The demonization of China

229 posts / 0 new
Last post
Unionist

Mobo2000 wrote:

Pondering:  Respectfully, I don't think there's any point in discussing this further with you.   

My problem is that at a certain point, it's impossible to tell whether Pondering is still convinced of what she is saying, or if she is just doubling down and amassing further evidence and arguments for their own sake.

What really got me was this gratuitous comment upthread to WWWTT:

Pondering wrote:

I think it's bizarre that you think helping China push Earth's climate past the point of no return on climate change is on any level "fair" or a positive thing for the people of China.  Have you seen the smog they deal with?

She apparently hasn't got the memo that China is actually dealing with the environment, in a way that Canada is not:

Four Years After Declaring War on Pollution, China Is Winning

I thought any half-way informed observer knew about this gigantic campaign that China has been waging. Oh, the article (PLEASE read it) is by Michael Greenstone, who runs the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago and is the Milton Friedman professor of economics at the university. Maybe he's a covert Chinese plant?

Oh, and then she discovered that China invaded Vietnam in 1979. Well there you go - another of her (reverse) predictions validated!

At a certain point, when someone is plugging their ears and shouting, the time for discussion is over - at least on that level, on those issues, in that context.

Canada's detention of Meng has nothing to do with the "rule of law". It's a dirty deal between Canada and the U.S., not signed by any other country. And Canada had vast discretion to simply get around that action without even violating the dirty deal. But sucking up to the U.S. and demonizing China was more convenient at the time. It will prove to be as brilliant a move as trying to stop the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin. Not.

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Timebandit wrote:

Kropotkin, Pondering isn’t talking about women choosing to abort.

Sorry it was an attempt at sardonic humour. After all in a thread opened up because of a view that I share that China is unfairly demonized she posted that fucking over the top hatchet job that I frankly don't have the time or patience to deconstruct. Thankfully other posters have more patience.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Yes, it was over the top. 

I dont 100% agree that China is being demonized, but if criticism is being leveled there should be a basis. It’s well documented that the single child policy resulted in a violation of reproductive rights for a lot of women. I don’t accept WWWTT’s reasoning that the greater good makes that okay. 

Pondering

Unionist wrote:
 

She apparently hasn't got the memo that China is actually dealing with the environment, in a way that Canada is not:

 

You apparently have difficultly following conversations. I said:

I said: I think it's bizarre that you think helping China push Earth's climate past the point of no return on climate change is on any level "fair" or a positive thing for the people of China.  Have you seen the smog they deal with?

The notion was presented that it is unfair or racist to not want China to develop the way we have,  by burning fossil fuels. You skipped the part where I said we should giving away green technology not selling bitumen. 

If they are doing better than Canada on green tech that is fabulous. It still doesn't convince me we should sell them oil to burn out of fairness and to not be racist. 

Unionist wrote:
 

At a certain point, when someone is plugging their ears and shouting, the time for discussion is over - at least on that level, on those issues, in that context. 

It would be great if you would stop doing that.  What is with your obsession with convincing me I am wrong? Do you think I am a social influencer? Do you think it actually matters what my opinion on China is?

Unionist wrote:
  Canada's detention of Meng has nothing to do with the "rule of law". It's a dirty deal between Canada and the U.S., not signed by any other country. 

Canada has legal agreements with the US that would cause a diplomatic crisis if we violated them. Yes the US probably did it for political reasons but that doesn't change the steps Canada had to take concerning the US request for extradition. Canada has no interest in holding her. She is out on bail and has access to lawyers unlike the Canadians being held in China. She will have her chance to plead her case before a Canadian judge prior to extradition and again before a US judge before she can be incarcerated, unlike the Canadian prisoners in China. 

Unionist wrote:
  Oh, and then she discovered that China invaded Vietnam in 1979. Well there, you go - another of her (reverse) predictions validated! 

I think I was pretty clear that I was and am basing my opinion on human nature and the history of powerful countries in the world. I did not going looking for examples. They were mentioned in this thread.  I did not go looking because as I said, my opinion is rooted in my perception of human nature and the leaders of poweful countries. Vague though my knowledge of history is it seems to be rather full of tribes and countries attacking one another pretty much non stop since the beginning of time. I see no evidence that China would be an exception. 

If China is being demonized it has nothing to do with racism. Calling it that suggests the reason for the treatment is the colour of their skin. It isn't. It's about money and power not race. 

Unionist

Pondering wrote:

If China is being demonized it has nothing to do with racism. 

Who the hell made that claim? The media and the parties of the billionaires are demonizing China because they worship "the West", and in particular, U.S. domination thereof. You are demonizing China because you love provocation. It has nothing to do with "racism". The same forces loved that semi-black guy Obama - because he drooled on command. Your straw man is dead.

JKR

Unionist wrote:

Your straw man is dead.

Maybe this one but there’s probably another one lurking around the corner.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Who the hell made that claim?

Wasn't it in the opening post?

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Pondering, it’s a fact that China is moving forward on green energy much more rapidly than we are. They started at a much more dire point and have a long way to go yet, but they are definitely committed to the idea and changing their situation. I just researched a doc on air pollution, there’s some interesting work being done there. 

NDPP

China War Drills: US Commandos Capture Japanese Island To Show They're 'Not Kidding Around' (and vid)

https://on.rt.com/9qq0

"...We are ready to rapidly seize ground and project lethal combat power,' Col Robert Brodie, 31st MEU commanding officer said...Fearing a potential outbreak of conflict amid an ongoing trade dispute with the US, Xi Jinping has repeatedly told his troops to be better 'prepared for war."

American Psycho at it again as the vassal homefront ramps up supporting 'Yellow peril' hysteria aka 'legitimate criticisms of the government/leadership not the people' etc.

Pondering

Very interesting article. It is equally interesting what people take from it.

https://chomsky.info/20020214/ 

In contrast, there is a great deal I can do about problems within the US, and about policy decisions of systems of power there. And for just that reason, that’s my primary responsibility.

Given who the president is I don't think Noam Chomsky has had much impact on US politics, at least not to a significant degree in terms of impact on the nation. Simply condemning the injustices of our societies does not seem to have convinced people to act. 

