« Readsplat | Main | Very small countries »
Why we shouldn't boycott the Olympics in any way
Here is the story. Here are further ramifications and don't worry they'll be happy to give up their coal factories too.A wheelchair-bound Chinese torch bearer has rocketed to national fame after fending off protesters in Paris, becoming a symbol of China's defiance of global demonstrations backing Tibet.
Jin Jing, a 27 year-old amputee and Paralympic fencer has been called the "angel in a wheelchair" and is being celebrated by television chat shows, newspapers and online musical videos after fiercely defending the Olympic torch during the Paris leg of the troubled international relay.
Protesters denouncing Chinese policy in Tibet threw themselves at Jin. Most were wrestled away by police but at least one reached her wheelchair and tried to wrench the torch away. Jin clung tenaciously to what has become a controversial icon of the Beijing Olympic Games until her attacker was pulled off. Her look of fierce determination as she shielded the torch, captured in snapshots of the scene, has now spread throughout China, inflaming simmering public anger at the protests. "I thought we had lost in France, but seeing the young disabled torch bearer Jin Jing's radiant smile of conviction, I know in France we did not lose, we won!" said one of tens of thousands of Internet postings about the incident.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on April 15, 2008 at 11:31 AM in Current Affairs | Permalink
Comments
Who funds and organizes the global pro-Tibet movement?
Posted by: Chairman Mao at Apr 15, 2008 12:05:22 PM
Graham-Harrison calls him a 'protester denouncing Chinese policy in Tibet'. I call him 'Chinese agent provacateur':
http://biglizards.net/blog/archives/2008/04/forget_it_its_c.html
This episode is exactly one of the reasons why a boycott might not be such a bad idea.
Posted by: US at Apr 15, 2008 12:08:42 PM
The outpouring of pro-Chinese posts by Chinese ethnics on every website that I've seen write about these protests has been pretty impressive.
Posted by: Sideways at Apr 15, 2008 12:13:07 PM
It makes me uneasy to see the level of jingoism emanating from China.
Posted by: gunther at Apr 15, 2008 12:22:52 PM
I thin Ezra Klein has the best insight on the Chinese Olympics:
But this Olympics [boycott] idea is the worst of both worlds. It's a high profile snub that will piss off the Chinese without actually exerting any real pressure on them. Why bother?
Even worse, as Tyler's post suggests, defiance of international criticism on such a grand stage may actually further embolden the Chinese and engender more blind patriotism, encouraging would-be Tibet sympathizers to side with the Chinese government on purely nationalistic grounds.
Posted by: Christopher Monnier at Apr 15, 2008 12:34:18 PM
Anyone who thinks a boycott against China will change China's behavior for the better is just plain nuts.
If anything, the Chinese will double up in areas that are under protest, e.g. being even uglier on Tibet, investing more in Sudan etc.
For the Chinese to "give in" would be to lose massive face, something they simply won't do.
In the meantime, as TC pointed out, they are inflaming Chinese naitionalism and stoking already existing xenophobia. If people insist on treating China like a dangerous enemy, it may well indeed wind up becoming one.
Also, boycotts can be a two-way street. The Chinese "people" are already organizing a boycott of French goods. So to those who want to boycott the Olymics, or the opening ceremonies, what is the point? You'll just make things worse, not better.
Posted by: happyjuggler0 at Apr 15, 2008 12:38:37 PM
Um, Tyler, would that be the attack that was apparently staged?
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) at Apr 15, 2008 12:56:23 PM
Actually, this type of hyperbolic nationalism is one of the innumerable reasons why China should not have been given the Olympics in the first place. I'm hoping for a massive disaster.
Posted by: wugong at Apr 15, 2008 12:57:53 PM
Wugong nails it. Why shouldn't we insult the Chinese with their brainless jingoist nationalism? They need negative feedback, and lots of it, now.
Recall that the only thing that cured the Japanese of their jingoism and nationalism was Hiroshima. I'd prefer some boycott/debate conflict up front with the Chinese in the here and now, rather than something really awful later.
Posted by: Keith at Apr 15, 2008 1:07:10 PM
Let's hear it for French bravery: They attack a Chinese female amputee in a wheelchair...and lose.
Posted by: Kevin at Apr 15, 2008 1:09:25 PM
Freedom fries for the chinese.
Posted by: Lemmy Caution at Apr 15, 2008 1:17:50 PM
Freedom fries for the chinese.
Posted by: Lemmy Caution at Apr 15, 2008 1:18:07 PM
I find it amusing (and disconcerting) that any American would have the audacity to call the Chinese jingoistic.
