Home > Analysis, human rights, media, Opinion, politics > Collective Defamation

Collective Defamation

What is the worst thing you could say or write about someone? Maybe alleging that they are a murderer. Perhaps it is labeling them a child molester. Both these accusations, when used without factual merit, constitute serious slander or libel. But what is the worst thing you could say about a group of people, a nation or ethnic group?

During the Middle Ages in Europe, Blood Libel was used to devastating effect towards harming and justifying the persecution of Jews.

But today, I’d say that a good candidate for the worst group label is Nazi or some cognate term. This is because the Nazis are widely regarded to have committed the worst crime any group can commit: the crime of genocide. Any group that commits a similar crime may be collectively deemed as analogues.

As a society, Nazis have come to represent the embodiment of evil for us because of their crimes against humanity. In popular culture we are indignant at their lack of humanity and see them being gratuitously maimed and killed and we laugh and applaud at their destruction.

One recent example of the use of gratuitous violence against them is illustrated by the film Inglourious Basterds , a stylized, fictional World War II action movie about a band of Jewish Nazi hunters sneaking behind enemy lines to spread fear and seek revenge by the taking of “Nazi scalps.” As the critic Daniel Mendolsohn has said of the movie, “Tarantino indulges this taste for vengeful violence by—well, by turning Jews into Nazis.”

But false attributions of Nazihood should be seen as morally if not legally analogous to slander or libel of an individual only the harm that is done is multiplied for all individuals of the group and perhaps to the group as a whole, as such.

Now I’d like to make the claim that the Chinese people have in the last 50-plus years been the collective victims of defamation of the worst kind. Moreover, this defamation is systematic and non-coincidentally part of the very institutions that have perpetrated the very crimes being alleged at the Chinese.

There are two main narratives that go along these lines. One is the defamation spread by the Tibet Government in Exile or TGIE and their western backed supporters and the other is regarding alleged Chinese activities in west Sudan. Both allegations of Nazi-like crimes, viz, genocide, are false and defamatory. The motives behind spreading them are often racist and insincere and they are used as propaganda to further the evil deeds of many currently in power. That’s not to say that all those spreading the defamation are insincere propagandists. Many are simply ignorant of reality but have their hearts in the right place. They have simply been used, unbeknownst to them, as a vector to spread that slanderous meme.

TIBET

The TGIE, the Dalai Lama and their affiliate groups and their western-trained lackeys have for more than half a century, claimed that “the Chinese,” in various forms or other, have committed genocide on their people. Even today, the Dalai Lama continues to spread this harmful rhetoric. On his website and on many of the TGIE’s supporters’ websites, they continue to use words such as “the final solution” and more explicitly, “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing” to describe what they think “the Chinese” have done and are doing to Tibetans.

But what evidence do they have of this? For more than half a century, they have yet to provide a single shred of evidence for all those accusations. The first time they started alleging claims of genocide, they claimed that China had mass-sterilized Tibetans in acts of genocide in the 1950s. Tibetan emigres seeking asylum in India claimed massive forcible or coercive sterilization campaigns carried out by China against Tibetans. Western “human rights” organizations such as the International Committee of Jurists or ICJ began investigating these allegations and enlisted medical teams to see if there was anything to the emigres’ claims.

They found that there was no evidence that any of them had been artificially sterilized, never mind done so with the intentions of committing genocide. Undeterred by reality, the emigres have continued to spread the sterilization rumor but still have yet to produce a single person of Tibetan origin with any medical evidence of forcible sterilization.

Moreover, allegations of forced infanticide directed against Tibetans in China have surfaced from many Tibetan special interest groups. These rumors have not been substantiated. Based on the extensive on-the-ground case studies inside Tibet by the anthropologist and tibetologist Melvyn Goldstein and Cynthia Beall from the The Center for Research On Tibet at Case Western University, evidence supporting the allegations failed to turn up and these Tibetologists go on to speculate that these allegations, and the allegations of selective sterilization may be wholesale fabrications invented by the Tibetan emigres to garner worldwide sympathy. 

The TGIE and the Dalai Lama has also claimed that Tibetans have been “slaughtered” to the tune of 1.2 million of them by the Chinese. But that figure has been exposed as a hoax by the ex director of the Free Tibet Campaign in London, Patrick French (see herehere, here, here, here and here for additional refutations of that figure and the associated genocide claim). This figure, however, is still being spread and is widely accepted by many in the public in the west and some in congress and other US government agencies and some also in the European parliament.

