The Beijing Olympics

Meganee

What are your thoughts on the Beijing Olympics this year?


I am a postgraduate student at DCU - I'm writing my dissertation on the public discourse in Ireland surrounding the Beijing Olympics. Essentially, I am interested in what Irish residents think of the Olympics being held in China.

Thoughts?


(If you have 5 minutes or so, you can REALLY help me out by answering this ever-so-short questionnaire: Beijing & Dublin - Thoughts on the Olympics survey

Thirdfox

Done that for you. I'm pretty sure I qualify as resident (as an Irish citizen) - but my views as a former Chinese citizen may be a bit different to your average Joe though .

edit: To promote discussion here though here is what I wrote (as my extra comment at the end):

The words I chose above are rather conflicting as they essentially present two sides of what is being covered (one in China and focusing on sport, and the other in "Western" media (my sources of news are NYTimes, BBC, and Irish Times) and focusing on politicising the games).

My article that I wrote in our paper highlights the fact that the media here can be so blindly hypocritical and one sided that one would think the Chinese people are savages to be shot, the environment so toxic that people are going to fall like flies, genocide (not a word used lightly) is practised around every corner. It is a shame, and one view that I absolutely disagree with.

Of course, this episode - of the violent protests in London/Paris/San Francisco (you didn't hear about the perfectly normal ones that took place in the other countries) during the torch relay and the way our media portrays issues that I personally know about certainly has made me lose a lot of faith in the Western self-proclaimed style of freedom of the press - the press is free to say whatever they want, yet they focus on only one side (including half-truths and mistruths). Often when a Chinese citizen stands up to give their version of events s/he is labelled brainwashed, their opinion ignored.

This episode has certainly left a very sour taste in my mouth in regards to my trust of how "free" we really are, and what right if any do we have to lecture other countries on their affairs when we seemingly have such big problems with our own.

As a law student we are told to analyse all sides before presenting an argument, frankly it has been pretty much ignored in this instance. And the danger is that the ordinary person on the street isn't going to think twice about accepting what the media here has stated as "the truth". Chinese propaganda is blatant and obvious...much more dangerous is the insidious type of reporting I have seen in our media over the last few weeks - makes me question what else have they misled me about.

The media here have achieved their goal anyway - I am completely unexcited about the games now, but I will still be rooting for our boys (and girls) in green (as well as red and gold) on the day I'm sure.

CCCP^

Done!

Pride Fighter

I'd prefer the Olympics to be held in a democratic nation. Just my preference, but good luck to the Chinese in hosting it.

BlaasForRafa

Thirdfox wrote: »

My article that I wrote in our paper highlights the fact that the media here can be so blindly hypocritical and one sided that one would think the Chinese people are savages to be shot, the environment so toxic that people are going to fall like flies, genocide (not a word used lightly) is practised around every corner. It is a shame, and one view that I absolutely disagree with.

At least you have the opportunity to criticise here. Try doing that in China and see what labour camp you end up in.

To cut to the chase, lets see if these questions can be answered.

1: Is china a totalitarian state?
2: Are there free and fair elections?
3: Is there an official opposition in china?
4: Is there widespread media censorship in china?
5: Is there censorship of the internet in china?

The only reason western/democratic governments are so easy on China is that they value money before they value the people of china. The west relies too much on cheap imports from china and cheap manufacturing in China to really criticize the chinese government properly.

As for the games, they will go on, coca cola and nike and many others will get lots of advertising. Whether it has any real tangible benefit for the chinese people is doubtful aside from feeling pride that their country hosted the games.

GuanYin

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

At least you have the opportunity to criticise here. Try doing that in China and see what labour camp you end up in.

Lets try keep hyperbole out of this debate. Many chinese criticize the government and are free and walking around.

1: Is china a totalitarian state?

Is it a democracy? No. Is it totalitarian? No.

2: Are there free and fair elections?

Your question is loaded. China is not a democracy.

Does the US have free and fair elections? Does Irish voting represent the will of the people (especially when they have to re-vote)?

3: Is there an official opposition in china?
4: Is there widespread media censorship in china?
5: Is there censorship of the internet in china?

There is a censorship of many western values. Which, while inherently wrong,
is done for reasons that have some logic to the Chinese.

Incidently, we've banned this topic in the past. I'll ban any person who uses this thread for anti-chinese propaganda. Stick to the facts, not conjecture.

BlaasForRafa

GuanYin wrote: »

Incidently, we've banned this topic in the past. I'll ban any person who uses this thread for anti-chinese propaganda. Stick to the facts, not conjecture.

Was what I said anti-chinese people? I hope not, it certainly wasn't intended to be.

Was it anti-chinese government? absolutely.

I realise china's culture is far older than most western cultures and their values can be (and probably are) different and thats fine. Perhaps the chinese people don't want democracy and would prefer to be in a permanent one party state?...thats quite possible but I can't help feeling that democracy is the right of all people. Sure its not always fair, the world isn't perfect...but they should have the right to it which are currently being denied them in my opinion.

GuanYin

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

I can't help feeling that democracy is the right of all people. Sure its not always fair, the world isn't perfect...but they should have the right to it which are currently being denied them in my opinion.

You've been brought up in a democracy and know nothing else, you aren't exactly in a place to offer an objective opinion.