Posted by: meter at Apr 15, 2008 1:25:49 PM
No one, I repeat no one, gives a shit about human rights in China or Tibet.
The colonization and cultural destruction of Tibet was at its height during the ugliest part of Mao's rule, at the same time when 'progressive' student protesters where carrying little red books and calling themselves Maoists. What was happening under Mao was arguably the greatest mass-murder in history, and it went off with without a peep from so-called 'human rights activists'.
The conditions both in Tibet and China have drastically improved in recent times. While things are definitely not the best, human rights in both China and Tibet are probably the best they have ever been in history.
So how come social critics and 'human rights activists' who ignored 50 million dead in the Communist era, and often glorified China under Mao, are now suddenly all up in arms about China and Tibet? Because they are against free trade and free markets, or at least see China as an economic competitor they don't want to deal with! You can get away with the largest mass-murder and ethnic cleansing in history so long as you are 'socialist'... but as soon an permanently unemployed French xenophobes (and xenophobes in many other countries) think you are 'stealing jobs', well then every socially progressive knows the humane thing to do is to get thousands of people together to beat up handicap person.
And no, this attack wasn't staged! It was pretty much the only possible outcome to this sort of protest. Anyone who has seen a typical anti-globalization protest knows that this kind of stuff is exactly what you can expect to happen.
Actually, this type of hyperbolic nationalism is one of the innumerable reasons why China should not have been given the Olympics in the first place. I'm hoping for a massive disaster.
You mean, aside from the PR disaster that the protests created?
Posted by: Rex Rhino at Apr 15, 2008 1:32:42 PM
The nationalism that's coming out is totally genuine, not mindless jingoism whipped up by the Chinese government. What if the Chinese started aggressively agitating for the independence of Hawaii? What would the average American's reaction be?
Mixing up Tibetan religous freedom with the independence issue is massively counterproductive.
Foreign activists should feel perfectly free not to buy Chinese products though...
Posted by: PJ at Apr 15, 2008 1:36:03 PM
I don't know. It is ALL the worst of possible worlds. China as a nation doesn't deserve to host the olympics. Presumably the IOC moved it there because a ceremony in China would help to open the country up. I don't think that was a very sage decision. For one, I'm not sure that the thesis holds up to scrutiny. it SOUNDS good. More business connections and more international attention leads to more freedom in china, sunlight being the best disinfectant and all. But I don't think that it is substantively supported. Clearly the evidence in the year so far doesn't support it. china has locked out journalists in Tibet, endeavored to monopolize sources of information for reporters in Beijing and established limits for athletes and participants during the games. That is a sign that China is behaving in their best interest--they are treating the games like a PR coup and are managing the information accordingly.
But a boycott, certainly a boycott of the opening ceremony doesn't fix that. A total boycott might send a pretty good message, but that would be pretty hard to develop in 4 months and pretty expensive for all concerned.
We perhaps forget the history of the torch, forget that it was developed to help internationalize and showcase the third Reich. I'm not trying to make an implicit comparison, but we need to be aware of that before we get TOO weepy about the path of the torch being adjusted. Even as we are aware of the history we should be aware that we don't live IN history. China is not going to send thugs and soldiers to run the torch around the world. China is going to send patriots and success stories. they are going to send people who engender hope and feelings of nationalism for them and engender anger from us when they are attacked. It doesn't make them sinister, it makes them smart. Civil rights protesters did the SAME think in America in the 1950's and 1960's. When they were beaten up by the cops, they would have the woulds covered in such a way that it was apparent they had been brutalized. These are public relations advances.
Will any of this stop them from burning coal or suddenly cause them to allow dissent in the public sphere? Of course not. But that shouldn't be the decision rule for a boycott or for the selection committee. We should ask ourselves if it debases the spirit of the Olympics to have it held by an authoritarian country bound and determined to use the aegis of the games to shield past misdeeds from the world. We should ask ourselves if we REALLY speak honestly about a country whom we tread so lightly around as to refuse to acknowledge the statehood of Taiwan. We can't even accept that Taiwan is a country--50 years on--why should we grant ourselves the illusion that we would be able to talk about the games freely? We should ask ourselves what damage expediency does to us. What good is it to treat the games as though they were strictly sporting events when the question of politics comes up?
Posted by: Adam Hyland at Apr 15, 2008 1:55:03 PM
The nationalism that's coming out is totally genuine, not mindless jingoism whipped up by the Chinese government. What if the Chinese started aggressively agitating for the independence of Hawaii? What would the average American's reaction be?
