis of their birth. You weren’t getting very far with that one.
Since you brought up, I have said it many time until Kadeer and WUC is convicted with breaking espionage laws, China will continue to look suspicious on Uyghurs who wants to travel abroad.
January 5th, 2010 at 7:41 am
“The US government will be DAMN sure that NED protesters will be ignored.” — wait a second. You’re comparing apples and oranges. Of course the US government is under no obligation to do what Palestinians or anyone else asks; her obligation is to her citizens. So when I’m talking protest, I’m referring to Americans expressing displeasure at how their tax dollars are being used. If and when there is a sufficient American protest of what and how the NED functions, then, as I said, we’ll see. Until then, you’re better off to grin and bear it.
“This alternative highly-personal news network works because the Chinese people know they are being lied to and kept in the dark, and they want to break through that official shroud of secrecy and control.” — and that’s great. I’m glad it exists. However, it’s essentially “word of mouth”. So it is as good, or as bad, as word of mouth gets.
“it doesn’t really matter what journalists critical of the Establishment write because it won’t appear in the corporate media.” — that’s a terrific overly-generalized statement. However, what is the “Establishment”? There was certainly widespread criticism of Bush, and there’s no shortage of criticism of Obama. So I’m not sure what kind of criticism of what kind of establishment you are referring to that is being banned from what form of corporate media. But as I say, it’s a nice “statement”, as it were.
“Do Americans know, for instance, that all the other modern western Democracies in the world have some form of national health care – either a state-run system like that in the UK or a single-payer model like that in Canada, or some hybrid like they have in France or Switzerland – and that in all those countries, the systems are so popular that they have survived decades of conservative governments? No.” — ummm, once again, a way over-generalized statement. All you would’ve had to do is watch Michael Moore’s Sicko, or listen to people during the long-drawn out (and still going) healthcare reform debate, and you’d know. Now, no doubt, some Americans are dense…but that’s not the media’s fault.
“Our corporate media instead report on the crank critics of those systems” — I think maybe you need to watch a little less of Fox News.
“Do Americans know that Al Qaeda was actually a creation of the CIA?” — for starters, you’re taking what was initially an anti-soviet network, which morphed into an anti-American and anti-“west” organization, and blaming Americans. Convenient, perhaps. But a pretty tenuous connection which probably only hold relevance for those interested in making arguments like yours.
“we rarely get to see the slaughter of women and children” — just like we rarely get to see the slaughter of the “bad guys”.
And you know, even with cherry-picking, you haven’t established much of an indictment against “western media”.
“And yet they practice socialism when they get money from taxpayers rather than donations.” — who’s “they”? Are you still hot to trot about the NED? You really ought to give it a rest.
“China will continue to look suspicious on Uyghurs who wants to travel abroad.” — for which she has no justification, and should rightfully be ashamed of herself. Of course, folks like you will prefer to blame others, since that’s the way you people seem to roll.
January 5th, 2010 at 8:42 am
@that’s a terrific overly-generalized statement. However, what is the “Establishment”? There was certainly widespread criticism of Bush, and there’s no shortage of criticism of Obama. So I’m not sure what kind of criticism of what kind of establishment you are referring to that is being banned from what form of corporate media. But as I say, it’s a nice “statement”, as it were.
More specifically the depleted uranium and its deadly legacy in places where it has been used, such as Iraq, Kuwait, Afghanistan and Kosovo.
The corporate media has stayed silent till this day.
The Establishment refers to the traditional ruling class elite and the structures of society that they control as how corporate media dominates the so-called “free media.”
@I think maybe you need to watch a little less of Fox News.
And yet they succeeded. No public option. Lieberman hacks the reform and gets paid millions by health care insurance and through his wife. The public option plan would have cost less without one according the Congressional Budget Organization.
@But a pretty tenuous connection which probably only hold relevance for those interested in making arguments like yours
Have you watched “Charlie Wilson’s War”?
And the end credit, there’s was a title card which quotes Charlie Wilson:
These things happened. They were glorious and they changed the world… and then we ‘f’ up the endgame.
Thank you Jimmy Carter.
@just like we rarely get to see the slaughter of the “bad guys”.
When US drones kill Al-Qaeda or Taliban individuals, there’s various reports. You don’t see that on the “innocents.”