I do believe that academic theory and philosophy and intellectual debate on issues eventually leads to advancement in broader society in terms of human rights. I don't think it has been very effective against neoliberalism. 

The argument that we shouldn't be critical of China on this forum because it won't have any practical impact on China makes no sense to me because 99.9% of what we discuss here has no impact on the world beyond ourselves. Nor is it being done in a "holier than thou" fashion. Should we not mention that China is holding Canadians in prisons under tortuous conditions without access to lawyers? 

This board does not excuse Canada its sins. I think we universally condemn Canada selling armored vehicles to Saudi Arabia. There is condemnation of our involvement in Libya and Seria. The board is highly supportive of refugees and condemning of racist dog whistles. There has been no cheering of Canadian involvement in Venezuela. 

The press that I see (including international) is dominated by Trudeau/SNC-Lavalin, Trans Mountain,Brexit, Trump/Russia, and various mass killings and disasters, not China. 

Chomsky's focus is on going to other places and criticizing or offering advice. As in, if we went to China and started lecturing them. 

Apparently some of you think by attacking me and my opinion that if they had the chance China too would be an invading country just like Canada and the US and Great Britain and Russia and Germany you are making some important righteous point.

Now here is a truism I can embrace:

Chomsky: The oppressed typically understand their oppression far better than we do, and we should try to learn from them, not instruct them. Insofar as we have some understanding of the sources of their oppression, we should do our best to convey it to those who can use it to liberate themselves – with our assistance, to whatever extent we can provide it, honestly and without seeking dominance and control. It is perfectly true that understanding may not result in liberation, but absence of understanding is certain to prevent liberation. Those are the actual choices.

If the MSM is indeed demonizing China it isn't having much of any impact because most people pay no attention to political news outside of the big scandals and even then it's the headlines not the details. 

It's political junkies that pay attention to this shit and they have already made up their minds. The people that can be swayed aren't listening. The left seems looks down on them and sees them as people that need to be woke and converted into leftists. 

This thread has nothing to do with actually ending any percieved racism against China as far as I can tell. It's a pointless debate amongst people, myself included, that are passing the time debating. 

JKR

Pondering wrote:

The argument that we shouldn't be critical of China on this forum because it won't have any practical impact on China makes no sense to me....

This sounds to me like yet another strawman argument.

Pondering

More on the Mashhood Rizvi/Chomsky interview:

(b) I have met with so many extremely poor people who seem to think that it is their fate to be poor and oppressed. They have no clue whatsoever about the sources of their poverty. I work with illiterate people. Almost all of them suffer from serious self–deprivation to an extent that they consider themselves worse than animals at times. Then I come in the picture. I tell them that their poverty is not God’s act on them, it is human creation. I tell them that being illiterate does not equate you with animals. I do not even instruct. I simply initiate a discourse. But I feel that so many of them, who seem to be feeling good, empowered and motivated by knowing that they have been regarded as real and dignified humans for the first time in their lives, immediately want solutions, answers, and explanations about what they can do and what I can do for them. I tell them that all I can do is to sit in that air conditioned car and go back home and they have to liberate themselves as my responsibility was to make them aware of the sources of their oppression. But Noam, honestly these people will be faced with such grave consequences if they were to liberate themselves from the social oppression they are faced with. Is this all I can do for them?

He hasn't done anything for them. Of course they want answers and solutions. He tells them it isn't their fate to be oppressed but there is nothing to be done about it. If there is nothing he or they can do about it then it is indeed their fate. 

Chomsky: I don’t see any grounds for disagreement. You are, correctly, not pretending that you can offer oppressed people magic answers to their problems. Their own immediate situation they comprehend much better than you can, and they have to struggle to overcome and remedy it, as people have done through the ages. You do come to them to try to participate in their struggle by contributing what you can, as you describe. That’s exactly right. The choices are (1) not giving answers that we don’t have, (2) doing nothing. You describe some of the ways in which privileged people can “come into the picture” and join constructively in popular struggles for social justice and liberation. There are many such possibilities.

 

They don't need priviledged people telling them they are oppressed but there is nothing to be done about it. It isn't constructive. It isn't "joining in on the struggle".  

There’s no general single answer as to where and how it is right and proper to focus our energies and efforts, no single answer that applies to everyone. We have to find our own ways.

I don't have all the answers but I do know that as long neoliberalism reigns the 99% loses not just the poor and oppressed. It drives climate change and war. 

I can visualize some of you throwing up your hands in horror when I say I am only vaguely aware of what I think has been refered to as the new Silk Road. I dare say the grand majority of people are not even vaguely aware of it. Even if they did it would make no difference at all. Awareness in and of itself accomplishes nothing. 

I've learned a few things on babble but it hasn't impacted me in an actionable sense. I didn't find out about the demonstrations I've attended from babble. My vote hasn't changed based on anything here. Maybe I  am slightly more woke but so what? 

To me most of the debates here, which I participate in, are about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. 

Pondering

JKR wrote:

Pondering wrote:

The argument that we shouldn't be critical of China on this forum because it won't have any practical impact on China makes no sense to me....

This sounds to me like yet another strawman argument.

The very first post in this thread is about China being demonized on this board. I have seen criticism of China but nothing racist or that rises to the level of demonization. 

In my opinion the original Chomsky quote was used to infer that we should be critical of our own governments/people not others. In the actual interview the quote was referencing lecturing Pakistanis in Pakistan on their problems. 

There is racism against all minorities in North America and beyond but there is no specific flare-up. Criticism of China is rooted in economics not racism. Is it racist to demonize Russia? 

Unionist

Stupid discussion about "racism". Straw man. 

JKR

Pondering wrote:

JKR wrote:

Pondering wrote:

The argument that we shouldn't be critical of China on this forum because it won't have any practical impact on China makes no sense to me....

This sounds to me like yet another strawman argument.

The very first post in this thread is about China being demonized on this board.

The first post in this thread did not state “that we shouldn’t be critical of China on this forum because it won’t have any practical impact on China.” It seems to me you made up that position in order to easily knock it down.

JKR

Unionist wrote:

Stupid discussion about "racism". Straw man. 