Undeterred by the failure to produce any evidence of physical genocide all this time as defined under international law and in accord with common usage of that term, the TGIE have latched onto the label “cultural genocide,” a rhetorical device invented by the ICJ (which was at that time a CIA front). We are to believe, according to them, that China is intentionally wiping out Tibet’s culture so that they will lose their identity as a group. The Dalai Lama continues to this day to spread this allegation along with his unquestioning admirers. This allegation is often simply labeled by the more incendiary term “genocide” by its disseminators.

However, even the less inflammatory “cultural genocide” claim is equally unsubstantiated. In fact, there is somewhat of a cultural resurgence in Tibet as witnessed by many Tibet experts. With Tibetan language widely spoken and taught within most Tibetan schools, Tibetan religion widely practiced and the arts funded and supported by the Chinese government, Tibetans in China engage in the cultural practice of their own culture often more so than their emigre counter-parts in Nepal and India. There are still a few religious prohibitions in Tibet (as there is in the rest of China) but there is no indication that the Chinese government is trying to wipe out Tibetan culture. The Tibetan language is not endangered or under threat of extinction unlike 60-80% of the languages in the world according to estimates by UNESCO.

The allegations of cultural genocide have been refuted by legal scholarsTibetologists, historians of central Asia, UN human rights experts and political scientists. Even Tibet scholars otherwise sympathetic to Tibetan independence such as dalai-fanboys Robert Barnett and Elliot Sperling, and dalai-fangrrl, German Green Party politician Antje Vollmer (after visiting Tibet) have cast doubt or even outright denied this allegation. Barnett said in an interview with foreignpolicy.com:

I think we have to get over any suggestion that the Chinese are ill-intentioned or trying to wipe out Tibet.

DARFUR

The other fork of the genocide allegations against China and the Chinese people concern alleged Chinese actions in Darfur. Just prior to the 2008 Olympics many in the main stream media, among celebrities and other assorted folks have claimed that China is also guilty of genocide in that East African region. Many in the media, among regular people and those in politics started to call those Olympic games the “Genocide Games” and flagrantly made analogies to the 1936 Berlin Games when Hitler tried to use the games as a propaganda tool to further his goals of Aryan conquest (also see examples here, here and here).

The rhetoric was accepted unquestioningly. But what are the facts regarding these claims? Claims of genocide in the region aside, further evidence would have to be adduced that China is involved. But neither claim seem to be sustainable in light of the facts. We are still not sure about the nature of the conflict between 2003-2005 in the region. Scholars are not sure if it is a genocide. Many countries and the EU do not affirm it to be a genocide and only the US has called it as such. But there does seem to be good evidence that the conflict is a result of tribes making competing claims over depleted resources as a result of climate change. For example, UN head Ban Ki-Moon said that

Almost invariably, we discuss Darfur in a convenient military and political shorthand — an ethnic conflict pitting Arab militias against black rebels and farmers. Look to its roots, though, and you discover a more complex dynamic. Amid the diverse social and political causes, the Darfur conflict began as an ecological crisis, arising at least in part from climate change.

It’s no wonder then that the US would try to cast this in terms of genocide rather than tribal conflicts resulting from resource depletion due to global warming seeing that the US has been for the last 100 years been the worst contributor to global warming in the world. The US wants to continue its per-capita consumption of fossil fuels into the foreseeable future, the world be damned, and one way to shift attention and blame to that avaricious consumption is to attribute the harms stemming from its consequences to other sources.

Additionally, it has also been widely alleged by the western press that China contributes weapons to the conflict and hence, deserves blame for it. But this allegation like the rest does not hold up under scrutiny. A study by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, an independent collective of research scholars studying global conflict resolution and other issues have concluded in a study that over 90% of the weapons found in that region are not Chinese but western in origin (actually mostly Russian).

The US, even by its own admission, is the world’s worst weapons proliferator. Bar none. No one else even close. This includes weapons sold, traded or given to developing regimes in Africa and other war-torn, conflict-ridden regions.

WHO, WHAT AND WHY

Finally what is the reason for perpetuating this narrative? Who are its victims and why should it stop? First, the people perpetuating them may have many motives. Some like the TGIE and other emigre groups obviously have political motives and many Tibetan exiles have motives to gain asylum (reminiscent of the Iraqi, “Curveball”).

