:-( Beijing Olympics -- A Lot of Unhappy People

[Gurdur]

.... And I'm trying to demonstrate that the simplistic view of people like Gurdur -- views based on absolute ignorance of the actual situation ...

Sure thing, duckie. You're not the only one here with experience or contacts within China (I have had a bit of experience, and I do have contacts myself), so how about you try getting truthful (especially see below) and you try demonstrating exactly how I am supposed to be "ignorant"?

-- that everyone in the gov't here is some kind of evil despot are fundamentally untrue.

Wolfman, are you claming that I said that "everyone in the gov't here is some kind of evil despot"?

Because, if you are, that would be a lie. Care to quote my exact words? Hmmm? Or was that simply and only some exceedingly stupid, irrelevant and evasive red-herring of yours?

And the people who are leading that change are people who deserve our support, not our condemnation.

I can remember when Mugabe was praised by the West as a reformer and leading the change in the right direction.

Time for you to tackle your blatant ignorance, evasion and ad hominem tactics here, Wolfman.

 

[Wolfman]

Well, Geoffrey York has replied to my email, and given quite a detailed and extensive reply, at that. It is only fair that his response and rebuttal be included here for everyone's consideration.

Dear Mr. Lombard --
Thanks for your comments. I'm very interested in your work in China, especially the Lugu Lake cultural development project. In 2004, I visited Lugu Lake and wrote a lengthy article about the problems of the Mosuo people, so I believe your project is an important and much-needed one.
Thanks also for your detailed confirmation of my earlier article about the systematic discrimination against blacks at many of Beijing's bars and nightclubs, including the new restrictions that prevent many blacks from entering bars in Beijing. The confirming evidence, which you posted in the comments section of our website, is valuable and much appreciated, because the Chinese authorities have tried to deny this report.
Let me respond to the other main points in your message:
1) You say that I have a "negative bias" in my reports about China. You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but I'd like to note that since 2002, when my posting began, I have written hundreds of articles about positive changes in China, including economic and social changes. Most recently, you could look at my blog, which is well-promoted on our website, in which I mention many of the positive things about China. If you go back to May, in my extensive coverage of the Sichuan earthquake, you'll find that I wrote many positive articles about the changes in China. I'm happy to send you copies of these articles if you would like.
2) You argue that the "security volunteers" should not be described as informants. Yet according to Xinhua, the Chinese state news agency, the job of the security volunteers is to inform the police if they see any strangers or suspicious behavior in their neighborhood. If their job is to inform the police, I don't think it is inaccurate to describe them as informants. In addition, of course, the network of informants goes far beyond the security volunteers. For example, China admitted last week that the so-called "Olympic volunteers" at the Olympic venues will include many security agents in plainclothes disguises. China also disclosed that taxi drivers have been trained as informants. It's clear that a massive effort is being made to set up a network of informants this year. Even if the "security volunteers" take off their armbands and are officially disbanded after the Olympics, the network will still exist.
3) You argue that the "security volunteers" are different from the neighborhood committees of the past. But you are describing the neighborhood committees which existed in the Cultural Revolution from 1966 to 1976. As you must know, the neighborhood committees continued to exist long after the death of Mao, and they became more regularized and began wearing red armbands. In the past decade, these committees have focused mostly on minor issues such as sanitation and fire prevention. By reviving these "volunteers" and giving them new duties of security and surveillance, it is a return to the situation of the 1980s (not the 1960s). Nowhere in my article did I suggest that the new "security volunteers" are a return to the Cultural Revolution.
4) You seem to believe that I am the only one who sees the similarity between the "security volunteers" and the neighborhood committees of the past. Many others, including well-respected scholars and human rights groups, see the same parallel, and are very worried about it. They, too, believe that this apparatus will continue to exist after the Olympics, even if the armbands are removed. Here, for example, is a link to an article published by the well-respected Jamestown Foundation which makes the same points: http://www.jamestown.org/china_brief/article.php?articleid=2374309
5) You argue that the "security volunteers" are no different from the "Neighborhood Watch" associations in Canada. This is surely an inaccurate comparison. If you walk into ordinary residential communities in Toronto or Ottawa, I doubt very much that you will be scrutinized by "volunteers" in red armbands who are standing at the entrance gates with an obligation to report any strangers to the police. By the way, it is Xinhua (not just me) that described how the "volunteers" are loitering by the entrance gates to scrutinize visitors.
6) You admit that there is a "political aspect" to what these volunteers are doing in Beijing, and you admit that one of their jobs is to prevent "unapproved protests" within their community. This is precisely my point. China has revived the political duties of the neighborhood committees which had been previously reduced to sanitation and fire-prevention duties. By contrast, there is no "political aspect" to the Neighborhood Watch associations in Canada.
7) Your comparison to Neighborwood Watch is inaccurate for another reason: the sheer size and scale of these volunteer committees in Beijing. For example, the neighborhood of Hongxialu has 288 volunteers to watch a neighborhood of 70 buildings in a 1.4-square-kilometre area. This is a ratio of four informants for every apartment building in the entire neighborhood. (These numbers are taken from Xinhua and the Chinese government.) I think Canadians would be shocked if their neighborhood had four official informants for every apartment building. Of course, these special Olympic informants in Beijing are in addition to the existing network of police, security agents and other plainclothes personnel, which is already very large.
8) You argue that "security measures" are justified because of the "very real" threat of terrorism by Uyghurs and Al Qaeda. This is a matter of opinion, of course, and you're entitled to your opinion. But you didn't mention that Uyghur terrorists have not killed civilians anywhere in China since 1997, and Al Qaeda has never attacked anyone in China.
9) You mention that other countries have surveillance cameras too. Of course this is true, but Britain is the only country in the world with a network of surveillance cameras that rivals the network in China. And Britain has a system of legal checks and balances that doesn't exist in China. In Britain, there are privacy protections and legal protections that prevent the abuse of surveillance cameras. This does not exist in China.
10) I would like to add one further point, about something that you posted on the Globe and Mail website. You criticized me for my description of the 1989 massacre of the Tiananmen students. Your specific complaint is that I wrote that "hundreds and perhaps thousands" of people were killed by the Chinese military in June 1989. You said that "nobody" has ever supported an estimate of "thousands" of people killed. In reality, of course, the estimated death tolls by a variety of well-respected sources have ranged from several hundred to several thousand. The Chinese Red Cross, on the day of the massacre, estimated that 2,600 people were killed. Jan Wong, an eyewitness to the massacre, concluded -- after much research over a period of many years -- that about 3,000 people were killed in June 1989. See her book, Red China Blues, p. 278.
Best regards,
Geoffrey York

