Comments

1. Tariq Nelson wrote:

   Many of the people who criticize the things you mentioned in other countries are the same ones protesting China’s human rights violations.

   Secondly, while America may not be perfect, we do have freedom of religion and other rights that we take for granted that the Chinese gov’t does not grant. While I am not into the anti-Chinese gov’t protests, I don’t think that the fact that one’s home country is perfect should keep people from pointing out evil.

   This argument is what human rights violators all over the world often hide behind. “Well we may be oppressing women in our country, but look at the US where there are rapes!!” (As if the rapes are state policy)

   I sort of get what you are saying, but I think it plays into the hands of the violators and we would all have to be silent if we are waiting for perfection

   Posted 14 Aug 2008 at 6:17 am ¶

2. Zenobia wrote:

   I find it pretty baffling that a country can come under attack for having polluted cities. Surely that’s an indication of economic circumstances, not moral value.

   As for the human rights record - right, most of the countries that have hosted the Olympics have had a terrible human rights record, only they’re all ‘bastions of democracy’. And as you say:

   Could it be that we’re just a lot more comfortable calling out The Other, the backward and the funny-looking; rather than slamming an elegant urbane metropolis like Barcelona, or criticising a great bastion of Western democracy like the US?

   And we’re also more comfortable imagining people of colour in poorer countries as victims. The idea of Western citizens as impoverished victims is unsettling to us - so the MSM will give more air time to advocates for an important but distant cause like Sudan than it will to the problems of our own communities.

   While what is going on in Tibet is terrible, I’m also curious about why we find the theocratic monarchy easier to sympathise with than other countries where similar things are going on - it just so happens that Buddhism is one of the religions that has been most appropriated in the West as well.

   In the UK we have asylum seekers coming from all over the world, from variously terrible situations, warzones, and so on. And we fear them and laugh at them - we don’t sympathise with them. But Tibet is somehow different - of course, we should sympathise, but then we should be able to sympathise with everyone else as well. It’s no good to be quoting Robert Pirsig all over the place and then going ‘lol refugees and people on benefits’.

   Posted 14 Aug 2008 at 6:58 am ¶

3. Keith wrote:

   While many “of the people who criticize the things you mentioned in other countries are the same ones protesting China’s human rights violations” Thea’s post was (rightly) pointing out the MSM obsession with the Beijing games in particular. It’s one thing for left of center blogs to criticize China’s human rights records, it’s another thing to hear everyone from your morning time radio DJs to every newspaper columnist on the continent to nitpick trivial details and blow them out of proportion.

   We get it, the air in Beijing is really terrible. Last I checked, though, the smog in Los Angeles was also pretty terrible in 1984. Also, if I hear another story full of righteous indignation over the little girl who lip synched during the opening ceremonies, I’d like to point out the fact that Whitney Houston’s memorable rendition of the Star Spangled Banner during Super Bowl XXI was also not sung live (which is the case for most performances that occur in similar circumstances). And America practically invented the concept of putting the prettier, less talented one ahead of the less pretty, more talented ones. Hell, wasn’t that the plot to “Dreamgirls?”

   Posted 14 Aug 2008 at 7:13 am ¶

4. Jess wrote:

   I don’t think the Olympics is necessarily an endorsement of state policy except insofar as it’s a reward for a lot of lobbying. I mean, London wanted the Olympics in 2012 as did New York, and in neither case was it connected to anything the US or UK government was doing at the time.

   China getting the Olympics has a lot of complicated symbolism for the Chinese, you know, even though their human rights record is pretty dismal. There are many Chinese people — some who marched at Tiananmen — who want their country to succeed.

   You are quite correct that the Olympics has been a huge cost to local communities a good chunk of the time. That’s one reason London’s bid, as well as Istanbul’s, failed. The cities were not equipped to handle it without displacing huge numbers of people and causing massive disruptions.

   Also, don’t think that there wasn’t a lot of protest going on in Barcelona. There was. But local communities are usually seen as a local issue. And most Americans don’t read El Pais or watch Spanish TV. I think the responses you are describing betray a little selection bias.

   If I were a reporter for the AP or a major American daily the story of a relatively small number of people in Barcelona, where honestly people who are displaced have options (not many, but some) to make their voice heard and to get some benefits, is not as much of a story that I can pitch to my editor as it would be if the scale were larger (as in China) and people had less recourse (as in China). Drama and all that, you know.

   Part of what you’re bringing up is a larger issue of whether the US and places like Canada can make an honest accounting of their faults. That’s a more complicated question than the Olympics itself.

   You also may not be aware that there was little protest when the Olympics went to Sarajevo (are you old enough to remember that? I feel old). Or even Moscow — the US and a few allies were the only countries to boycott that Olympics, and the LA Olympics was boycotted by the USSR. I don’t recall much controversy about the Mexico City Olympics themselves, though at the time in Mexico there was a lot of political upheaval and the police killed a number of students that year.

   Remember, the Olympics even going to someplace outside of the first world is pretty new, largely because of infrastructure and transportation issues.

   Posted 14 Aug 2008 at 7:25 am ¶

5. Cynthia wrote:

   RE the Canadian papers: While the Globe and Mail is technically a “national” newspaper in Canada, it has a very Toronto/Bay Street slant to it. And many Torontonians are still bitter about losing the Olympics to Beijing.

   Also, how did the media react to Seoul in ‘88? I was too young to remember. I also didn’t recall anything bad about Nagano in ‘98…I don’t even remember anyone asking why Japan hasn’t apologized for their atrocities in WWII.

   Posted 14 Aug 2008 at 7:31 am ¶

6. Elise wrote:

   @ Tariq - I don’t think Thea’s suggesting silence OR perfection. I think she’s pointing out that there is a disparity when there is coverage of human rights violations - that violations done in those ‘other’ countries get covered while the very same violations and problems are ignored in the media of the country that is covering the issue.

   And rather than wait for perfection, if the US and Canada recognize the problems and are actively trying to deal with it - that seems like one step towards to the moral high ground. As Thea points out though, these problems are shoved under the rug instead.

   Posted 14 Aug 2008 at 7:52 am ¶

7. Daomadan wrote:

   “It’s the way that the Beijing Olympics are being seized as prime chance to express our horror at nasty governments: so that we can distance ourselves from them. We can mark ourselves out as democratic, caring and 1st World in stark contrast to authoritarian, ruthless, 3rd World China.”

   I agree. I’ve seen China described as “Goebbelsesque” not to mention other rank terms. I believe that we can still critique China’s government but that many people are choosing to name call in place of this critique. Many things being written about China come off as biased and Western-centric without trying to frame anything from China’s cultural viewpoint. I watched the Opening Ceremonies and wanted to mute Costas and Lauer for their idiotic commentary. They kept talking about how China wanted to present itself as “modern” and other terms that had to do with China becoming part of the 21st century…bullshit things…because unless some American commentators forget, China was building structures, making paper and writing incredible poetry and books, loooong before the U.S., as we know it, was taken over from its native people.

   Okay, mini-rant over. I think China has some incredible things to offer the world and I wish I’d see some positive things written about it instead of the same old “China is going to take over the world” nonsense that’s been part of journalism in recent years.

   Posted 14 Aug 2008 at 7:59 am ¶

8. Torontonian wrote:

   I think it’s ridiculous to protest against the Beijing Olympics because of Tibet. It would make more sense to protest the Beijing Olympics because of the Chinese people being displaced, but I guess most Westerners don’t care about the Chinese citizens.

   Most Westerners seem to think China as a whole symbolizes human rights violations, when the actual Chinese citizens think of themselves as much more, as people, as thousands-year-old civilization and culture. If you’re going to protest the Olympic games because of human rights violations unrelated to the Olympics, you should protest the Vancouver Olympics because of Canadian human rights violations generally, and to play the superficial association game, because Vancouver = Dziekanski died.

   Any American Olympics should be protested as well, obviously. Although Americans think that the USA symbolizes freedom and democracy, most non-American countries see the US government as a hypocritical human-rights violator. Illegal invasions and Abu Ghraib/Gitmo torture aside, what kind of developed nation still has the death penalty?

   Posted 14 Aug 2008 at 8:04 am ¶

9. C-Marsh wrote:

   Provocative post Thea!

   I took the post as commentary that most Western Nations are quick to criticize the “savages,” but rarely take a critical eye to their own practices or the practices of allies. Not saying that nations should only be critical of each other when they are perfect, because the world would then be mum, but rather nations should evaluate themselves as vehemently as they criticize others.

   i.e. America is certain that 911 was a terrorist attack, but we will not call the lynchings, burning of affluent PoC neighborhoods, stealing land, etc. that are static throughout American history acts of terrorism. Those instance are referred to as “Justice,” “Race Riots,” and “Discovering New Lands.” Within America, as with other countries, those in power dictate the difference between “Freedom Fighters” and “Terrorists.”

   I would agree that America does have “freedom of religion.” We have the freedom to choose one on the list, but do we truly have the right to refuse the list at all? Of course, typical citizens can choose to follow their own beliefs and practices (usually) without fear of criminal punishment, but I doubt that I will see the day that an atheist or agnostic is elected President. The law of the land is that “Without religion, you have no morals!” But that’s an entirely different discussion.

   Posted 14 Aug 2008 at 8:14 am ¶

10. Torontonian wrote:

    And many Torontonians are still bitter about losing the Olympics to Beijing.

    I wouldn’t want the Olympics to come here, as I’d probably get displaced.

