The Beijing Olympics

fly_agaric

Redplanet wrote:

Is that an argument for "democracy"?
Hardly!

As you know, the Nazi's came to power via democratic machinery but right afterwards they dismantled German democracy bit by bit. Why was that?

As I'm sure you also know, most of the architects of the invasion of Iraq are in the dustbin already and the current administration are out of time to do any more warmongering. Why is this?

Thirdfox wrote:

The Chinese people are a peaceful race

There is no such thing as a "peaceful race".

Thirdfox wrote:

If a Chinese Bush came into power and decided to go invading other countries to spread the Chinese ideologies by gunpoint he will be brought down.

One would hope so but if the aggression can be sold well and appears to have little risk for China (initially) I'm sure the public will buy it enthusiastically as they seem to in most countries.
It should be easier to sell war to the public of an autocracy. Even if the people change their minds later it is of less relevance to those in power.

BTW, I have found the hypocrisy in some of this criticism of China lately to be somewhat offputting.

1) Bush. I agree with what he said but some biblical proverb comes to mind at this point.

2) Many nations whose leaders have been been opining about China's human rights and the olympics or fretting over China's growing power etc have been making lots of money out of China's economic boom for the last two decades at least. To hell with the nature of the state their companies have been dealing with.
Whatever happened to "Oh we mustn't mention these nasty truths because they won't let us base there & tap their skilled/unskilled workforce & sell to their colossal market."? Nothing really because Im sure if they were too worried about money to pressure China about these issues when it was weaker they will hardly do it when China is strong (other than a bit of meaningless grandstanding on the run up to & during the olympics)

Overheal

Some Opening Ceremony Stats

• The LED screen at the center of the ground, which unrolled to represent a huge scroll detailing China's 5,000-year civilization, measured 482 feet by 72 feet wide and contained a whopping 44,000 LED beads with a distance of 600 millimeters between each two.
• Technical monitoring systems were employed to keep track of over 18,000 performers through identification codes, a first for any Olympics.
• The fireworks used a digital ignition control system that coordinated blasts in over 30 locations across Beijing. According to Cai Guoqiang, the explosions maestro behind that part of the show, not a single of the 40,000 cannon shots faltered.
• The material used for the paper on the painting scroll was produced by the country's aerospace sector. Similarly, most of the core technologies used in the ceremony had been developed by domestic companies.

If you managed to miss the ceremony, I pity you. I watched it in HD and it was amazing :pac:

SkepticOne

I see according to biased Western mouthpiece the BBC that the government of the PRC have set up designated protest areas but they are arresting people who apply to protest in them. This is the physical equivalent of the fake computer generated segments of the opening ceremony. Project the appearance of allowing political expression to the gullible while quietly stepping up detentions lest an undesirable image is created.

Thirdfox

Is that sarcasm I detect in that post?

The BBC is one of the better news agencies anyway - my faith in them has certainly been shaken by recent events.

But yes, if the story is exactly as they've reported then it is very worrying (I read the report from the NY Times). But due to recent events (see above!) for some strange reason I have a sneaky suspicion that they may not be reporting the whole truth of the matter. It doesn't seem completely unlikely though - as protests (pre-Olympics) have always been allowed in China, you just need to get police permission...not very easy to obtain.

"Fake computer generated"? So the sequences were real then? Semantics aside, I personally cannot believe anyone thought the fireworks intro was live action filming, Walking with Dinosaurs had better CGI in my opinion. Also the fireworks footprints were real...but that clip was generated as it couldn't be physically filmed. Maybe the British will be able to do it for London 2012...

SkepticOne

Thirdfox wrote: »

Maybe the British will be able to do it for London 2012...

Technically yes.

Essey

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

Excuse ME??? Do you mean your definition of Propaganda?