An example of using a straw man argument to defend against using a straw man argument?!?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
It seems to me you made up that position in order to easily knock it down.

I think it's from Chomsky in post #8.

Pondering

JKR wrote:

Pondering wrote:

JKR wrote:

Pondering wrote:

The argument that we shouldn't be critical of China on this forum because it won't have any practical impact on China makes no sense to me....

This sounds to me like yet another strawman argument.

The very first post in this thread is about China being demonized on this board.

The first post in this thread did not state “that we shouldn’t be critical of China on this forum because it won’t have any practical impact on China.” It seems to me you made up that position in order to easily knock it down.

I am sincere on this board unless I am being sarcastic and I think that is rare. Perhaps you  do that sort of thing intentionally so you project it on others. 

This was the first post:

There’s a double standard used against China. And even posters here at babble (not mentioning any names, you know who you are!) are comfortable with holding this double standard. 

Bordering on racism, if not full blown, this is getting uglier. And as China’s influential sphere grows, the imperialist old guard grows enraged. 

I don't know how to interpret that other than criticism of China is being construed as "borderline" racist. I don't see any double standard being used against China. If anything criticism of the US and our own government is far more prevalent. 

Post number 8 stated:

Let’s take a concrete case. For intellectuals in Russia in the Communist days, condemnation of US crimes had little if any moral value; in fact, it might have had negative value, in serving to buttress the oppressive and brutal Soviet system. In contrast, when Eastern European dissidents condemned the crimes of their own states and society, it had great moral value."

Maybe I am misunderstanding the point of the quote but it seems to be intended to send the message that we should be critical of our own government over which we have some influence rather than of China. In the context of this board I disagree. There is no particular moral value to criticisms on this board because it's just a message board. We are not speaking truth to power. 

Would you say the US is being demonized? Or corporations? 

I was criticized for using unsourced information from The Guardian as if newpaper articles usually offer it. 

http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Trafficking-in-women-from-Myanmar:-young-...

According to a recent study, published in December 2018 by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in collaboration with the Kachin Women’s Association Thailand, about 106,000 migrant women have returned to Myanmar in the past five years.

Some 5,000 women have been forced into marriages with Chinese men with 2,800 forced to have babies. About 65 per cent of the women involved in forced marriages were trafficked through an intermediary or a recruiter.

HRW interviewed 37 survivors of such crimes for the report, noting that the women were sold to Chinese families for the equivalent of between US$ 3,000 (4.5 million kyat) and US$ 13,000 (19.8 million kyat) each.

Twelve of those interviewed were under 18 when they were trafficked. The youngest was 14. The human rights group noted that 22 of them were held for a year or longer.

Often, the women are drugged and taken captive, left at the mercy of families with whom they can barely communicate.

“Most were locked in a room and raped repeatedly as the families that bought them wanted them to become pregnant,” said Heather Barr, author of the report and a co-director for women’s rights at Human Rights Watch.

Mobo2000, post 147

The article from the Guardian posted above is a good example of the western press' campaign of demonization of China.  .... Huge unsourced, sensationalist claims, by a notoriously unreliable NGO.   

I did not know that Human Rights Watch is notoriously unreliable. Sources are named in the quote in this post. All news is sensationalized especially if it has to do with sex or violence. If it has to do with both sex and violence the sky's the limit. 

I want to know what the claim is on this report. Are you saying it is fake news. That this is not happening and HWR are making it up? 

I would think if the MSM were demonizing China this would be headline news. 

If there is an example of demonizing China it comes from QS in Quebec pushing the notion that Chinese investors are in Temiskaming trying to buy farmland. QS was repeatedly defended out of partisanship not racism. 

She was called out on it by the press. If the MSM were intent on demonizing China I don't think they would have done that. 

The left has been complaining about fake news for decades. The right cleverly got on board and no longer criticize the news for liberal bias. Now they just agree that it is all fake. 

So are we all agreed now that news is pointless as it is all fake? 

JKR

Pondering wrote:

I am sincere on this board unless I am being sarcastic and I think that is rare. Perhaps you  do that sort of thing intentionally so you project it on others. 

It seems to me that on occasion you ascribe to others non-sensical viewpoints. I think most of the viewpoints here, even the ones I disagree with, make a lot of sense.

Pondering

JKR wrote:

Pondering wrote:

I am sincere on this board unless I am being sarcastic and I think that is rare. Perhaps you  do that sort of thing intentionally so you project it on others. 

It seems to me that on occasion you ascribe to others non-sensical viewpoints. I think most of the viewpoints here, even the ones I disagree with, make a lot of sense.

Sometimes when I feel it is being done to me but in this thread I have quoted directly and I don't see any acknowledgement of that fact. Magoo pointed out the Chomsky quote in post 8 that I was referencing as suggesting we should criticize our own rather than others. I also pointed it out and quoted from the same article. 

I didn't see any acknowledgement that I was indeed referencing something said in this thread. I was challenged on saying that this thread accused posters and press of racism so again I quoted. There was no acknowledgement that the accusation against me was wrong. 

In post 156 Unionist accuses me of demonizing China. I believe he rested that opinion on my saying China would invade countries too if they were in the position of the US. I did not think that was a controversial statement given that Canada, the US, the UK, Germany, Russia, have all been known to invade countries. I was challenged on it as if I was accusing China of having specific plans instead of referring to a hypothetical world in which China and the US traded places in terms of world power. It is not demonization to say that a country would behave like any other given the chance. 

Then yes I defended my statement when I came across some information but I'm not researching it because it was just a hypothetical. I think it's ridiculous to make such a big deal of it and try to get me to admit I am wrong to have an opinion on what China would do in a hypothetical situations. Then for you guys to talk amongst yourselves about how wrong I am and why I won't admit it. Is this high-school? It is just so junvenile and arrogant at the same time.

My criticisms of China in this thread have been rooted in the arguments being presented that China respects human rights and they do elect officials as though the rights of Chinese citizens are in any way comparable to the rights we enjoy under our flawed democracy. 

Kops bizarre attack was rooted in a complete misinterpretion of my reference to China's one child policy. It wasn't incomprehensible. Timebandit understood what I was referencing. 