If people brutally attacked someone in a wheelchair carrying the torch for my country, the same way they attacked the Chinese torch bearer, well I can definitely empathize with those Chinese who want to see that person dead. To all those people who think these kinds of protests are good, imagine how you would feel if it was your country!
Posted by: Rex Rhino at Apr 15, 2008 1:57:39 PM
@ PJ
What does it matter if it is genuine or whipped up? China isn't east germany. People there ARE really excited about these games. But in my opinion that shouldn't be the threshold for hosting them. We shouldn't just check to see if citizenry would be stoked to have the games at country X, then host it there.
Posted by: Adam Hyland at Apr 15, 2008 2:00:19 PM
@rex
Straw man.
Also, who gives a rip if someone is angry about that protester? This is the winners curse in effect. SOMEONE is going to be angry about it, somewhere. They might be justified, too, but the torch being attacked en route by protesters doesn't suddenly justify the Beijing Olympics. That's absurd.
Posted by: Adam Hyland at Apr 15, 2008 2:21:47 PM
The issue under discussion is PROTESTS, the how and the why.
Consider also: Do these PROTESTS compare to actually DOING SOMETHING - physically doing something about the subject matter of the protests, something to ameliorate, physically oppose or destroy tyranny.
What happens when:
A repressive communist regime expands to Grenada and is removed - by force?
A repressive criminal military regime is displaced in Panama - by force
An invading and reprehensible tryant is expelled from Kuwait - by force
The vicious destructive genocide against Bosnians is stopped - by force
Murderous thugs wearing the cloak of religious zealotry are driven out of power in Afghanistan - by force
A repressive tyrant, murdering the indigenous and sectarian peoples in Iraq is removed - by force
More murderous thugs in the same disguise are thwarted in their reach for control in Iraq - by force
What happens? many PROTESTS against the "imperialism and arrogance" of the American people for doing what must be done if the objectives of any sincere PROTESTS are to be achieved.
R. Richard Schweitzer
s24rrs@aol.com
Posted by: R. Richard Schweitzer at Apr 15, 2008 2:28:59 PM
What if the Chinese started aggressively agitating for the independence of Hawaii? What would the average American's reaction be?
Umm... confusion? The Hawaiian movement to secede from the US isn't exactly robust. It's a silly comparison.
Posted by: Sideways at Apr 15, 2008 2:38:13 PM
@ R. Richard Schweitzer
So.....the primary NORMATIVE difference between support of the protest movements and support of the Us Government is that one has an army, air force and navy behind it and the other doesn't?
Come. On.
Posted by: Adam Hyland at Apr 15, 2008 2:41:07 PM
It seems that we are worried about how to accommodate China's rise to power. We are worried because historically, a rising power with a chip on it's shoulder has been a dangerous power. The Germans and the Japanese are the obvious examples. The hyper aggressive nationalism of Germany and Japan only ended after being crushed militarily. We all hope a softer landing can happen with the Chinese.
Is the idea that such hyper-nationalism is inevitable for some decades during the rise ... and will fade naturally with time? Is it like dealing with young aggressive males .. you just try not to pick a fight with them in their teens and early 20s and wait for them to mellow.
That seems to be the logic behind not "provoking" China.
But what if puncturing China's pride is a good thing, what if that will pop the balloon of their inflated self-worth? Perhaps kowtowing to the Chinese now only emboldens them?
Is the hope that China gets rich enough so it can produce it's own self-indulgent intellectuals who then attack their own country.
America is often called jingoistic. Yet we have millions of citizens who badmouth our country every day. Hollywood churns out a steady stream of anti-War America-bashing movies.
Is the self-hating elite an inevitable result of being rich? Or is it because of defeats in Vietnam?
Is it better to undermine the moral strength of China now or later?
Posted by: jim at Apr 15, 2008 2:49:38 PM
@PJ
"The nationalism that's coming out is totally genuine, not mindless jingoism whipped up by the Chinese government."
You could not be more wrong. "Mindless jingoism" is a perfect description of most education in China about Chinese history and modern China's position in the world that students there have received since they were about 5. I've lived there for lengthy periods and the notion that this reaction is some independently blossoming patriotism is crazy.
But as for TC's basic claim, it rests on the assumption that these proclaimed boycotts against French, US, etc. goods will actually happen. They won't. They didn't when students threw bottles at the US embassy in the late 90's and they won't now.
At quick look at the political directions of Chinese students in the past 40 years or so shows massive extremes and changes of direction. The notion that the current feelings are so deeply held that they will result in a change in the economic relationship with the US and Euro is just absurdly ill-informed.
A boycott of the Olympics won't get China out of Tibet (by a long shot), but it also won't have any long-term effect on China's relationship with the US.