Indeed, the modern Tibetan emigre identity may be intertwined with a kind of victim group-identity and narrative, namely that they are victims of certain kinds of crimes that would entitle them to the greatest sympathies. This aspect of their identity was created by the TGIE in conjunction with their western cronies as a propaganda tool to be used against the Chinese. That narrative, like all good Hollywood scripts, must also have a villain of the most evil caricaturization.

The west’s yellow-peril fears and other racially motivated anxieties about a rising China contributes to the hatred and fear often at the heart of spreading these groundless accusations. And there can be no doubt as to the inherent racism behind much of the Tibet Independence movement.

The philosopher and practicing Tibetan Buddhist Eve Mullen has written that the Tibet genocide accusation has been used to conveniently shift our conscience away from our own crimes and used to dehumanize the Chinese.

This play of opposites still operates in new age orientalism; the positions, however, are changed, creating anew the fantasy land of Shangri-La. Tibet becomes the perfect civilization, pristine, timeless, harmonious and holy as the home of true Buddhism and a true utopia. The Tibetan people become superhuman, perfect citizens under a perfect leader. The new opposition becomes China the invader, godless and demonic, despotic and polluted. Chinese soldiers become subhuman murderers following the orders of subhuman leaders…. 

It is fitting, then, that we as a nation and culture turn our attentions to the other side of the world, to the racism, oppression and genocide contained in Tibet.9 Whereas our racisms are entangled in layers upon layers of our pluralistic society, theirs is perfectly identifiable: Chinese against Tibetan. If we doubt that, we need only to go to the movie theater to see the Tibetan Shangri-La, a perfect civilization where everyone is, or was, equal, and where the Chinese now create inequality….

Constructed versions of Tibetan history and culture are by-products of the Western gaze on Tibet now. As we turn our eyes to the Tibetan situation, we project the fantasies, simplifications, and desires for our own perfectibility onto the people and history we find. And our master story-tellers sculpt truth to fit the roles we demand to see. Americans may subconsciously believe it is too late to solve our own problems, but we still hold our place as a country symbolizing equality and justice.

Crimes both past and present gets buried underneath a sea of slander. Many of the most virulent accusers, individual or institutional, are from countries that have histories of atrocities they, in turn, accuse China of committing. The US, for example, may be the country that has perpetrated the worst democide, if not genocide, in the history of humankind with the slaughter of millions of Native Americans and others. It has a history of racism, racialized slavery, and Jim Crow.

The US has engaged in the support of imperialism and totalitarianism in Africa, South America, Asia and elsewhere and was once a colonizing nation. Focusing on (or outright inventing) the narrative of genocide directed at others may function as collective amnesiac therapy to mask the sins of our ancestors from our own conscience and to avoid the guilt and shame that stains our collective soul.

The rhetoric is often spread by those who wish for us to think and say, “Sure we’ve committed some atrocities in the past, but surely we’ve improved, become more civilized and we’re certainly not as bad as those Nazis, the Chinese who are currently committing genocides around the globe!”

This very rhetoric conveniently shields us from accountability and the very blood on our own hands. Not many will know how many civilians have been killed in the Iraq War fought on behalf of western nations based on self-serving lies. Even when estimates of casualties are reported, they are almost always the least plausible, the lowest among all the estimates. People are shocked and usually turn incredulous at the well-supported estimate that hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians have died in a mere 8 years of fighting. One can only compare this public incredulity directed at these more well-founded figures with the blind acceptance at demonstrably false figures by the TGIE.

We are also selectively blinded by that same rhetoric at the atrocities currently committed by our government’s support, militarily, financially and politically for a vicious apartheid regime in Palestine. Alan Dershowitz in an AIPAC opening ceremony speech highlighted the need for American Israel apologists to shift attention away from Israeli brutality in the Occupied Palestinian Territories towards Tibet.

With this collective defamation it’s no wonder that there is so much vitriol directed against China these days in the media and by individuals within most western societies. The genocide defamation is directed not just at China but the Chinese people and this is seen most clearly in pro-Tibet propaganda. This engenders hatred and dehumanization of a group of people as can notably be seen in the reactions of some people such as Sharon Stone in the aftermath of the 2008 Sichuan earthquake. This quake killed 80 thousand people, many of them children. Stone claimed that quake was collective “karma” for what “they” are doing to Tibetans (her ferocious ignorance made all the more loathsome and ironic considering that the epicenter of the quake was in an area the Dalai Lama considers to be part of Tibet).