    Posted 14 Aug 2008 at 8:19 am ¶

11. Cynthia wrote:

    Torontonian:

    I don’t think you’d be displaced. I’m pretty sure they were going to use the old military base in Downsview as well as existing venues.

    The Ex (Canadian National Exhibition) opens tomorrow. Think of how many more visitors would be going to the Ex if the Olympics were here! Maybe they’d even have better stuff there (I was there a couple of years ago, and it was nowhere near as exciting as it was when I was a kid).

    Posted 14 Aug 2008 at 8:26 am ¶

12. Tariq Nelson wrote:

    As Thea points out though, these problems are shoved under the rug instead

    I am not sure what you mean by this. Here in the US and other countries we are allowed to protest bad policy and try to affect changes to the system. People mentioned illegal invasions, Abu Ghuraib and other things (that btw got WORLD WIDE attention and protest), but do not forget that there are those AMERICANS that were speaking out against these things every step of the way as well. These people of conscious shamed the Bush Administration into closing that place. It was simply unacceptable to most people and we did not allow it to be swept under the rug.

    Posted 14 Aug 2008 at 8:30 am ¶

13. gatamala wrote:

    Jess & Torontonian - good points about the displacement and contraversies regarding previous games.

    I was in ATL in the run up to the 96 games…you have NEVER seen a “clean up job” until you see a city prepare for the games. The city got caught with a plan to put homeless folks on one-way bus trips to Birmingham.

    I do not deny the political and social abuses in China, but “we” seem to need a nemesis or a counter to our inherent “goodness”. Kinda like the USSR.

    Finally, that opening ceremony was the shit! Only an authoritarian regime could whip 15,000 performers into shape like that.

    Posted 14 Aug 2008 at 8:36 am ¶

14. thelegacymaker wrote:

    Priceless picture

    Posted 14 Aug 2008 at 8:42 am ¶

15. Fatemeh wrote:

    gatamala–for the 2002 Olympics, I heard similar stories about homeless being shipped out of Salt Lake City.
    Thea, great post! It’s about time we heard this viewpoint–I’ve been thinking it to myself every time I hear something about China, human rights, and the Olympics in the news!

    Posted 14 Aug 2008 at 9:00 am ¶

16. Dorian wrote:

    Yeah, I think I share your sentiments. It’s not that I think China is perfect or anything, it’s that with all the championing of freedom of the press and all you’d expect better from Western journalists.

    Take for example the International Herald Tribune. One headline piece of theirs on their site says Chinese media is not giving Michael Phelps enough attention. Well when I was on the China Daily site, I saw two pieces on him on the front page. Heck, one was on that big rotating picture thing that you first see.

    Part of the problem is that when the Chinese side cries foul by claiming media bias, nobody takes them seriously. While their presentation could use some work, you start to wonder maybe there’s some truth.

    Another problem is that Western countries are so smitten with creating some kind of false dualism, casting themselves as countries of human rights vs. other countries as violating human rights, and I think that’s a dangerously oversimplificating (and rather arrogant) mindset.

    Posted 14 Aug 2008 at 9:26 am ¶

17. Elise wrote:

    @ Tariq - I’m sorry if I was unclear. When I said that the US and Canada swept things under the rug, I am referring to the government’s actions until they are *forced* by protesters to recognize these violations. There is no doubt that there was and still is active protest by the people in those countries.

    Also media attention for at-home problems on the less ’sexy’ topics that Thea highlighted, like indigenous and homeless displacement, pollution in low-income communities, has never been stellar in Western countries, and I agree with Thea that is strange for the media and Western governments to suddenly focus on how bad those things are when it has occured and is still occuring in their own countries, but is not covered or examined with the same intensity.

    Posted 14 Aug 2008 at 9:32 am ¶

18. a few things wrote:

    1. every state is hypocritical, and two-faced by nature, either directly or by proxy.

    2. power does what it wants. see #1.

    3.empire is empire. they all act the same way in pursuit of the same goals, but make differing choices in how they control their citizens. Some overtly repress, others covertly deceive.

    4. a citizen well fed by a state has no complaints or desire to see any injustice around them (especially if they are participating in it) until s/he experiences first hand exactly how expendable s/he is.

    5. economic classes across the world have more in common with each other than ethnicities, cultures, or political parties.

    6. the suffering of those whose lives are sacrificed unwillingly at the whim of the powerful will rarely be mentioned in public except by PR departments when a journalist takes up their cause (which is in vogue to support) as a career move.

    7. people who bring knives to gunfights probably can’t afford guns, and the gunfight was probably brought to them by the guy with the gun anyways.

    8. The three d’s of popular opinion: distract, discredit, deny. People are looking for reasons not to believe that they are responsible for or profit from atrocities. Give them an easy way out.

    Posted 14 Aug 2008 at 9:49 am ¶

19. Matt wrote:

    China’s views on outside interference are, so far as I understand, still influenced by the memory of the opium wars and foreign domination in the 1800s. Because of that, I don’t think the way we (the West) are going about criticizing China is right. And China has a point criticizing the US for our human record specifically by pointing to poverty. But Tibet is a classic case of colonial imperialism. “Theocratic monarchy”? I guess, but it’s the most consensual theocratic monarchy in history, and I don’t think the Tibetan people would appreciate our appropriating their voices in their defense against that “theocrat” the Dali Lama. (Not to mention - they’re not mentioned - China’s role as an economic imperialist nation in Burma, Darfur, and elsewhere.) If the choice is protest against China that’s imperfect either because it’s too anti-China or too muted, I would prefer the more vocal error.

    Posted 14 Aug 2008 at 10:02 am ¶

20. Paul wrote:

    Here’s all that you need to know about this issue:

    The discussion on this website would not happen in China because the Communist Party created an Internet firewall to prevent the free exchange of ideas. If people can’t see the difference between their system and the US’/Canadian/Japanese systems, then those people are being wilfully blind to the facts.

    Posted 14 Aug 2008 at 10:04 am ¶

21. Elise wrote:

    @ Paul - I think it’s funny you use ‘willfully blind to the facts’ when the post was about how non-China media is focusing on Chinese violations and doesn’t give the same lip-service to the exact issues in their own countries.

    In China, the media isn’t allowed to talk about it; in other countries, the media just chooses not to.

    Posted 14 Aug 2008 at 10:15 am ¶

22. atlasien wrote:

    I have to support Tariq Nelson’s position here: I also don’t like strong versions of the “you don’t have a right to talk about X unless you talk about Y in the same breath” argument.

    The argument is a double-edged sword. For example, when discussing anti-Asian racism, a lot of clueless white people will respond with “well Asians are the REAL racists, look at how Japanese hate Koreans etc. etc. etc.” Arggh…. but we’re not talking about there, we’re talking about here. And if I was in Japan and complained about anti-Korean bigotry, I would really hate to have a Japanese person defend themselves by saying, “well it doesn’t matter because white people are the real racists”.

    I think the standard to go by is this: are the accusations of China functioning as deflections of the Western civil rights issues? If so, they’re suspect, and I agree with Thea Lim that a lot of the accusations in mainstream Western media are really suspect. But just because some of the accusations are being used as deflections doesn’t mean that they all are.

    A lot of China’s policies really do need to be criticized. The environmental situation is especially bad because rural Chinese environmental rights activists have been beaten and assassinated just for asking for clean drinking water.

    Tibet is another knotty issue. I’m a Buddhist myself, but I also think Tibet used to be an incredibly regressive, feudal theocracy and that Chinese rule brought improvements in many areas of Tibetan life. That’s one side… the other side is that China is edging towards cultural genocide and ethnic cleansing there. The people in Tibet deserve a choice as to how they live and what language they speak, and they are certainly not getting that now.

    Posted 14 Aug 2008 at 10:28 am ¶

23. a few things wrote:

    @Paul - well, you know what’s funny? Google is the company in charge of censoring their internet access. Yep. And we’re going to be facing that in America soon as well, as soon as Net Neutrality gets put into practice.

    I also didn’t realize that the United States, Canada, and Japan all had the same systems of government. That’s an interesting fact right there.

    Maybe that’s all you CARE to know about this issue. I don’t blame you. Knowledge can be a burden.

    Posted 14 Aug 2008 at 10:28 am ¶

24. Dorian wrote:

    I agree with Elise and A Few Things about Paul’s comment.

    When you use a statement such as “Here’s all you need to know” (one of my most hated phrases because of its reductive nature), it suggests more about what you’re “willfully being blind to” than anything else.

    It’s ironic to talk about discussion when most of it is ignored by the use of that one little phrase.

    Posted 14 Aug 2008 at 10:45 am ¶

25. Monie wrote:

    “Olympic Hating: Is China Really Worse than Any Other Host?”

    China provides arms to Sudan. Sudan gives these arms to the Janjaweed Militia, which they have used to murder hundreds of thousands of Sudanese people in Darfur and other parts of Sudan.

    Also China has blocked any and all real action by The United Nations with regard to the Genocide in Darfur.

    China is at best on par with Nazi Germany when they hosted the Olympic Games in 1936.

    Posted 14 Aug 2008 at 10:51 am ¶

26. Phil Deeze wrote:

    @Keith,
    The reason that Whitney Houston’s rendition of “The Star Spangled Banner” was lip-synced was because of the fly-over by the F-16’s. Too loud for her to hear her voice in the monitors, the producers didn’t want to take a chance, so they had her record her version beforehand. It makes sense: she still sang the $hit out of it. For my money, Beyonce’s version in Houston was almost as good. But that’s probably just me.

