[...]Bunnyhugs » Blog Archive » Ugly Nationalistic Chinese Demonstration in Auckland[...]…

I am sure you are biologically closer to a monkey than a Chinese.

May you rest in shit.

I’ve lived in China for 6 years and I am sick to the back teeth of people of statements like these. Chinese people trot out these idiotic statements without any consideration whatsoever of what they mean. I would like you to tell me Aladdin exactly what mistakes the communist party has made and why you think they are acceptable. I would also like to know why you think a more transparent system of government would be detrimental to Chinese interests.

Indeed, the thought of China increasing its role in the international community makes me shudder. It does not give a damn about any other country but its own. To use a current example, I heard a report on cctv recently condemning Britain and other countries for tampering in the internal affairs of a number of African countries. Apparently they were peeved that we simply did not wish to throw away billions of dollars in aid. Instead we insisted on constitutional changes and electoral reform rather than pissing away our money to prop up corrupt dictatorships. Why would that be? Would it be because China has oil interests in the region and as a result has contributed millions of dollars propping up these regimes to enjoy access to their oil infrastructure?
And to think of all the self righteous rhetoric certain western countries had to endure after Iraq. At least we got rid of a dictator instead of embracing genocide.

People believe that China is a country on the move and perhaps they are right but God only knows how. They are backward bunch of arrogant xenophobes. They only explanation I have is sheer numbers. They lack innovation, common sense, diplomacy and a sense of history. The society is both culturally and morally bankrupt. They may talk about 5,000 years of culture but if you come to China you’ll have a hard time finding it. The’d tear down a 1000 year old temple arm off just to make a few yuan.

They also claim all invention as their own, despite the fact they haven;t contributed anything of significance in hundreds of years. I say let the dragon keep on sleeping because the only thing they are likely to to when they do fully wake up is bore everyone some more with tales of an old culture that no longer exists.

China is a vacuous and superficial shithole, a parody of what it may once have been.

Now don;t get me wrong. I want the poor in China to propser. I want them to afford medicines and food for their children. I do however have a problem with China becoming a major player, if not the major player, in world politics. It has neither the sensitivity, the ability, the diplomacy or the compassion to carry out the job effectively. I am a Brit and I say give me the yanks everytime. Call me niave but in my heart I believe that they are on the whole a force for good.

THESE COMMENTS ARE A RESPONSE TO A ANOTHER FOOLISH CHINESE MONKEY…

XXX your comments sound like the ramblings of a drugged horse. Why exactly do I have no authority to make comments about China? I lived there for 6 years. You on the other hand have most likely never left your village. I might add that your media is shamelessly skewed in favour of your government’s policies. From which position of authority are you speaking? In our countries we have an open and free media in which we can criticize our own leaders as well as others . Why don;t you go out into your local town square and start chanting slogans against the government. Let’s see where that gets you. As for China operating with the bounds of the law, perhaps, but it is the thin edge of the wedge. Most European countries and indeed most civilized countries have refused to deal with Mugabe and other such corrupt governments. Indeed we have imposed sanctions to try and effect change. Your government however is as we speak quietly negating the positive effect of these policies by plowing money into these countries to gain access to its oil infrastructure. It is therefore implicitly, if not explicitly, supporting genoicide, torture and murder. And I do have the right to describe China as a shithole. Indeed the right to express one’s opinion , however distateful it might be to you, is the very cornerstone of democracy. It makes me laugh when Chinese people say that other people have no right to talk about China, suscribing, at the behest of their government to a policy of cultural relativism which is at best an illusory concept and at worst great evil. Perhaps if Hitler had not invaded poland or indeed any other countires and just went about peacefully killing Jews within its own borders, we could have saved ourself the bother. The funny thing is you would probably think that is morally acceptable. It is also irritates me when you say foreigners can’t comment on China. Why the hell not? YOu guys trot out the same bloody platitudes. What makes your opinion better than mine? How can you claim to have an informed idea when you are fed and willingly gulp down the crap that cctv or the China daily feeds you. Take your head out the sand XXX. As for not talking again that would be great. You’re patently a person with very little to say.
Heard a great one today. According to cctv 1, all the people in Taiwan secretly want it to be a part of China. They are being held prisoner by a few rogue leaders. Funny, considering those rogue leaders were democratically elected.

THESE COMMENTS ARE RIGHT ON THE MONEY!!!

CHINESE ARE REALLY STUPID FUCKING MONKEY’S…

D

You first post here made some good points. I can’t say the same for your second post.

I’m going to quote a few parts and respond.

- “As I said, my interpretation of labelling Chinese protests as nationalism is that the protests do not have a moral ground. Therefore, the protests in China are also labelled as nationalism instead of patriotism (they were not waving foreign flags). Instead of distracting attention from the core issue, I’m trying to address the very core issue. That is, how to interpret Chinese protests.”