It may be even more difficult for the Chinese people to dissociate themselves from the slander than it was for Germans to dissociate themselves from the Nazi regime after WWII. This is because the Nazis are usually viewed as a political group, a defective proper subset of German society which has its heroes, its Good Germans, its Oskar Schindlers and its SS-dalai-pet-projects, the Heinrich Harrers. The blood-libelers in China’s case, on the other hand, tend to frame the narrative as one dominant ethnic group destroying a non-dominant ethnic group.

In this article, I made the case that the Chinese are the principle victims of the worst kind of collective defamation. But they are not the only victims. Though they are primary victims, there are secondary victims as well and tertiary victims still. Consider actual victims of genocide. The blood-libelers who spread genocide rumors without evidence do so by diluting the word of its force and worst of all parasite off the sympathies rightfully belonging to real victims all for selfish political gain.

Moreover, Tibetans inside Tibet must live with their Han fellow citizens in a state that is made rightfully suspicious of the blood-libelers including the Dalai Lama. The Chinese government obviously do not take too kindly to these lies and knows the damage they cause to the Chinese nation as a whole and its interests. They know the ethnic resentment these lies foment and how that destroys the trust necessary to build their goal of a harmonious society. Hans know about these lies and grow suspicious of their Tibetan fellow citizens and the distrust is multiplied and feeds off each other.

The Chinese government is less likely to negotiate on more reasonable terms with the Dalai Lama so long as there is little trust between them when he continues to spread this collective defamation. They know that the Dalai Lama is seen as a god or something like a god by his many followers inside Tibet (and in the west!) and that they take his word as Truth personified, without question. Constructive dialogue towards solving much of the problems inside Tibet becomes incredibly difficult when so much distrust and resentment on both sides have been created. The potential for more violence like the ’08 March riots is increased by the climate of suspicion and ethnic animosity it causes in society. Those that live inside Tibet, Tibetan, Han or Hui, must live with the consequences of those lies. This piece of untruth reverberates half way around the world leaving many in its wake seriously harmed.

  1. Otto Kerner
    October 30th, 2011 at 10:51 | #1

    melektaus :
    @Otto Kerner

    That’s true. I am guilty of poor time management today.

    If you mean by “poor time management,” as in “consistent misquotation, claims without supporting evidence, blind denial of actual evidence,” then yes, you are so guilty.

    I understand that you disagree with the ideas I’ve described here, and I had hoped that we could have an interesting conversation about them because, unlike almost everyone else on this site, you are willing to cite sources. I do not understand why you have become fixated on the idea that I never cite sources, which is not true. There was one post for which I declined to cite all claims because of time constraints, and there have been other posts on this thread where I cited sources which you ignored. I also don’t understand why you think it’s okay to take such a harsh and insulting tone with me. Since, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, participating in this forum has become a bad habit for me, I’m not going to continue this conversation with you.

  2. October 30th, 2011 at 12:47 | #2

    @Otto Kerner

    I’m not saying that you never cite sources; I’m saying that I have never seen any quality sources that support what you have said from either you or anyone else. I’ve read some of your posts here and in other threads and no where have they supported your main contentions in the Sino-Tibet issues. The only time you “cited” a source was your census cite which actually doesn’t support what you claimed (i.e., that I was wrong in claiming much of Kham and Amdo are and always were multi-ethnic).

    You also claimed that I “mischaracterized” Goldstein when I said that he put much of the blame on the Dalai Lama in his impasse with the CCP. You have’t backed up your claim while I have.

    My views are based on evidence, solid evidence. If I see stronger evidence suggesting I’m wrong, I change my views in accordance with the available facts. That is the major difference between many of those who are supportive of China’s side in the Sino-Tibet issues and the pro-Tibet side.

    I’ve taken the time and effort to support my views. Your time isn’t more valuable than others’. The reason I’ve done that is because I have some respect for others and their rational capacities; I think I am obligated to them to provide my reasons when I publicly deny what they say. That respect is something that I don’t believe you have towards others. I think you are only feigning offense when you are really at a loss because now you realize you are put in a spot to provide evidence when you know you can’t.

  3. October 31st, 2011 at 12:44 | #3

    @Otto Kerner

    I did not compare them

    Wrong again. I quote from your first post in this thread (post #42).