    Posted 14 Aug 2008 at 10:58 am ¶

27. Paul wrote:

    @a few things:
    The three systems mentioned are very different, yet none of them seeks to control the flow of information like the Chinese.

    Furthermore, sarcasm is the lowest form of humor as it takes not real thought or creatvity.

    Finally, using all caps is passe.

    Posted 14 Aug 2008 at 10:59 am ¶

28. Rob Schmidt wrote:

    I lived through the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics, and I don’t recall any social problems such as displaced people. Traffic was light so I believe the air pollution decreased. Etc.

    Americans believe in freedom of religion except when they don’t:

    http://www.bluecorncomics.com/2008/08/court-rules-against-native-religion.html

    Posted 14 Aug 2008 at 11:18 am ¶

29. Dawud wrote:

    As stated before, China has issues in general like all other nations. As mentioned previously, other nations have done displaced the poor, yet many of the town-criers didn’t raise hell about it when European nations were the perpetrators.

    Regarding smog, I’d have to be over there to see if the smog is worse than LA, which was the site of the 1984 games.

    Regarding Tibet, China has it’s human rights issues just like we do. Last time I checked, Dr. Sami Al-Arian is being illegally detained in the so-called “War on Terror”, Mumia Abul-Jamal has been rotting in jail for decades, the NYD guns down cats the night before their wedding in cold blood and Amadou Diallo, not to mention Abu Ghraib and Gitmo Bay torture and sexual humiliation.

    Let China do China, and America do America.

    Posted 14 Aug 2008 at 11:38 am ¶

30. ansel wrote:

    “While what is going on in Tibet is terrible, I’m also curious about why we find the theocratic monarchy easier to sympathise with than other countries where similar things are going on - it just so happens that Buddhism is one of the religions that has been most appropriated in the West as well.”

    The “theocratic monarchy” you mentioned is a bit different from most other authoritarian governments in that it did not have a large-scale military, professed and generally adhered to a non-violent ideology, and was gradually becoming more open and progressive through the late 19th and early 20th century. The appropriation and commodification of Buddhism in the West probably has something to do with liberal support for Tibet, but I don’t think it explains everything. There’s also the fact that by all accounts, almost all Tibetans are devoted to the Dalai Lama and support the government-in-exile, which is now an electoral democracy.

    Posted 14 Aug 2008 at 11:51 am ¶

31. Cynthia wrote:

    To a few things:

    Canada, US and Japan do not have the same system of government. The only thing we have in common is that we have free elections. Canada and Japan run on a parliamentary system and are a constitutional monarchies while the US is not.

    Posted 14 Aug 2008 at 12:08 pm ¶

32. waxghost wrote:

    The condemnation of China’s environmental problems always surprises me, since I consider it at least partially America’s fault: WE are the ones who kept demanding cheaper consumer goods, quality be damned, to the point that we’ve pushed tons of manufacturing and the resultant pollution onto a once-poorer country. Now we blame them for being our dumping grounds!

    Posted 14 Aug 2008 at 12:17 pm ¶

33. Liz wrote:

    OMFG THANK YOUUU FOR READING MY MIND!!!!!! Does the U.S. really have the moral authority (if such a thing EVER exists) to tell China it can’t host the Olympics?

    Posted 14 Aug 2008 at 12:24 pm ¶

34. Liz wrote:

    one more thing:

    the ENVIRONMENT?! for real? hi, this criticism coming from the people who brought you Guantanamo Bay, secret CIA terror cells, and the atomic bomb.

    Posted 14 Aug 2008 at 12:25 pm ¶

35. Paul wrote:

    According to the rationale of many commentors, no country can chastise any other country because all have done wrong.

    Thus, we should have let Milosevic go on about his ethnic cleansing, should say nothing about Darfur, and let the Russians do whatever they want in Georgia and Cechnya.

    Afterall, we’re all sinners so who is anyone to judge.

    Posted 14 Aug 2008 at 1:10 pm ¶

36. A. Taveras wrote:

    Criticism of development around Olympic games is appropriate. On the other hand I do wish the more general political commentary and criticism would be toned down all around. It seems to me the stage is for the athletes, and if any political statements are to be made it should be left to them.

    Posted 14 Aug 2008 at 1:11 pm ¶

37. Thea Lim wrote:

    @ All

    I forgot to input the link to that Guardian article! Sorry. Link now in place.

    @ Tariq

    I guess I should’ve made it clearer in my post that I was referring to the general treatment of China in the MSM. Not leftist blogs or elevator conversation - in general there has been a really large kerfuffle about China; some of it warranted, and some of it really just seeming racist. For eg the fact that they swopped one cute little girl with another was Front Page News on two different Toronto newspapers. Ye Gods!

    @ Rob Schmidt

    In a similar vein, I don’t think it’s right out there in the open that poor folks and people of colour are misplaced by the Olympics. Despite all my skepticism of the Olympics, I was shocked to read about the stats from the Atlanta Olympics. Is it possible that there was similar bad stuff that happened in LA that just weren’t on the MSM radar or your own? Countries are pretty good at these kind of cover-ups. If nothing else I would imagine that rent went up in LA making it a harder place for poor folks to live.

    @ Tariq and atlasien

    I’m not saying that the bad behaviour of, for eg, Spain, the US and Canada is a reason NOT to criticise China. I’m saying let’s criticise the whole lot of them. Again, I’m not saying that China should be treated differently than it has been (though I do think a lot of the tone of the reporting is condescending and holier-than-thou) - I’m questioning why no other country in, let’s say, the past 10 years of the Olympics, have been called to account in the same way, despite the fact that there’s plenty evidence that all these countries have done really bad things.

    It’s so much easier for us to imagine a 3rd world non-Western country as repressive, and so hard for the MSM and the general outlook of Western countries to absorb that there’s lots of bad stuff happening over here - that we should be critical of our own human rights records.

    Posted 14 Aug 2008 at 1:17 pm ¶

38. a few things wrote:

    @Cynthia - I was being sarcastic in response to Paul’s comment earlier, but thank you for the clarification.

    @Paul - So, to sum up your argument here: All I need to know about china is that its a country that is just bad. It is very bad. And if anyone disagrees with that I should insult them, because I know that I have nothing else to say that has any analytical value. GOOD ADVICE I THINK I WILL TAKE IT ALONG WITH MY CHAIN WALLET AND LEG WARMERS AND FLANNEL SHIRTS. RAD TO THE MAX! POGS.

    @waxghost - YES. Nobody’s innocent here. I completely agree that many dynamics in china originated from our insatiable consumption, and also we have been responsible for many of the same things we criticize them for, but we can claim that our nation isn’t responsible when we use front corporations like Shell to bribe other governments into colluding in the oppression of their own people. In america, to be ignorant of the truth is a privilege. In china, it is a duty.

    Posted 14 Aug 2008 at 1:18 pm ¶

39. Phrone wrote:

    Thank you for this post! It’s been on my mind a lot. I feel a lot of the coverage I’ve seen on the Olympics has been questionable. Either it falls into the “OMG CHINA IS SOOOO EXOTIC” line or the “OMG CHINA IS SOOOO EVIL” line.

    Are Darfur and Tibet important issues that deserve a lot of attention? Yes. But, particularly with Darfur, I feel it’s dishonest to not give the context in which those actions are occurring. It was my understanding that China is not buying oil from Sudan because, you know, they just love funding genocide or whatnot, but because China needs energy and they have difficulty getting it from other countries because of the existing consumption of other countries.

    I also DON’T think that the OP intended this to say “everyone who is protesting the Olympics are hypocrites”. I saw the article trying to show how a lot of people (most notably the MSM) who don’t care about human rights violations in American/Canadian/European countries and try to gloss over discussions about those issues are suddenly really, really interested in and upset by China’s human rights violations. And it’s not like these Olympic games occurred in a vacuum; there’s been a lot of anti-Chinese sentiment and a lot of fearmongering about China (like ‘omg China is going to take over the world and the US WILL DIIIEEEEE’) and I think a lot of the coverage of these issues feeds into that thinking.

    Posted 14 Aug 2008 at 1:23 pm ¶

40. Thea Lim wrote:

    @ atlasien

    I guess I am a subscriber to the “you don’t have a right to talk about X unless you talk about Y in the same breath” argument. Except I wouldn’t say “you don’t have the right”, I would just say that to me people, when criticising others, should also criticise themselves if there’s anything there to criticise.

    I often suggest this when talking to white feminists who ask me how they can criticise misogyny in non-white cultures without coming across as racist. I always think that recognising
    1) the bad stuff in your own culture/place;
    2) the relationship between your own bad stuff and whatever you are about to criticise;
    gives your argument much more integrity.

    I don’t think this rule - that you shouldn’t talk about X unless you are willing to talk about Y - applies in situations where it is NOT a group with more power/privilege accusing a group with less. To me the reason this rule exists is to make sure that criticisms of countries/people/cultures that have less economic/racial privilege than white-dominant cultures, are not just veiled racist/classist attacks.

    So if a white person were to say to me “you can’t criticise us for being racist, Chinese people are the most racist people in the world!” (and that has been said to me before…), I say that is not a valid argument. The rule exists to defend against racism, not to allow it.

    Does that make sense?