In my opinion the criticisms of my comments are rooted in either misinterpreting my words or exagerating them. 

You do not hold yourselves or each other to the standards you try to impose on me. 

JKR

Pondering wrote:

JKR wrote:

Pondering wrote:

I am sincere on this board unless I am being sarcastic and I think that is rare. Perhaps you  do that sort of thing intentionally so you project it on others. 

It seems to me that on occasion you ascribe to others non-sensical viewpoints. I think most of the viewpoints here, even the ones I disagree with, make a lot of sense.

Sometimes when I feel it is being done to me but in this thread I have quoted directly and I don't see any acknowledgement of that fact. Magoo pointed out the Chomsky quote in post 8 that I was referencing as suggesting we should criticize our own rather than others. I also pointed it out and quoted from the same article. 

I didn't see any acknowledgement that I was indeed referencing something said in this thread. I was challenged on saying that this thread accused posters and press of racism so again I quoted. There was no acknowledgement that the accusation against me was wrong. 

In post 156 Unionist accuses me of demonizing China. I believe he rested that opinion on my saying China would invade countries too if they were in the position of the US. I did not think that was a controversial statement given that Canada, the US, the UK, Germany, Russia, have all been known to invade countries. I was challenged on it as if I was accusing China of having specific plans instead of referring to a hypothetical world in which China and the US traded places in terms of world power. 

Then yes I defended my statement when I came across some information but I'm not researching it because it was just a hypothetical. I think it's ridiculous to make such a big deal of it and try to get me to admit I am wrong to have an opinion on what China would do in a hypothetical situations. Then for you guys to talk amongst yourselves about how wrong I am and why I won't admit it. Is this high-school? I didn't bother responding because it is just so junvenile and arrogant at the same time.

My criticisms of China in this thread have been rooted in the arguments being presented that China respects human rights and they do elect officials as though the rights of Chinese citizens are in any way comparable to the rights we enjoy under our flawed democracy. 

Kops bizarre attack was rooted in a complete misinterpretion of my reference to China's one child policy. It wasn't incomprehensible. Timebandit understood what I was referencing. 

In my opinion the criticisms of my comments are over-the-top nonsense and rooted in either misinterpreting my words or exagerating them. 

You do not hold yourselves to the standards you try to impose on me. 

I should have followed Thumper’s sage advice from the Disney film Bambi:  “If you can't say something nice, don't say nothing at all.“

Unionist

Pondering wrote:

In post 156 Unionist accuses me of demonizing China. I believe he rested that opinion on my saying China would invade countries too if they were in the position of the US.

I do respect your beliefs. But why speculate - when I told you exactly why you were demonizing China. I'll reiterate that here for the readers' easy reference:

Unionist wrote:

The media and the parties of the billionaires are demonizing China because they worship "the West", and in particular, U.S. domination thereof. You are demonizing China because you love provocation.

 

Pondering

Unionist wrote:

Pondering wrote:

In post 156 Unionist accuses me of demonizing China. I believe he rested that opinion on my saying China would invade countries too if they were in the position of the US.

I do respect your beliefs. But why speculate - when I told you exactly why you were demonizing China. I'll reiterate that here for the readers' easy reference:

Unionist wrote:

The media and the parties of the billionaires are demonizing China because they worship "the West", and in particular, U.S. domination thereof. You are demonizing China because you love provocation.

[/quote

On what do you base your silly claim that I am demonizing China?

swallow swallow's picture

Unionist wrote:

Stupid discussion about "racism". Straw man. 

Entire thread is a straw man. 

Mobo2000

Another good example of the MSM campaign against China was helpfully posted elsewhere on babble, thought I'd bring it here:

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/chinese-diplomat-accused-of-trying-to-shut-down-montreal-event-in-third-incident-of-alleged-campus-interference

Here are the 3 incidents described (from the article).   In the past few months the National Post has run at least 6 articles about these incidents.

1.    Kyle Matthews, executive director of the Montreal Institute for Genocide and Human Rights Studies at Concordia, said a diplomat from China’s consulate in Montreal contacted him and others demanding that an exiled Uyghur leader not appear in front of Canadian students.  Matthews received an email from consul Wang Wenzhang on Monday, the day before the event. The French-language email, which he shared with the National Post, said the vice consul general, Xing Wenjian, wanted an “urgent meeting” with him that afternoon or Tuesday morning to “communicate our points of view.” Matthews said he decided not to respond."

2.  Toronto police are investigating the possibility of criminal threats in thousands of messages a Tibetan-Canadian received after being elected as a University of Toronto student president. An online petition with 11,000 signatures demanded Chemi Lhamo’s removal, and she said she believed Chinese authorities were involved.

3.  At Hamilton’s McMaster University, several Chinese student groups protested a talk about human rights abuses facing the Uyghur minority, with other student groups writing to the federal government asking it to investigate possible state involvement. A statement at the time from the Chinese Embassy praised the protesters for being “patriotic,” but denied they had been directed to do anything.

Mobo:   I will admit to finding the conclusion of the article a bit funny -- I know the quotes are from different people, including an ex-CSIS analysist running his own "Threat Consulting business",  but the impression given is that Tibet, Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan are "western countries":

That the Concordia incident appears to be part of a growing pattern is “kind of scary,” said Gurski. “If something is not done, if there’s no reprimand, they’re going to think they’re getting away with it, which means they’re going to continue doing it. Today it’s the Uyghurs. Tomorrow it’s Tibet. The next day it’s Taiwan, or Hong Kong, or Macao.”

“It’s something we should be worried about,” Matthews said, “that some authoritarian governments are not just trying to oppress freedom of thought and freedom of speech and academic inquiry in their own countries, but they’re now doing it in Western countries, which I think is a dangerous sign.”

 

Unionist

Re #1, the latest "incident". Just to reiterate my point from the other thread. The National Post says they were given the Chinese consulate's email to Kyle Matthews. Yet all they quote from it is the request for an "urgent meeting" "to communicate our points of view". Matthews didn't reply. So where is their "demand" to "shut down" the event?

#2 and #3 are just as sketchy. "Demonization of China" is hard at work.