    The comparison seems pretty straightforward: Israel isn’t guilty of genocide in Palestine, they aren’t trying to wipe out the Palestinians, and the Arabic language is not endangered in Palestine. The Israelis aren’t evil monsters. Their government does have policies in Palestine which are very destructive and are rightly criticized by many people throughout the world, although many governments tone down their criticism because of American political pressure. Likewise, China is not guilty of genocide in Tibet or wiping out the Tibetan language. The Chinese people aren’t evil monsters. The Chinese government does have very destructive policies in Tibet which are rightly criticized by many people throughout the world, although many governments tone down their criticism because of Chinese political pressure.

    You also claimed that you would have time to come back and cite sources for all your allegations on Sunday. You did not (no surprise as there are no good sources to support what you have claimed) You only managed a post ending with this tail-tucking, white-flag-waving, one-off ending sentence.

    I’m not going to continue this conversation with you.

    It’s pretty clear to me that you’re not here to engage people in open-minded debate but merely to spread TGIE propaganda.

  4. October 31st, 2011 at 14:25 | #4

    Lime :@RayI don’t understand your analogy. Who are you and Allen in this case? PRC citizens? Chinese government policy makers? American Chinese Communist Party sympathisers? And who do you think I am? And the Tibetans are your children? I strongly disagree there is any parallel between discussing a family’s private affairs and discussing government policy.
    As to your Native American rights comparison, I did not say the plight of native peoples in North America, Australia, and New Zealand was worse than that of the Tibetans. I didn’t claim anybody was in “plight”. As for the last time I saw a news article on Native issues, it was yesterday, about a native community in Alberta on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s website (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/story/2011/10/29/edmonton-paul-band-financial-woes.html). I guarantee you there has been many times more literature published in English on issues relating to Native North Americans than there has relating to Tibetans. It’s only a matter of looking for it.

    That’s exactly my point. If you are not a citizien of China, you have NO RIGHTS to discuss an internal matter of China especially when done on such selective ground. Conversely, China has no right to do the same. Unless, you are special and allow your own family matter to be discuss but that is your choice.

    You are also wrong on the reporting of plight of First Nations people of Canada. I am not talking about Canadian discussing their own internal affair. Can you show how often report on this issue from UK, US, Australia, NZ or any other countries? And can you explain to me why First Nation people in Canada has the lowest life expectancy and three times the rate of incaeration in prison compare to the general population.

    I hate to say this, despite all those reporting of the First Nation in the news in Canada. It is nothing but lips service because almost no effective step have been taken.

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/military-intelligence-unit-keeps-watch-on-native-groups/article2199496/

  5. Scabies
    October 31st, 2011 at 17:54 | #5

    But most of you guys are not citizens of the PRC anymore either……yet you often talk about China’s ‘internal matters’ Why the double- standard?

  6. October 31st, 2011 at 18:41 | #6

    @Scabies
    Talk about in a constructive way is totally different from trying to impose a certain view or agenda. Nobody on this site like selective fault finding.

    Imagine a Muslim cleric going into a church and try to admonish the whole congregation there on how they are not doing things right the Muslim way.

    In case you don’t know, too many of the mainstream articles when attacking China, include a blanket attack on the Chinese people and most of us identified as of Chinese descents. So in a way it has real concern to us.

  7. Scabies
    November 1st, 2011 at 03:11 | #7

    You said ‘ NO RIGHTS to discuss’

    What part of that do you not understand the meaning of?

    Either that or you’re back-peddling…..

  8. raventhorn
    November 1st, 2011 at 05:39 | #8

    “The comparison seems pretty straightforward: Israel isn’t guilty of genocide in Palestine, they aren’t trying to wipe out the Palestinians, and the Arabic language is not endangered in Palestine.”

    Hmm… The statistics seem to suggest otherwise. # of Palestinian refugees worldwide is around 7 Million, that’s way more than the ~100,000 Tibetan refugees. (about 70 times).

    Seriously, if that kind of mass exodus by the Palestinians is not “genocide”, I don’t know how Otto can justify his other assertions.

  9. Scabies
    November 1st, 2011 at 05:58 | #9

    ‘In case you don’t know, too many of the mainstream articles when attacking China, include a blanket attack on the Chinese people and most of us identified as of Chinese descents. So in a way it has real concern to us.’

    So some of you can comment on China’s ‘internal affairs’ because of your DNA, but us white and black folks have ‘NO RIGHTS to discuss’ these things even if we live in China or have family here?