Posted by: wugong at Apr 15, 2008 3:21:34 PM
"Yet we have millions of citizens who badmouth our country every day."
They're called patriots. They see the nightmares of this administration - our two-faced foreign policy coupled with rudderless domestic policies - and aren't hesitant to speak up about it.
"Is the self-hating elite an inevitable result of being rich?"
I don't hate myself. Just people like you.
Posted by: meter at Apr 15, 2008 3:26:23 PM
Why protest the Chinese occupation of Tibet in particular? Not that I'm not disgusting by imperialist land grabs, but why not protest
* Chinese control of Hong Kong?
* Chinese control of Taiwan?
* Chinese influence with African warlords?
* Chinese treatment of...the Chinese?
* Chinese spying on free countries?
* Substandard Chinese food?
In particular, the Lamas were pretty brutal in controlling Tibet themselves. I don't mean that to justify Chinese abuses, but we could protest for more self-government just about anywhere without detracting from...a sporting event.
Let the games go on! If people want political attention, they can forge something positive without taking the stage from athletes who have spent their lives training for their singular moment in history. They are not the enemy simply for stepping foot on Chinese soil.
Posted by: infopractical at Apr 15, 2008 4:07:42 PM
China is America's biggest supplier of capital, a liquid commodity that America needs a constant supply of as badly as it needs oil. It's a bit astounding to hear commenters airily discussing how China needs to be taught a lesson and get the uppity nationalism beaten out of it. My realpolitik, quoth the Chinese lolcat, let me show you it.
Posted by: at Apr 15, 2008 5:57:20 PM
In the meantime, as TC pointed out, they are inflaming Chinese naitionalism and stoking already existing xenophobia. If people insist on treating China like a dangerous enemy, it may well indeed wind up becoming one.
Notice that it is mainly the Western Left who took part in these protests, whereas normally it is America they are protesting against. Then again, what better way to challenge eeevil American imperialism than to try to turn the world's next-most-powerful nation against it?
Posted by: Joshua at Apr 15, 2008 8:10:36 PM
"Also, boycotts can be a two-way street. The Chinese "people" are already organizing a boycott of French goods. So to those who want to boycott the Olymics, or the opening ceremonies, what is the point? You'll just make things worse, not better."
You're right. If we're not careful, there's always the danger that the Chinese might dump loads and loads of their poorly-manufactured and lead-coated products onto our shores, while simultaneously barring the sale of American-made products within China.
Oh, wait...
Posted by: rangergranger at Apr 15, 2008 9:41:46 PM
Mr. Hyland:
What are you saying; or trying to convey?
Posted by: R. Richard Schweitzer at Apr 15, 2008 10:46:53 PM
The problem with the Hawaiian independence movement is that they lack a distinctly costumed leader in exile, the latest in a line of theocratic leaders that brutally ruled over slaves and serfs, who could appeal to naive Western liberals wanting to appear fashionable and spiritual.
Posted by: dez at Apr 15, 2008 10:53:18 PM
I find it amusing (and disconcerting) that any American would have the audacity to call the Chinese jingoistic.
I take it you either
1. Don't know many Americans
2. Don't know many Chinese
or
3. Don't know what "jingoistic" means.
Posted by: doctorpat at Apr 15, 2008 11:17:02 PM
@ Richard
It should be perfectly clear. You claim, without supporting evidence, that US intervention was just and necessary. I dispute that claim, but it isn't the focus of my post. My post was to point out that you contrast this action with the inaction of protest, presumably because protesters just complain while the US gov't gets things done.
This is absurd. One can't claim that the bar for action is invasion of a country, as you do implicitly, then assert that those of us not in possession of a working army are doing nothing.
Beyond that level of absurdity, we come to your unsupported claims that US interventionism is just. I submit that the nature and motives of those invertentions are not going to be fully fleshed out in this thread. I further submit that the thesis of most of the protests was that the US does not have the moral authority to dictate the nature of governance in another sovereign state--just as that authority is withheld from any other nation. Consequently, it follows that invasion with remaking an internal government is an immoral act. I presume that is their thinking on the subject.
One may argue that the conditions in those countries rise to the level of compelling actions from the outside world. That's a perfectly fine argument. I didn't see you raise that in your list of absolutes. It didn't seem like you were open to this as a discussion.
Needless to say, your complaint that protesters don't do much to end tyranny needed to be responded to, as silly as it was.
Posted by: Adam Hyland at Apr 15, 2008 11:30:41 PM
"I take it you either
1. Don't know many Americans
2. Don't know many Chinese
or
3. Don't know what "jingoistic" means."
1) I'm American, though irrelevant to my point.