Mobo2000

Regarding the comments upthread about my post #8 and Chomsky's comments about the moral value of critizing other countries:

1.   To the babblers who view debate here as akin to counting angels on the heads of pins, I think you are selling yourself and babble short.    This is a public space with many more readers than posters.   Sometimes the National Post even mentions us!    We don't have a lot of political power as individuals, but we do have our voices.  Posting on babble, discussing politics with your friends or family, participating in public debate,  is not activism, but it's not nothing, and I think it's worth taking seriously.  

2.    Chomsky's main point is that we should consider the context and likely effect or consequence of our political voice.    In my view, and I think this is largely obvious, there has been a several year long effort by the US to escalate it's "containment" of China.   Part of this effort is to create the appearance in the media that China is a threat to US, while in reality american empire is far more of a threat to China that it is to us.    It is also obviously true that China has many problems and it's government has many things that deserve to be criticized.   So, if we are being serious, there are a few paths to take:

1.   Criticize every country equally, based on universal principles.   Some have suggested in this thread that this is the right of every babbler.   I agree, it sure is the right of every babbler.   But please consider that this approach ignores the relative power between countries, and disappears any benefit or complicity we have in the atrocities our own government takes part in.   It also is the approach that has the least possibility of producing an effect on the real world. 

2.  Criticize our own countries first.    The advantages of this approach are we are more likely to have an effect, we know more intimately what the circumstances that need to be changed are, and the possible tactics that may lead to success.  For people in powerful, rich countries like the US and Canada, Chomsky argues, there is also a moral imperative, as we are more able to restrain our government's aggression than it's targets are.   And we have a moral responsibility to do so because we benefit materially from our government's aggression.  

Shout out to Magoo on this issue, I haven't responded directly to your comments on the chomsky post, but appreciate your engagement, and hopefully the above will clarify where I'm coming from and why I posted it.

Pondering

From that same article:

Human rights organizations are reporting that between one and two million Uyghur Muslims in China have been detained in camps where they are forced to renounce their religious beliefs, watch propaganda, eat pork and pledge their allegiance to the Chinese state. The Chinese government says its activities are a crackdown on terrorism. But Matthews said it is really a form of “cultural genocide,” intended to erase their identities.

That would seem to be verifiable. Is it true? Is anything in that article a lie? 

It seems to me the mass recall of Chinese students over the dispute was a pretty authoritarian and extreme reaction. 

The outraged defence of China seems over the top to me in the sense that while there are a lot of negative articles about China in the moment we are in a dispute with them and they are an authoritarian regime (are they not?).

 

Sean in Ottawa

Mobo2000 wrote:

Regarding the comments upthread about my post #8 and Chomsky's comments about the moral value of critizing other countries:

1.   To the babblers who view debate here as akin to counting angels on the heads of pins, I think you are selling yourself and babble short.    This is a public space with many more readers than posters.   Sometimes the National Post even mentions us!    We don't have a lot of political power as individuals, but we do have our voices.  Posting on babble, discussing politics with your friends or family, participating in public debate,  is not activism, but it's not nothing, and I think it's worth taking seriously.  

2.    Chomsky's main point is that we should consider the context and likely effect or consequence of our political voice.    In my view, and I think this is largely obvious, there has been a several year long effort by the US to escalate it's "containment" of China.   Part of this effort is to create the appearance in the media that China is a threat to US, while in reality american empire is far more of a threat to China that it is to us.    It is also obviously true that China has many problems and it's government has many things that deserve to be criticized.   So, if we are being serious, there are a few paths to take:

1.   Criticize every country equally, based on universal principles.   Some have suggested in this thread that this is the right of every babbler.   I agree, it sure is the right of every babbler.   But please consider that this approach ignores the relative power between countries, and disappears any benefit or complicity we have in the atrocities our own government takes part in.   It also is the approach that has the least possibility of producing an effect on the real world. 

2.  Criticize our own countries first.    The advantages of this approach are we are more likely to have an effect, we know more intimately what the circumstances that need to be changed are, and the possible tactics that may lead to success.  For people in powerful, rich countries like the US and Canada, Chomsky argues, there is also a moral imperative, as we are more able to restrain our government's aggression than it's targets are.   And we have a moral responsibility to do so because we benefit materially from our government's aggression.  

Shout out to Magoo on this issue, I haven't responded directly to your comments on the chomsky post, but appreciate your engagement, and hopefully the above will clarify where I'm coming from and why I posted it.

First the thread is not directed against the media or public conversation in general only but it is also against people writing here. The opening post is not linked to a comment and therefore it becomes silencing in a way that if it was a general statement of the conversation about China it would instead be thoughtful and all people here would be able to participate without being smeared by it.

I say smear becuase it raises harsh words given the values here and directs them against people in this community while avoiding any acountability that would come from actually identifying directly the comments it takes issue with. It does not name the people so any defence becomes a self admission -- clever and shitty. By not identifying or defending any criticism of specific comments it intends to get them all and does so. It is designed to say that here is a thread to attack you generally, where you have no defence, if you speak in criticism of China's government here. By this I do not mean general criticism since I have not seen much of that -- but of specific, backed-up objections to specific behaviours of the Chinese government. This is the position of the opening poster who has been vicious to every single objection to the behavious of the Chinese government or any questions to his unqualified praise of that government.

The majority of the opening posters attacks have come after the poster provoked comments through his praise of the CCP that people objected to. What we are talking about is not just the right to come and criticize a government but also to question the effusive praise a poster makes for that government. This thread is about making the opening poster's comments above all critique here when it comes to China. That is the effect when you consider this thread in the contexts of the posters interactions with others in many threads.

This place is a place of conversation. When we have problems with each other we should be prepared to say what they are and back that up. It should be clear what exactly we are speaking about and why. If we are to pretend that this is not about attacking and about learning as many here want to pretend this is about -- then linking to specifcs is the only way to go.

Now this comment  purports to offer more guidelines about our behaviour towards China. I have argued in this thread that there are issues about our behaviour towards each other in here and been shouted down until I usually avoid the thread.

This makes the statement that we need to criticize ourselves first. How on earth can that statement be made with a straight face in the context of the people here being included? This site is mainly about criticizing the direction of this country. It is part of how this community describes itself.