I would not defend the PRC over democracy but I will say I respect the opinions of the Chinese people who say they are happy in China. The current Chinese Premier, Wen Jiabao, is very popular among the people and progressive in terms of the PRC.

For someone who has a knowledge of the situation based on, quite frankly, biased media, to state that their way is better, is both ignorant and arrogant, as much as someone with no experience of democracy barring the anti-western attitudes in the east would be so should they decry democracy.

BlaasForRafa

GuanYin wrote: »

You've been brought up in a democracy and know nothing else, you aren't exactly in a place to offer an objective opinion.

I would not defend the PRC over democracy but I will say I respect the opinions of the Chinese people who say they are happy in China. The current Chinese Premier, Wen Jiabao, is very popular among the people and progressive in terms of the PRC.

For someone who has a knowledge of the situation based on, quite frankly, biased media, to state that their way is better, is both ignorant and arrogant, as much as someone with no experience of democracy barring the anti-western attitudes in the east would be so should they decry democracy.

You've made an assumption on where I have been brought up based on no evidence so for you to say what my knowledge is based on is ignorant and arrogant.

GuanYin

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

You've made an assumption on where I have been brought up based on no evidence so for you to say what my knowledge is based on is ignorant and arrogant.

I made no such assumption. I stated a conditional opinion. Were you raised in a democracy or under the jurisdiction of one? If not, where were you brought up?

SkepticOne

Done!

Kev_ps3

Pride Fighter wrote: »

I'd prefer the Olympics to be held in a democratic nation. Just my preference, but good luck to the Chinese in hosting it.

Why? Democraticy in the west is a joke. A few partys who are essentially the same. Thats not true democraticy.

My view is that the western media are trying to put a bad image on the Olympics because they are fearful of the coming superpower that is China.

wes

Filled out the survey.

As for China, well best of luck to them with the Olympics. At the very least the Olympics may serve to highlight conditions in China good or bad.

BlaasForRafa

GuanYin wrote: »

I made no such assumption. I stated a conditional opinion. Were you raised in a democracy or under the jurisdiction of one? If not, where were you brought up?

Where and how I was brought up is none of your business.

GuanYin

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Where and how I was brought up is none of your business.

Yeah, I figured as much. Nice try at diversionary tactics there. I guess unless you state otherwise, you were brought up in a western democracy and my original point stands.

Fighting Irish

Anyone who cares needs to get a life, lets say everyone in china started getting paid properly, then most things we buy will get more expensive and then you complain about that, you can't have it both ways

Overheal

GuanYin wrote: »

There is a censorship of many western values. Which, while inherently wrong,
is done for reasons that have some logic to the Chinese.

True. By very definition I guess you have to call that xenophobia but look what it has done for them and their culture - instead of what you have in europe: the freedom of movement and the melting pot of culture essentially (I mean hell you guys managed to invoke just a little irish into me, and American Television has certainly done a number on you) is what we value; that freedom to view all ideas - that by through assimilation by choice the best ideas will persevere.

On the other hand China never did that, and its very clear that while sometimes that causes them to get it wrong in my opinion (human rights, green issues, etc) you cant fault them for much of their culture that remains very strong, my favorite example being Shaolin Kung Fu o'course (something which may have never survived as long as it did purely through assimilation by choice). Say what you want but the chinese have a very strong sense of discipline about wavering to outside influence (not to mention discipline in their daily lives), and I respect that.

BlaasForRafa

GuanYin wrote: »

Yeah, I figured as much. Nice try at diversionary tactics there. I guess unless you state otherwise, you were brought up in a western democracy and my original point stands.

Why should I give personal information about myself to some antagonistic stranger on the internet?.

Your original point was flawed in any case...how do we know what the chinese people want when they haven't been given a chance to express it by voting?

Thirdfox

Because voting isn't the only way of expressing what you want?

GuanYin

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Why should I give personal information about myself to some antagonistic stranger on the internet?.

Why would you allude to a false presumption if you're not willing to confirm the invalidity?

Your original point was flawed in any case...how do we know what the chinese people want when they haven't been given a chance to express it by voting?

So noone without a vote has every expressed their opinion?
Women, african americans, subjects of the old British empire.... we never heard from them :rolleyes:

Overheal wrote:

True. By very definition I guess you have to call that xenophobia but look what it has done for them and their culture - instead of what you have in europe: the freedom of movement and the melting pot of culture essentially (I mean hell you guys managed to invoke just a little irish into me, and American Television has certainly done a number on you) is what we value; that freedom to view all ideas - that by through assimilation by choice the best ideas will persevere.

Is it true xenophobia though? Western culture and influence is apparent and available in China, the difference is the state refuses to abandon it's own culture for the sake of it.

Look at Japan for instance, they're almost mocked for their westernification (the haircuts, the skin whitening, the operations to round out their eyes and put folds in their eyelids) and the consignment of their culture to stereotyped fiction.

I'm not Irish by the way, I've only been to Ireland a few times and from what I can see, Ireland is a case in point, such a rich historic culture that has been all but forsaken in the pursuit of US trends and capitalism.

BlaasForRafa

GuanYin wrote: »

So noone without a vote has every expressed their opinion?
Women, african americans, subjects of the old British empire.... we never heard from them :rolleyes:

.

Right...so you want to take the vote away from women, bring back slavery and return africa to colonisation. That explains a lot about your previous posts.