And, in an additional email:

Dear Mr. Lombard --
Just one final point that I'd like to add. You accuse me of bias. But I have no connections to any advocacy group and no organization except The Globe and Mail. I have no financial interests in China, and nobody pays my salary except The Globe and Mail. If you check my background, you'll see that I have worked for The Globe and Mail for the past 27 years and have reported in dozens of countries around the world. I have no reasons for any personal bias. On the other hand, your biography on the Internet shows that you have worked for the Beijing Olympic Bid Committee. You were a speech-writer for the Mayor of Beijing, you helped to "facilitate communication" for the Mayor, and you even wrote his speech in his final presentations to the IOC in 2001. This is all very impressive, but it certainly suggests that you have a personal bias in promoting the Olympics and promoting the Chinese authorities. I think you should have declared your personal bias and financial interests when you wrote your lengthy letter to my bosses. (Perhaps you were unpaid by the Mayor of Beijing, but you have certainly used your Beijing government experience to promote your business interests in China.)
Best regards,
Geoffrey York

I should note here that his replies were quite civil, and quite thorough in responding to all the points I raised. He deserves significant credit for that.

 

[Wolfman]

And, of course, I replied to him. Following is my return correspondence:

Geoffrey,

I do not deny having any "bias" whatsoever; every person has their biases. However, if you check the things that I write about China (and if you follow the link that I have provided in the Globe and Mail discussion, you can find an extensive discussion that I initiated about these very issues), you will find that I always seek to provide a balanced perspective. Yes, I have bias...but I present both sides of the argument. The good, and the bad. The "bias" I may have from having worked with the Mayor is also rather counter-balanced by the "bias" I have from seeing the abuses that the Mosuo (many of whom are very close friends) have suffered at the hands of the government. If you're going to use the former against me, I'd expect that the latter be considered in my favor.

