GameBanshee Forums

There's this. But then there's also this, and what's more, this.

Nice location for the Olympics, China. It pays to have the big bucks to do it right, and nobody should look at anything else, because it doesn't matter, right?

Comment strictly on subject, please.

Religion, politics and ideology:
They just don't play well together...
I tend to stay out of conversations that cover these subjects...
I just cannot understand the reasons behind some governments...
I wonder if the British were influenced by the Chinese Government or was this something they came up with on their own....
Just brings back memories of my family leaving Chile years ago...

fable wrote:Nice location for the Olympics, China. It pays to have the big bucks to do it right, and nobody should look at anything else, because it doesn't matter, right?

Well, it's what the IOC believes at least. Which is a shame imo. If sport should be anything more than entertainment for the rich I believe we should welcome the fact that people like Younis Mahmoud or John Carlos and Tommie Smith does exist.

I wish the international protests could cover a bit more ground than the Olympics though. Here in Sweden for example, there are voices arguing that the Olympic team should stage some kind of protest, but when Swedish companies expand in china it is apparently not an issue.

That said, I'm not sure a boycott is a good thing. As far as I've understood the Chinese government is less oppressive now than it have been in the past. Perhaps more can be accomplished with a carrot then with a stick. I'm not sure either way.

In my mind boycotting the games is not the answer at all. There are and were and will be far better ways to press China into cooperating in regards to the human rights issue - this should have been done ages ago, and not now, when the Olympics are on the horizon and athletes who have spent years or even most of their lives concentrating on this even should not be the ones to pay for the way world is run.

Ashen wrote:In my mind boycotting the games is not the answer at all. There are and were and will be far better ways to press China into cooperating in regards to the human rights issue...

Ashen, there have been numerous studies done showing that all attempts to "humanize" Mainland China's approach to human rights have dismally failed. Instead, the Chinese play a shell game of releasing one or two human rights prisoners with a great deal of fanfare, all the while cracking down elsewhere and imprisoning more. If anything, the numbers have shown that human rights are getting worse in China, and economic development, with its natural tendency to separate into the haves and have-nots, certainly isn't helping matters.

So what methods do you suggest that work? And why not a boycott of the Beijing Olympics?

Its such a shame what's happened to Tibet in the last half-century. While I really wish there was something anyone could do about it, the only realistic option is for China to eventually work out its own internal problems. The rest of the world can't do much beyond delivering speeches and rhetoric, which China gets annoyed at but generally ignores.

I originally thought that a boycott of the Olympics wouldn't be productive, but really, I think its the only way to deliver a stern message to China. I still don't think it'll change much about Tibet or China's position on Darfur (which makes UN action impossible) or China's continued abuse of human rights. There's really not much of a way to influence China beyond threatening trade penalties, and that will not happen, especially with the North American economy going how it is right now.

What's almost lucky right now is that the opposition won the election in Taiwan a little while ago. The party that won is more pro-China, and they're not looking to antagonize the mainland. The defeated government was proposing to reapply to the UN again for sovereign status as "Taiwan", which always pisses off China and leads to posturing and military buildups. That was a powder keg that was nicely avoided.

I think that if the United States or some European countries decide to boycott, it could get the ball rolling and be a pretty massive protest against Beijing's policies without the need for military posturing or economic harm. [url="http://www.slate.com/id/2187280/"]This[/url] is a pretty good article about how protesting the Olympics has worked in the past.

On a side note, what annoys me is that the reason the IOC gave Beijing the Olympics (over my hometown of Toronto) was to improve its world relations and to open China's doors so that human rights and social equality movements could have an impact on Chinese society. Obviously, that hasn't worked.

I don't a boycott would be even possible. It's becoming such an economic superpower, snubbing it will cut of trade route. China won't suffer because not everyone wants that. The Human rights issues aren't well known enough.

Craig wrote:I don't a boycott would be even possible. It's becoming such an economic superpower, snubbing it will cut of trade route. China won't suffer because not everyone wants that. The Human rights issues aren't well known enough.

Craig, I think the human righs issues regarding China are very well known. The problem is, money trumps all. Which explains why so many politicians will denounce China's abuse of human and cultural rights in Tibet, then go on to say any Olympics boycott is out of the question. They aim the first part at their home audience, and the second at China.

fable wrote:Craig, I think the human righs issues regarding China are very well known. The problem is, money trumps all. Which explains why so many politicians will denounce China's abuse of human and cultural rights in Tibet, then go on to say any Olympics boycott is out of the question. They aim the first part at their home audience, and the second at China.

It's well known of, sure. People think "China, bad human right? Yeah." And move on. I don't think they know *what* exactly occurs. I don't know either to be honest.

The everyday man doesn't care much for trade routes though, so getting average people to boycott it might be a better plan...

Craig wrote:It's well known of, sure. People think "China, bad human right? Yeah." And move on. I don't think they know *what* exactly occurs. I don't know either to be honest.

A good point, Craig. Nearly everybody understands this as an assumption. It has no weight, no visceral impact, because it is accepted, rote truth, instead of something they have researched and grasped individually, for themselves. This is an excellent site for examining ongoing issues regarding China and Tibet, while this is a great paper about China's execrable human rights record from Amnesty International USA.