    Posted 14 Aug 2008 at 1:25 pm ¶

41. atlasien wrote:

    It makes sense, and I totally agree with your example of advice to white feminists.

    However, I have to stop at a certain point… I just don’t think the weighing of more privileged group/less privileged group can be judged easily. In the case of the Olympics, “the West” has had greater privilege than China for the last several centuries, but I don’t know if that’s going to be the case over the next several centuries. Japan is an even starker example… it went from a small, resource-pour country to imperialist aggressor to occupied victim and now back to relative privilege, all in the course of a century.

    The vast majority of groups are going to have more privilege than one group but less privilege than another group, and everyone has disagreements about their true place in the pecking order.

    Here’s the version of the argument I agree with:

    “You shouldn’t talk about X problem unless you talk about Y also, because Y has an important connection with X. Also, talking about X without talking about Y is self-serving, not useful at really stopping X problem, patronizing, useless, feeding into racism or sexism or homophobia, etc..”

    But it more often gets played like this:

    “You don’t have a right to talk about X problem because Y problem exists and Y problem is more important and X problem is not. ”

    Like you, I’ve heard the “Asians are the REAL RACISTS” so many times that I’m allergic to any form of it. It’s the same argument that also says “racism is more important than sexism so stop talking about your problems with sexism” or “sexism is more important than racism so stop talking about your problems with racism” or even “ignore our ethnic cleansing because their ethnic cleansing is the real problem.”

    In other words, I’d rather judge an argument as bad in a more subjective way, by using its frame and context, rather than the amount of privilege that the speaker represents.

    Posted 14 Aug 2008 at 2:01 pm ¶

42. maia wrote:

    “The three systems mentioned are very different, yet none of them seeks to control the flow of information like the Chinese.”

    what i find to be interesting about this discussion is the claim that there is not an extreme and virulent control of the flow of information in the States. While the process of control is different, I think that alot of the mainstream USers and a good number of lefty bloggers would be amazed at how little information is allowed to reach us.

    There are numerous ways this process of control occurs:
    1. in the msm and even in lefty blog world there are some topics that are simply off the table (ie israel/palestine) because they are ‘too complicated’ and cause too much rancor.
    2. government control of information is insiduous. and while we praise ourselves for all of the information that we have access to. we have very little idea (until we check the fbi files under foia 25 years later) how much we didnt know. thus info is provided as historical records, not when it would have been useful to the public knowledge. (i have personal experience with this form of info control)
    3. framing. often debates are framed in the msm and in lefty blog world in a way that discards useful information, even when that information is available to us. for instance, i hear the discussion in the comments section asking if the us has the right to criticize china, considering the us human rights record. but, i hear thea asking why does the msm emphasize china’s repressive ‘nature’ but not the repressive ‘nature’ of first world countries…by changing the framing of the discussion to a (more or less) straw man argument, plenty of information that would be useful–for instance, why are most people not aware of the incredible human rights violations that happen whenever an olympics is held in your town (my friends have told me horror stories about the atlanta olympics).

    Posted 14 Aug 2008 at 2:14 pm ¶

43. maia wrote:

    sorry, i meant to end that comment by saying:

    for instance, why are most people not aware of the incredible human rights violations that happen whenever an olympics is held in your town (my friends have told me horror stories about the atlanta olympics)–this information, these reasons, the mechanisms of control that keep world citizens from knowing the effect of the olympics on everyday folk is not being discussed and thus is effectively cut out of the frame of the debate.

    hmmm….we know that china is repressive at times. and we are learning that by focusing on china’s repression, we are given another opportunity to not focus on our country’s repression of its people. that may not be the intention of the msm and lefty bloggers but it is the impact of them controlling the discourse.

    Posted 14 Aug 2008 at 2:21 pm ¶

44. BG wrote:

    Professor Stanley Rosen of USC says that the problem may be the fact that the western media is overly obsessed with the negative.

    Posted 14 Aug 2008 at 2:30 pm ¶

45. BG wrote:

    Here’s the link: http://www.theloop21.com/news/do-the-chinese-have-problem-with-blacks

    Posted 14 Aug 2008 at 2:32 pm ¶

46. PaulPortland wrote:

    Having grown up in a household where both of my parents were very active in Taiwan’s pro-independence movement, I’ve always had to navigate the delicate minefield between being too critical and being too forgiving of China. It’s almost embarrassing how anti-mainland Chinese my parents are. It really borders on “racist,” if one can be racist to people of the same ethnicity who just happen to be from a different country. While much of my parents’ criticisms of China do revolve around legitimate political disputes, oftentimes they attribute the negative acts of the CCP to some sort of inherent failing in the DNA of the mainland Chinese people themselves. I can’t count the numbers of times my parents have argued that mainland Chinese people innately value life less than other people, are less concerned about environmental degredation because they’re innately “dirty” people, or are more accepting of trickery and dishonesty because they value image over the truth.

    This is all a roundabout way of saying that I think I’ve developed a fair sensibility to unfair hyperbole when it comes to criticisms of China. And a lot of the current hullabaloo about the replacing of the young Chinese singer or the age of the Chinese women gymnasts has a tone about it of criticizing not the CCP but the Chinese people themselves. The same goes for China’s actions in Tibet or the relationship with the Sudanese government. While the latter two issues are legitimate points of contention, I think some of the criticisms raised seem to imply that the Chinese people condone oppressing Tibet or dealing with a genocidal government because they are inherently cruel or uninterested in human life. Throw in the breathless condemnations of the one-child policy, it all seems very suspect.

    To further complicate the issue, as an American, I’m obviously more comfortable with a system of government that embodies Western style liberal democracy. But I’m not willing to say that our Western style liberal democracy is the only way forward. I’m willing to wait and study and read up on the history, the geography, the demography of China and other developing nations and see if possibly there are other ways of governing a people that are more suitable for each of those countries individual needs.

    Posted 14 Aug 2008 at 2:59 pm ¶

47. Jaye wrote:

    There is no doubt that the way China has treated Tibet is beyond inhumane…but the Chinese govt controls the media, and I’m sure that is a big part of why there is not outrage and protest on the part of Chinese citizens. They simply don’t have access to the information.
    The U.S. has a free-press, and yet, I think for 6 years the majority of the American population thought that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11. Are Americans just generally dumber than the Chinese? How did they allow their government to invade another country with their full consent and knowledge, and basically cause a humanitarian crisis for which they seem to not feel a real responsibility for, in fact, they feel like the saviors of the Iraqi citizens? At least the Chinese have an excuse, they’re government is a repressive authoritarian regime which won’t allow any free media. What’s America’s excuse for letting their government wreak havoc and violate human rights all over the world…and manage to evade criminal prosecution for their many illegal activities?

    Posted 14 Aug 2008 at 3:03 pm ¶

48. girlyboo wrote:

    I am currently at home (Nigeria) and most people do not see what the big deal is, I’ll go so far as to say most people don’t care. Pretty much any country that get’s the Olympics will engage in the same level of deception and “cleaning up”.

    Posted 14 Aug 2008 at 3:32 pm ¶

49. girlyboo wrote:

    gets*

    Posted 14 Aug 2008 at 3:33 pm ¶

50. harrumph wrote:

    I actually agree with some of the commenters that China’s is a more repressive government, a more malignant force in world affairs, a greater threat to liberty and human rights, etc. than any one western government other than the US (even then it’s a close call — and of course this is really another argument entirely — but I think that the US, by virtue of having a somewhat functional representative government, at least holds itself accountable for its actions at times).

    The thing is that the whole problem is being framed wrong, both in the mainstream and here. The Chinese government has been brutal and repressive for decades and decades. Nothing they’re doing during the Olympics should come as the slightest surprise to anybody — least of all to the IOC or the western, mostly US, corporations who are bankrolling the Games and pouring wealth into China. We gave the Games to China, made no credible demands for reforms in turn, and then were shocked — shocked! — when they broke their flimsy promises and just carried on with business as usual. But nobody boycotted, nobody pulled out. There’s too much money to be made to let human rights or environmental concerns actually get in our way, but we can make ourselves feel better by badmouthing China in the press, appealing to American jingoism, pretending that we’re terribly surprised and disappointed by their government’s bad behavior. The truth is that the representation of the US and China as diametrically opposed economic/govermental systems is a farce.

    On that note, I’d offer a slight variation on one of the points a few things made above: it may be true in our subjective judgment that “economic classes across the world have more in common with each other than ethnicities, cultures, or political parties,” but the spirit of working class internationalism has been dead for seventy years now. I’d say, instead, that it’s just ruling classes who have more in common with each other than ethnicities, cultures, or political ideologies would otherwise dictate. How else to explain the US being so cozy with China and Saudi Arabia?

    And as a last thought on media distortion, riffing off a couple things other commenters have said — it’s funny that Paul should bring up Georgia, and interesting that a few things should mention knives at gun fights, in a thread about media duplicity and ideological double standards. Georgia recently launched a vicious, unprovoked attack on Russian soldiers and the civilians they were protecting, deliberately timed for minimal coverage as the Olympics were beginning, and Russia responded exactly as anybody could have predicted they would (exactly as the US would) by bringing their biggest guns to intervene in Georgia’s knife fight.

    Now, I think Putin is a murderous tyrant and a thoroughly evil human being, and I don’t condone Russia’s brutal, heavy-handed response to Georgia’s attack, but I can’t help but marvel at the western response to the war. Russia needs to respect Georgia’s territorial sovereignty? Why? Because Georgians aren’t Arabs? Did the US respect Iraq’s territorial sovereignty (with even less cause for action)? Did Israel respect Lebanon’s (with almost exactly the same pretext)?