2) No, that's true, though again completely irrelevant.
3) jin·go·ism A(jĭng'gō-ĭz'əm)
n. Extreme nationalism characterized especially by a belligerent foreign policy; chauvinistic patriotism.
So, no - pretty much dead on.
Crack a newspaper/watch the news/read teh internets in the last, oh, 7 years?
Posted by: meter at Apr 16, 2008 12:23:38 AM
meter,
Since you're comparing two groups of people, it helps to actually know something about both of these groups. The average Chinese in Chinese makes the average "jingoistic" Republican here look like ... well, you. There's just no comparison. It like complaining about the flood in your basement and saying it's just like the houses flooded by Katrina.
Posted by: Hei Lun Chan at Apr 16, 2008 12:43:01 AM
Does anyone know of any proper work on the effects of boycotts in different situations? Or, indeed, on the effectiveness of a range of different methods of influencing other countries? (The cynic in me suggests that we'll find that the only ones that are effective are unconscionable or have very bad side-effect.)
Clearly there are complex issues in engagement vs boycott, but the arguments surrounding them always seem to be conducted on a shallow, ad-hoc basis. They're also usually very emotional appeals, which is important to encourage people to actually take action, but not very useful in deciding whether a boycott will actually be effective.
Incidentally, I shouldn't really need to point out the issues with sampling the mood of China from internet postings. Not that it doesn't represent a genuine and widespread feeling, but this sort of nationalism is the only strong political point of view the Chinese government allows to be voiced. We're not going to hear the voices of any Chinese with a differing view, at least not strongly.
"why not protest
...
* Substandard Chinese food?"
Now there's an issue I can get behind. So many disappointing Chinese take-aways...
Posted by: Tim at Apr 16, 2008 6:05:38 AM
addendum:
Isn't jingoism by definition an irrational point of view, meaning that it's able to turn almost any situation to support it. No boycott = the world salute's China's glory! Boycott = China is bravely standing up to the irrational hatred and provocation of others! If anything goes wrong, it's their fault, if anything goes right it's a Chinese triumph!
The IOC and Chinese may have been smart in recognising this, with the latter proposing and the former opposing the round-the-world torch rally. As it is, we've been put into a situation that while it may not be lose-lose is at least very complicated to work out the correct response to.
Posted by: Tim at Apr 16, 2008 6:15:16 AM
The Chinese government has raised more people out of poverty in the last 20 years than all the protesters, the UN, and all the Christian missionaries in history. I think we should hold our self-righteousness and help them celebrate this incredible accomplishment.
Posted by: WS Grizzard, MD at Apr 16, 2008 7:25:41 AM
"meter,
Since you're comparing two groups of people, it helps to actually know something about both of these groups. The average Chinese in Chinese makes the average "jingoistic" Republican here look like ... well, you. There's just no comparison. It like complaining about the flood in your basement and saying it's just like the houses flooded by Katrina."
Oh stop talking out of your ass. Is this whole Iraq invastion completely and utterly lost on you? I guess that's not belligerent enough for you. And certainly wasn't propagandistic enough either, it seems.
We have our flag pins, our "God Bless America" (go read the gun posts), our "America is the greatest blah blah blah" bullshit. Only instead of it being completely government-sponsored (we have at least one party which doesn't kowtow to that), it's the flag-waving cheerleading segment of the population that keeps jingoism alive and well in this country.
Do you know *anything* about America?
Posted by: meter at Apr 16, 2008 8:14:07 AM
meter-- As an American (strongly opposed to the Iraq war and well aware of the all the propaganda about it in the US from everyone from the gov't to CNN) who has lived in China and Taiwan for many years, there's simply no comparison. Jingoism basically defines most mainland Chinese political discussion, especially about the Olympics. If the average American, when asked about the founding of the US, repeated the same verbatim phrase, something like "George Washington could not tell a lie. He was the founder of our country," then you might have a comparison. Have you actually read any of the high school history textbooks in China? The closest we've come in America is something like the memorization of the Baltimore Catechism by Catholics.
The Iraq war would be a legitimate comparison only if basically EVERY person from age 5 to 95 in America that you asked would instantly respond: "It is a glorious effort to liberate Iraq from the tyrant Saddam and is necessary to keep America safe." Certainly MANY people in America will respond this way, but probably fewer than 50%. Try asking Chinese college students in Beijing about the status of Tibet or Taiwan. You'll hit near 100% unanimity with the same phrases repeated again and again.