We are all subject to being called out for specific racist comments any time. We can be called out for bias - but this ought to be ascribed to specific comments rather than a position of questioning or against a general position that has not been claimed by the writer.

If you want to say someone here is writing from a position of racism towards China or bias against it, then basic manners of how we treat each other means that you ought to name the comment and back that up rather than put up a general new thread to sit alongside other threads where baseless comments accusing the same thing have been leveled against people writing here.

This thread remains disgusting so long as babblers are central to the first post and no attempt has been made to identify the specific comments or back up the accusation. Without this smear on babblers it could have been a thoughtful, valuable thread. I would have myself been able to contribute in line with it and agree with the comments many are making freely. It could also include any examples of babblers demonizing China, including myself (if ever this happened), if justified by facts and specifics.

It is hypocrisy to raise the behaviour of people here in speaking about China when it is so completely disrespectful about those writing here.

For myself: I have defended, criticized, praised, listened to and responded to comments about China's government. As I have about many, many topices over almost 16 years. I have never spoken negatively about China itself, its people or culture. I am open to accountability. Any of my comments can be scrutinized. Blanket statements attacking the motives of any comment that does not please defenders of the current government of China is not a reasonable way to treat each other.

I am not quesitonging the motives of everyone who has spoken in this thread. I can see the obvious purpose in wanting this thread to address many things that are in it. However, the opening post was not just about that. It was about silencing, without merit all criticism of one country's government.

There are many countries in the  world and many of them are non-European. there has never been a concerted effort to shut down conversations that governments of those countries would not like. If we want such a policy then a conversation could happen on it -- a general one not just related to one conversation. It does not need to retroactively suggest that any who have spoken agaisnt a specifc country's government are racists. It can introduce the idea that we do not criticize governments of a whole raft of countries and it can be discussed as an idea here. It belongs in the feedback section. This thread -- without the smear on babblers belongs here. It should include babblers comments when they qualify but not on the basis that any comment negative to the CCP is automatically racist or imperialist.

The conversation about discussing governments in other countries that have been victimized by imperialism ought to cover more than China -- India for one. Is racist to criticize Modi's government here? Yes or no?

This opening post here is an attack on babblers but it does not follow any understanding that already exists -- the idea that ALL criticism of a government such as China's is wrong may be debatable but it is not an agreed premise. If that is something people here want to argue for then so be it. No need to go backwards and attack people who on good faith included China equally in conversations about global politics, ideology and behaviour. We, in the interest of criticizing ourselves first could eliminate the international section altogether?

We could have a place to criticize Europe and the US but avoid the rest of the world. If explained to babblers first we could have a special section called the praise hall where we only offer positive things to say about any government that is officially above reproach if we need. But we certainly should not have a hidden rule that any comments made about the government of another country have to be pleasing to that government as a retroactive rule.

Mobo2000

Pondering, here is a long article about media bias and "fake news" by my favourite american reporter, Matt Taibbi that I think addresses your confusion over what is meant by the demonization of China :

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/buzzfeeds-big-scoop-and-the-medias

"The public largely misunderstands the “fake news” issue. Newspapers rarely fib outright. Most “lies” are errors of omission or emphasis. There are no Fox stories saying blue states have lower divorce rates, but neither are there MSNBC stories admitting many pro-choice Democrats struggle with a schism between their moral and political beliefs on abortion.

Most of what’s “fake” is in the caricature: of our own audiences, and especially of despised groups. As even Noam Chomsky said, newspapers are “full of facts.”

Mobo2000

"First the thread is not directed against the media or public conversation in general only but it is also against people writing here. The opening post is not linked to a comment and therefore it becomes silencing in a way that if it was a general statement of the conversation about China it would instead be thoughtful and all people here would be able to participate without being smeared by it."

Yes, the opening post was directed against babblers as well as the media, and was sparked by the now renamed "Don't Let China Take the World Hostage" thread.    I get that you are offended by that, you've said so several times, but I would like to point out you've not been silenced, and have not been silent, on this thread.    My interest in this thread has been stated as clearly as I am capable of.   I'm interested in the media's current treatment of China.   Not interested in more meta discussions of the proper way to call someone racist or what is or is not silencing.   So not sure what I said that has prompted you to revisit this.

Sean in Ottawa

Mobo2000 wrote:

"First the thread is not directed against the media or public conversation in general only but it is also against people writing here. The opening post is not linked to a comment and therefore it becomes silencing in a way that if it was a general statement of the conversation about China it would instead be thoughtful and all people here would be able to participate without being smeared by it."

Yes, the opening post was directed against babblers as well as the media, and was sparked by the now renamed "Don't Let China Take the World Hostage" thread.    I get that you are offended by that, you've said so several times, but I would like to point out you've not been silenced, and have not been silent, on this thread.    My interest in this thread has been stated as clearly as I am capable of.   I'm interested in the media's current treatment of China.   Not interested in more meta discussions of the proper way to call someone racist or what is or is not silencing.   So not sure what I said that has prompted you to revisit this.

It was your correct comment that people should criticize their govenrment first. This would apply perfectly well to the media conversation. It takes the absurdity of the inclusion of people writing here to new heights.

I did not even know that this thread was prompted by the China hostage thread rather than the other China threads that were also recent. It could have easily said that if that were true. Instead it was blanket.

The Chinese government does not lack defenders here so this thread never needed to go after members of the the community here in any way.

My offence was not just a personal one but based on a very important principle here,

Unionist

Mobo2000 wrote:

 My interest in this thread has been stated as clearly as I am capable of.   I'm interested in the media's current treatment of China.  

Amen. Let's get back to that conversation.

 

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Mobo2000 wrote:

Yes, the opening post was directed against babblers as well as the media, and was sparked by the now renamed "Don't Let China Take the World Hostage" thread.   

That's incorrect. This thread was started on Feb 19 at 9pm. The other was started on Feb 27 at 1am. This thread came first and likely prompted the other - you seem to have it backwards.

This thread is an attempt to stem any and all criticism of the PRC government. What prompted WWWTT to do so is anybody's guess, but it wasn't the thread you reference.