I might also add that, besides helping the Mayor of Beijing, I've also been quite active in criticizing many of the government's policies, and have actually been asked in the past to be a consultant on national education policies. I've fought adamantly for improvement of the situation of the Mosuo people. The fact that I've been involved with the Olympics in no way means that I'm some sort of lap dog or lackey for the government. Quite the opposite, as you found in your own brief internet search, there is plenty of publicly available information about me, including my criticisms of the government, and many of their policies.

Nor do I use a national newspaper as a pulpit for preaching my biases -- presenting conclusions that are unsubstantiated by any actual facts, or presenting information in a manner that is entirely one-sided. I'm sure that, when you write about Canada, you don't include a description that includes "where 22,000 Japanese were interned and had their property illegally seized during WW II" (or any of the other numerous abuses that have been visited upon people by our government throughout Canadian history). And regarding the numbers you cite -- you quote a single author, and an estimate made on the same day as the event happened (a number that the same organization later stated was wrong). I keep a fairly close watch on human rights groups and their claims, and even those who are quite adamantly anti-China quote numbers in the hundreds. In fact, one of my best friends here, a lawyer, has a brother who was killed in Tiananmen Square, and who was there himself. He most certainly would have noticed "thousands of dead bodies". As would the countless thousands of other Chinese who witnessed the event. Yet not one single Chinese I've ever talked to who was actually there -- and I've talked to many -- puts the number at anything more than a few hundred. It is notable here that even among those dissidents from Tiananmen Square who've fled China, and live in places like Canada, also put the number (at the most) in the hundreds.

Regarding the "security volunteers", I have them in the compound that I live in, also. They are mostly retirees who wear an armband and sit in chairs while ********ting with each other. They watch people as they come in and out, but that's about it. Several friends have parents or grandparents who are doing this. I called two different friends, before I wrote this, simply to confirm, and both replied that the only obligation they have in regards to reporting is that if they see activity they actually consider suspicious, they should notify they authorities. They are neither required nor expected to report on the movements or activities of every stranger. I have likewise visited many areas in Beijing that have their own security volunteers. Not once have I, or any of my Chinese friends, been stopped by them, asked for identification, or any other such nonsense...despite the fact that we were strangers. I'm quite sure, however, that if I'd unrolled a "freedom for Tibet" banner, I'd have been reported pretty damn quickly.

You say that you've written positive articles about China. Yes, you have. And I'm always rather surprised when I see them. Because the vast majority of your articles are overwhelmingly negative; not only do they report only the bad news, but they use language that intentionally incites hatred or fear. Those grandparents sitting in chairs outside my compound aren't just "security volunteers". No, they are Maoist informants!

Which brings me to your protest that what I said about the neighborhood committees applied only during the Cultural Revolution. That is true...in later years, they changed somewhat. However, your article refers /specifically /to, "the old Maoist system of neighborhood committees". And it is that Maoist system -- the one implemented under Mao Zedong, during the Cultural Revolution -- to which I refer. It seems rather vain to use intentionally evocative language like "the old Maoist system", then turn around and complain that its not relevant when I in turn do a specific comparison between the system Mao set up, and the modern volunteers.
And, of course, you roll out the tried and true "I'm only quoting what other knowledgeable people have said" response. This, of course, ignores the fact that you are very blatantly quote-mining. You simply look for quotes that support the position you've already decided upon, and ignore all others. Are there knowledgeable and authoritative figures who would disagree entirely with your assessment, and give an entirely different picture? Of course there are. But we won't find them anywhere in your article.