@who’s “they”? Are you still hot to trot about the NED? You really ought to give it a rest.
You can defend NED all you want, but wouldn’t diminish my assertions that their actions speaks louder than their fake pretense of “capitalism” of economic model.
@Of course, folks like you will prefer to blame others
I would blame Chinese government if NED meddling in China is nonexistent in the past.
January 5th, 2010 at 9:12 am
“More specifically the depleted uranium” — ok, I don’t know much about this, other than the fact that this stuff is/was used in heavy artillery shells. I think I saw a PBS story about this several years ago. I certainly don’t hear much about it now. But how is this a corporate-driven silence? You seem to grapple at straws to try to suggest that “western media” doesn’t cover “western” warts. If that’s the case, where have you gotten your information from? Realize also that other people may not share your enthusiasm about the type of stories that deserve coverage…and as I’ve long said, you can’t expect media to cover everything, everywhere, all the time.
“The Establishment refers to the traditional ruling class elite….” — that’s the Wahaha-style approach of “blame rich people”. Yes, rich people own media companies (and all manner of other companies, for that matter). But you need to have a better reason to justify the mistrust of the work of these companies, other than the fact that their owners are rich.
“And yet they succeeded. No public option.” —- that seems less to do with the media, and more to do with the philosophies of various moderate/fiscally-conservative Democrats. And if the American people had voted in more Dems, then Harry Reid might have been able to tell a few of them to screw off. But since he needed every last one of them to be on board, that’s the negotiating price he had to pay.
“You don’t see that on the “innocents.”” — I think you’re being rather selective in what you choose to see and not to see. Let’s just say that I didn’t coin the phrase “collateral damage”, and that I’m not imagining things on the page when I read about women and children being killed by “smart bombs”, or that I’m not the only one to have read about Fallujah. Similar examples abound, btw. If you weren’t trying to delude yourself into thinking that “western media” routinely cover things up, you might actually notice some of this stuff too.
“wouldn’t diminish my assertions…” — you can assert all you want. LIke I said, if Americans don’t mind, then it’s time for you to deal.
“I would blame Chinese government if NED meddling in China is nonexistent in the past.” — see, still blaming others. The Chinese government did such and such only because of what so and so did. Gosh, that sounds like the excuse of a 5 year old.
January 5th, 2010 at 6:07 pm
@I think I saw a PBS story about this several years ago. I certainly don’t hear much about it now.
You mean this:
http://www.pbs.org/weta/washingtonweek/voices/200304/0403arrests.html
28 protesters were arrested for doing a protest.
Spell it out for me c-e-n-s-o-r-s-h-i-p
@that’s the Wahaha-style approach of “blame rich people”. Yes, rich people own media companies (and all manner of other companies, for that matter). But you need to have a better reason to justify the mistrust of the work of these companies, other than the fact that their owners are rich.
I don’t “blame rich people” at all. I blame that they can’t think for themselves and relies to heavily on the gov’t talking points which is mainstream. The “the little guy media” just disappears.
@that seems less to do with the media, and more to do with the philosophies of various moderate/fiscally-conservative Democrats.
Who paid them? Rich health care insurance companies. As the rich companies made Republicans and so-called “Blue Dogs” as their puppets, the puppets feeds the information to media. The media has never even recant any information when doing a one-on-one with those puppets. The media has never showed the millions of money that was giving to those puppets when doing a live interview.
@If you weren’t trying to delude yourself into thinking that “western media” routinely cover things up, you might actually notice some of this stuff too.
Since most Americans, unlike most Chinese people, assume that they live in a society with a free press and no censorship or control of information, they don’t even bother to look beyond the information that is spoon-fed to them by corporate media sources.
@LIke I said, if Americans don’t mind, then it’s time for you to deal.
Like I said, Americans don’t even bother to look beyond the information that is spoon-fed to them by NED and it’s disastrous history of putting Soviet-style dictators in power.
The history of making the world the worst s*ithole in the planet.
@The Chinese government did such and such only because of what so and so did. Gosh, that sounds like the excuse of a 5 year old.
A five year old would try to understand who start the ruckus between Uighurs and Chinese government unlike yourself being spoon-feed by the media and being censored a large hole (NED involvement).