Mobo2000

Oh, Timebandit is correct on the thread order.   Mea culpa!

In other news, the National Post's Terry Glavin is continuing to huck The Claws of the Panda, and tirelessly working to keep us informed on growing threat from the "gangsters in Beijing":

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/terry-glavin-its-official-china-is-a-threat-to-canadas-national-security

"In his just-published book, Claws of the Panda: Beijing’s Campaign of Influence and Intimidation in Canada, veteran foreign-affairs reporter Jonathan Manthorpe painstakingly enumerates the breadth and scope of the United Front Work Department’s organizations in Canada, and Beijing’s intimate links throughout Canada’s business class. Manthorpe relied solely on the public record, showing that Beijing’s strong-arming, its inducements and its subtle and not-so-subtle intimidation have been carried out in plain sight for years.   ...     That kind of subversion usually occurs behind the scenes. But for years, Confucius Institutes have operated openly in dozens of Canadian universities, colleges and high schools. “In most cases,” Manthorpe contends, “they are espionage outstations for Chinese embassies and consulates through which they control Chinese students, gather information on perceived enemies and intimidate dissidents.”

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/terry-glavin-how-canada-must-deal-with-the-gangsters-in-beijing

"Chinese President Xi Jinping may have the crude instincts of a third-rate thug, but at least he knows what he wants. And he’s taking every advantage. Gone are the days of Deng Xiaoping’s cunning “hide your strength, bide your time, never take the lead” strategy. After amassing to himself greater powers than any Chinese leader since Mao Zedong, Xi is setting China on a course to dominate the global economy. He has made it clear that he intends to do so in open defiance of the foundational rules that bind liberal democracies. And he will do so by coercion and intimidation, by deception or in plain sight. Xi will exploit our every weakness and overwhelm every unguarded flank."

Mobo:   Of course Terry has some advice on how Canada should deal with this:

"Australia provides a more useful example. While Canadian authorities only rarely review Chinese takeovers of Canadian firms, Australia’s foreign investment regulator now takes it for granted that even private Chinese companies are subject to Communist Party control — almost all major Chinese firms, including joint ventures and foreign firms operating in China, are required to install Communist Party committees in their decision-making structures. The result is that any Chinese takeover in Australia is subject to enhanced national-security screening.  Similar laws in Canada are long overdue.   Whatever course Canada adopts, it has to be developed in consultation with fellow democracies — particularly the United States, in spite of the current president — and implemented in co-ordination with reliable, democratic partners. And it has to be a radical departure from all that has gone before."

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Oh, Timebandit is correct on the thread order.   Mea culpa!

The other thread says:

Quote:
by NorthReport on Sun, 2019-01-27 01:00

Wouldn't that be January, not February?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Timebandit wrote:

Mobo2000 wrote:

Yes, the opening post was directed against babblers as well as the media, and was sparked by the now renamed "Don't Let China Take the World Hostage" thread.   

That's incorrect. This thread was started on Feb 19 at 9pm. The other was started on Feb 27 at 1am. This thread came first and likely prompted the other - you seem to have it backwards.

This thread is an attempt to stem any and all criticism of the PRC government. What prompted WWWTT to do so is anybody's guess, but it wasn't the thread you reference.

I don't read this as any attempt to stem any and all criticism and I guess that is the problem that has led to yet another thread jumping down the rabbit hole of hurt feelings. I agree with this characterization while you do not. That is what I thought we were supposed to discuss.

This subject deserves it’s own thread so here it is. 

There’s a double standard used against China. And even posters here at babble (not mentioning any names, you know who you are!) are comfortable with holding this double standard. 

Bordering on racism, if not full blown, this is getting uglier. And as China’s influential sphere grows, the imperialist old guard grows enraged. 

I think that our corporate and state media demonizes other nations who do not pay tribute to Wall Street financial overlords. I think that coverage of China is over the top in many instances and there are definitely posters on this board who can be relied on to repost and laud the message that is being used to manufacture our consent.  They change from day to day but there is always an under current of NATO-centric outrage over the short comings of the countries we are supposed to view as our enemies.

Pondering

Mobo2000 wrote:

Pondering, here is a long article about media bias and "fake news" by my favourite american reporter, Matt Taibbi that I think addresses your confusion over what is meant by the demonization of China :

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/buzzfeeds-big-scoop-and-the-medias

"The public largely misunderstands the “fake news” issue. Newspapers rarely fib outright. Most “lies” are errors of omission or emphasis. There are no Fox stories saying blue states have lower divorce rates, but neither are there MSNBC stories admitting many pro-choice Democrats struggle with a schism between their moral and political beliefs on abortion.

Most of what’s “fake” is in the caricature: of our own audiences, and especially of despised groups. As even Noam Chomsky said, newspapers are “full of facts.”

I agree with that but would also say there is no conspiracy. Governments leak information they want the media to publish and the media publishes it to attract eyeballs because that is how they make money. Trump demonized Canada during trade negotiations. Media printed it this side of the border because it gets eyeballs. Editorials are written based on the politics of the owner of the paper. 

The left criticized the media for decades, then the right picked it up and now all news is fake news instead of just Fox. 

China and Canada are in dispute. China is challenging US economic domination. There is going to be a lot of criticism. There is nothing remarkable about it. If China is being demonized, Trump is also being demonized as is the United States. 

To me demonization means more than just natural critical bias against rivals or dominant parties. 

 

WWWTT

Mobo2000 wrote

Oh, Timebandit is correct on the thread order.   Mea culpa!

No she’s not! You don’t apologize to her for shit! When I wrote that I created this thread as a response to another thread started by North Report, you can take that to the bank! 

North Report constantly changes thread titles and creates duplicate threads. I have read consistent complaints about her handling/approach to threads  Trying to follow North Report is challenging and time consuming   

Time Bandit wants to discredit genuine discussion that you wish to forward Mobo. You are putting time and research into your posts! Please keep sharing articles you come across that you feel fit here!!!!

WWWTT

Terry Glavin is quite the promoter for the raging ICM. 

The article provided by Mobo2000 is probably one of the best examples I have seen. If I had come across an writing like this when creating the thread, I would have used it in the opening!