GuanYin

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Right...so you want to take the vote away from women, bring back slavery and return africa to colonisation. That explains a lot about your previous posts.

Please show me where I said that or retract the comment before I'm forced into moderator mode.

At his stage I see you as a troll, I'd like to think I'm wrong and you've just accidently misrepresented me..

Thirdfox

GuanYin wrote: »

I'm not Irish by the way, I've only been to Ireland a few times and from what I can see, Ireland is a case in point, such a rich historic culture that has been all but forsaken in the pursuit of US trends and capitalism.

I am Irish (though not a typical one I reckon). But De Valera's view of Ireland as completely separate from the UK with maidens dancing at the crossroads isn't one that most people would aspire to nowadays.

I don't think the culture has been forsaken, but being a small island nation it has done what needs to be done in order to prosper in the world (open up to international trade and export lots of goods).

Though my point point is hardly here or there in regards to Beijing.



Back on topic - reading the BBC's China Blog by James Reynolds (which is an interesting read for many reasons) you can see how journalists will end up cherry-picking inflammatory comments made and ignore the reasoned considered arguments of Chinese and non-Chinese posters who understand the Chinese viewpoint on things. Likewise you will see plenty of holier-than-thou people who basically lambaste the country (its government AND its people) for actions that do not subscribe to their way of thinking.

I wonder do these people who spew such vitriolic remarks (and maybe genuinely think that this will help the Chinese people) believe that their actions are positively affecting how the Chinese people see people in England, US etc.? Have they not considered that continuously attacking a country is not the best way to achieve their aims? The gap between people only widens and I fear at one point the Chinese who used to respect what the "West" has achieved for itself will deem it irrelevant... and then times will get interesting (not to mention dangerous).

A quote that I heard today - Churchill - always better to jaw-jaw than to war-war...

wes

Thirdfox wrote: »

Because voting isn't the only way of expressing what you want?

True, but it is however the best system we have at present imho. It has many faults and democracies are by no means perfect and are no angels either (see the Iraq war).

I can't quite see how the Chinese government can possibly know the wishes of its people without elections of some kind. I mean a representative picture. Wouldn't a 1 party system mean that one view would dominate?

I know certain groups can lobby if they have the cash and engage in other methods. This would still skew things in favor of a few who can lobby and or have the pull to agitate on there own behalf.

Thirdfox

See the debates people have had here over democracy (what is it anyway - the US system, UK system etc.) and the Lisbon referendum result controversy (which is democracy at its supposed best - direct say by the people over political matters). I'm not convinced that democracy as we practise it, is the best way of deciding what's best for our national interests.

Oh, just saw on the NY Times they have a clip of undercover footage of the opening ceremony...
http://olympics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/a-sneak-preview-literally-of-the-opening-ceremony/index.html?hp
They actually ask does it look "vaguely fascist"... I seem to remember the outrage Americans expressed when that Fox News presenter asked was the Obama knuckle tap a "terrorist fist jab" or something of the sort. How can people purport to say that they are objective (in this instance anyway). Might as well say that every opening ceremony after 1936 was facist then (including all those US ones too...)

But back to your point - I think the main difference in a democracy like we have here in Ireland and the system they have in China is that if things go wrong, after 5 years we can throw the government out... but inbetween those 5 years we are remarkably similar (in terms of knowing the wishes of its people) - lobby groups and people communicate, not by voting, but by literally speaking and telling them what their wishes are. One could argue that the Chinese people have given the current government their mandate by supporting them over the KMT during the civil war (our "wars" aka general elections are fought much more regularly though).

wes

Thirdfox wrote: »

See the debates people have had here over democracy (what is it anyway - the US system, UK system etc.) and the Lisbon referendum result controversy (which is democracy at its supposed best - direct say by the people over political matters). I'm not convinced that democracy as we practise it, is the best way of deciding what's best for our national interests.

I agree that there are problems with democracy. Still a 1 party system would tend to represent one view to the best of my knowledge. For all democracies faults, there are at least 2 views (at a minimum) represented in our system.

Thirdfox wrote: »

Oh, just saw on the NY Times they have a clip of undercover footage of the opening ceremony...
http://olympics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/a-sneak-preview-literally-of-the-opening-ceremony/index.html?hp
They actually ask does it look "vaguely fascist"... I seem to remember the outrage Americans expressed when that Fox News presenter asked was the Obama knuckle tap a "terrorist fist jab" or something of the sort. How can people purport to say that they are objective (in this instance anyway). Might as well say that every opening ceremony after 1936 was facist then (including all those US ones too...)

The vaguely fascist things sounds like a joke to me.

I know the Western media has problems, but we do have access to a lot of it.

I have access to Chinese, Russian, Arabic, Pakistani, and Indian news channels and some of these are more favorable to China.

Thirdfox wrote: »

But back to your point - I think the main difference in a democracy like we have here in Ireland and the system they have in China is that if things go wrong, after 5 years we can throw the government out... but inbetween those 5 years we are remarkably similar (in terms of knowing the wishes of its people) - lobby groups and people communicate, not by voting, but by literally speaking and telling them what their wishes are. One could argue that the Chinese people have given the current government their mandate by supporting them over the KMT during the civil war (our "wars" aka general elections are fought much more regularly though).