As I said, I have no problem with what you say, /if it is presented as opinion/. People are more than entitled to have differing opinions, and I fully support that. I do not in any manner, shape, or form expect everyone to agree with me; and acknowledge that it is quite possible that some of the things I believe are, in fact, false. Which is why I always seek to present my arguments simply as personal opinion; and to keep a balance in those opinions.
My problem is that what you write is opinion pieces that masquerade as news reports. There is no objectivity here, no attempt to present a balanced view. No attempt to simply report the facts, and let the reader reach their own conclusions. You reach your conclusions in advance, and then do everything that you can to support those conclusions. Quote-mining to find only those quotations that support your position, while ignoring opinions or quotations from others who are equally or more knowledgeable. Deliberate use of negative language to further stigmatize your target. Coming to sweeping conclusions that are entirely unsupported by any evidence whatsoever, but based instead on your own personal opinion -- or would you care to cite the specific sources that can authoritatively state that the "security volunteers" will be a network of informants that will remain in place long after the Games are finished? You stated this as a fact, as a conclusion; not as simply an opinion (yours, or anyone else's).

I do want to thank you very much for your extensive reply; and you did raise some valid points. It is, obviously, a rather confrontational email, and I appreciate the fact that you did reply in a rational and intelligent manner. I just wish that the news you presented in the Globe and Mail provided even a modicum of the balance as the replies you wrote to me.

Regarding the Mosuo...while I very much seek to let more people know about the Mosuo, and the work we are doing with them, I've also learned to be extremely wary of the media. I've had several different times when interviews with foreign media have been altered in a manner that entirely misrepresent my own position. Given what seems to me an obvious negative bias on your part, I would have very little faith at all that what I said would be presented accurately and honestly; I see too much danger of isolated comments being used to misrepresent myself, and my organization.

And I'm happy to provide the confirmation regarding the treatment of blacks; so long as you also notice that I specifically stated that although it exists, it seems very much to be a result of independent actions by local police, not a result of any government policy. If you choose to use the former information, I would expect that you also use the latter. If you choose not to use the latter, then I would respectfully ask that you not use me as a source for the former...as it would, once again, be quoting me entirely out of context, and a blatant misuse of my own statements.

And one final comment, regarding your statement that, "Perhaps you were unpaid by the Mayor of Beijing, but you have certainly used your Beijing government experience to promote your business interests in China" -- Yet another example of jumping to conclusions without any evidence or substantiating material whatsoever. No, I have not used my connections for my business at all; my involvement with the Mayor was some eight years ago, my new business was just established this year. I did it entirely on my own, with no appeal to government connections whatsoever. I did, however, use my connections with the Mayor to assist in setting up my non-profit organization...one of the very first non-profits to be established by a foreigner at the provincial level of approval (Yunnan province, in this case). So yes, I did benefit from my connection with the Mayor; but your own conclusion as to the nature of that benefit is entirely incorrect.

Thank you again for your response; I greatly appreciate the time and effort you took to provide a reasoned rebuttal to my comments, regardless of the fact that it is doubtful that you and I will come to any real agreement on most of these issues.

Regards,

John Lombard

And since he added an extra email the first time...so did I!

Geoffrey,

One more quick comment, regarding the terrorist threat. You said, "You argue that "security measures" are justified because of the "very real" threat of terrorism by Uyghurs and Al Qaeda. This is a matter of opinion, of course, and you're entitled to your opinion. But you didn't mention that Uyghur terrorists have not killed civilians anywhere in China since 1997, and Al Qaeda has never attacked anyone in China." Let me set the record straight; nowhere did I make a blanket statement that all security measures were justified (again, drawing conclusions that never existed). Only that, given a distinct and real terrorist threat, some degree of security measures are necessary (and, in fact, there were numerous security measures at Olympics in Atlanta, Syndey, etc., for exactly the same reason). I do feel that some of the security measures go too far.

And regarding the question of whether there is a "real threat", I wouldn't consider it "just a matter of opinion". The Islamic Party of Turkistan (a terrorist branch of the Uigher independence movement) just this week not only took credit for bus bombings in Kunming that killed three people, but specifically threatened more violence and attacks across China. Surely, as a reporter focused on China, you are aware of this, and didn't intentionally choose to ignore that fact when you stated that, "Uigher terrorists have not killed civilians...since 1997". Nor, I'm sure, did you intend to deliberately avoid the fact that non-civilian targets have been hit by Uighers in more recent years...by any reasonable standard, they're a threat.