The demonization of China really includes, if not arguably centred around the demonization of the Communist Party of China. This includes 习近平. Whom is probably the best politician/diplomat of the 21 century the male heterosexual version of humanity has to offer.  

This Terry Glavin character has a lot of nerve to use Australia as an example Canada should be following! I guess he feels everyone’s forgotten about the New Zealand massacre and it’s safe now to go back and idolize a five eye country that harbours white supremacy. 

Pondering

I would prefer that NorthReport comment more when posting links and I get why some people don't appreciate the number of threads started but I do find some of NorthReport's links unusual, interesting and informative. Time Bandit most certainly does not want to discredit genuine discussion. That is a ridiculous accusation. 

People here, including myself, are just expressing our views. 

Unionist

Canada is following the lead of other free and democratic countries (U.S., Australia...) in its fresh campaign against the Confucius Institute. Just imagine - teaching kids about Chinese language and culture, but not giving them courses in how China is a one-party dictatorship that violates human rights! 

Education minister pulling plug on Chinese education program in schools

Quote:

Education Minister Dominic Cardy is getting rid of a Chinese culture and language program operating in schools because of concerns that teachers are blacklisting topics that cast China in a bad light and only teach what the Chinese Communist Party approves.

The non-profit Confucius Institute has been operating in 28 New Brunswick schools, with more than 5,441 students taking part in 2016, according to the organization's website.

It is largely funded by the Chinese government and was introduced to New Brunswick in 2008, when Shawn Graham was the Liberal premier.

At the time, the New Brunswick government said the mandate was to teach and promote Chinese language and culture.

But Cardy said it's clear to him the program's real mandate is to present a "one-dimensional" view of China and to influence students to only perceive the country in a positive light.
 
"Their job is to create a friendly, cheerful, face for a government that is responsible for more deaths than nearly any other in the history of our species," Cardy said Thursday.

The article does not elaborate on which species Mr. Cardy might be referring to.

WWWTT

Thanks for the link Unionist! The slogan on Ontario lisense plates "Your's to discover" is going to be changed to "Open for business" apparently (probably worth it's own thread title). But really, the conservatives are probably thinking it should be "Don't ask any questions, we know what's best for you!"

bekayne

Unionist wrote:

Canada is following the lead of other free and democratic countries (U.S., Australia...) in its fresh campaign against the Confucius Institute. Just imagine - teaching kids about Chinese language and culture, but not giving them courses in how China is a one-party dictatorship that violates human rights! 

Education minister pulling plug on Chinese education program in schools

Quote:

Education Minister Dominic Cardy is getting rid of a Chinese culture and language program operating in schools because of concerns that teachers are blacklisting topics that cast China in a bad light and only teach what the Chinese Communist Party approves.

The non-profit Confucius Institute has been operating in 28 New Brunswick schools, with more than 5,441 students taking part in 2016, according to the organization's website.

It is largely funded by the Chinese government and was introduced to New Brunswick in 2008, when Shawn Graham was the Liberal premier.

At the time, the New Brunswick government said the mandate was to teach and promote Chinese language and culture.

But Cardy said it's clear to him the program's real mandate is to present a "one-dimensional" view of China and to influence students to only perceive the country in a positive light.
 
"Their job is to create a friendly, cheerful, face for a government that is responsible for more deaths than nearly any other in the history of our species," Cardy said Thursday.

The article does not elaborate on which species Mr. Cardy might be referring to.

Former NDP leader Dominic Cardy

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
The slogan on Ontario lisense plates "Your's to discover" is going to be changed to "Open for business" apparently (probably worth it's own thread title).

As an aside:  it's apparently now "A Place to Grow".  Only half as puke-worthy.

swallow swallow's picture

Confucius Instiutes are on their way out in educational institutions around the world. They originally aimed at universities in Canada but have had poor results so have turned to colleges (eg Dawson in Montreal when they were unable to get a university). The union representing university teachers recommends not engaging with the institutes, which are an arm of the Chinese government. (https://thevarsity.ca/2014/01/13/confucius-institutes-compromise-academic-freedom-allege-caut/). McMaster and others have turfed the institute for labour rights violations and refusal to permit discussion of certain topics. So has the Toronto School board. There is increasing demonization of China for sure but the Confucius Institute is not a benign language school. 

swallow swallow's picture

WWWTT wrote:

Thanks for the link Unionist! The slogan on Ontario lisense plates "Your's to discover" is going to be changed to "Open for business" apparently (probably worth it's own thread title).

That was the rumour, but it’s not accurate. 

Unionist

*

WWWTT

swallow wrote:

WWWTT wrote:

Thanks for the link Unionist! The slogan on Ontario lisense plates "Your's to discover" is going to be changed to "Open for business" apparently (probably worth it's own thread title).

That was the rumour, but it’s not accurate. 

Really hey? I guess Queens park is a rumor to hey?

https://globalnews.ca/news/5157537/ontario-budget-licence-plate-yours-to-grow/

Unionist

The Sinophobic campaign is heating up - but people are resisting.

Complaints aren’t dislodging Confucius Institute from Saint Mary’s University

Quote:

Paul Evans, a professor at the School of Public Policy and Global Affairs at the University of British Columbia, doesn’t see Confucius Institutes as a great threat to Canadian values and citizens.

“It’s a potential producer of some smoke that we need to be worried about, but the building isn’t burning down,” said Evans. 

[...]

“In this cold period of Canada-China relations, there’s a lot of grumpiness about China,” said Evans, noting this group is a very small minority. “So there are some who say we need to move further away from co-operation in an academic realm.”

Others have voiced concerns about restrictions on academic topics, presentation of Chinese history and hiring of staff, said Evans.

But Evans said he’s not worried about Confucius Institutes as “agents of Chinese sharp-power.”

“I can certainly understand the views of the people who run Confucius Institutes, and often they’re really good people who are interested in Chinese culture,” said Evans.

Evans, a Dalhousie University alumnus, did Mandarin language training at Saint Mary’s before the Confucius Institutes existed.

“I think that they’ve had a long, honourable and serious effort to connect to China through the university,” he said of the Halifax university.

Pages