A friend of mine recently returned from a three month trip to China. The funny thing was that, while she was telling stories, we were sitting in the common room watching a documentary about a certain Tibetian monk who travelled to India in the decade before the Chinese invasion. It was kind of awkward, because she did have nice things to tell about her stay there. She told us that in China, people have absolutely no disposition about their government. Democracy isn't merely 'something of the west', they don't comprehend why they should even want to interfere with their government's business. They just don't think about it. They're.. politically ignostic.

I wonder if there even is such a thing as Chinese Nationalism.

Wow, that seems quite strange. Makes me think about who's looking which way through the looking glass.

Tricky wrote:She told us that in China, people have absolutely no disposition about their government. Democracy isn't merely 'something of the west', they don't comprehend why they should even want to interfere with their government's business. They just don't think about it. They're.. politically ignostic.

You know, nearly everybody in the Soviet had wonderful things to say about Communism until it fell. Cultural anthropologists detail three public responses in social commonalities to the presence of an authoritarian bully: they either try to become part of the bully's pack, they quietly cheer the bully on, or they remain silent and make believe nothing has happened.

@ Fable

That first site you linked to is a riot! This piece:

Japanese government officials planning to attend the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games should address the silencing of dissent in China and encourage the Chinese government to honor its Olympic pledges to improve human rights in the context of the Games, Human Rights Watch said today. Human Rights Watch executive director Kenneth Roth will be in Japan in mid-March to discuss a range of human rights concerns in Asia.

literally made me laugh. Like the Chinese are going to take lessons on human rights from the Japanese??!! The people at HRW obviously know nothing about history. Fortunately the Japanes government hopefully aren't as stupid as them, and will not start another cold war by being so insensitive to China's attitude toward Japan. It might be over 70 years since the Nanjing massacre, but the Chinese still haven't forgotten or forgiven.

It might help save some lives and reduce the torture if outsiders were to stop encouraging people within Tibet to campaign for independence. Whilst I abhor China's occupation of the country, it isn't going to change. The Chinese will not pull out, or change its stance on Tibet unless someone marches an army into China and forces them to, and this is the 21st century, not the 19th, so it isn't going to happen.

As for using the Olympics as a weapon, it's a two edged sword, if it's used too often, the Chinese will simply turn the weapon on it's wielders and cancel the Olympics.

I'm not trying to play the devil's advocate here, but what really gets to me is the extremely one-sided and biased media coverage we get regarding the events. The few newspapers/journalists who tries to present a reflected and deeper coverage of the events are drowned in a storm of tabloid media hype, usually being branded as "reactionary" and "fascist imperialists." Isn't the whole point of journalism and reporting to provide a non-biased view of events? In this case, using the "peaceful monks" as figureheads, everyone is forced to accept a hillariously black/white point of view. When one lady reporting from Lhasa for a major newspaper here pointed out that the whole revolt has now detoriated into mob-rule and looting, with thugs dressed up as monks running rampant in the streets, the fallout in the tabloid media here was so great she was ordered to come home. If that ain't media censorship, then nothing is! I might as well be living in China, if people are gonna tell what I'm supposed to think about this.

"Isn't the whole point of journalism and reporting to provide a non-biased view of events?"

Isn't the reason the media is so godawful these days because they try to maintain the pretense of non-biased reporting? I think it should be the job of the media to report the truth, and the truth is inherently biased against anyone who is wrong.

In Canada the other day the Chinese ambassador was given a press conference where he was allowed to present China's point of view. I didn't catch all of it, came in about part way, but I do remember the way he equated 1940s Tibet with Nazi Germany (seriously), the way he said that Tibet was a medieval country before China 'elevated' it to modern status (as a former overseas teacher, I can attest to the fact that parts of China still look like something out of the middle ages), and that the Dalai Lama had tricked the world into believing he is a peaceful figured (I knew it! I knew he was only pretending to be a nice guy).

All this stuff scares me - China is a bully (please don't tell me that so is the U.S., I already agree with that), and the next real war that gets fought will be against it.

Looking at the rate of China's economic growth, one wonders if there will be more 'elevating' before long.

kyle wrote:"Isn't the whole point of journalism and reporting to provide a non-biased view of events?"

Isn't the reason the media is so godawful these days because they try to maintain the pretense of non-biased reporting? I think it should be the job of the media to report the truth, and the truth is inherently biased against anyone who is wrong.

Wrong! In so many ways. The "truth" you speak of is carefully constructed by people who make a living as "spin-doctors" and grab on to every opportunity they can find, no matter how far fetched, to bend the "truth" into their point of view. The "monks of Tibet" is a media opportunity without equal. The Dalai Lama has presented himself, for as far as I can remember, as a person of peace and wisdom. Hell, he's blessed every celebrity twit from Richard Gere to Steven Seagal as followers of the "true path to enlightenment and peace." He ain't Ghandi, and if you do a little research, Ghandi ain't what he's made up to be either. I grew up supporting Taliban against the Soviet Union. Look where that got me. Use your head, see both sides of every issue, and don't buy the hype.

But the da lai lama and gandai support non-violence. Quite a bit different from the Taliban!

Claudius wrote:But the da lai lama and gandai support non-violence.

Does 'violence' also include 'two men sleeping with each other'? Because that would also be correct.

It's the little things, you know.