    Why do the Ossetians and Abkhazians not deserve the same right to self-determination we’ve granted to the Kosovars (why don’t the Kurds, for that matter, or the Basques — why Taiwan but not Tibet)? Why is Saakashvili (a butcher and tyrant in his own right, if less powerful, whinier, and a worse liar than Putin) held up as a champion of democratic values and paraded around on western TV interview shows? Why are the media letting him get away with claiming that the Russians timed the war he started to coincide with the Olympics?

    Really, though, after all that rambling, I think it comes down to the fact that I agree with a few things: every government is more or less corrupt and dishonest; every state should be regarded with suspicion at best, and usually contempt and outright distrust. Whether we’re scapegoating China, playing on racist fear and xenophobia to draw attention away from western crimes and misdemeanors, or holding up “the enemy of our enemy” as our friend (as the left did for so long with the USSR), either way we’re buying into the false notion that the ideologies of western free-market democracy and Chinese communism are engaged in some zero-sum game for the future of the world. In reality they already co-exist happily, both serving essentially the same ends: consolidation of power and wealth in the hands of a few, abuse of the developing world for profit, and the distraction or deception of the people who might challenge them.

    Posted 14 Aug 2008 at 4:09 pm ¶

51. Dorian wrote:

    @PaulPortland

    I feel the same. It’s hard to navigate a topic that just seems so hotly controversial and divisive in addition to being complex. With discourse these days tending to one of two simplified extremes, it feels like one of those board games where you have to guide a marble through a hole-filled maze (sorry, forget the name ^_^ ).

    And for the last part, I really think that’s a positive thing to do: right now I’m reading more about China’s political and economic system, because I know there’s a lot more to it than is often spoken about. Anyone got any good book recs?

    Posted 14 Aug 2008 at 4:14 pm ¶

52. cm wrote:

    In the MSM’s criticism of the Chinese government, where is the acknowledgment that both Western corporations and consumers are complicit in and benefit from the continued oppression of the Chinese people? What about the U.S. defense contractors that are helping the Chinese government create a high tech police state in the name of Olympic security (do you really think all that surveillance infrastructure is going to disappear once the games are over)? What about Google? What about the fact that we in the West enjoy access to everything from cheap manufactured goods to adoptable babies at the expense of the Chinese people? Of course we need to talk about the Chinese government’s violations of Human Rights, but we can’t do it without taking into consideration the role played by our own governments, corporations and consumer choices.

    Posted 14 Aug 2008 at 4:24 pm ¶

53. Annie wrote:

    I don’t think the mainstream media is doing enough to call out China on its human rights abuses and I’m not just talking about Tibet. Sorry but China does have a authoratative government with full on restrictions on press, civil rights and political and social freedom. The only reason why they are not part of the “Axis of Evil” list is because they make most of our products and we owe them billions in loans.

    Do other countries have secret prisons, civil rights restrictions and do business and arms deals with dictators and genocidal leaders? Of course, look at our history. However the Olympics is a chance to call out whatever host country on their human rights abuses and my lack of respect for the Chinese government has nothing to do with the Chinese people or their culture.

    Posted 14 Aug 2008 at 4:32 pm ¶

54. Thea wrote:

    @ Keith - thanks for the info, I didn’t know that!

    @ cm - thanks for bringing up a point I should’ve mentioned - that it’s dishonest to criticise China and not other countries ESP considering the West’s own complex relationship with them.

    @ Annie - I totally agree that the Olympics is a chance to call out host countries! My question is why no other host country in the past 10 years (as far as I can remember) has been called out in the same way.

    Thanks for differentiating b/w Chinese people and the Chinese govt though. You could say that my irritation with the disproportionate criticism China is getting really started when co-workers began asking me what I thought about “what China was doing” during the torch run. My family is Singaporean Chinese and my dad has never been to China - so equating an entire ethnicity (esp one as broad and diverse as the Chinese diaspora!) with a single govt is aggravating to say the least.

    Posted 14 Aug 2008 at 4:44 pm ¶

55. jvansteppes wrote:

    I’m a white Canadian and as a teen spent a few years doing actions with my local Students for a Free Tibet. Several members of the cell I was part of have made international news more than once for protesting in China and I think they were pretty representative of SFT in Canada.
    Hanging out with this circle, which was largely dominated by white Buddhists and activists though there were always visiting monks around and some Tibetan Canadians, I definitely absorbed the idea that China was the worst human rights offender since Hitler and that *it was my job as a good westerner to protest that*.
    I know that a good portion of people involved with these movements DO have a nuanced view of China’s human rights abuses in context and embrace critiques of all human rights abuses as Tariq described. But I also know that A LOT of white liberals/leftists I’ve encountered in Canada DO NOT interrogate the demonization of China in ways that serve to Other the country or set it up as the antagonist opposite our golden ring of ‘enlightened’ nations. I have heard quite a few white Canadians describe China’s colonial invasion of Tibet as if this process wasn’t still going on right here at home and I’ll be taking the time to email your post to them Thea, thank you.

    Posted 14 Aug 2008 at 5:54 pm ¶

56. BadArtist wrote:

    I believe a lot of these protests over China’s human rights record are just typical moral grandstandings by western countries trying to satisfy their own sense of superiority over what they see as lesser nations. After all, if any of these protesters actually give a shit about the PEOPLE in China, then they’ll realize that the Chinese view their chance to host the Olympics with a huge amount of pride. For the Chinese, the Olympics is a gateway to a future of openness and prosperity, a chance to leave behind years of isolation and humiliation at the hands of the west. I’m pretty sure that the people do not see the Olympics as a sponsor of a repressive government, and instead see it as a celebration of Chinese achievement, of human achievement. What right do we have to deny the Chinese people their moment of glory, their chance to celebrate? For two short weeks, they just want to remind the rest of the world that they are more than just a country of human rights violations, pollution and lead toys that the western media spends the rest of the fucking year depicting them as. And what does the west do? Instead of letting the Chinese have their moment, using it as an opportunity to learn something and create a better mutual understanding, we simply use it as another way to attack. It’s a low blow. It’s selfish. And it’s racist.

    Posted 14 Aug 2008 at 8:41 pm ¶

57. lxy wrote:

    For Westerners or Anglo-Americans in particular to criticize China is hilariously hypocritical given the crimes against humanity the Anglo-American Empire and its “democratic” allies are guilty of around the world–past and present.

    Imperialist America and its citizens in particular have very little moral authority to parade as crusaders for freedom, whether that is in China or anywhere else on the globe.

    Their concerns for “human rights,” Tibet, pollution, Sudan (Darfur), freedom, etc. are in *bad faith* and about shedding copious crocodile tears to assert Western/US moral and political supremacy–and ultimately advance Western geopolitical agendas that have NOTHING to do with freedom and EVERYTHING to do with maintaining Western/American imperial domination of the planet.

    This tactic is nothing new. It is what Americans and the West in general have historically specialized in, and it has a name: Moral Imperialism.

    American and Western imperialism are ideologically based upon the civilizational lie that the West represents freedom and democracy and thus has a moral right to politically criticize, Westernize, regime change, or even wage wars of aggression against “Evil-doers who hate our freedoms.”

    The Western attitude towards China is no different from the Western attitude towards Islam, as they both are based upon this tired meme in which the West smugly upholds itself as the epitome of the universal good and demonizes its opponents as evil-doers in need of political proselytizing and conversion … or military destruction, as in the case of Iraq, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Vietnam, etc.

    The Western Free Press’ coverage of China hosting the Olympics predictably follows this propaganda line. This is despite the inconvenient little fact that compared to the Maoist era, most Chinese people today are *more free* than in the past.

    Ultimately, America is a nation of Crusaders from top to bottom. Evangelicals like George W. Bush are only symptomatic of this dogmatic faith in American Exceptionalism and the USA as a Beacon of Liberty™–despite the reality that the USA, for example, leads the world in imprisonment in both absolute numbers and as a percentage of population!

    But this is to be expected, as most Americans and Westerners are still in deep denial over the West’s continuing crimes like, for instance, the fraudulent US War against Terror or the Anglo-American genocide of Iraq, where over 1 million people have been murdered thanks to this supposed “war of liberation” based upon lies about mythical WMDs.

    Sadly, some of the comments here predictably display this kind of delusional Anglo-American arrogance.

    It’s only outside the mainstream Anglophone media and its imitators that one can find any significant political challenge to this Western imperialist worldview:

    “If we are honest about who is actually murdering and abusing people it is the US, Israel, and the UK. There’s your ‘axis of evil.’”
    http://www.iraq-war.ru/article/171407

    Posted 14 Aug 2008 at 8:48 pm ¶

58. Paul wrote:

    @cm
    So the Chinese Communist Party gets nothing from all their dealings with Walmart, et alia? There are people on both sides who deserve blame for sweatshops and pollution. Take a look at the emerging Chinese robber baron class. They benefit just as much as we do from the system.

    Posted 14 Aug 2008 at 8:54 pm ¶

59. Lisa wrote:

    The China-bashing and the China-gushing are the same gross oversimplification.

    I’m a MSM journalist, and most China coverage makes me ashamed of my profession. It seems that, whether it’s China or anything, onces the press settles on a particular “script”, it rarely deviates from that, even when the script is off. I do have some great editors in the US, but the majority are kinda clueless, and prefer “Imaginary China” to actual China, with all its knotty nuances.