    Who came up with this rule, and why doesn’t it apply to you guys re American ‘internal affairs’?

  10. raventhorn
    November 1st, 2011 at 06:26 | #10

    @Otto Kerner

    “My point was that most of the region is not multi-ethnic.”

    I think you are making a generalized distinction without saying anything concrete. What is this “most of the region”? 90%, 51%? by area or by population numbers?

  11. November 1st, 2011 at 08:25 | #11

    @Scabies
    LOL, what I am saying is those articles are not just attacking China or the CCP but also us, so we have a right to defend ourselves. I am just telling people who try to attack me to bugger off and explain to me that why a certain standard applied on China (or me) but not on Australia, US or Israel.

    Every country, every website has their own rules. As long as those folks identify themselves as stakeholders they have a right but only as permissable by the law/rule of those countries/sites. China included. In China you can drink beer when 18 (not in US), you can wear a Nazi swastika (not in France, Germany or Israel).

    For example, you will find yourself perfectly at home at the KKK forum spewing whatever venom you have but it is not ok to do so here.

    If I am to set a rule for this website it would be constructive critism only, much like in an institute of higher learning. For example when you attack something come up with a better solution. Don’t like how certain things are done, suggest a better way. I just don’t like time wasted here.

  12. Scabies
    November 1st, 2011 at 08:32 | #12

    Let me remind you of what you said:

    ‘If you are not a citizien of China, you have NO RIGHTS to discuss an internal matter of China’

    That is ‘what you are saying’ Ray. No point trying to weasel out of it now.

    ‘For example, you will find yourself perfectly at home at the KKK forum spewing whatever venom you have but it is not ok to do so here.’

    Idiotic comment Ray, especially given I am black. Boy this site and its posters/ hosts really operate at a very base level.

    Tell me, are you currently a citizen of the PRC Ray??? LOL Ray

  13. November 1st, 2011 at 10:30 | #13

    @Scabies
    Now, get it weasel. We don’t need to justify who we are to you. So tell us more of who you are and why you are here.

  14. November 1st, 2011 at 10:42 | #14

    @Scabies
    Since you identify yourself as black. Are you concern that despite only making up a tenth of the population in the US, people of African descent made up more than half of the prison population?

    Do you think there is anything wrong with US society?

  15. November 1st, 2011 at 13:05 | #15

    Otto Kerner :

    melektaus :
    @Otto Kerner

    That’s true. I am guilty of poor time management today.

    If you mean by “poor time management,” as in “consistent misquotation, claims without supporting evidence, blind denial of actual evidence,” then yes, you are so guilty.

    I understand that you disagree with the ideas I’ve described here, and I had hoped that we could have an interesting conversation about them because, unlike almost everyone else on this site, you are willing to cite sources.

    More flagrant hypocrisy. You demand others cite their sources and yet in this or other threads in which you make many significant allegations I have yet see you cite a single source that supported what you have said. What more could be said about the obviousness of your motives…

  16. Charles Liu
    November 3rd, 2011 at 13:01 | #16

    Here’s an example:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/06/education/edlife/the-china-conundrum.html?pagewanted=4

    “We’re well aware that the Chinese are raised on propaganda, and the U.S. is not portrayed very positively.”

    How true is this statement that makes claim on the Chinese people as a whole? My limited personal experience (relatives, friends, business associates) seem to contradict this generalization.

  17. November 3rd, 2011 at 14:52 | #17

    @Charles Liu

    The NYT is a joke. They don’t even try to hide the fact that they are the government propaganda mouthpiece.

  18. November 3rd, 2011 at 15:00 | #18

    Many Chinese have begun to recognize how hostile the NYT, CNN, and other Western media are towards China and the Chinese – all through independent outlets like anti-CNN through the Internet. It might be counter-intuitive. These media outlets want upheaval in China towards the government, yet their hostility towards the Chinese and China in fact does the opposite.

  19. November 3rd, 2011 at 16:24 | #19

    Additional to the NYT, just about all major media outlets in the west is deficient. Look at this bilge by the WSJ:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303661904576453672924851518.html

    it makes several factual errors. the writer seems like an airheaded ditz and very bigoted and hateful individual. Just a couple of examples:

    It quotes some goon named “Daniel Twinning” which it calls a “scholar” as saying:

    by deploying the People’s Liberation Army to occupy contested territory along the Sino-Indian border, as occurred in 1962, creating a risk of military conflict between the now nuclear-armed Asian giants.