January 6th, 2010 at 12:27 am
“28 protesters were arrested for doing a protest.” —- were these protesters jailed for “subversion” of the state, I wonder….
BTW, this is what you’re engaging in: w-i-t-c-h-h-u-n-t. The story that you so wanted to be told has in fact been told. Maybe it’s no longer in the headlines as you would prefer. Once again, too bad, so sad. If you’re hot to trot, you’re always free to protest some more. Yet again, when compared to China’s shining example/beacon of light, this differs by orders of magnitude.
“I blame that they can’t think for themselves and relies to heavily on the gov’t talking points which is mainstream.” — and the basis for your suggestion that they can’t think is…… (besides the fact that their thoughts often don’t mirror yours, of course). As an aside, I don’t think, in general, that rich people get that way by being unable to think for themselves, but I digress.
“Who paid them?” — umm, you did, if you’re an American tax payer. Again, before you embark on Wahaha-style accusations that all politicians are on the take, it’s best to have some substantiation. It’s easy, and flippant, to accuse politicians of corruption…but this isn’t CHina.
“Since most Americans…” —- clearly you associate with a different subset of Americans than the ones I know. Best to broaden your social circle, I think.
“Like I said, Americans don’t even bother to look…” —- and even if that’s the case, that would be their choice. Isn’t choice grand? Hopefully more choices will be afforded to Chinese people some day…
“who start the ruckus between Uighurs and Chinese government” —- hey, news flash. The Uyghurs who are unhappy probably became that way because of the treatment (or mistreatment) by the CHinese government. So as a 5 year old, if you wanted to know where it all started….you guessed it…blame the Chinese government. Of course, I know you lack such capacity, so you should feel free to revert to your usual “so-and-so made me do it” excuses. Cue the voices now….
January 6th, 2010 at 7:13 am
The author of “The Other Tibet” is totally shameless. He simply ignored that more than 200 innocent people were killed by Uyghur mobs and highlighted the killing of a criminal with a low-quality photo. He pushed National Geographic to a whole new low level in terms of story and picture.
January 9th, 2010 at 10:43 pm
@were these protesters jailed for “subversion” of the state, I wonder….
It’s very disturbing that you think this law is laughable. It’s a very serious matter for taking foreign intelligence money.
@The story that you so wanted to be told has in fact been told. Maybe it’s no longer in the headlines as you would prefer. Once again, too bad, so sad. If you’re hot to trot, you’re always free to protest some more. Yet again, when compared to China’s shining example/beacon of light, this differs by orders of magnitude.
I don’t know what world you are in. China recognizes protests in the constitution. Any protesters needs a permit to protest as well as government approval.
@ As an aside, I don’t think, in general, that rich people get that way by being unable to think for themselves, but I digress.
Since when have the corporate media think for themselves especially writing articles about depleted uranium Iraq, Kuwait, Afghanistan and Kosovo? Why the silence just like the US government? Why do they cover-up for the crimes of US government?
Why is the word “torture” not applied? NY Times has yet to use torture.
When the Bush Administration was found to be creating fake news propaganda for public consumption the media did not inform the public. When the Bush administration marched towards pre-emptive war with Iraq the media was a lapdog instead of a watchdog. When the Bush administration described the assault on the Iraqi public as Shock and Awe, the media used that phrase to scroll alongside the words “War on Terror” without questioning if the assault on Iraq had anything to do with terrorism. When the Bush Administration tore into the U. S. Constitution with the Patriot Act, causing the illegal imprisonment of American citizens while denying them counsel, the media defend a sacred American document. When the UK’s Downing Street memo implicated the Bush Administration as being hell bent on a pre-emptive invasion on Iraq before even going to the UN, the American media was silent and once again failed to inform the public.
@“Who paid them?” — umm, you did, if you’re an American tax payer. Again, before you embark on Wahaha-style accusations that all politicians are on the take, it’s best to have some substantiation. It’s easy, and flippant, to accuse politicians of corruption…but this isn’t CHina.
I didn’t pay money to politician to fear-monger the public option bill as some call it worse than terrorism and Hitlerian-like.