Now, there's some question as to whether or not the bus bombings in Kunming were the work of the IPT. I myself am skeptical, but on the other hand, nobody else has taken credit for it (and bus bombings have been one of their signature tactics in the past). And the fact remains that a known terrorist organization, that has been responsible for the deaths of both civilians and non-civilians, has specifically stated their intent to carry out terrorist attacks during the Games.

Then there's Al Qaeda. Surely, again, you are not unaware of the fact that the U.S. gov't considers their athletes to be very likely targets of terrorist actions, and in fact has provided assistance to the Chinese government in their anti-terrorist efforts in preparing for the Games? And likewise, surely you are aware that Al Qaeda has proven their willingness, time and time again, to attack Americans (or other 'enemies') in any country or location they can do so?

So, let me put it to you.

We have one terrorist organization, with a proven record of violence and killing, taking credit for bus bombings this week, and stating their intent to carry out attacks during the Games. We have another terrorist organization with a stated intent to attack its enemies anywhere in the world, and that many world governments consider a significant threat at the Olympic Games (not just those in China, but also in other countries).

Yet you argue that this is just "a matter of opinion"?

I'd argue that /any/ government -- Chinese or otherwise -- would be grossly negligent /not/ to take significant security measures against such a threat.
Now, once again, if you have any actual evidence to the contrary -- that in fact, the IPT has no intent of carrying out terrorist attacks, or that Al Qaeda respect the sanctity of the Olympic Games and would not try to attack American (or other) civilian or government targets present at the Games, please feel free to offer those up for consideration.

Regards,

John

 

[Gurdur]

Dearie me, Wolfman, is anyone at all who does not agree with your opinion guilty of "bias"? Can you say "special pleading" for me, Wolfman?

Do see my post just above yours here, and answer it; and it seems BTW that Geoffrey York has quite put you in your place regarding your accusations of "bias" against him.

 

[Wolfman]

Dearie me, Wolfman, is anyone at all who does not agree with your opinion guilty of "bias"? Can you say "special pleading" for me, Wolfman?

Do see my post just above yours here, and answer it; and it seems BTW that Geoffrey York has quite put you in your place regarding your accusations of "bias" against him.

Gurdur,

If you'll actually practice something called "reading for comprehension", I fully acknowledged that I have a bias. In fact, it was Geoffrey who tried to argue that he is not biased.

But I have no connections to any advocacy group and no organization except The Globe and Mail. I have no financial interests in China, and nobody pays my salary except The Globe and Mail. If you check my background, you'll see that I have worked for The Globe and Mail for the past 27 years and have reported in dozens of countries around the world. I have no reasons for any personal bias.

I say that anyone who argues they don't have a bias -- particularly someone who demonstrates their bias as blatantly as Mr. York -- is either a fool, or lying.

 

[Boo]

Wolfman,

You have mentioned a very mixed bag of steps the Chinese Gov't is taking, some good, some bad and a few at both extremes. Overall though, before the start of the games will this likely end as a positive gain for the people of China, a loss of previous gains or will life return to the status quo before the changes implemented because of the Olympics?


As an aside, it would be interesting to see some of the "black" athletes from around the world going out and trying to eat in the restaurants away from the Olympic Village.



Boo

 

[Skeptic Guy]

Wolfman,

This point is concerning to me. In your postings on the Globe and Mail site, you weren't trying to sugar coat or revise the Tienanmen massacre were you?

10) I would like to add one further point, about something that you posted on the Globe and Mail website. You criticized me for my description of the 1989 massacre of the Tiananmen students. Your specific complaint is that I wrote that "hundreds and perhaps thousands" of people were killed by the Chinese military in June 1989. You said that "nobody" has ever supported an estimate of "thousands" of people killed. In reality, of course, the estimated death tolls by a variety of well-respected sources have ranged from several hundred to several thousand. The Chinese Red Cross, on the day of the massacre, estimated that 2,600 people were killed. Jan Wong, an eyewitness to the massacre, concluded -- after much research over a period of many years -- that about 3,000 people were killed in June 1989. See her book, Red China Blues, p. 278.