I don't think that is a fair representation. The opposition can agitate against the government and can sometime even beat government legislation. Having the opposition there keeps the government honest, as they know if they mess up they get kicked out at the election.

In a one party system, this threat doesn't exist.

Thirdfox

But that's under the assumption that the party is one big happy family - political reality says that it's all about political manoveuring, backstabbing (smoke and daggers as our former Taoiseach so eloquently put it) etc. Make major mistakes (bribery for the Chinese FDA head - execution, jailtime for the mayor of Shanghai too I believe).

So while there isn't an external opposition to deal with, to say that everything goes swimmingly and leaders can act with total impunity (which I don't think is exactly what you're suggesting) is not the case... not even in North Korea I would guess.

The People's Congress are elected by citizens of China (though our Chinese Constitutional law professor stated that for the most part they are wholly ineffective). Ethnic minorities get their own mini-parliament with their own political parties I believe. But of course it is the politburo that holds nearly all the power - that doesn't mean they can't be toppled from within though.

Somewhat similar to the Law Society - do you trust them to self-regulate? Many don't but that's the system they have right now and it hasn't been completely bad has it?

Firetrap

Done. I've mixed feelings about the whole thing. The Olympics has led to greater publicity for unpleasant things about China but I don't think it's going to lead to changes. China is such an enormous economic power that western governments are prepared to ignore a lot of things just so they can do business with the Chinese

wes

Thirdfox wrote: »

But that's under the assumption that the party is one big happy family - political reality says that it's all about political manoveuring, backstabbing (smoke and daggers as our former Taoiseach so eloquently put it) etc. Make major mistakes (bribery for the Chinese FDA head - execution, jailtime for the mayor of Shanghai too I believe).

This is true to a degree, but people in the same party aren't going to differ hugely on most issues. There would be broad agreement on most things. People may differ on the details however.

Thirdfox wrote: »

So while there isn't an external opposition to deal with, to say that everything goes swimmingly and leaders can act with total impunity (which I don't think is exactly what you're suggesting) is not the case... not even in North Korea I would guess.

I would disagree on North Korea, from everything I have read on them, the leader can do as he please. China is no where near that bad.

Its more that a singular party vision and particular point of view is the only one that exists. People in the same party are not going to be very different, they may not see eye to eye on certain issues, but in the end they are in the same party and there vision of things would not differ too greately.

Thirdfox wrote: »

The People's Congress are elected by citizens of China (though our Chinese Constitutional law professor stated that for the most part they are wholly ineffective). Ethnic minorities get their own mini-parliament with their own political parties I believe. But of course it is the politburo that holds nearly all the power - that doesn't mean they can't be toppled from within though.

While such systems could evolve to be democracy in the future. There is still a concentration of power in a single groups hands.

The way I see, while a single party system may have efficiency benefits, having so much power in too few hands, with little chance of them paying the price if they mess up is a bad idea.

As for toppling from with, well that could happen, but the system doesn't make this an ongoing threat to the people in charge if they screw up. They could just as easily mess up very badly and cling on to power.

Thirdfox wrote: »

Somewhat similar to the Law Society - do you trust them to self-regulate? Many don't but that's the system they have right now and it hasn't been completely bad has it?

Its a different situation to be fair. They don't run the country.

GuanYin

You know, reading the posts here, you'd really think that the PRC is both anti-democracy and tyranical. In actual fact neither is the case. China shifted towards a more liberal society and made great reforms in the 80's (and unfortunately climaxed in a tragedy through issues downstream of party politics and dissent among conservatives) and the current premier is on record as stating that democracy is the ultimate goal of the PRC.

Thirdfox

As an update - the NY Times has pulled the fascist remark... and the video has been pulled from Youtube apparently (it is copyrighted material and subject to confidentiality agreements afterall).

fly_agaric

Thirdfox wrote:

I don't think the culture has been forsaken

We don't have much culture left to not forsake tbh. A few scraps.
The language is the heart of a country's culture and ours is basically...dead!

Another poster was talking about someone (us?) "mocking the westernisation" of Japan (though I've never actually met anyone who mocks Japan...).

Japan has

a) much more of its pre-"engagement with the West" culture left than we have of our own indigenous culture and
b) more influence over the direction of the modern/global/mostly western culture it shares with us than we ourselves do!

So I wonder who should be "mocked" here?

Thirdfox wrote: »

I'm not convinced that democracy as we practise it, is the best way of deciding what's best for our national interests.

Maybe so, but is China or any other non-democratic state an example of the better system we should be striving towards here?

Thirdfox wrote: »

One could argue that the Chinese people have given the current government their mandate by supporting them over the KMT during the civil war (our "wars" aka general elections are fought much more regularly though).

No, I don't think anyone could argue that (could they?).

1) Is it not the case that the communists won because they actually fought the war far better than the KMT [regardless of which was more popular]?

2) Even if the communists victory did actually indicte that they were more popular with the public (rather than better led or other factors), wouldn't it be a bit like saying that because the pro-treaty side won the civil war here we should have a blueshirt govt. for ever more? It doesn't make much sense.

Thirdfox

fly_agaric wrote: »

Maybe so, but is China or any other non-democratic state an example of the better system we should be striving towards here?