I never said all. I said the ones who oppose the health care bill for the wrong reasons
Blue Dogs took $19 million from insurance companies: http://www.usafricaonline.com/healhcare-public-option-democrats-doubleface/
lieberman $12.6M, mcconnell $7.8M, baucus $7.7M, cornyn $6.7M,
kyl $5.6M, grassley $5.4M, ensign $5.2M, conrad $5.1M, cantor $4.9M,
nelson $4.9M, burr $4.8M, boehner $4.4M, hatch $4.4M, lincoln $4.1M,
vitter $3.9M, carper $3.6M were paid by the Medical Industrial Complex to kill Health Care Reform. (Source: OpenSecrets.org, Aug. 09)
@“Since most Americans…” —- clearly you associate with a different subset of Americans than the ones I know. Best to broaden your social circle, I think.
Here’s the one example mindset of Americans getting sunk into the lies of the health care bill:
Will give health insurance coverage to illegal immigrants …………
55 Likely To Happen
34 Unlikely To Happen
11 Not Sure
Will lead to a government takeover of the health care system …..
54 Likely To Happen
39 Unlikely To Happen
7 Not Sure
Will use taxpayer dollars to pay for women to have abortions …..
50 Likely To Happen
37 Unlikely To Happen
13 Not Sure
Will allow the government to make decisions about when to stop providing medical care to the elderly ……
45 Likely To Happen
50 Unlikely To Happen
5 Not Sure
@“Like I said, Americans don’t even bother to look…” —- and even if that’s the case, that would be their choice. Isn’t choice grand? Hopefully more choices will be afforded to Chinese people some day…
Even those choices that would violate international law or even domestic law? Whatever you say.
@The Uyghurs who are unhappy probably became that way because of the treatment (or mistreatment) by the CHinese government.
I wonder why Uyghurs are unhappy and Hui are the only ones who are the happy Muslims in China and not mistreated. Could it be that Chinese government still has animosity towards the foreign countries that helps the separatist groups grow with taxpayer’s money and Chinese govt refrain Uyghurs from leaving outside of China. Not only that, most Uighur refugees definitely will get welfare checks from those separatist groups outside since refugees are poor or poorly uneducated.
Elsewhere in China, big city like Shanghai has two school exclusively for Uyghurs to study. Many Chinese cities offer job and educational benefits for minorities which some Han-Chinese scoffs at.
January 10th, 2010 at 7:07 am
“It’s very disturbing that you think this law is laughable.” — I think it’s laughable because, the way China plays it, it appears something akin to “subversion is the answer; what’s the question?”
“China recognizes protests in the constitution.” — that’s great.
“Any protesters needs a permit to protest as well as government approval.” — and why is that? Also, if one wanted to protest against the Chinese government, how likely is the Chinese government to grant such approval? I’d hazard a guess of “not very”.
“I don’t know what world you are in.” — a free one.
“When the Bush Administration…” — absolutely true. The “American” media (don’t forget that lots of “western” media didn’t buy the hype, including Canada’s) certainly goofed on that one. Here’s hoping they learned their lesson. But making a mistake and being in cahoots are 2 different things.
“Why do they cover-up for the crimes of US government?” — again, way way way too general a statement made without foundation. As for the depleted uranium story that you like, it already was in the media (which is why you and I heard about it). So the media is in cahoots simply because it chooses not to rehash and revisit a story that you found compelling? Is that the standard now?
“Why is the word “torture” not applied? NY Times has yet to use torture.” — applied to what?
“I didn’t pay money to politician to fear-monger the public option bill” — that may be true. But you’re not the only American who gets to have an opinion on the subject. And in a democracy, sometimes your opinion doesn’t carry the day. That’s the way it goes.
“I said the ones who oppose the health care bill for the wrong reasons” —- it seems somewhat arbitrary to suggest that politicians who oppose things that you would support do so for the “wrong” reasons.
“Here’s the one example mindset of Americans getting sunk into the lies of the health care bill:…” — I guess some Americans haven’t duly informed themselves of what’s in the bill. Not sure how that factors into the media discussion.
“Even those choices that would violate international law or even domestic law? Whatever you say.” — like I said, choices are choices.
“I wonder why Uyghurs are unhappy and Hui are the only ones who are the happy Muslims in China” — here’s an idea. Go ask them. In an inclusive, systematic fashion. And allow answers to be given without political, judicial, or civic consequences. And actually take their answers and apply them into policy decisions. Are those things too much to ask? Probably.