Posted by: wugong at Apr 16, 2008 9:07:06 AM
Ask any American about Hawaii, and they would say that Hawaii is an integral part of America, that the US controlling Hawaii is a good thing, that the almost-gone native Hawaiians are doing well under American rule, that Hawaii is necessary for national security (Pearl Harbor), and that the Hawaiian independence movement is silly and ignorable.
There's your unanimity. Of course there's been more media attention on Tibet, so possibly many Americans don't know that native Hawaiians exist and Hawaii used to be fully independent.
Posted by: zed at Apr 16, 2008 9:30:28 AM
zeb-- Do you think the situations with Hawaii and Tibet (or Taiwan) are equivalent? They sure don't seem that way to me, but I'm willing to hear your argument (not simple assertion) to the contrary.
By the way, as an American born in the late '60's, I was certainly not taught that Hawaii is "an *integral* part of America" in elementary through high school. It was simply another state. Perhaps you see this as a more insidious form of propaganda, but it's very different from what Chinese students are taught about Tibet and Taiwan.
And American college students are (at most institutions) taught to think very critically about just about every aspect of US foreign policy and the historical treatment of Native Americans, including Hawaiians. Do you think you see the equivalent of "Free Leonard Peltier" posters on the walls of dorms at Beida? The very idea is laughable.
Posted by: wugong at Apr 16, 2008 9:42:32 AM
wugong-- You've got to be kidding me? Obama is still being called unpatriotic for not wearing a pin? And yes, I think back in 2002 most Americans would respond "We are attacking Iraq to bring freedom and liberate it from tyrant Saddam". And I think many of them probably believed back then that Saddam is connected al qaeda. How is that any different?
The problem here is that Hawaii about 100years ago is equivalent to Tibet today. Unless you believe back then native Hawaiians were grateful for the "freedom" brought by Americans, and happy to become a part of the union? I think this is why most Chinese feels no need to negotiate with dalai lama and prefer to just wait another 100 years and for Tibet to turn into Hawaii of today. And then there would be no longer need to teach Tibet is "an integral" part of China. Personally, I think that's short sighted and can't disagreed enough. But you make yourself look like a hypocrite to most Chinese now if you refuse to acknowledge the historical similarities.
Posted by: Shane at Apr 16, 2008 3:15:49 PM
Mr. Hyland:
Thank you, I now understand your point
Posted by: R.Richard Schweitzer at Apr 16, 2008 4:10:04 PM
"You've got to be kidding me? Obama is still being called unpatriotic for not wearing a pin? And yes, I think back in 2002 most Americans would respond "We are attacking Iraq to bring freedom and liberate it from tyrant Saddam". And I think many of them probably believed back then that Saddam is connected al qaeda. How is that any different?"
1. Yes, Obama is getting call unpatriotic for his lack of a pin. Idiotic to be sure. But HE'S RUNNING IN AN ELECTION!!! And he's winning! Now think about how that's different from the situation in China in every meaningful way. Do you really think criticism of his perceived lack of patriotism is the equivalent of it being illegal to start an opposition political party in the first place?
2. As for many Americans thinking Saddam is connected to al Qaeda, no disagreement from me that they believe such stupid things. But you ask "How is that any different?" Well, you can go to innumerable media outlets and read/listen to/watch people saying that such claims are completely false. You can publicly attack the Bush administration for its policies and not go to jail for it. Yes, they have hurt civil liberties, but to say there is no difference between the ability to question governmental policy and dominant ideas in the US and China is simply ridiculous.
3. I agree with your comment about the historical situation with Hawaii. Frankly, I think the US treatment of Native Americans historically is FAR FAR worse than China's treatment of Tibetans. But by point here is that I can freely say so and not risk the US government shutting down this website. The original issue was jingoism and I still hold that it plays a far larger role in Chinese political discussions than it does in the US. I've lived there; I speak the language; I've had these discussions with Chinese students again and again. To say the situation with public speech is the same in the US and China is factually incorrect.
Want more jingoism? Enjoy: http://www.boingboing.net/2008/04/16/net-bullies-target-c.html
Posted by: Wugong at Apr 16, 2008 4:13:58 PM
"The Chinese government has raised more people out of poverty in the last 20 years than all the protesters, the UN, and all the Christian missionaries in history. I think we should hold our self-righteousness and help them celebrate this incredible accomplishment."
Posted by: WS Grizzard, MD at Apr 16, 2008 7:25:41 AM
All they did was lift the restrictions/central planning that killed 50 million people under Mao! Did they have to wait before millions of people died in famine before they admit their system didn't work? This is no "incredible accomplishment". The poverty was largely of their own creation. Stick to auto-proctology, Dr. Grizzard...