Hmm, an interesting question. And not as clear cut as many people would like to assume. In such a large country with a large population a strong central government is certainly one way of running the country, compare the indecisiveness of the federal government in the US over New Orleans with the Sichuan earthquake response by the PLA (or indeed their response to the flooding that happens every year along the Huang He (Yangtze)). Ireland is a tiny nation (in a global sense) and our system seems to work okay most of the time - if however we implemented the system in China I believe there would be chaos (imagine HSE's problems x1000) Then again the EU superstate can be seen as one example of where large populations have been managed quite successfully whilst independent of each other.

Looking at democratic India, my friends in China say they do not want the system they have implemented there. So while their system does not suit us, I'm not sure our system will suit them either. I believe it is not a case that "Western democracy" = good and "anything else" = bad.

I think it's fair to say that in a choice between Ireland, China and Zimbabwe as countries to live in it would be 1, 2, 3 in 99.9% of people's minds (looking at living standards only, cultural/familial ties etc. excluded). And I am sure that people do want better living standards for all in China too... but a sentiment that many Chinese themselves feel (whether the media here blames on government propaganda or as I and many others feel after careful consideration) is that the people who cry loudest about human rights for Chinese citizens may not have our best interests at heart. The present round of protests and aggreviations before the Beijing Olympics is a mistake in terms of convincing the Chinese people that we actually care about them rather than just scoring political goals and gaining leverage on the international stage. What happens then is that nationalists gain greater sway, moderates become disillusioned with what you say and ordinary Chinese citizens do not see us as friend who wants to help and advise but an schemer who wants to undermine them as they become prosperous.

I'd like to write more but bedtime it is for me!

No, I don't think anyone could argue that (could they?).

1) Is it not the case that the communists won because they actually fought the war far better than the KMT [regardless of which was more popular]?

2) Even if the communists victory did actually indicte that they were more popular with the public (rather than better led or other factors), wouldn't it be a bit like saying that because the pro-treaty side won the civil war here we should have a blueshirt govt. for ever more? It doesn't make much sense.

SkepticOne

Thirdfox wrote: »

Looking at democratic India, my friends in China say they do not want the system they have implemented there. So while their system does not suit us, I'm not sure our system will suit them either. I believe it is not a case that "Western democracy" = good and "anything else" = bad.

I don't think many in the west want to actually impose democracy in China against the will of the people there. Where the clash comes is issues like human rights and relations with cultures like Tibet. I can understand the nationalistic indignation this gives rise to but we live in a globalised world and it is not realistic to expect outsiders to have no opinions on these matters. Should human rights campaigners have stayed silent about apartheid in South Africa, for example? It was certainly argued by the government of that country at the time that outside anti-aparthied campaigners did not understand the situation and culture and should mind their own business.

Another area of clash is a difference in the way information is percieved. Here, for the most part, we don't consider information, political messages or propaganda a threat. We have access to not just western media with its particular bias but also Aljazeera, CCTV, and hundreds of other sources. For the most part we are free to discuss any political topic. Very little if anything is out of bounds.

How do ordinary people in Ireland engage with ordinary people in China when certain subjects are potentially illegal?

Should I talk more with ordinary people in China first before forming an opinion? Can raise the issue with ordinary Chinese people in china reports that filter out from the Tibet region to neighbouring countries but might be banned in China itself?

These are just examples. What are your suggestions?

GuanYin

SkepticOne wrote: »

I don't think many in the west want to actually impose democracy in China against the will of the people there.

Honestly? Reading boards.ie at times, I would be inclined to dispute that.

Where the clash comes is issues like human rights and relations with cultures like Tibet. I can understand the nationalistic indignation this gives rise to but we live in a globalised world and it is not realistic to expect outsiders to have no opinions on these matters.

What human rights issues? Can you or anyone else actually source a report coming from inside tibet that suggests that the people of tibet are suffering under PRC rule?

To me it looks like a political power struggle with alot of spin and MOST reports are from people who have not set foot in China for many years.

Now, China's treatment of radical protesters is awful. I disagree with it. But on this same forum that damns the PRC for hardline tactics against radical protesters, we have people who believe that radical PETA activists should be shot/hung for their actions etc etc. Do we mean this? BEcause if so, then people advocate the same action against radicals here, as the PRC is taking in China.

Should human rights campaigners have stayed silent about apartheid in South Africa, for example? It was certainly argued by the government of that country at the time that outside anti-aparthied campaigners did not understand the situation and culture and should mind their own business.

You are being very disingenious in comparing Tibet with South Africa. Under current legislation, Tibetan nationals have far more social perks than non Tibetans. They have financial, educational and social welfare paid for by the PRC. In addition as an ethnic minority, they are not suffering the same restrictions imposed on the Han Chinese population. Hardly Apartheid.

The major contention (and I've visited Tibet in the last 3 years) seems to be a religious-political issue based on the loss of power of the Lamas and the rules imposed on them by the PRC. This is mostly down to the history between the PRC and the Lama, but is more analagous to the demise of the political power of the IRish catholic church, who were once untouchable.

Another area of clash is a difference in the way information is percieved. Here, for the most part, we don't consider information, political messages or propaganda a threat. We have access to not just western media with its particular bias but also Aljazeera, CCTV, and hundreds of other sources. For the most part we are free to discuss any political topic. Very little if anything is out of bounds.

Again you speak of things based on conjecture on your part. Do you believe that Ireland gets fair and balanced reporting about what goes on in the rest of the world? The US certainly does not. Their news media is controlled by a politically invested party. This, however is not censorship.