Overheal

SkepticOne wrote: »

I see according to biased Western mouthpiece the BBC that the government of the PRC have set up designated protest areas but they are arresting people who apply to protest in them. This is the physical equivalent of the fake computer generated segments of the opening ceremony. Project the appearance of allowing political expression to the gullible while quietly stepping up detentions lest an undesirable image is created.

The firework feet were gen'd for safety reasons only. however the little chinese girl that was singing on stage? A body double: the organisers deemed the actual singer too ugly to put on stage so they swapped her out and let her sing through the mic off stage.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/08/12/oly.kids/index.html

but fake or not the ceremnoy was impressive.

oscarBravo

Essey wrote: »

Excuse ME??? Do you mean your definition of Propaganda?

Read the charter before posting again. This is your only warning.

Thirdfox

Overheal wrote: »

The firework feet were gen'd for safety reasons only. however the little chinese girl that was singing on stage? A body double: the organisers deemed the actual singer too ugly to put on stage so they swapped her out and let her sing through the mic off stage.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/08/12/oly.kids/index.html

but fake or not the ceremnoy was impressive.

Like people mentioned - it's a performance, and one which was enjoyed by most. Did we expect that the archer would really light the olympic torch in Barcelona?

As for that poor girl - this is one "Westernisation" that I really don't approve of, seeking Hollywood "perfection" for everything. Why not be natural, the girl who sang was beautiful in her own way too...and really, in a country with 1.3 billion people there surely had to have been someone who fulfilled the aesthetics requirements as well as the acoustic ones.

To be fair on the organisers - the girl who wasn't selected wasn't deemed too ugly, but not pretty enough (a slight but important difference of semantics I feel).

And to take their flak wagon off the Chinese, the Spanish basketball team landed themselves in hot water with the English and American papers with that (quite tasteless) ad with the slit eyes gesture. Funnily enough there's not much controversy in China itself but the press here has become the defender of Chinese honour (and there's now lawsuits being threatened by the Spanish on accusations that the British/US are trying to s**t-stir). I'm grabbing my popcorn and watching this with interest!

SkepticOne

For me an Olympic ceremony is just a big cheesy spectacle and to a certain extent the sorts of stunts pulled in this one are to be expected. I don't go in for this sort of thing but each to his own. I don't think the London ceremony will go quite as far to be honest because of the different culture that exists there. Not saying one culture is better than another just pointing out differences.

I was mainly pointing out the similarity with what happened at the ceremony and the way unpleasant things appear to be hidden in general society if they don't project the appropriate image. Obviously the serious ones are detaining potential protesters and the like but there's also stuff like building walls around unsightly neighbourhoods.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/04/beijing-walls-hide-neighborhoods-blight/

Now the whole business of reporters travelling freely and reporting without restriction is new in China so I think much of this will come as a shock to some who may be used to mainly flattering stories about the PRC government and I would not be surprised if they are not believed.

Thirdfox

If you're addressing me as the "some" I was just came back from having studied for a year there (in Beijing). So I believe I am in a position to question the motives and verity of suspicious reports that come form our free press.

Indeed - building walls is something that has happened (I was confused at the time why a wall had suddenly appeared on the edge of Peking Uni over the course of a week - apparently it's to stop people from seeing the "bad" side of Beijing).

Frankly I think the government has tried too hard to bow down (or "accommodate" to use a less incendiary phrase) to foreigners... like that story about banning the sale of dog meat in some restaurants in case some foreigners might be offended... it's your country don't be embarrassed by your customs.

Well the London section of the closing ceremony has been leaked to the British press, Beckham and Leona Lewis on a big red bus - you tell me that's not cheesy (or rather embarrassing as some commentators on BBC have said...how does Beckham represent Britain/British Olympics?)

SkepticOne

Thirdfox wrote: »

Well the London section of the closing ceremony has been leaked to the British press, Beckham and Leona Lewis on a big red bus - you tell me that's not cheesy (or rather embarrassing as some commentators on BBC have said...how does Beckham represent Britain/British Olympics?)