January 10th, 2010 at 9:41 am
Any reason the above commentary has been collapsed?
January 10th, 2010 at 3:10 pm
Hi FOARP~ Yes, it’s a ” back and forth” argument that’s off topic and has nothing to do with the National Geographic article. If anyone is interested in reading the comments, they’re only a click away.
January 10th, 2010 at 3:23 pm
@Steve – I know that by doing this I am creating a similar ellipse, but it would be nice to see action taken against the constant diversion of threads on this blog by comments which feature phrases like “military-industrial-political-media complex” – not to name any names of course – or is this asking too much?
January 10th, 2010 at 3:32 pm
FOARP, that’s not asking too much. It’s been discussed and recycled conspiracy theories will also be collapsed but still readable with one click.
January 10th, 2010 at 11:46 pm
@Steve
Actually it has everything to do with Charles Liu’s argument of media disinformation.
January 17th, 2010 at 6:10 pm
@I think it’s laughable because, the way China plays it, it appears something akin to “subversion is the answer; what’s the question?”
I guess you haven’t read the India Constitution which ALSO restricted for reasons of “sovereignty and integrity of [India], the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States
which means that NED is banned from their country. For anyone who has friendly relations with foreign states and get funds from them, India has the right to prosecute them as the same as Chinese government.
@“Any protesters needs a permit to protest as well as government approval.” — and why is that? Also, if one wanted to protest against the Chinese government, how likely is the Chinese government to grant such approval? I’d hazard a guess of “not very”.
It’s the law and US has that law as well.
Well there are, even though you desperately think there’s no protest allowed. Most protests came from Netizens and the young generation which Chinese government gave in sometimes to quell the anger.
@IGNORANCE/Politicians misinforming information
Commercial ownership through buyouts and dominance by the most powerful entities and when those media interests reflect the interests of those in power, as they clearly do, has serious implications for diversity of views, and for a healthy democracy.
Media power is political power. Politicians hesitate to offend the handful of media operators who control how those politicians will be presented — or not presented — to the voters. Media political power has always been a fixture in American history. But today the combination of the media industry and traditional corporate power has reached dimensions former generations could not match. … Today … political variety among the mainstream media has disappeared. As the country enters the twenty-first century, the news and analysis of progressive ideas and groups are close to absent in the major media. Similarly absent is commentary on dangers of this political one-sidedness to American democracy
@don’t forget that lots of “western” media didn’t buy the hype, including Canada’s
Just like how Ottawa and Canada’s media for misinforming the public during Afghanistan as “another peacekeeping mission” which lead 2,100 Canadian troops dead. There was no significant debate in Parliament. The media indulged in flag-waving instead of warning Canadians they were walking into a small, but real, war.
@applied to what?
United States
@without political, judicial, or civic consequences.
At least provide a pros and cons pages.
January 17th, 2010 at 11:58 pm
“I guess you haven’t read the India Constitution” — no, I haven’t. It’s also irrelevant, since we’re talking about China, and not India. Just because someone else does it doesn’t make it right. And having a law is one thing, but how it’s applied is where the rubber meets the road. As I suggested earlier, wrt China at least, it seems that “subversion is the answer; what’s the question?”. Even if it were relevant, and even if India has the same law, it would still depend on whether India applies it in the same way as China.
“It’s the law and US has that law as well.” — you might need a permit if you wanted to close down a street and lead a march. But I don’t think you’d need one to stand somewhere with a placard. Or if you wanted to write an article, and call it a “charter” of some form. Or if you went around and interviewed some folks on film. So maybe they tolerate some anonymous netizens (and that’s better than nothing, and might even qualify as “a good start”) but it’s not what I’d call a happy open tolerance.
“Commercial ownership through buyouts and dominance by the most powerful entities” — insofar as monopolies of any industry can be detrimental, and that open competition should be encouraged and preserved, I would agree. But I certainly stop agreeing once you get going with the conspiracy stuff again.