The great firewall of China is an issue, but again, internet restrictions exist in all countries. For instance, you have no privacy in terms of your internet histry from the federal american government.

SkepticOne

My main points concern the nature of discourse between people within China and Irish people within Ireland. I don't want to get bogged down in the differences between China and South Africa. I am aware there are differences. The issue I'm dealing with is that outsiders got involved in human rights issues within South Africa when the government of that country felt it was their concern alone.

With regard to media bias, I think you miss the point here. No media is free from bias. The way we get around it is by comparing the various sources with their differing biasses and coming to a conclusion and perhaps discussing that conclusion with others of differing opinions.

I am not saying that this is better than what happens in China, but I am pointing out that it is different there and that this difference raises problems.

It seems to me that even before getting down to specific facts and issues, we run into problems.

SkepticOne

GuanYin wrote: »

Now, China's treatment of radical protesters is awful. I disagree with it. But on this same forum that damns the PRC for hardline tactics against radical protesters, we have people who believe that radical PETA activists should be shot/hung for their actions etc etc. Do we mean this? BEcause if so, then people advocate the same action against radicals here, as the PRC is taking in China.

Just to deal with this. The forum does not have a point of view. I find it strange that anyone would expect there to be some coherence among the views expressed here.

GuanYin

SkepticOne wrote: »

My main points concern the nature of discourse between people within China and Irish people within Ireland. I don't want to get bogged down in the differences between China and South Africa. I am aware there are differences. The issue I'm dealing with is that outsiders got involved in human rights issues within South Africa when the government of that country felt it was their concern alone.

No, you created an analogy that is both inappropriate and emotive, creating a bias in your question. There is no similarity in the plight or the tibetan and south africans, so to compare them based on anything is questionable.

So again, show a source if you're going to make the claim or clarify the issue.

With regard to media bias, I think you miss the point here. No media is free from bias. The way we get around it is by comparing the various sources with their differing biasses and coming to a conclusion and perhaps discussing that conclusion with others of differing opinions.

I am not saying that this is better than what happens in China, but I am pointing out that it is different there and that this difference raises problems.

Is different bad?

It does raise problems, especially when people think the world should only be seen from their point of view.

It seems to me that even before getting down to specific facts and issues, we run into problems.

If you approach the issuen a dishonest manner, this is bound to happen.

SkepticOne

GuanYin wrote: »

No, you created an analogy that is both inappropriate and emotive, creating a bias in your question. There is no similarity in the plight or the tibetan and south africans, so to compare them based on anything is questionable.

So again, show a source if you're going to make the claim or clarify the issue.

Like I have said, although there are differences there are also similarities, among them alleged human rights issues within the country, campaigners outside the country and the attitude by the government that these issues were its business alone.

Is different bad?

It does raise problems, especially when people think the world should only be seen from their point of view.

One ways you understand other points of view is through discussion such as this. That is why I have an interest in countries where freedom of expression is very restricted.

stevenmu

Referring back to the OP, in my view the Olympics this year has become overly politicized, it has been hijacked by political interest groups and used to promote their views and interests. The Olympics has become a symbol for peace and humanity and in my view this is being wrongfully used by people to further their own particular agendas.

Historically the Olympics reached this symbolic status because of it's non-political nature. The Olympics is an event where people of any race, colour, religion or creed can stand side by side as equals, and the best man (or woman) is chosen purely on the basis of sporting prowess. To me it is a shining example of the greatness of mankind, how athletes who dedicate themselves to their sport can achieve unbelievable feats. Historically the Olympics has been an event where all politics have been set aside, difference forgotten, and even wars have been halted, all to focus on something good and pure. That is how it achieved it's status as an event promoting peace and goodness. To me that is the magic of the Olympics, and IMHO that is being corrupted by people who are trying to turn it to their own ends.

BlaasForRafa wrote:

Your original point was flawed in any case...how do we know what the chinese people want when they haven't been given a chance to express it by voting?

The chinese people have overthrown a regime they were unhappy with more recently than any western state as far as I'm aware.

SkepticOne

stevenmu wrote: »

The chinese people have overthrown a regime they were unhappy with more recently than any western state as far as I'm aware.

Various European countries, many now part of the EU, overthrew communist rule in the late 80's/early 90's. But I think it has been pointed out on this thread that it tends to be an elite that does the overthrowing. Whether they have populer support is determined later through elections.

SkepticOne

stevenmu wrote: »

Referring back to the OP, in my view the Olympics this year has become overly politicized, it has been hijacked by political interest groups and used to promote their views and interests. The Olympics has become a symbol for peace and humanity and in my view this is being wrongfully used by people to further their own particular agendas.

The actual sport I think should be non-political but a lot of the surrounding pageantry is political in origin. The Nazi's introduced the torch relay, for example, for the 1936 Berlin Olympics. This is why people there's a vague facist feel to the games to this day.

Overheal

According to US News information chinese citizens are being told a) not to engage in political or religious discussion b) not wear pyjamas in public and c) wear no more than 3 colors at a time. Among many other things.

http://www.globesports.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080801.wolymrules31/GSStory/GlobeSportsOther/home



Its funny because at least in a way they realise their behavior is not generally well looked upon. Hopefully if the Olympics dont become a complete political disaster it will be a new turning point for their foreign relations anyway. It all reads as the first time anyone has really been given a big eye into China in decades; theyre having you over for a fancy dinner and they dont want their kids to slouch at the dinner table.