I'm not singling out the Beijing ceremony for cheesiness. I'm sorry if that was not clear. It is in the nature of all of them to be cheesy and indeed embarassing. Due to cultural differences, and again I'm not saying one culture better than the other, I don;t think things like computer graphics will be used to generate the images, nor will substitution of one singer for another. I don't think the same allowances would be made in the media if this happened in London.

But the main point was that the important cover-ups are elsewhere. Now I am interested to know if the earlier human rights post is true. Are you suggesting the journalist exaggerated it? What do you reckon he might be leaving out.

I think we can agree that all media is biased in some way or another. Most often this bias takes the form of putting a spin on the facts. But telling outright lies would destroy the credibility of the journalist and possibly the paper if it is a serious newspaper. So if you are claiming a story is wrong the onus is on you to say why.

Even if you currently lived in Beijing, how does that make you an authority on whether a story is true or not. You still need to say why and bring forward the relevant facts. I live in Dublin, but if I want to say a news story in Dublin is wrong I still have to say why. Living in Dublin or having lived in Dublin is not enough.

Thirdfox

SkepticOne wrote: »

But the main point was that the important cover-ups are elsewhere. Now I am interested to know if the earlier human rights post is true. Are you suggesting the journalist exaggerated it? What do you reckon he might be leaving out.

I have no idea what could have been left out, but when close scrutiny is applied to journalistic stories (as many Chinese online bloggers did after CNN et al.'s coverage and reporting of the Tibet riots) we see mistakes/mistruths and distortions coming out ranging from photo editing to blatant lies (one example, Nepal police arresting protesters is an example of Chinese police brutality).

I think we can agree that all media is biased in some way or another. Most often this bias takes the form of putting a spin on the facts. But telling outright lies would destroy the credibility of the journalist and possibly the paper if it is a serious newspaper. So if you are claiming a story is wrong the onus is on you to say why.

I don't agree, once they lose my trust (like the People's Daily - does anyone read that for facts anymore?) it is up to them to regain their credibility in my eyes. Something that the BBC up to now has not done post their Tibet riots coverage (though one article was written a month or so later explaining why they took their angle of events.) I read their articles because they are well written (from a grammatical and linguistic point of view) but everything is now taken with a large pinch of salt.

Even if you currently lived in Beijing, how does that make you an authority on whether a story is true or not. You still need to say why and bring forward the relevant facts. I live in Dublin, but if I want to say a news story in Dublin is wrong I still have to say why. Living in Dublin or having lived in Dublin is not enough.

I can only draw on my experiences and say that it was completely unlike what the BBC is portraying. Then again I never tried to protest. But again I am not stating that their story is wrong (this time) but that I do not personally trust them to portray both sides of the story from my experience of their coverage of the Tibet riots and the other "stories" of the Olympics. For me that is enough.

Thirdfox

Just to add, this harms the legitimate stories of the BBC etc. as they may be well reporting the whole truth but they have lost the trust of many readers. Cynicism towards their impartiality will come back to haunt them when they are fighting the "just" fight and no-one listens...

Overheal

Simply never trust the first thing you hear until its been backed by several independent outlets.

Speaking of the Chinese though, their Gymnastics Team: Half the team is reportedly suspected of being underage, the proof being in older news articles and source materials regarding the girls (which have since been pulled by their originating sources in the last couple days) but the Chinese Government insists that their passports clearly indicate they are of at least 16 years of age :rolleyes: Because you cant fake a document right?

This investigation seems to be getting backed up by many/all of the American media but whats europe saying?

SkepticOne

Thirdfox wrote: »

I have no idea what could have been left out, but when close scrutiny is applied to journalistic stories (as many Chinese online bloggers did after CNN et al.'s coverage and reporting of the Tibet riots) we see mistakes/mistruths and distortions coming out ranging from photo editing to blatant lies (one example, Nepal police arresting protesters is an example of Chinese police brutality).