Posted by: x at Apr 17, 2008 5:13:24 AM
Boycott what, Olympic? Is there a country called Olympic? Wait a sec, I know where it is. It must be that dirty little crappy town I got my pipe beaten off in Texas. I hated these Olympians.
Whatever you texas olympians say I go for it. Yeah, boycott them all from selling us huma rights.
I boycotted Wal-Mart but went broke I now can’t even afford for buy me a pair of underpans. They darn getting more and more expensive Made in China stuff, all darn the same as costy as gas price. I olddy daddy boycotted Japanese cars b’cause he aren’t afford to get one. He told everyone he boycotted Japanese cars only I know he had nothing, not a penny in the bank. I boycotted Chinese clothes, electrics, watchs,toys,whatever you name it, I boycotted. Now I aren’t wearing underpans at all.
Yeah! I boycott everything I can’t afford to get but don’t boycut tibetan monks I like monks. I always wish I was one of them and had slaves and serfs to bring me foods and boozies. I heard they have free gay sex, is that true? Wow, I can’t wait to jump on a greyhound bus to want to go Tibet, is that in Mexico?
“Free T-back! Free T-back!” That was all I heard yesterday on the street on Van Ness and Broadway. I jumped out of my basement window all I saw was a bunch of crappies running down the road chasing by cops. I asked for free t-back they dammy stuck me a yellow flag, told me “thas’s fee T-back. thas’s fee T-back.Wa pay you, Wa pay you.” I asked for $100, they cheaters only gave me $50. What to cheat on me? No way! I aren’t texas Olympians! I tore the yellow flag in half, put half on my head it darn cold yesterday, stuck the rest under my pans.
“Free T-back!”
Cheaters! There was no free T-back at all. They cheated on me! I want boycott anything free b’cauz nothing is FREE! Nothing is FREE! Try to walk away a hamburger from Macky they beat the crap of out of you!
Hold on, there IS a thing free, yeah, your mouth water is FREE.
Posted by: Adam at Apr 17, 2008 4:13:46 PM
Adam, you have rescued a terrible comments thread.
Posted by: perianwyr at Apr 18, 2008 1:14:39 PM
Or why Tyler Cowen shouldn't rely o state-produced propaganda to bolster his point.
Would you quote Pravda in defense of libertarianism?
Posted by: Oskar Shapley at Apr 20, 2008 2:36:49 PM
Please study history, don't just go with media, for you can never get the truth from broadcasting.
Ask questions first. Question Dalai Lama, google Dalai Lama, study Dalai Lama, do research on Dalai Lama, before you judge Dalai Lama - His Holiness, or he is the slave owner who is still pursuing his old dream of being the spiritual, political, and army leader of a church-state. A church-state in 21st century!
Tips:
Google "Dalai Lama" + "CIA"
Google "Dalai Lama" + "NAZI"
Google "Dalai Lama" + "Japanese sarin nerve gas killer"
Google "Dalai Lama" + "Dorje Shugden"
Google "Dalai Lama" + "Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth"
I love google, but it is not powerful enough to provide any trace on if Dalai Lama paid tax for the money he got from CIA. If he didn't pay tax, he must have paid back in some other way.
This is not about Human Rights. Only use common sense of Human Being that you will know the truth of Dalai Lama!
Posted by: Sunny at Apr 21, 2008 2:53:43 PM
I was going to stay out of this one, finding myself largely in agreement
with Tyler while also being appalled at the behavior of the Chinese government.
But "Sunny" does call for a reply.
So, "Sunny," with your bad English, does it not occur to you that Beijing
should be dealing more seriously with a man who 1) agrees that Tibet is a
part of China, 2) has denounced violent opposition to Chinese rule in Tibet,
and 3) has criticized protests against China hosting the Olympics?
Regarding your links, they are pretty weak and pathetic. The sarin nerve
gas money was given before it became clear those folks were going to use
sarin nerve gas. The Nazi kept his identity secret. The CIA money allegations
remain unproven. The Dorje Shugden people may dislike the Dalai Lama having
turned against them (he admired the D.S. in his youth), but their accusations
do not seem to be backed up by any of them actually experiencing any serious
problems, and certainly nothing like what the Chinese government has been
doing to the Tibetan protesters and their supporters, which is an international
embarrassment, full evidence of the failure of the Chinese government to keep
to the promises it made to the international community when it was granted the
right to host the Olympics. And as for his weird views on sex, so what?