    The Sino-Indian war is one of the most perfect examples of territorial aggression by a state out of nothing more than nationalist and irredentist motives of the twentieth century. The problem is that Twinning got it exactly backwards. It was India that invaded and occupied the “disputed territory” wholly without provocation Not only that but India went beyond the disputed territory and occupied territory both India and China recognized as China’s (past the McMahon line).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Indian_War

    The writer also says:

    Although there are obvious differences between the two cases—Taiwan enjoys de facto independence and Tibet is occupied

    It’s sad how brainwashed Americans and westerners are. They are so brainwashed they cannot literally see the facts before their very eyes. I think psychologists should really study them and their brainwash induced selective vision.

  20. November 3rd, 2011 at 17:06 | #20

    That same WSJ paper had two ignorant Indian nationals debating about China. Can you imagine that? One paints an extremely awful picture and another an awful picture. The WSJ is a cesspool of nastiness. This was about two years ago, and I blogged about it here.

    NPR had a segment about “India’s China Envy” which I also blogged (here). We can see NPR spinning – desperate in holding unto the ‘democracy’ narratives of the West.

  21. November 3rd, 2011 at 17:35 | #21

    @YinYang

    I find the democracy card Indian apologists play hilarious. It’s used as a convenient excuse by Indian nationalists and westerners for all of India’s deficiencies. There was a video made not long ago

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAIzJoHditM

    Look at these so called experts talk about the economic growth between the two nations. They are all ignoramuses. Notice that not a single one is an economist (odd considering this is about macro economics of developing countries).

    They don’t even question the logic (which they all seem to acquiesce without criticism) behind the claim that the reason India fell behind in growth to China is that India is a “democracy” while China is “autocratic.”

    If you’d mention that reasoning to any economist they’d laugh you out of the room. Democracy does not hold India behind; corruption, inefficiency, being one of the most inegalitarian societies in the world, however, does. That is so obvious that it needs no mention and it shows the power of propaganda in masking such obvious truths from the discussion. The reason India has lagged behind is not that it is a democracy (which it is most certainly not in any robust sense). It’s because it is seriously corrupt (much more so than even China) and it systematically keeps hundreds of millions of its own people in illiteracy and poverty through its cultural institutions directed towards minorities, lower castes and women. You can’t advance society as fast when you have a 60% literacy rate (vast majority of illiterates are women, minorities and “untouchables”) compared to China’s 93%. The Mughal is indeed without a robe but no one seems to acknowledge that fact.

  22. November 4th, 2011 at 00:49 | #22

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/01/business/global/india-looks-to-china-as-an-economic-model.html?pagewanted=all

    Besides an achievement gap, there’s also an attention gap. Most Chinese don’t see India as a potential adversary, but Indians do and they pay alot of attention to Chinese politics, military developments, etc.

  23. Charles Liu
    November 7th, 2011 at 22:34 | #23

    Here’s another example. The “forced sterilization” charge against China’s population management policy in 70′s also existed in US as “eugenic sterilization” in 60′s and 70′s:

    http://rockcenter.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/11/07/8640744-victims-speak-out-about-north-carolina-sterilization-program-which-targeted-women-young-girls-and-blacks

  24. Charles Liu
    November 8th, 2011 at 14:49 | #24

    Here’s another one, linking the Chinese government to CIA’s made-up WMD charge against Iran:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/09/opinion/irans-nuclear-program-and-china.html

    Reminds me of yellow cake uranium.

  25. zack
    November 8th, 2011 at 21:19 | #25

    regarding the sino-indian war, i should probably note that the Chinese treated their Indian POWs well, even cleaning and returning captured weaponry and (here’s the kicker) after overrunning Arunachal Pradesh, the PLA actually withdrew behind the McMahon line.

    For that act of mercy and civility, the Indians would repay the Chinese with nationalistic rhetoric, and entrenched attitudes with respect to negotiations over the sino-indian border.

  26. November 8th, 2011 at 21:28 | #26

    @zack

    This is true. I’ll be writing a post on the Sino-India war soon. The image that is portrayed of it in the west and in India and the reality is so starkly different and the image is rarely even questioned today that it needs its own post. It is actually one of the most egregious instances of the last 50 years of territorial expansionism from nationalist and irredentist motives (wholly illegal in international law) in the world. And the so called peaceful nation of India was the perpetrator in that and they (both the politicians and the mass public) have still to atone for the sins of their invasion while fanning the flames of militarism.