I don't think the Nepal story is an outright lie. It was a fairly understandable mistake. The staff of a newsroom have to put pictures with stories. The bulk of pictures on the Tibet protests would have come from outside Tibet (due to restrictions imposed by the PRC government) and, unless you are from the region, you may not be famaliar with the uniforms of the respective countries. Not everyone will know that there are significant populations of Tibetans outside Tibet (many of them refugees but some native to those areas). I can easily understand a junior member of staff thinking that a picture of police beating up Tibetans comes from Tibet.

The vast bulk of pictures in Western media correctly labeled the pictures of the Tibetan protests in Nepal.

With the editing of the picture, yes, that could be seen as bias, but more likely they wanted to enlarge the image of certain people in the shot - make it a more personal picture rather than one of an anonymous mob.The big problem is that the only pictures to get out were ones approved by the PRC government so to a certain extent further edititing is justified.

Everyone mentions these examples and a few more, which I understand were broadcast on the Chinese national news, but it does not show a systematic bias against China.

Shacklebolt

Thirdfox wrote: »

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

I dont recall Mao being "brought down" by the Chinese people when he spread ideologies by gunpoint (ie Tibet)-perhaps the fact the Chinese government is a dictatorship that has no mandate form the people of the country (or indeed any country at all) whatsoever has something to do with it.
Olympics should only be given to nations which respect human rights-I seem to recall sport and politics DID mix during apartheid in South Africa? Why id the Irish governments policy so radically different when it comes to China which happens to be a much larger and more powerful nation? Or am I going wrong somewhere?:rolleyes:

GuanYin

Shacklebolt wrote: »

I dont recall Mao being "brought down" by the Chinese people when he spread ideologies by gunpoint (ie Tibet)-perhaps the fact the Chinese government is a dictatorship that has no mandate form the people of the country (or indeed any country at all) whatsoever has something to do with it.

Firstly, your allusion to Mao and Tibet is both titilating and innacurate. It was nothing to do with forced ideaology.

Although Mao was flawed, he got results. Before Mao, China can be compared to India in terms a developing country with a large population over a large region. Today China is socially a far superior country to India. Noam Chomsky wrote a good article on this showing that China benefitted greatly from the political ideaology adopted after the revolution.

I believe contentment is a large enough mandate in China.

Olympics should only be given to nations which respect human rights-I seem to recall sport and politics DID mix during apartheid in South Africa? Why id the Irish governments policy so radically different when it comes to China which happens to be a much larger and more powerful nation? Or am I going wrong somewhere?:rolleyes:

Mainly because there is no comparison between Apartheid and the PRC. The PRC actually reveres minorities as has been stated several times before. The Chinese system isn't right, it has many, many flaws but the comparisons and ignorance that is an ongoing feature here is astounding.

Regarding human rights? So should the US be similarly boycotted? They are quite open about their human rights abuses, although we get around it by changing the law to allow torture and such.

By extension, Ireland is an accomplice with it's capitulation in US driven torture and international crimes by both allowing its airports be used to traffic the perpitraitors to other other countries and allowing rendition flights returning to the US.

Is there a moral line or are you just deciding it lies in front of you and judging from there?

Pride Fighter

GuanYin wrote: »

Firstly, your allusion to Mao and Tibet is both titilating and innacurate. It was nothing to do with forced ideaology.

Although Mao was flawed, he got results. Before Mao, China can be compared to India in terms a developing country with a large population over a large region. Today China is socially a far superior country to India. Noam Chomsky wrote a good article on this showing that China benefitted greatly from the political ideaology adopted after the revolution.





Mainly because there is no comparison between Apartheid and the PRC. The PRC actually reveres minorities as has been stated several times before. The Chinese system isn't right, it has many, many flaws but the comparisons and ignorance that is an ongoing feature here is astounding.

Regarding human rights? So should the US be similarly boycotted? They are quite open about their human rights abuses, although we get around it by changing the law to allow torture and such.