“Today … political variety among the mainstream media has disappeared.” — insofar as all-parties debates among candidates should include all candidates from all parties, I again agree. However, if you’re going to use the term “mainstream” media, you can hardly expect them to reproduce the fringe views of people whose support only exists among the fringes of society. Now, you might argue that “mainstream” should represent a wider stream (maybe like a “Mississippi River” media), but ultimately, the amount of coverage is going to be proportionate to the amount of popular support. You’re not going to see a lot of coverage of things that few people support.
“Just like how Ottawa and Canada’s media for misinforming the public during Afghanistan as “another peacekeeping mission” which lead 2,100 Canadian troops dead.” — umm, I take it you’re not from Canada. Clearly, you don’t know what you’re talking about when it comes to Canada. BTW, following yesterday’s latest death, there have been 139 Canadian soldiers killed in Afghanistan, as well as 1 diplomat and 1 journalist. Your numbers are off by about a factor of 15. Well done. And we’re out of Afghanistan as of 2011.
“@applied to what? …United States” —- wrt what? Abu Grahib? Water boarding? I can’t say for sure if NYT has used “torture” to describe such things…but seriously, if they haven’t, does that mean those don’t represent “torture”? Again, you seem to give people very little capacity to think for themselves. Not sure why that is. But whatever floats your boat, I guess.
“without political, judicial, or civic consequences….At least provide a pros and cons pages.” — well, when I said “ask the Uyghurs”, I wasn’t referring to “ask them, but before they answer, give them your own biased account of the pros and cons”. Their opinion is their opinion. Why do you seem so eager to affect/manipulate their opinion? Are they not entitled to their own opinion, even if it contradicts yours? Nonetheless, asking them with a bunch of caveats is still an improvement on their current situation, which is not getting asked at all.
January 23rd, 2010 at 6:06 am
What does it say about the people who are teaching 5-year olds to hate and blame and pick up arms to exercise their “freedom”?
I think in US, we call them Sponsors of Terrorism, Exploiters of Children.
January 23rd, 2010 at 7:13 am
“the people who are teaching 5-year olds to hate and blame and pick up arms” — which people are teaching this to which 5 year-olds, exactly?
January 23rd, 2010 at 10:05 am
“which people are teaching this to which 5 year-olds, exactly?”
someone must be, since 5 year-olds are concluded by you to be “blaming the Chinese government.”
most 5 year-olds have little understanding of politics to formulate such “blame”.
And yes, I was a 5 year-old once, and I don’t recall hanging out with other 5 year-old kids and discussing who we “blame” for our problems, on our own.
Time to start investigating these brainwashed hate filled 5 year-olds.
January 23rd, 2010 at 6:26 pm
“since 5 year-olds are concluded by you to be “blaming the Chinese government.”” — hmmm, it looks like you also subscribe to the creative/selective reading way-of-life. Interesting indeed for an apparent lawyer.
Let’s go to the tape, shall we?
“The Chinese government did such and such only because of what so and so did. Gosh, that sounds like the excuse of a 5 year old.” —SKC #240.
“A five year old would try to understand who start the ruckus between Uighurs and Chinese government” —Jason #241.
““who start the ruckus between Uighurs and Chinese government” —- hey, news flash. The Uyghurs who are unhappy probably became that way because of the treatment (or mistreatment) by the CHinese government. So as a 5 year old, if you wanted to know where it all started….you guessed it…blame the Chinese government.” —SKC #242.
So, you take some suppositions and conditional statements, and come up with your 255? Your “logic” is “interesting”. Are you always this literal? Cuz I think that’s also a trait that might characterize a 5 year old.
January 23rd, 2010 at 11:05 pm
Don’t blame me for being “literal,” if you are unable to be precise.
Shifting blame is the true trait of a 5 year old.
January 23rd, 2010 at 11:54 pm
Please don’t attribute your deficiencies in the arena of English comprehension to my attempts at precision. If fact, progressively higher precision would not mitigate your penchant for being literal, I don’t think. But since you asked, I will try to be more precise in the future.
January 24th, 2010 at 12:12 am
Do we need to ask you to be more precise?
Last I checked, nothing wrong with my comprehension in being “literal,” which means to apply the strict definition of words.
Maybe it’s just your personal habit to be loose with your words’ definitions.