 

[Skeptic Guy]

Wolfman,

You have mentioned a very mixed bag of steps the Chinese Gov't is taking, some good, some bad and a few at both extremes. Overall though, before the start of the games will this likely end as a positive gain for the people of China, a loss of previous gains or will life return to the status quo before the changes implemented because of the Olympics?


As an aside, it would be interesting to see some of the "black" athletes from around the world going out and trying to eat in the restaurants away from the Olympic Village.



Boo

And it would be even more interesting for an international news agency to follow those atheletes around Beijing while trying to do so. In fact, I have a number of friends in such organizations and will email them to ask if they are planning to cover that side of the news.

 

[Wolfman]

Wolfman,

This point is concerning to me. In your postings on the Globe and Mail site, you weren't trying to sugar coat or revise the Tienanmen massacre were you?

Not at all. Although no exact count is possible, I fully believe that quite likely hundreds of people died at Tiananmen Square. But not thousands...a figure that Geoffrey York has used very frequently in numerous reports about China. The only sources that he's able to cite are A) a report that was made on the day of the massacre, in the midst of massive confusion (and a report that was later revised by the same organization that made the initial report), and a single author who was not even present at the event in question.

By contrast, as I mention in my reply, I personally know several people who were there, and one whose brother was killed that day. Not a single one of them comes even close to "thousands" of people killed. And if you want to argue that perhaps they are afraid of the government, then how about Chinese dissidents from the Tiananmen Square protests who have since left China, and now live in Canada, and the U.S. Surely, if thousands of people had been killed that day, they would be the first ones to declare that...yet to my knowledge, not a single one of them makes such a claim.

And if you check out any of the numerous human rights groups that address the Tiananmen Square Massacre, you will likewise find that they pretty much universally put the numbers in the hundreds. These are people who are pretty strongly anti-Chinese...yet even they don't claim it was "thousands" of people killed.

 

[Wolfman]

Wolfman,

You have mentioned a very mixed bag of steps the Chinese Gov't is taking, some good, some bad and a few at both extremes. Overall though, before the start of the games will this likely end as a positive gain for the people of China, a loss of previous gains or will life return to the status quo before the changes implemented because of the Olympics?

I would hesitate to make any predictions at all, simply because so much depends on what happens during the Games.

Take a worst-case scenario: someone actually does make a terrorist attack (or multiple attacks) at the Games. The gov't responds in the only way it knows how...with massive overreaction, sending in the military, and giving hardliners and excuse to seize even more power within the government.

Or a best-case scenario: the Games go off relatively smoothly, and the increased international attention puts more pressure on China for continued positive change (they are, after all, hosting the World Expo in Shanghai in 2010). Increase tourism and business fosters continued economic growth in China, which in turn fosters education and a middle class that has ever increasing economic power. That, in turn, drives a process of change that leads to the continuing democratization of China.

Or...it could be anywhere in between.

 

[Gurdur]

Gurdur,
If you'll actually practice something called "reading for comprehension",

Oh, I do, I do. Let's test your reading comprehension.

You tried previously claiming my views are "based on absolute ignorance of the actual situation", which is a lie. You've already been challenged on that, you remained silent. I guess you prefer being abusive to being rational. You also tried implying there that I had claimed that "everyone in the gov't here is some kind of evil despot", which is another lie, and you've again been challenged on that, but you dismally failed to answer the challenge.

Now let's look at the rest of your silly evasive abusivness here:

I fully acknowledged that I have a bias. In fact, it was Geoffrey who tried to argue that he is not biased. I say that anyone who argues they don't have a bias -- particularly someone who demonstrates their bias as blatantly as Mr. York -- is either a fool, or lying.

All that is most disingenuous of you, Wolfman, most disingenuous indeed. Mr. York said to you, "I have no reasons for any personal bias". He didn't actually lay claim to being fully unbiased (importantly, since one can only see so much and research so much); he simply noted he had no reason for personal bias, and then he noted that you may well be seen as having reason for personal bias, given your position and associations. Then you, Wolfman, you make a whole lot of unsubstantiated assertions back to Mr. York, and I note that while he was careful to give sources in his reply to you, you weren't careful to give full sources in your response to him, were you, Wolfman?

Then you claimed, "you will find that I always seek to provide a balanced perspective. Yes, I have bias...but I present both sides of the argument".