By extension, Ireland is an accomplice with it's capitulation in US driven torture and international crimes by both allowing its airports be used to traffic the perpitraitors to other other countries and allowing rendition flights returning to the US.

Is there a moral line or are you just deciding it lies in front of you and judging from there?

It seems strange to call a nation socially superior to another, it is all a matter of perspective. Is it possible to link the Chomsky article.
Regarding the PRC and apartheid, I agree. In fact people dont know that ethnic minorities in China are exempt from the one child policy.
It is funny when Americans criticise China regarding human rights when their record is just as bad. I dont remember a song and dance being made when Atlanta got the olympics in 96, the US state of Georgia has executed over 40 people since 1970 and there is another 100 on death row.
I agree with the majority of what you posted, good post.

GuanYin

Pride Fighter wrote: »

It seems strange to call a nation socially superior to another, it is all a matter of perspective. Is it possible to link the Chomsky article.

My poor english. By social indicators such as education, health, etc, China is superior.

Article is here

The main part (and you'll note I'm giving both sides of the coin:

Noam Chomsky wrote:

Like others, Ryan reasonably selects as Exhibit A of the criminal indictment the Chinese famines of 1958-61, with a death toll of 25-40 million, he reports, a sizeable chunk of the 100 million corpses the "recording angels" attribute to "Communism" (whatever that is, but let us use the conventional term). The terrible atrocity fully merits the harsh condemnation it has received for many years, renewed here. It is, furthermore, proper to attribute the famine to Communism. That conclusion was established most authoritatively in the work of economist Amartya Sen, whose comparison of the Chinese famine to the record of democratic India received particular attention when he won the Nobel Prize a few years ago. Writing in the early 1980s, Sen observed that India had suffered no such famine. He attributed the India-China difference to India's "political system of adversarial journalism and opposition," while in contrast, China's totalitarian regime suffered from "misinformation" that undercut a serious response, and there was "little political pressure" from opposition groups and an informed public (Jean Dreze and Amartya Sen, Hunger and Public Action, 1989; they estimate deaths at 16.5 to 29.5 million).

The example stands as a dramatic "criminal indictment" of totalitarian Communism, exactly as Ryan writes. But before closing the book on the indictment we might want to turn to the other half of Sen's India-China comparison, which somehow never seems to surface despite the emphasis Sen placed on it. He observes that India and China had "similarities that were quite striking" when development planning began 50 years ago, including death rates. "But there is little doubt that as far as morbidity, mortality and longevity are concerned, China has a large and decisive lead over India" (in education and other social indicators as well). He estimates the excess of mortality in India over China to be close to 4 million a year: "India seems to manage to fill its cupboard with more skeletons every eight years than China put there in its years of shame," 1958-1961 (Dreze and Sen).

In both cases, the outcomes have to do with the "ideological predispositions" of the political systems: for China, relatively equitable distribution of medical resources, including rural health services, and public distribution of food, all lacking in India. This was before 1979, when "the downward trend in mortality [in China] has been at least halted, and possibly reversed," thanks to the market reforms instituted that year.

I'm not quite saying the end justifies the means, or that Mao was right and the PRC are great.

What I am saying is that judging the PRC by the standards of a country like Ireland (or even America) is impractical and impossible. On the otherhand a comparison with India, who took a western philosophy, is quite fair and whatever moral judgement you make, China, or moreso, the Chinse people, have come out of the divergence, far better off.

Regarding the PRC and apartheid, I agree. In fact people dont know that ethnic minorities in China are exempt from the one child policy.
It is funny when Americans criticise China regarding human rights when their record is just as bad. I dont remember a song and dance being made when Atlanta got the olympics in 96, the US state of Georgia has executed over 40 people since 1970 and there is another 100 on death row.
I agree with the majority of what you posted, good post.