I can’t be certain what you are are trying to do. However, I can be certain that by rejecting the nationalist label you are obscuring the core issue. Why?

- “By the way, what you see as an “obvious truth” may be something different from other people’s perspective.”

No. When thousands of people gather to wave foreign flags and sloganeer about territorial integrity, what is happening is very obvious. Perspectives that deny the obvious are either dishonest or lack insight.

- “It seems you suggest that my views represent Chinese views. As I said, my views are based on Western scholars’ analysis. I tried to present a more balanced view. If you see that as a typical Chinese view, I must congratulate the Chinese. They are doing well. But yes, I am an ethnic Chinese although I’m no longer a Chinese national.”

I don’t really understand you. You say you are ethnic Chinese and imply you were once a Chinese national. Simultaneously you imply your views do not represent Chinese views, and instead represent “western scholars’ analysis” (presumably making them completely unbiased and something to be unquestioningly swallowed like a dose of medicine). Because I question some of your what you say I get accused of trying to suggest your views are ‘Chinese’. Can you step being cute? I’m not that thick.

- “I say “uprising/armed riots (depending on which side you are on)” because I wanted to be objective. The TGE calls it “uprising” while the Chinese government calls it “armed riots”.”

Needlessly splitting hairs doesn’t make one objective. Objectivity involves looking at what happened and labeling it appropriately.

- “You say “When armed clashes result in the political leader of a ’state’ fleeing abroad surely it is an ‘uprising’?” Not so simple.”

Actually, it is that simple.

- “Again, I believe the word “uprising” has its political connotations. An armed struggle against oppression is one. It’s a just cause.”

Just cause has nothing to do with it. An uprising can be just or unjust, well-intentioned or cynical, wise or misguided.

- “That is why some Western media attempted, unsuccessfully, to label the riots in Lhasa on 14 March as a Tibetan uprising.”

I’m not sure that the Western media were ‘unsuccessful’. While their reporting suffered problems and has been criticized, much of what they said was perfectly correct.

Organized and largely peaceful protests occurred in Lhasa and throughout Tibetan China in 2008. Riots occurred in Lhasa and elsewhere. There were scattered events that could be interpreted as consistent with an ‘uprising’ – i.e. burning of police stations, and so on. Details on much of what happened are sketchy because much of the action occurred in remote communities, Chinese media reported little, and western media were obstructed in their efforts to cover the story. However, events before and after the Lhasa riots show them to have had a highly political context. The riots followed mass protests by monks, and in some cases involved the protesting monks. Subsequent events further bear out the political nature of the riots (e.g. they eventually led to protests like that in Aotea Square). Even the Chinese government framed the riots as political – saying they were part of a plot instigated by the Dalai Lama.

Sure, the western media simplified and distorted the story to paint the Tibetan cause as a just and unfairly repressed one. But was there really never a Tibetan cause to begin with? Was it just a case of a random and isolated riot in Lhasa? Was there no purpose to it all? Perhaps the jury is out on whether the events in Tibetan areas of China in 2008 were an organized uprising, but they certainly displayed many elements of one. Much of the Chinese response is also consistent with an uprising (e.g. heightened security throughout greater Tibet, restrictions on foreign media reporting in remote areas, detentions of influential Tibetan figures, and so on).

- “The concepts of nation-state and sovereignty did not appear until the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. Chinese claims over Tibet can be traced back to the 13th century.”

What is your point? Is the Chinese claim stronger because it predates the nation state? Aren’t the claims based on the boundaries of old empires anyway? Empires are not the same as nation states.

- “It was under the Qing Dynasty (1644-1912) that the Chinese authority over Tibet was substantially and systematically strengthened. Remember, it overlapped with the emergence of nation-state and sovereignty.”

What is your point? China was not a nation state during the Qing Dynasty. During the Qing Dynasty ‘Han China’ (the basis of the later Chinese nation state) was part of a Manchurian (i.e. foreign) empire and Han Chinese were second class citizens.

Modern Chinese nationalism was something that evolved only during the dying years of the Qing Dynasty. Moreover, it evolved in opposition to Qing rule rather than in cooperation with it. Before the overthrow of the Qing Sun Yat-sen would talk of driving the “Manchu barbarians” out of China. The Chinese nation state was initially conceived as something for Han Chinese only. The expansion of ‘Chinese’ to include non-Han minorities was something done after the 1911 Revolution to avoid ‘losing territory’.

Incidentally the dying years of the Qing Dynasty were also a period when Tibet was becoming increasingly independent. Suggesting that the strengthening of control over Tibet at the height of the Qing was somehow connected to the building of the modern Chinese nation is simply baseless. The late Qing period that saw Chinese nationalism flourish and eventually overthrow Manchu rule was also a period of growing Tibetan self-determination and nationalism. Tibet was drifting further from China at this time, not moving closer. Tibet was taking steps towards becoming a young nation itself.