  27. raventhorn
    November 9th, 2011 at 11:51 | #28

    @Ray

    It’s more enlightening to read the comments for that article, to get a sense of the prevailing ignorant racisms in the West.

    (1) China’s immigration policies are actually very non-restrictive. Lots of African business people (even small time buyers/sellers) live in China on temporary visas, they renew their visas very easily, and even if they overstay, the police rarely go after them.

  28. pug_ster
    November 9th, 2011 at 14:36 | #29

    @Charles Liu

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/la-fg-israel-iran-20111108,0,1666106.story

    It seems incredibly nuts that all the ducks are in order for a potential conflict in Iran. China and Russia is not going to give the West a free pass unlike Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan. The fact is that the paranoid Israeli government is having some kind of open discussion of a ‘preemptive strike’ on Iran shows that they are a crazy war mongering country it is.

  29. Charles Liu
    November 11th, 2011 at 09:50 | #30

    Here’s another example of the defamation those of use witness on regular basis – delay of Keystone XL pipeline, where Reuters singles out China:

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/10/column-oil-keystone-idUSN1E7A91OB20111110

    Compare above with Bloomberg covering the same story, acknowledging Canada sells oil to not just China, but all over Asia:’

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/11/11/bloomberg_articlesLUHA2807SXKX.DTL

    One singles out China while another doesn’t.

  30. Charles Liu
    November 15th, 2011 at 10:28 | #31

    Here’s another example. Remember the Confucius Peace Prize that was lambasted last year as Chinese government propaganda? Now the truth comes out it’s created by some academics headed by a poet named Qiao Damo, not the Chinese government:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia-pacific/china-group-proceeding-with-awarding-of-homegrown-peace-prize-to-russian-prime-minister-putin/2011/11/15/gIQAhYnTNN_story.html

    According to Baidu, the prize is not sponsored by the Cultural Ministry, but another NGO, Chinese Indigenous Arts Association:

    http://news.ifeng.com/mainland/detail_2011_11/14/10635090_0.shtml

  31. Jim
    November 16th, 2011 at 00:28 | #32

    Charles Liu :
    Here’s another example of the defamation those of use witness on regular basis – delay of Keystone XL pipeline, where Reuters singles out China:
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/10/column-oil-keystone-idUSN1E7A91OB20111110
    Compare above with Bloomberg covering the same story, acknowledging Canada sells oil to not just China, but all over Asia:’
    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/11/11/bloomberg_articlesLUHA2807SXKX.DTL
    One singles out China while another doesn’t.

    Charles, you’ve misread these articles.

    First, as is often the case on this site, you’re comparing articles that aren’t similar at their core. That is, the articles serve different purposes and speak to different points. The Bloomberg article (at sfgate.com) is more or less an actual news article; it details a Canadian official’s statement and frames it as an update on the Keystone Pipeline story. The article at Reuters.com is an opinion piece that provides the author’s personal perspective on the broader discourse surrounding the Keystone Pipeline story.

    Second, the article that you think “singles out China” doesn’t defame China; the author is actually taking to task others who single out China! (In other words, he is in part expressing an opinion that you support!) Indeed, a few paragraphs down, the author states: “Doubtless this theme will be dredged up by Keystone’s backer, TransCanada and other oil industry lobbyists in Washington with an eye to fanning Americans’ fears about oil supply security should the Obama Administration opt for further study of fresh routes for the pipeline.” If you want to criticize Robert Cambell’s article, criticize its poor organization at the macro level — all he’s saying is that he thinks one side is entirely missing the point in the debate over the decision to delay the Keystone Pipeline project.

    The Bloomberg article also mentions China. The article first mentions the Canadian official’s statement that the Canadian government will have to “ensure that [it] can export our oil to Asia through British Columbia”; later the article reveals that, oh by the way, the Canadian official is travelling to China “where he will discuss increasing energy exports to China and facilitating investment in Canadian natural-resource assets.”

  32. Charles Liu
    November 18th, 2011 at 13:02 | #33

    Jim, I disagree. I’m in particular focusing on the tone of each piece.

    Here’s another comparison – use of the term “crack down” to indict China.

    Here are the Google News article counts as of 1pm today:

    “China” 31300
    “China crack down” – 4310
    14%

    “OWS” – 5410
    “OWS crack down” – 220
    4%

Comment pages
1 2 13287
You must be logged in to post a comment.