    Sadly, most Americans also seem to prefer Imaginary China. Mythical and exotic!

    I immigrated to China a decade ago, and when I visit the US I get a lot ofs “How could you leave WONDERFUL America for HORRIBLE China?!” Um, to get away from people like them? Given the ethnic cleansing of Hispanics, and how even LEGAL immigrants are being murdered in detention in the US, I gotta say I’m glad I’m an immigrant to China not to the USA.

    (BTW, this site’s silence on immigration topics is stunningly hypocritical.)

    The Olympics are giving me an ulcer - and not just for the transportation shut-down, the deportation of many of my friends (kicking out 1/3 of the foreign national residents here was part of the pre-Olympic clean-up), the cancellation of everything interesting in the entire country for two months, but mostly for the sheer idiocy of the tourist journalists here for the Olympics. Sweeping, stupid generalizations, often glaringly wrong, it’s disgusting.

    They miss the wonderful but complex reality and diversity of China. A lot of Chinese are actually very critical of the games, that it’s a waste of money better spent on and a massive distraction from the profound problems facing this nation. Which - kinda is the point. The bombastic fest of Pan-Han Ascendancy isn’t for you Westerns, it’s for domestic consumption: to shore up party legitmacy because it has Made China Great Again In The Eyes Of The World. This has been the awful message of the Adidas, Nike, Puma ad campaigns: if the nation is great, then so are you! If Liu Xiang wins, you win too!

    Fuck Tibet. Tibetans historically were the most brutal, nasty, violent, feared thugs in Central Asia - a region with no shortage of the brutal and nasty. But now they have a fluffy little monk, so the world loves them! Yes, horrible things are happening in Tibet, but it’s a drop in the ocean of what’s happening all over China. The stoner college students really should be protesting corrupt rural cadres, but I guess Han on Han abuse is less sexy.

    (Dorian, check out “Will the Boat Sink the Water?” and “Getting Rich First” for accurate, balanced perspectives on contemporary China.)

    Posted 14 Aug 2008 at 10:46 pm ¶

60. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @Lisa -

    BTW, this site’s silence on immigration topics is stunningly hypocritical.

    How so?

    Posted 15 Aug 2008 at 6:01 am ¶

61. Paul wrote:

    Ethnic cleansing of Hispanics? Do you have any footage of American troops systematically murering Dominicans or Cubans or Bolivans? I live in an area that’s about 30% Hispanic and I’ve yet to see the US Gov’t death squads you reference.

    Posted 15 Aug 2008 at 9:17 am ¶

62. Noah wrote:

    Go Chicago 2016?

    Posted 15 Aug 2008 at 10:19 am ¶

63. Ryan Singh wrote:

    Fuck Tibet. Tibetans historically were the most brutal, nasty, violent, feared thugs in Central Asia - a region with no shortage of the brutal and nasty. But now they have a fluffy little monk, so the world loves them!

    Fuck the what?
    Yes. That really helps the discource here.

    Posted 15 Aug 2008 at 10:35 am ¶

64. Hannah wrote:

    Thank you so much for this post. I really appreciate it. I don’t feel alone anymore.

    Posted 15 Aug 2008 at 11:59 am ¶

65. Lisa wrote:

    Ryan - What I mean is that I find it upsetting and annoying that the West fetishizes the plight of a tiny handful of cute fluffy little Buddhists (as the West sees them), using it to dismiss the greater plight of and to demonize 1/5 of humanity. As well as ignoring the equally if not more oppressed Uighers and other minorities. Actual Tibet has my sympathies (and anyhow, they’re already fucked…), my vitriole is for the Western romanticization of it and vilification thus of the Chinese people.

    As someone who’s visited and read about Central Asia a fair amount, I find the whole Western fetish of Tibet pretty ludicrous, since historically they were a culture of bandits and murderers. Yeah, I hope they can have more autonomy and better governence, but I want that for ALL of China.

    Latoya and Paul - “Hypocritical” is probably too strong, I apologize, but it is a big glaring gap. Yesterday there was another article in the NYT about a LEGAL immigrant from Hong Kong who died in custody from protracted mistreatment. What happened in Iowa recently was indicative of an attitude of vindictive sadism: arrest them, but keep them around so we can abuse them more. There is a massive state-sponsored campaign against non-citizens, be they legal or illegal immigrants or “enemy combatants”. The racial connotations of these is glaring, and I think are the two biggest issues confronting the American soul. I frankly am ashamed to be an American citizen in the face of this.

    I know, this site is about pop culture, but while words and gestures are important, actions are the heaviest. When I’m in America, I hear a lot of, “I”m not racist, I just don’t like immigrants.” Anti-immigration-ism is the latest form of socially acceptable racism. Where is the outcry? What is happening may go down in history as a reincarnation of the WW2 Japanese internment, but no one seems to give much of a fuck.

    Apologies, I don’t want or mean to derail the thread, and I know I can wax rather assertively opinionated, but China and immigration justice are among the things I care most about.

    Posted 15 Aug 2008 at 12:23 pm ¶

66. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @Lisa -

    If you are passionate about immigration justice, here is a site you should be on:

    http://thesanctuary.soapblox.net/

    Like I said in my editor’s letter, there are a lot of things that we want to cover on Racialicious but we don’t have time to do so.

    Nor do we have the budget of the mainstream media, we are volunteer staffed, and most of us work day jobs. We work very hard to run this blog every day, put content on this blog everyday, and provide a bunch of opinions about a wide variety of subjects.

    But we aren’t the only place on the internet.

    And we aren’t going to stretch far beyond our capacity when there are others around the web (thinking of Kai from Zuky, brownfemipower, Nezua of the Unapologetic Mexican, Liza from Culture Kitchen) who cover these topics and cover them well.

    Posted 15 Aug 2008 at 1:57 pm ¶

67. Jessica wrote:

    This message is for 25. Monie:

    The US gives billions of dollars worth of military aid to Israel, an apartheid state. Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza have NO nation, NO citizenship, and essentially no rights.

    I suppose it’s a difficult comparison to make, but before we attempt to hold others accountable for their actions, we should examine what’s going on in our own backyard.

    Posted 15 Aug 2008 at 2:04 pm ¶

68. Ailian wrote:

    Perhaps it’s because I’m here, perhaps it’s because I speak Chinese, and perhaps it’s because I simply adore China, but I think that the Olympics have been bad for China and simply should never have been awarded. The Chinese people were not ready for the Olympics, and the clean up campaigns — regardless of how they were in other countries — are disgusting. What sort of place dispatches police to intellectuals’ and activists’ homes to stand watch 24/7? What sort of place kicks out all minorities or forces them to daily checks? The land displacement is understandable — it happens everywhere because of the Olympics — but people are generally not given proper compensation nor relocated to any place remotely convenient. (And what about obviously malicious replacements, like Christian activist Hua Huiqi and his family, who apparently have been relocated eight times within recent years?) And the air there is awful. In winter, you blow your nose and it’s all black. In summer, you blow your nose and it’s all brown.

    I find the Western obsession with Tibet and Tibetans offensive, but China’s just as offensive by trying to claim that Tibet has been a part of them for eons rather than saying, “Hey, we conquered it militarily and now the people aren’t happy because we’re pumping billions into the region to make it a playland for the rich, run by Han dressed up in minority clothing. You Tibetans should be happy!” Even more offensive, though, is the ignorance toward other minority populations, specifically the Uyghurs, who have been treated just as harshly yet ignored simply because they’re Muslim and don’t have any adorable Dalai Lama to make press conferences abroad. (Rebiya Kadeer is lovely, but certainly not adorable.)

    The Western coverage of the Olympics has been better than I thought that it would be, but I find it funny that nobody bothered to raise these issues before. It’s like they woke up one day and realized, “Hey! Looks like China really isn’t upholding the promises that they made! The Olympics are in a few months, so I guess we should start pretending to care!” The coverage here (in Hong Kong) is generally much better — we get good and bad reports.

    This is such a long, rambling comment. I’m terribly sorry. I believe that some of the bad press on China/the Olympics is racially overtoned and full of moral high-grounding, but I do believe that China deserves a lot of it. (I’m sure that Mainland activists would agree.) More than anything, though, I think that the IOC deserves the worst press for allowing China to host the Olympics despite the knowledge (obvious to any China-watcher at least) that, upon winning the Olympic bid, there was no way that China was going to fulfill any promise because that’s just not how China works.

    Posted 15 Aug 2008 at 10:20 pm ¶

69. Lisa wrote:

    Thanks for the link, Latoya - and luckily it’s not blocked in China like many US progressive sites inexplicably are. Again, I really apologize for my accusation of hypocrisy - anti-immigration stuff makes me hot-headed and I got carried away. It was rude and inappropriate of me.

    I totally understand your limited resources and focusing on what is relevant to you and your contributors. However, I do maintain that the anti-immigrant movement is the modern, socially acceptable KKK, what’s happening in the US “justice” system is appalling, and if those of us who are not impacted don’t speak out, it makes us complicit.

    I have a theory, and please correct me if I’m wrong, that many US PoCs consciously or subconsciously distance themselves from immigrant issues, because they don’t want to be associated with immigrants and considered “foreign”, since they already often are. An understandable assertion of self as “just as American as whites, thank you very much”, but sometimes by means of selling out immigrants. I get in some heated arguments with many 2nd-3rd generation Asian-Americans who are condescending towards the “FOBs”. Their point is to establish their chops as properly American, while mine is that American or not, we’re all human beings and equally valuable. Being an American citizen does not make us inherently superior - it just makes us lucky and entitled.