- “To argue that the Mongols also controlled other parts of the world does not support your argument about Chinese claim over Tibet.”

What is my argument about the Chinese claim over Tibet? What is not supported? In fact I have no argument about this. Pointing out the flaws in your arguments is already a full time job.

- “If the borders of empires mean nothing, then China and many other countries will have to be divided into many states because much of their territories were incorporated during their empire time.”

In many instances old empires have broken up into smaller states. Countless examples exist. That process has brought problems in some instances and much joy in others.

In fact, that very process has happened in the present People’s Republic of China and with Chinese consent, and as a result of that process the Mongolians seem happy to be Mongolians rather than Chinese ruled Mongolians.

Going back further to imperial times the Vietnamese and Koreans also seem pretty pleased about how things worked out for them with regard to Chinese rule.

- “On the other hand, historical borders of empires have limits. Territorial claims must be based on today’s political reality.”

So China won’t be claiming Poland then? The Mongol empire did briefly stretch that far.

But seriously, effectively you seem to be saying it is all fairly arbitrary. We just take with the situation that exists in our particular time and work with it. Good. I agree.

In that case we can drop the crap about Tibet having “been an integral part of China ever since the 13th Century”, since besides being inaccurate it is also irrelevant.

- “I did not say the British were colonising Tibet. I said the British were colonising India. Weren’t they?”

You presented the British as an imperial and colonial power that infringed on China’s “legitimate claim” to Tibet. My point was that the Qing were also an imperial and colonial power. That is, neither the Qing nor the British had any particular claim to Tibet beyond one imposed externally and by force. I made this point very clearly the first time round. Was it that hard to follow?

I did not intend to engage a debate with you. But I have to answer a few questions.

About nationalism. I focus on the connotation of nationalism, not its face value. As I said, my interpretation of labelling Chinese protests as nationalism is that the protests do not have a moral ground. Therefore, the protests in China are also labelled as nationalism instead of patriotism (they were not waving foreign flags). Instead of distracting attention from the core issue, I’m trying to address the very core issue. That is, how to interpret Chinese protests.

Both nationalism and patriotism are expression of national identity. I understand that they sometimes are treated as synonyms. But in this case, I believe there is a difference. It’s not just because the protesters were waving foreign flags and displaying political slogans that they are labelled as nationalists. There is a deeper implication. That is, these protests do not have a moral ground. The protesters are identifying themselves with China blindly because they are just irrational nationalists. That may not be your understanding. However, it’s how I see it.

So, when you say that I am attempting to deny an obvious truth, I’m afraid you are jumping to conclusions. My sentence “Chinese protests worldwide have been labelled as Chinese nationalism, largely because these protests are believed unjustifiable and the Chinese do not have a moral ground’ is an indication of my understanding of nationalism and I then try to present a different view about the protests. By the way, what you see as an “obvious truth” may be something different from other people’s perspective. That’s why we need discussion and communication.

It seems you suggest that my views represent Chinese views. As I said, my views are based on Western scholars’ analysis. I tried to present a more balanced view. If you see that as a typical Chinese view, I must congratulate the Chinese. They are doing well. But yes, I am an ethnic Chinese although I’m no longer a Chinese national.

I say “uprising/armed riots (depending on which side you are on)” because I wanted to be objective. The TGE calls it “uprising” while the Chinese government calls it “armed riots”. You say “When armed clashes result in the political leader of a ’state’ fleeing abroad surely it is an ‘uprising’?” Not so simple. Again, I believe the word “uprising” has its political connotations. An armed struggle against oppression is one. It’s a just cause. That is why some Western media attempted, unsuccessfully, to label the riots in Lhasa on 14 March as a Tibetan uprising.

The concepts of nation-state and sovereignty did not appear until the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. Chinese claims over Tibet can be traced back to the 13th century. Yes, the connection was weaker during the Ming Dynasty. It was under the Qing Dynasty (1644-1912) that the Chinese authority over Tibet was substantially and systematically strengthened. Remember, it overlapped with the emergence of nation-state and sovereignty.

I agree that it’s difficult to define historical borders. The empires disappeared. Along with it, the borders of nation-states changed. To argue that the Mongols also controlled other parts of the world does not support your argument about Chinese claim over Tibet. If the borders of empires mean nothing, then China and many other countries will have to be divided into many states because much of their territories were incorporated during their empire time. On the other hand, historical borders of empires have limits. Territorial claims must be based on today’s political reality.

I did not say the British were colonising Tibet. I said the British were colonising India. Weren’t they?

You say “Basically my only hope for Tibet is that Tibetan culture thrives and the Tibetan people prosper. So long as this is achieved I am not too bothered by the means used. Achieving this should not prove inconsistent with a Chinese presence in Tibet, provided that Chinese presence is considerate and tolerant of the Tibetans.” I share your hope and I do think the Chinese government should and could have done better.