Thirdfox

SkepticOne wrote: »

I don't think many in the west want to actually impose democracy in China against the will of the people there. Where the clash comes is issues like human rights and relations with cultures like Tibet. I can understand the nationalistic indignation this gives rise to but we live in a globalised world and it is not realistic to expect outsiders to have no opinions on these matters. Should human rights campaigners have stayed silent about apartheid in South Africa, for example? It was certainly argued by the government of that country at the time that outside anti-aparthied campaigners did not understand the situation and culture and should mind their own business.

Another area of clash is a difference in the way information is percieved. Here, for the most part, we don't consider information, political messages or propaganda a threat. We have access to not just western media with its particular bias but also Aljazeera, CCTV, and hundreds of other sources. For the most part we are free to discuss any political topic. Very little if anything is out of bounds.

How do ordinary people in Ireland engage with ordinary people in China when certain subjects are potentially illegal?

Should I talk more with ordinary people in China first before forming an opinion? Can raise the issue with ordinary Chinese people in china reports that filter out from the Tibet region to neighbouring countries but might be banned in China itself?

These are just examples. What are your suggestions?

It may be Newsweek or NY Times that had stated that President Hu enjoys something like 86% approval in China (and one of the highest globally too - above leaders of the Western countries). An article written in the NY Times states that Pres. Clinton told people that once China opened up economically it would be a matter of years before democracy followed - the article analyses why this has not happened and comes to the unhappy conclusion that autocratic systems of government can function just/almost as well as democratic systems when looking after the majority of its people.

Also, if you meet ordinary Chinese people, have a good grasp of Chinese and they feel you genuinely want to talk about an issue I believe they will wholeheartedly welcome a discussion. However if they feel that you've come to lecture them on their government it's automatically on the defensive and no progress is made.

SkepticOne wrote: »

The actual sport I think should be non-political but a lot of the surrounding pageantry is political in origin. The Nazi's introduced the torch relay, for example, for the 1936 Berlin Olympics. This is why people there's a vague facist feel to the games to this day.

I don't feel there's anything wrong with some nationalism over the hosting of the games... there is quite a big distinction between being proud of your country and being fascist. I was present as a volunteer over the Special Olympics that took place in Ireland, there were parts of it that celebrated Irish culture and Irish pride - are we fascist too?

Overheal wrote: »

According to US News information chinese citizens are being told a) not to engage in political or religious discussion b) not wear pyjamas in public and c) wear no more than 3 colors at a time. Among many other things.

http://www.globesports.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080801.wolymrules31/GSStory/GlobeSportsOther/home



Its funny because at least in a way they realise their behavior is not generally well looked upon. Hopefully if the Olympics dont become a complete political disaster it will be a new turning point for their foreign relations anyway. It all reads as the first time anyone has really been given a big eye into China in decades; theyre having you over for a fancy dinner and they dont want their kids to slouch at the dinner table.

In one way I applaud it - go to the countryside and you'll see giant adverts painted by the local officials that state "the world has changed, girls are just as good as boys - having a girl is a patriotic duty" (obviously in Chinese). China is undergoing changes, not just for foreigners and for the Olympics.

I would imagine the horror of the Americans if they were hosting the games and a leaflet dropped through the door requesting that anyone with a BMI of 35+ is recommended to stay at home in case of offending foreign guests...

SkepticOne

Thirdfox wrote: »

I don't feel there's anything wrong with some nationalism over the hosting of the games... there is quite a big distinction between being proud of your country and being fascist.

I agree that origins of some Olympic traditions may be fascist in origin but the use subsequently need not be. It is, however, political and this is the point I was making with stephenmu.

fly_agaric

Thirdfox wrote: »

Hmm, an interesting question. And not as clear cut as many people would like to assume. In such a large country with a large population a strong central government is certainly one way of running the country, compare the indecisiveness of the federal government in the US over New Orleans with the Sichuan earthquake response by the PLA (or indeed their response to the flooding that happens every year along the Huang He (Yangtze)).

IMO, strength & decisiveness do not have to mean unaccountability.
Also, I am unsure if your example illustrates what you think it does (what has happened in New Orleans is an example of indecisiveness due to the US system of govt. being more democratic than China).

It has also been argued that this failure of the US federal govt. is a actually a symptom of a fundamental weakening of democracy as the functions of the state are downsized & privatised.

Thirdfox wrote: »

Looking at democratic India, my friends in China say they do not want the system they have implemented there. So while their system does not suit us, I'm not sure our system will suit them either. I believe it is not a case that "Western democracy" = good and "anything else" = bad.

China's never going to be a "Western democracy". There are many ways to skin a cat, there are lots of flavours of western & non-western democracies.
Thinking back to the other poster's points about maintaining China's culture & integrity - I wonder if introducing some democracy would actually be as potentially damaging to China's original culture(s) as the free-market system/gloabalisation? I don't think so.

stephenmu wrote:

Historically the Olympics has been an event where all politics have been set aside, difference forgotten

No it is not. It has regularly been a political football (or hot-potato:P).
Hitler used/abused it for propaganda purposes to show the superiority of the German fascist state.
A state which was not a full-blown global menace at the time, just another (nationalistic & autocratic) soveriegn state (with a bit of a persecution complex) which was busily clamping down on its own dissidents/flies-in-the-ointment.
In the cold war, Nato states boycotted the Moscow games and the Eastern bloc boycotted the LA games. There was also that incident in Munich with the terrorists...

stephenmu wrote:

The chinese people have overthrown a regime they were unhappy with more recently than any western state as far as I'm aware.

see 1) end of the cold war (as already mentioned) & 2 - even more recent) the Yugoslav war(s)?