Thank you

Thirdfox

Shacklebolt wrote: »

I dont recall Mao being "brought down" by the Chinese people when he spread ideologies by gunpoint (ie Tibet)-perhaps the fact the Chinese government is a dictatorship that has no mandate form the people of the country (or indeed any country at all) whatsoever has something to do with it.
Olympics should only be given to nations which respect human rights-I seem to recall sport and politics DID mix during apartheid in South Africa? Why id the Irish governments policy so radically different when it comes to China which happens to be a much larger and more powerful nation? Or am I going wrong somewhere?:rolleyes:

Just a small correction - China is not a dictatorship, a dictatorship is a situation whereby one person remains in power ad infinitum (look at North Korea for a modern day example).

The Chinese government refers to itself (in the constitution) as a democratic totalitarian state (an unfortunate choice of translation perhaps) but we in the "West" normally refer to it as a totalitarian state. This distinction is not merely in the semantics, as a totalitarian government is de facto more democratic than an one person dictatorship - it undergoes internal examinations, power struggles and rivalries. And while only the Communist party remains in power, the people in the Communist party change often enough to remain flexible and adaptive to change (which is why it is still in power).

Whether they should change at their own pace or at the whims of others is up to debate of course (notice how I worded that sentence to reflect my bias? )

fly_agaric

GuanYin wrote: »

On the otherhand a comparison with India, who took a western philosophy, is quite fair and whatever moral judgement you make.

To me it seems that the main reason for difference in the rates of progess of China & India is there was there was no communist revolution to steamroller the problematic amounts of human diversity in India or to stamp out old traditions which stood in the way.

I just can't find it in me to wish Mao on any nation to be honest even if it might help progress long term.

Shacklebolt

GuanYin wrote: »

Firstly, your allusion to Mao and Tibet is both titilating and innacurate. It was nothing to do with forced ideaology.

Although Mao was flawed, he got results. Before Mao, China can be compared to India in terms a developing country with a large population over a large region. Today China is socially a far superior country to India. Noam Chomsky wrote a good article on this showing that China benefitted greatly from the political ideaology adopted after the revolution.

I believe contentment is a large enough mandate in China.




Mainly because there is no comparison between Apartheid and the PRC. The PRC actually reveres minorities as has been stated several times before. The Chinese system isn't right, it has many, many flaws but the comparisons and ignorance that is an ongoing feature here is astounding.

Regarding human rights? So should the US be similarly boycotted? They are quite open about their human rights abuses, although we get around it by changing the law to allow torture and such.

By extension, Ireland is an accomplice with it's capitulation in US driven torture and international crimes by both allowing its airports be used to traffic the perpitraitors to other other countries and allowing rendition flights returning to the US.

Is there a moral line or are you just deciding it lies in front of you and judging from there?

If "getting results" means killing more people than Hitler ever did and causing widespread famine and deprivation then yes Mao did indeed "get results".

Also Chinas human rights record is apalling whether or not minorities are treated equally to the majority is immaterial seeing as the standards are so poor in general.

The United States may commit humans rights offences but is by-and-large a democratic and equal nation which has a democratic mandate from its citizens and does not threaten democratic governments of smaller nations that are posing it no threat (as the CCP does to the Republic of China).

Your comments on a "moral line" dont make any sense-surely everyone has their own sense of morality which they derive from themselves alone? How else am I supposed to form my opinions except by following my own moral compass? You are free to do the same and voice your opinions-a right which to certain degrees you would probably be denied in the Peoples Republic of China.

Thirdfox

Not that it has any relation to China but look at the overthrowing of various South American governments (including democratic ones) because the US wasn't happy with their policies... a quick google search throws up these countries/former countries: Hawaii, Cuba, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Vietnam, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Honduras, Panama, Chile, Iran, Grenada.

You can criticise others of course, but make sure you're standing on sure footing before launching attacks on others.

GuanYin

Shacklebolt wrote: »

If "getting results" means killing more people than Hitler ever did and causing widespread famine and deprivation then yes Mao did indeed "get results".

I agree his way of rule was terrible, I also maintain that China is a better nation for him.