And, while we are a-googling, I suggest that something has not been mentioned
at all on this thread and very little in the press should be brought up, the
fact that Hu Jintao, President of the Peoples' Republic of Zhongguo, Chairman
of the Standing Committee of the Poltical Bureau of the Central Committee of the
Communist Party of Zhongguo, and Chairman of the Supreme Military Commission of
the Peoples' Republic of Zhongguo, spent a crucial part of his career, starting
in 1988, as leader of the Communist Party in Tibet, and that he played a crucial
role in the violent suppression and killing of protesters in Tibet during the
following year. For better or worse, that is another reason why the current
protests will probably affect nothing, although perhaps a future regime.
Here is a bottom line question for you, "Sunny": who has killed more people,
the 14th Dalai Lama or Hu Jintao?
Posted by: Barkley Rosser at Apr 21, 2008 4:57:07 PM
To Barkley:
Dalai Lama has life-long friendship with 2 NAZIs. One of them died at 93-year-old. You believe Dalai Lama doesn't know anything about this guy's NAZI backgroud? You challenge Dalai Lama's IQ here.
Yes, Dalai Lama doesn't want "Independence" now. He played double-face. 1 face with the Westerners like you, the other face with China - This is why it is so difficult for China to talk with him. He has always been changing and adjusting his strategies from time to time. Now he knows he doesn't have much time, so he adjusted again. God and Buddha are ever-lasting, but DaLai Lama has always been changing.
You are just one of those people who follow media. Too lazy to use your own brain. Do you have a brain at all, I doubt about that!
Remember those priests who molested young boys. They were Holiness just as Dalai Lama, before they were revealed.
My English might be bad - I can work on that. Your brain is bad, weak and pathetic. You'd better work on that now - not much time for you either. You don't even know where Tibet is on this world, I believe.
I don't want to waste time on you. Loser!
Posted by: Sunny at Apr 22, 2008 1:37:41 PM
Your logic is this:
Whatever Dalai Lama said is correct. Anyone who doubted/disagreed with him is wrong or "remain unproven".
Check this: http://www.state.gov/www/about_state/history/vol_xxx/337_343.html
The U.S government already admitted and you still deny it?
What happened in Tibet (3.14) is Terrorism, not just a riot. Some Tibetans attacked other ethnic groups (schools, hospitals, stores, etc) and killed people and injured a lot. Did Dalai Lama evey commented on this?
When Dalai Lama is useless to the U.S Government, he will be forgotten, for sure. 5, or 10 years? Let's see.
My post is for those who want to listen to different voices on 1 issue.
Sunny
Posted by: Sunny at Apr 22, 2008 1:54:15 PM
On April 2, 2008, in an interview with Radio France International's Chinese language program, Dawa Tsering, an Additional Secretary in the Department of Information and International Relations of the Tibetan government-in-exile,[163] answered a question about why the Dalai Lama has not condemned the violent actions of rioters during the unrest. Speaking in Chinese, Dawa Tsering stated that：
“ First of all, I must make it clear that the Tibetan (rioters) has been non-violent throughout (the incident). From Tibetans' perspective, violence means harming life. From the video recordings you can see that the Tibetans rioters were beating Han Chinese, but only beating took place. After the beating the Han Chinese were free to flee. Therefore [there were] only beating, no life was harmed. Those who were killed were all results of accidents. From recordings shown by the Chinese Communist government, we can clearly see that when Tibetan [rioters] were beating on their doors, the Han Chinese all went into hiding upstairs. When the Tibetan [rioters] set fire to the buildings, the Han Chinese remained in hiding instead of escaping, the result is that these Han Chinese were all accidentally burnt to death. Those who set and spread the fire, on the other hand, had no idea whatsoever that there were Han Chinese hiding upstairs. Therefore not only were Han Chinese burnt to death, some Tibetans were burnt to death too. Therefore all these incidents were accidents, not murder.
Posted by: Bob at Apr 23, 2008 2:09:07 PM
http://www.trimondi.de/EN/interv03.html
Dalai Lama and 9/11
An Interview with Victor and Victoria Trimondi (Germany)
By James C. Stephens
Victor and Victoria Trimondi (Germany) are the authors of "The Shadow of the Dalai Lama – Sexuality, Magic and Politics in Tibetan Buddhism"
Posted by: Lisa F at Apr 23, 2008 2:34:45 PM
The XIV Dalai Lama and the Japanese sarin nerve gas killer - Shoko Asahara:
http://www.iivs.de/~iivs01311/SDLE/Part-2-13.htm
--- Amazingly, weeks after the first poison gas attack, His Holiness still called the guru a “friend, although not necessarily a perfect one”---
Posted by: Sun at Apr 23, 2008 4:14:21 PM