Thirdfox wrote:

the article analyses why this has not happened and comes to the unhappy conclusion that autocratic systems of government can function just/almost as well as democratic systems when looking after the majority of its people.

All well and good. Speaking from a mainly self-interested point of view & forgetting about (most of) the Chinese people happy with their efficient autocracy - what happens to the rest of us if a clique like the US neocons grabs the reins of power in China.
Who or what is going to prevent them doing almost exactly what they want (which will probably be a desire to kick off WW3)? China's lack of democracy (and associated systems) means (at least) one less barrier to such a thing happening. I'm afraid that's actually what concerns me the most about China's power & autocracy combination. I'm selfish, I know.

Overheal

Thirdfox wrote: »

I would imagine the horror of the Americans if they were hosting the games and a leaflet dropped through the door requesting that anyone with a BMI of 35+ is recommended to stay at home in case of offending foreign guests...

I can only dream.

RedPlanet

fly_agaric wrote: »

All well and good. Speaking from a mainly self-interested point of view & forgetting about (most of) the Chinese people happy with their efficient autocracy - what happens to the rest of us if a clique like the US neocons grabs the reins of power in China.
Who or what is going to prevent them doing almost exactly what they want (which will probably be a desire to kick off WW3)? China's lack of democracy (and associated systems) means (at least) one less barrier to such a thing happening. I'm afraid that's actually what concerns me the most about China's power & autocracy combination. I'm selfish, I know.

Is that an argument for "democracy"?
Hardly!
None of those checks and balances you allude prevented the Neocons from ravaging Iraq and Afghanistan.
And it certainly didn't prevent Hitler a generation earlier.

SkepticOne

fly_agaric wrote: »

No it is not. It has regularly been a political football (or hot-potato:P).
Hitler used/abused it for propaganda purposes to show the superiority of the German fascist state.
A state which was not a full-blown global menace at the time, just another (nationalistic & autocratic) soveriegn state (with a bit of a persecution complex) which was busily clamping down on its own dissidents/flies-in-the-ointment.

I think one of the problems is the movable nature of the modern Olympics. The original Greek Olympics where always held in the same place every four years. There was no "Athens" or "Thebes" Olympics like we would have Berlin or Beijing Olympics in the modern era. The modern Olympics might be more of a cause of abuses than something that brings people together.

Thirdfox

fly_agaric wrote: »

All well and good. Speaking from a mainly self-interested point of view & forgetting about (most of) the Chinese people happy with their efficient autocracy - what happens to the rest of us if a clique like the US neocons grabs the reins of power in China.
Who or what is going to prevent them doing almost exactly what they want (which will probably be a desire to kick off WW3)? China's lack of democracy (and associated systems) means (at least) one less barrier to such a thing happening. I'm afraid that's actually what concerns me the most about China's power & autocracy combination. I'm selfish, I know.

To be selfish is to be human I believe - I'm selfish too... when people/governments try to dress up their self-interests as morals et al. that doesn't sit well with me (though I know the meaning of tact I prefer if people could be open about preserving self-interests).

To come to your question about a megalomaniac China - I really believe that 7,000 years of history has shown that the Chinese in general assimilate rather than annihilate. The Chinese people are a peaceful race (though I do get concerned about how nationalistic some of today's youth can be - and indeed across all Asia). They certainly didn't sail around the world planting flags everywhere (though they did sail all around the world).

Looking at the present - the separation of powers is too weak right now. The supreme court needs to be given greater powers to check the government (I believe there has yet to be a constitutional case to be heard in front of the SC). If directly elected representatives is not an ultimate goal of the CCP then the law must be strengthened so that the people's interests are preserved. This is something that is happening now, with a property rights bill being passed last year and amendments to the use of the death penalty. Obviously much work remains to be done.

And ultimately, I believe that the Chinese people know what is right and what is wrong (hence being happy with the general direction the government is going in). If a Chinese Bush came into power and decided to go invading other countries to spread the Chinese ideologies by gunpoint he will be brought down; a) because this sort of action is un-Chinese b) it is an unprofitable action...

afterall, the Chinese government is looking out for its self-interests too!

Thirdfox

1 Day to go - we've already got the athletes wearing masks (in the airport!), and the subsequent apology... Yao Ming carrying the torch... 4 Westerners putting up Tibet posters

oh and in regards to the sport:
Shocking defeat of the US by Norway, China beat Sweden and Brazil/Germany tie (women's football).

But to stay on topic - those 4 protesters, heroes from the West bringing their civilisation to the heathen Chinese or criminals who broke local laws and should be locked up (though probably just deported...) - loaded question perhaps

I was interested to read in the NY Times that Texans today were able to execute 2(?) Mexicans for a crime and not give them consular access (allegedly) and amid international protests (especially by Mexico where there is no death penalty).