Also Chinas human rights record is apalling whether or not minorities are treated equally to the majority is immaterial seeing as the standards are so poor in general.

While there is an abuse of human rights, there is no widespread rights violations on the people, so your comments make no sense.

The United States may commit humans rights offences but is by-and-large a democratic and equal nation which has a democratic mandate from its citizens and does not threaten democratic governments of smaller nations that are posing it no threat (as the CCP does to the Republic of China).

I am American and I disagree. While it allows larger demonstrations and public ourcry to an extent further than the PRC, many provisions of the patriot act such as the terror list, deny ordinary, innocent americans freedom and rights on a whim. Take for instance take this person's plight

Your comments on a "moral line" dont make any sense-surely everyone has their own sense of morality which they derive from themselves alone? How else am I supposed to form my opinions except by following my own moral compass? You are free to do the same and voice your opinions-a right which to certain degrees you would probably be denied in the Peoples Republic of China.

That is my point, Islamic jihadist are working off their moral compass which passes judgement on western culture. From their point of view, you are morally corrupt.

Ideally, they would look at western values from a less selfish point of view and judge the system from how it benefits you and not how it offends their sensibility.

Unfortunately they don't which is the problem. Likewise you have the same moral point of view on China.

GuanYin

fly_agaric wrote: »

To me it seems that the main reason for difference in the rates of progess of China & India is there was there was no communist revolution to steamroller the problematic amounts of human diversity in India or to stamp out old traditions which stood in the way.

I just can't find it in me to wish Mao on any nation to be honest even if it might help progress long term.

One might argue that inaction regarding the plight of its people is as much an atrocity as the actions of communist China. Especially when the death toll is so much higher. India operates a caste system set up for such problems and the mortality rate is disproportional to the lower end of the caste (this is without considering death due to hate crimes).

There are arguments by socialist observers and government officials (even those who disagree with the caste system), that because discrimination is non-sanctioned, there is no form of apartheid, despite the fact that 160 million indians face social isolation, public humiliation, and discrimination based exclusively on their birth status.

Of course India is a Democratic Republic, even is it is a socialist and secular one, so you know, Democracies can't do any wrong.

fly_agaric

GuanYin wrote: »

One might argue that inaction regarding the plight of its people is as much an atrocity as the actions of communist China.

One would be making a very unfair argument in that case.

GuanYin wrote: »

There are arguments by socialist observers and government officials (even those who disagree with the caste system), that because discrimination is non-sanctioned, there is no form of apartheid,

Isn't it a bit more than "non-sanctioned" ? Doesn't the govt. oppose the caste system (rather than turn a blind eye)?

I know they've never had the "benefit" of the likes of a Mao or a Stalin to really try & stamp out the caste system or liquidate a few of the more troublesome religious groups.

GuanYin wrote: »

Of course India is a Democratic Republic, even is it is a socialist and secular one, so you know, Democracies can't do any wrong.

They do more things right than autocracies. Anyway, whats with the even as applied to "socialist" & "secular"? The most democratic countries are all both. What is democracy without (at least some) socialism and if the govt. in a country of hundreds of well-supported mutually incompatible religions like India starts blatently playing religious favourites "democracy" is screwed.

GuanYin

fly_agaric wrote: »

One would be making a very unfair argument in that case.

In what way?

Isn't it a bit more than "non-sanctioned" ? Doesn't the govt. oppose the caste system (rather than turn a blind eye)?

I know they've never had the "benefit" of the likes of a Mao or a Stalin to really try & stamp out the caste system or liquidate a few of the more troublesome religious groups.

They make no affirmative action to stop the caste system, which isn't exactly opposing it.

You don't need a dictator to stamp anyone out. You just need to protect your weakest citizens.

They do more things right than autocracies. Anyway, whats with the even as applied to "socialist" & "secular"? The most democratic countries are all both. What is democracy without (at least some) socialism and if the govt. in a country of hundreds of well-supported mutually incompatible religions like India starts blatently playing religious favourites "democracy" is screwed.