    To try to bring this back ON topic! Perhaps it’s easier to see problems clearly from the luxury of distance. Americans think they can proscribe exactly what’s wrong with China; from my perch in China I pronounce sweepingly on what’s wrong with America. However, up close the messy nuances appear.

    It’s easy to say, why can’t China just give Tibet more autonomy? Truth is, if the Tibetans got it, then the Han majority would want it too - they’re already angry about allowing them extra kids, and affirmative action - and that crack could be the one to burst the dam.

    Posted 15 Aug 2008 at 10:49 pm ¶

70. cm wrote:

    @Paul
“There are people on both sides who deserve blame for sweatshops and pollution.”
    I don’t think anyone here is in disagreement on this particular point.

    I know I didn’t make this clear, but the reason I brought up the MSM’s lack of criticism of Western corporations in all their talk about Human Rights violations in China, is NOT because I wanted to engage in a who’s worse than who debate. I don’t think it’s helpful or necessary to do so. (I also don’t think that that was the intention behind Thea’s original post, although I admit this is just an assumption on my part — feel free to correct me Thea.)

    The reason I made this point, is because it is one of the many reasons why the MSM’s sudden concern over Human Rights in China rings hollow to me. That is NOT to say that the specific criticisms being made are unfounded. That is not to say that there is not a WHOLE LOT to be concerned about regarding HR in China. What I AM saying is that I find the current dominant discourse in the U.S. (not the discussion on this blog, or in alternative media outlets) regarding this issue to be creepy.

    I find it creepy because I do not detect much concern about the Chinese people in it. (If that WAS their motivation –concern for the Chinese people– wouldn’t it make sense for Western media to bring up Western involvement by corporations, governments, etc.?) If the folks over at NBC really gave a rat’s ass about the rights of the Chinese people, wouldn’t they be voicing their outrage at the fact that their parent company, General Electric, is one of the many U.S. corporations providing the Chinese government with some of that surveillance technology that I mentioned earlier?

    I guess the argument could be made that it doesn’t matter where the criticism comes from (or the motivation behind it), as long as it’s valid and brings attention to an important issue. But, I’m not so sure I’d buy that argument.

    If the criticism’s ULTIMATE FUNCTION is to feed-in to xenophobia and assist in the Other-ing of an entire people/s, I think it’s a problem. I hope that that is not what is going on now. But, I have to say that the conversations regarding China that I have been hearing in my neck of the woods lately are all too often riddled with that oh so familiar racist/paternalistic trio of fear, pity, disgust.

    Posted 15 Aug 2008 at 11:45 pm ¶

71. nezua wrote:

    latoya, amiga @66…

    i’m sad! have i really become apologetic when i wasnt looking?

    thanks for the link!

    Posted 16 Aug 2008 at 9:08 am ¶

72. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @Nezua - oh snap! *making edit now*

    Fixed it AND made it bold for extra flavor!

    Posted 16 Aug 2008 at 9:10 am ¶

73. Thea Lim wrote:

    @ cm

    your assumption is right!

    @ Lisa

    “I have a theory, and please correct me if I’m wrong, that many US PoCs consciously or subconsciously distance themselves from immigrant issues, because they don’t want to be associated with immigrants and considered “foreign”, since they already often are. An understandable assertion of self as “just as American as whites, thank you very much”, but sometimes by means of selling out immigrants.”

    I can’t speak for the US context because I live in Canada but as far as I can tell from my limited perspective that really isn’t the case.

    Most of the POCs I know (myself included) are first or second generation Canadians. That means either we or our parents are immigrants, so distancing ourselves from immigrants doesn’t really happen. Many of my friends actually work on immigration issues during their dayjobs, or on the side.

    Take the Canadian org No One Is Illegal, for eg [hopefully this site isn’t blocked!: http://noii-van.resist.ca/ - that’s the Vancouver site, there is also a Toronto and Montreal site (and maybe even more I’m not aware of)] - as far as I can observe from events and talks I’ve attended many of the founding members are POC.

    All my evidence is personal and just from what I’ve seen and observed. At the same time because you didn’t reference anything I’m assuming your observations that POCs in the US don’t care about immigrants is also just based on random observation.

    I do agree that there is a complex relationship between first generation immigrants, and all the other generations - but not in the way you describe. Many of my 1st gen friends can’t really empathise with my 2nd gen (and beyond) friends’ struggle to understand where they fit in the world. As well sometimes my 2nd gen friends can be a insensitive to the fact that my 1st gen friends come from quite different experiences, ie many of my 1st gen friends grew up working class and many of my 2nd gen friends are middle class. (I’m what I call a 1.75 genner so I can kinda see both sides). Or my 2nd gen friends don’t realise that POCs who’ve never left their countries of origin might not sympathise or understand the kind of racism POCs in a white-dominant culture experience.

    I could go on about this for a while but I’ll stop here. This is just to say - as you’ve noted - it’s a pretty complex subject and hard to generalise about, esp simply from personal experience.

    Posted 16 Aug 2008 at 11:12 am ¶

74. Lisa wrote:

    Hi Thea, and thanks. My references are: I grew up in San Diego, where the majority of my friends were 2G Taiwanese, Persian and Latina (and the rest were Jewish). Out of habit and comfort, I mostly stuck to similar demographics in college, and after college I emigrated to China. So, my context of North America was primarily shaped by 2G kids-o-immigrants. I also for a couple of years was a contributor to blog for/about Asian-American men; yes, I’m a white chick, but I live in China, several of my dearest friends are AA men dealing with the standard stereotypes and I get pretty pissed off at what they have to go through, and I’m a serial dater of Mainland Chinese men.

    My 2G American friends are mostly indifferent to immigration issues. Generally, they love their parents, but don[’t always relate to them that well. I blame traditional Asian stoicism. Mostly they do try to distance themselves - they hate being “perpetual foreigners”, which I totally understand after a decade of being a “foreign devil” and “dumb-ass whitey”.

    On the AA blog, though, I encountered A LOT of hostility towards “native” Asians. It was a testosterone-ridden place to vent bitterness, certainly, but I found the sorts of bitterness vented quite academically fascinating. Look, I live in Mainland China, my immediate community and friends and adopted family are all Shanghainese, so I get seriously pissed off when people bash on Mainlanders. And, on that site and in general, I’ve noticed a lot of hostility towards and distancing from Mainlanders among AAs.

    I also have friends who are 50-something Cantonese-Americans, 1 or 2G, and (ironically, as Southerners are considered practically a different race in China) they are much more pro-Mainlander than my 20s/30s ABC contemporaries. Their families were illegal immigrants, really fucking poor, and had to deal with incredibly intense racism; I theorize that what they survived makes them a lot more sympathetic to third world Mainlanders than the wealthy ABC kids raised in Overseas Chinese communities of the Taiwanese Tech Wave. (Tens of thousands of elite, educated Taiwanese-Taiwanese in the 1950s-1970s emigrated to the US to get away from the Mainlander/KMT-Chinese-Taiwanese. They mostly went to San Diego, for UCSD and Scripps,or to Palo Alto, for Stanford, and both also with similar climate as Taiwan.)

    I think it’s often a question of what people can empathise with. I am a WASP with an elite pedigree (woof), but am from the bad branch of an inbred Anglo tree. My second cousins are all millionaires, but I’m the struggling writer offspring of a single, mentally ill, fundamentalist christian welfare mom. My cousin worked in fast food to pay for college. I emigrated ten years ago, when I was 22.

    What one oneself experiences often shapes what one can empathise, beyond sympathise, with. The economic and legal struggles of immigration are quite real and raw to me, as is the challenge of trying to assimilate while “looking funny” and talking imperfectly. East Asian-Americans do suffer the “perpetual foreigner” racism, but not (yet) so much the “social menace” immigration-pretexted racism facing Latinos. Which are both quite distinct from the “perpetual underclass” racism I presume African-Americans primarily confront.

    Posted 17 Aug 2008 at 12:44 am ¶

75. ~Tiger wrote:

    I’m visiting this site from Beijing and I dispute Paul’s contention that this site couldn’t be seen in China. Well, I’m in Beijing, I have no problem reading and commenting on the content of this site and I’m an American.

    What I find objectionable is the standard contention that “what happens in Tibet is terrible.” Wrong! Life in Tibet has improved a great deal and if you compare life and conditions in Tibet and Dharamsala, there is no comparison. Dharamsala is a slum and Tibetans live in squalor while the high priests live and travel in luxury.

    Visit both places and form your own opinion. Don’t just mindlessly reiterate what you ASSUME to be the case. So I say with certainty that what is happening in Tibet is not terrible but what is happening in Dharamsala is terrible. And this is the present reality not assumption.

    ~Tiger

    Posted 17 Aug 2008 at 5:44 am ¶

76. browne wrote:

    “What I find objectionable is the standard contention that “what happens in Tibet is terrible.” Tiger

    I don’t like “trendy” oppression causes. The people in America who talk about Tibet who go to restaurants where they don’t pay the staff a livable wage and who pay their “help” in cash, so they don’t have to pay taxes. These same people send their children to expensive progressive private schools and live up in the hills away from normal people. How can you live in a place like LA (or any major US city) with all of the oppression going on here and decide to just take up the cause of Tibet. Of course it’s alot easier to put a sticker on your car for people far away than deal with the homeless people here or the people involved in gangs because of a cycle of poverty. Maybe the people of Tibet seem more pure than the people here, because they don’t have as good of a PR firm.