January 24th, 2010 at 12:19 am
This is great. You are literal about “literal”. There’s a literal definition of a word, which you seem to be all over, and the literal interpretation of an argument, which, as I showed you in #256, is also in your wheelhouse. You are literally a caricature of an overly-literal person. Bravo.
January 24th, 2010 at 12:26 am
you quoted a lot, but showed nothing in 256.
Yes, I just quoted the definition of “literal”, what’s your point? Do you have your personal definition of “literal” that you would like to share?
Maybe you should define the uses of words with your definitions from now on, when or before you use those words.
Don’t tell me I’m “literal”, when you are off in your own little world with your own definitions.
Again, don’t blame me for your inability to be precise or follow conventional definitions of words in the English language.
January 24th, 2010 at 1:00 am
“you quoted a lot, but showed nothing in 256.”
Well, I’m not surprised you missed it. Here’s a hint. Take what I listed in 256, paying attention to words and phrases like “sounds like”, “would”, and “if”, and see how that justifies what you wrote in 255. Maybe you can show me how I concluded that 5 year olds are blaming the Chinese government. Better yet, going back to 253, where the “hating” and “picking up arms” bit comes into play.
Sometimes, I feel like I have to lead you around by the nose. I see that some things change; but you, not so much.
January 24th, 2010 at 1:13 am
“A five year old would try to understand who start the ruckus between Uighurs and Chinese government” —Jason #241.
““who start the ruckus between Uighurs and Chinese government” —- hey, news flash. The Uyghurs who are unhappy probably became that way because of the treatment (or mistreatment) by the CHinese government. So as a 5 year old, if you wanted to know where it all started….you guessed it…blame the Chinese government.” —SKC #242.
I think it’s obvious you are one who came up with “blame the chinese government” first.
“Hating” and “picking up arms”, I thought we were talking about the “ruckus”.
Again, Literal, me.
You, not precise.
January 24th, 2010 at 1:41 am
“I think it’s obvious you are one who came up with “blame the chinese government” first.” — yes, I must be the creator of that phrase, and perhaps should try to copyright it. Lord knows there are lots of places to apply that phrase…might be a lucrative venture. In this case, it was applied to “who start(ed) the ruckus”. Oh, and don’t forget the “if” part.
I suppose you’re free to associate with “ruckus” whatever you choose. But please don’t attribute those things to me.
I notice you avoided explaining yourself on your misinterpretation of words/phrases like “sounds like”, “would”, and “if” in the context that was highlighted for you. You seem rather selective wrt to sort of thing. Interesting.
January 24th, 2010 at 1:57 am
“Lord knows there are lots of places to apply that phrase…might be a lucrative venture. In this case, it was applied to “who start(ed) the ruckus”. Oh, and don’t forget the “if” part.”
you applied it here, it’s your invention here. Your “if” here, still your scenario.
Your “sounds like”, your supposition.
Well, if you didn’t suppose these things, I wouldn’t be debating about your conclusions.
Still your conclusions.
January 24th, 2010 at 2:24 am
“Well, if you didn’t suppose these things, I wouldn’t be debating about your conclusions.”
Listen, IF what you want to debate here is whether or not a typical 5 year old would have the inclination, capacity, or interest in determining the source of blame for the ruckus between Uyghurs and the CCP, then I will happily leave you to your “thoughts”.
January 24th, 2010 at 2:40 am
You obviously thought a typical 5 year old would blame the CCP, in the current reality.
Where is the supposition?
January 24th, 2010 at 3:05 am
See #266. Please note that it also involves a supposition.
January 24th, 2010 at 3:27 am
I don’t think your conclusion was based upon a debate about that supposition of whether a typical 5 year old would have the “inclination, capacity, or interest.”
It seems you were more concerned about “blaming the CCP” in your conclusion.
January 25th, 2010 at 12:15 am
“I don’t think your conclusion was based upon a debate about that supposition of whether a typical 5 year old would have the “inclination, capacity, or interest.”” — very good. I’m glad that you’ve finally clued in. Too bad you had yet to clue in at #253, when you wrote this: (“What does it say about the people who are teaching 5-year olds to hate and blame and pick up arms to exercise their “freedom”?). But better late than never. Well done.
“It seems you were more concerned about “blaming the CCP” in your conclusion.” — gosh, you’re more perceptive than I thought.