Democracy is screwed generally. It doesn't work well and where it does work, it is a pale impression of democracy relative to your wealth.

One philosophy states that you judge a society on how it treats the weakest or poorest of it's people.

Let me ask you. Simple question. Where would you rather try to raise your family as a lower class citizen. Democractic India or Communist China?

leincar

Hi all,
To bring it slightly back to topic,

I've been in Beijing for the last 4 weeks and arrived back in Ireland earlier on today. Here are my thoughts for what they are worth and that may not be much. I will also admit that after previously posting on Israel(my wife is Israeli) I am a touch reticent in posting as life's to short and I'm to old for this S***.

However!

As previously stated on a Tibet thread you cannot mention the 3 T's.
Tiananmen, Tibet, and Taiwan. As soon as you try to raise these topics people tend to clam up and order more drinks. They want to forget Tiananmen, ignore Tibet and are in a lot of ways envious of Taiwan (or Chinese Taipei as the official media call them) They are envious because the citizens of Taiwan get to vote for their government. ( had a beer with some Taiwanese and like Ireland they sometimes wonder about the wisdom of the electorate.).

The opening and closing ceremony were spectacular but were entirely without spontaniety and feeling. I say this without bias as I was at Atlanta 96(Total Crap), Sydney 2000(Magical) and Athens 04(Worthy). Also for me the greatest opening ceremony I was ever at was the Special Olympics ceremony in Croke Park in 2003. In Beijing sadly you could spot the good party faithful at the ceremonies.

Some people in earlier posts have said there were protest parks for people with their grievances to go to. Quite correct, but few if any people ever went as plain clothes police were always lurking at the entrances.

Beijing itself was amazing. As previously stated in the Tibet post I was there in January and the transformation was truly astounding. The people had lost the middle kingdom attitude and were hugely welcoming of foreigners. In all cases where,through work or pleasure I came in contact with local people they were absolutely lovely and polite and each and every person I met hoped that China would become more open. They were not necessarily hoping for free elections just extra freedoms and openness. For example the internet. The amount of people looking up CNN, BBC and even Fox(No accounting for taste or intellect) was wonderful. They are afraid that when the Paralympic games end towards the end of September things will go back to the way they were.

One thing I found quite strange at first was security. You hardly ever found police with sub-machine guns or with an open display of weaponry. At the last 3 olympics I have attended police were armed to the teeth.

I will admit that my opinion of Chinese people has changed but my opinion of China has not. It all felt choreographed and sterile. It was at all times controlled just covertly and while I never lived through it but my Father-In-Law did a lot of what went on had the feel of facism or at the very least Orwell's 1984. I also maintain that China will be the dominant nation on the planet for the next century and I'm not convinced that this is a good thing.

For Moderators.
This was ment to be a political and not a travel report. If you feel differently please feel free to move.

This is in no way anti Chinese but rather anti Chinese government.

Thirdfox

Good to hear you enjoyed your stay - one thing in your report in regards CNN, BBC, Fox etc: I was there as a student in Peking Uni in 2006 and had no trouble accessing CNN, Irish Times, Fox or NYTimes (BBC was blocked back then). The "freedom" has very little to do with the Olympics in my eyes.

People might be clamming up because they don't want to be seen as being disrepectful or get into an argument with a "foreigner". I'm Irish but am ethnically Chinese - so I've a few heated discussions with my peers back in Beijing (similarly I've had heated discussions with my Irish friends here). I can freely discuss Tian an men, Taiwan or Sino-Japanese/US relations with them.

And believe me there are quite a few hardcore people set in their mindsets on both sides (China is evil, China can do no wrong mindsets). The truth is China is neither, and nor is any other country. Reading a college paper while I'm in the US I've found that the student population is a lot less interested in good/evil rhetoric and look more towards a balanced picture - something the administration should well take heed of.