    It all reminds me of Thomas Jefferson he was for liberty and being ethical, yet he owned slaves. He took on a child (Sally Hemmings) to be his mistress. People like to say, “it was a different time,” but that’s crap. As in present day, the hypocrisy is ear drum busting loud. 100 years from now when people look at the modern slavery of latinos in the form of migrant workers, the excuse will be, “it was a different time.” But being from that time, I see now that people know what’s right and wrong, but most people don’t want to be inconvenienced with their beliefs. They want to be progressive without having to suffer. Your actual physical actions speak louder than your blog entries, articles or academic papers.

    Browne

    Posted 17 Aug 2008 at 7:44 am ¶

77. browne wrote:

    “Usually any criticism of the cost of the Olympic games - to poor folks and people of colour - is silenced or ignored. You’re ruining the fun of the games! Why do you hate the spirit of international co-operation? But this year even the torch run was opportunity to loudly and publicly protest the behaviour of the Chinese government - rightly so. So why don’t we use the occasion of the Olympics to criticise more governments?” Lim

    Because America hates China. The world hates China and for what? How is China any worse than any other major world power? Russia is currently trying to start WW3 in a big way and we’re falling over ourselves because China picked a more attractive child to lip synch? What about America where we call people who are a size 6 fat? The anorexia that’s spreading throughout the world originated where, oh yeah that was here in America and Western Europe.

    If we’re going to boycott China, we should boycott America too. If we listed everything bad everyone has done in the last two hundred years, I’m going to bet the USA would come in first in lots of areas that have to do with oppression and exploitation. I’m not giving China a pass, I’m simply saying how can we (the US) point our finger to anyone in regards to inhumane treatment.

    Browne

    Posted 17 Aug 2008 at 7:54 am ¶

78. browne wrote:

    I would like to add that for me immigrants are people of color, any right that I’m talking about for people of color would apply to them. This is referencing my comments here and on my own blog. Also this blog has more to do with pop culture, so the absence of direct conversation has to do with the absence of the immigrant experience in movies, tv and popular music. It is much more of a damnation on mainstream entertainment than it is this blog. You can’t discuss on a pop culture blog, what they don’t show in pop culture.

    Browne
    Kill your TV and burn your fashion magazines!!!

    Posted 17 Aug 2008 at 12:07 pm ¶

79. Reiter wrote:

    The truth of the matter is, the perpetual foreigner stigma of Asians and the stereotypes of Yellow Peril fearmongering are alive and well in today’s Western media. No matter what China does, they’re evil and out to destroy America by poisoning kids with lead toys, buying up all of America one company at a time, and subverting democracy and capitalism at every turn with their evil, evil commie ways! The fact the Chinese talk funny, dress funny, and eat dog don’t help. (/sarcasm off).

    Countries will always harp on each other by pointing out differences and highlighting wrongs (some are warranted, others just blown way out of proportion). America’s own track record when it comes human rights violations isn’t so great, but that’s a red herring so I won’t go into that when others have already done so ad nauseum. But it’s all in the interest of demonizing the “Other” and making us feel superior on the grounds of moral-grandstanding and, of course, to preserve the economic and political status quo of those already in power. After all, the Chinese, one of the last big bads of communism, are certainly out to destroy the American way of life with their Chinesey, inscrutable ways.

    What ticks me off is when Hollywood types who have no business in dictating politics or foreign policy come out saying that China deserved its earthquakes due to “karma.” I mean, wth? What do the thousands of deaths of poor Chinese villagers in a tragic natural disaster have to do with what’s going on in Tibet? Just wow. Talk about heartless and inhumane. If the West really did give a shit about human lives, regardless of whether they’re Tibetan or Chinese, would callous comments like these ever be uttered in the media? Then again, comments along the same lines were uttered when Katrina struck America’s own shores (only that time, it involved mostly poor blacks). It’s just God’s way of cleaning house? Comments like that are just disgusting and more than a little disturbing by making the victims seem subhuman if human at all.

    And even when the Western media does try to present China and its people in a relatively positive light, it’s done so in a patronizing way (highlighting the Far East as this mysterious, exotic, and backwards place where people still talk and dress funny and eat weird things). But most of the time, the media and neocon pundits prefer to go the outright demonizing route with an “us vs. them” mentality, anything to scapegoat China as this evil empire of 1.3 billion enemy combatants ready to storm America’s shores. There rarely is an objective, middle ground of reporting the facts in the media these days.

    And I do agree that many Americanized Asians do like to put down Asian immigrants (having seen this firsthand — I’m 2nd generation AA, btw) with labels like FOBs and equating them with dirty freeloaders and such, making fun of the way they act or talk, etc. I chalk it up to one part superiority complex, and two parts of not wanting to be see as the perpetual foreigner themselves by others. The issue of immigration simply makes them uncomfortable by reminding them all too well of where they may have come from not too long ago, and again, it all comes down to competition for resources (jobs, housing, etc.) and maintaining a comfortable status quo, not to mention a cultural image and identity.

    Posted 17 Aug 2008 at 12:11 pm ¶

80. atlasien wrote:

    This “Tibetans suck!” theme is getting really, really immature. Yes, Tibet is a trendy cause. But what good has it really done the Tibetans? Has all this Western support translated into an improvement of economic or personal conditions for individual Tibetans? Just because people you don’t like think something is cool doesn’t mean that it’s automatically not cool.

    Western support for Tibet is sort of like the support a lot of Middle Eastern governments say they give the Palestinians. A lot of it is convenient lip service, and serves the supporters more than it helps the supported cause.

    Posted 17 Aug 2008 at 1:09 pm ¶

81. Lisa wrote:

    There have been a few good articles recently about this very topic; a lot of foreign bloggers and journalists resident in China are trying to counter the prevailing cliches.

    John Pomfret, former WaPo Beijing bureau chief, wrote: http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/pomfretschina/2008/08/should_we_give_china_a_break.html. I highly recommend John’s blog for non-idiotic China reportage.

    Chinese-American turned Beijinger Kaiser Kuo mocks the shit out of the dumb stereotypes at http://www.danwei.org/media/guide_for_foreign_journalists.php.

    At the Independent, Malcolm Moore, who is himself sometimes guilty about making inacurate, unresearched sweeping statements about “the Chinese”, rehashed those two pieces, and rightly points out the dehumanizing racism in the way Western press often depicts China. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/malcolmmoore/blog/2008/08/15/a_humorous_antidote_to_hackneyed_reporting

    Posted 17 Aug 2008 at 1:10 pm ¶

82. PatrickInBeijing wrote:

    Thanks Thea for the article. As an American living in Beijing, I have become very frustrated and more than a little angry at the Western media coverage of the Olympic Games.

    First, it seems to me that white folks in the West feel free to talk about the Chinese in a way that they would never dare (publicly) talk about people of color in their own countries. It’s not just what people say, it’s how they say it. A WAPO columnist attacked the little boy who marched with Yao Ming for having saved his classmates because he felt is was his responsibility. He was basically accused of being a robot. And it gets worse. Read the Washington Post coverage (among the worst, but I haven’t looked at all of it.)

    Any country can be criticized. The question is, what are you trying to accomplish with your criticism? Personally, when people yell at me and call me names, I ignore everything else they say. The language used to attack (and I don’t mean criticize) China is not going to promote change. It does make the Chinese people angry though, and hey, that’s the desired response, right?

    People who wish to communicate with Chinese people (instead of posturing so they look cool to their friends) should learn something about China and Chinese culture. In Chinese culture, no one ever makes direct criticisms. It is considered extremely polite, and manners are one of the most important things in society. When I get criticized by someone, I have to really struggle to hear it, because the way it is presented is so mild and indirect (to an American), that it is easy to miss. Strong direct criticism is usually ignored as being too rude to be paid attention to. (My mother said to me, “Consider the source and ignore it.”)

    Western groups that want to communicate with China need to learn how. (And a fair number do, Greenpeace is working quite happily in China.)

    Much of what I read in the Western media is wrong (for instance, here I am, out from behind the Firewall, communicating at will). I used to write and complain, but basically no one is listening (I still do sometimes, but it is feels like whistling in the wind).

    One of the things that would be helpful would be for Chinese and Canadians (and if you think most people from the United States know nothing about China, they know less about Canada!) and others to communicate and learn about each other. That won’t happen when people are busy calling names.

    Do you really want to debate Tibet, or freedom of the press or what you call democracy (and I call an oligarchy)? Could it be done with neutral language on the basis of facts? Do people know the facts?

    Would you be debating them to educate me or so show me that you are “cool” and in favor of the right things? Or would you mainly want to call me names and show me your superiority?

    I find the media coverage unfair. Here’s what I have been telling my Chinese friends. First, that Westerners feel threatened by a non-white people who are developing and becoming more powerful in the world. Since most don’t know much about China, they are afraid of its’ rising power. They express this fear in ways that aren’t very good. Part of the fear is that because China is so big, it will become more powerful than them. People who have power often are afraid of losing it, and may act badly as a result.

    Secondly, much of the American economy is dominated by the military-industrial complex. (I have heard numbers as high as 30%, but that could be wrong). In order to justify the huge amounts of money spent on