Really? How do you do that, Wolfman? By making personal attacks on anyone daring to differ with your opinion? Do you provide "a balanced perspective" by making unsubstantiated claims, then just following it up with personal abuse? By failing to give sources in reply?

How interesting, Wolfman, that you personally abuse a reporter for reporting on China simply because he didn't give the view you wanted. Or that you weren't brave enough to write the abuse to him direct, despite him having the courtesy to answer your corrospondance, but you do it instead on a bulletin board where he won't see it. Or that you make personal attacks on posters here simply because they don't have the view of the Chinese govt you like, and when you are challenged to justify your ridiculous personal attacks, apparently you're not brave enough to do so, but instead you simply try some different personal abuse.

Dearie me, Wolfman, obviously your idea of what the phrase "balanced perspective" actually means differs very greatly from the commonly accepted meaning of that phrase indeed.

Tsk? What will you do now, abuse me some more, and abuse anyone else disagreeing with you, instead of actually rationally answering points and instead of actually rationally making your case? Just wondering.

 

[The Painter]

I fully believe that quite likely hundreds of people died at Tiananmen Square. But not thousands

Oh, well I guess that makes it OK? It is so silly of people to complain about deaths in Tienanmen Square when it was only hundreds of people, not thousands, killed.

Wolfman, since you are the self proclaimed authority on China, what is the acceptable official government number of deaths per protest?

 

[Cleon]

Oh, well I guess that makes it OK? It is so silly of people to complain about deaths in Tienanmen Square when it was only hundreds of people, not thousands, killed.

Wolfman, since you are the self proclaimed authority on China, what is the acceptable official government number of deaths per protest?

At no time did Wolfman say, imply, hint, or indicate that the Tienanmen Square massacre was "OK" or "acceptable."

Your post here borders on slanderous, and if you have a decent bone in your body, you will apologize.

 

[applecorped]

No, it's a good rendition to the hundreds of thousands of deaths caused by "Non-Bejing People". Did I just say you're an ignorant?

That's just bad art.

 

[The Painter]

At no time did Wolf man say, imply, hint, or indicate that the Tienanmen Square massacre was "OK" or "acceptable."

Your post here borders on slanderous, and if you have a decent bone in your body, you will apologize.

That's your opinion. I read it differently. I must have missed the part where he condemned the Chinese government. No apology. Go ahead and give me another warning because I don't agree with you.

 

[Cleon]

That's your opinion.

No, it's not. It's 100% factual. At no time did Wolfman say, imply, hint, or indicate that the Tienanmen Square massacre was "OK" or "acceptable."

The only way to "read" anything differently from his posts is if you do so dishonestly.

I read it differently. I must have missed the part where he condemned the Chinese government. No apology. Go ahead and give me another warning because I don't agree with you.

I don't recall giving you a "warning."

All I can say is that this reflects on you far more than it does him.

 

[Wolfman]

Oh, well I guess that makes it OK? It is so silly of people to complain about deaths in Tienanmen Square when it was only hundreds of people, not thousands, killed.

Wolfman, since you are the self proclaimed authority on China, what is the acceptable official government number of deaths per protest?

At no time did Wolfman say, imply, hint, or indicate that the Tienanmen Square massacre was "OK" or "acceptable."

Your post here borders on slanderous, and if you have a decent bone in your body, you will apologize.

That's your opinion. I read it differently. I must have missed the part where he condemned the Chinese government. No apology. Go ahead and give me another warning because I don't agree with you.

No, it's not. It's 100% factual. At no time did Wolfman say, imply, hint, or indicate that the Tienanmen Square massacre was "OK" or "acceptable."

The only way to "read" anything differently from his posts is if you do so dishonestly.



I don't recall giving you a "warning."

All I can say is that this reflects on you far more than it does him.

As Cleon states, at no time have I ever said that Tiananmen Square was acceptable, or excusable. Quite the opposite. Not only do I condemn it absolutely, but I have close friends here who lost family members there.

The discussion about this particular issue began in the Globe and Mail forums (a copy of which I have not posted here), in which I referred to Geoffrey York's tendency to include the sentence "Tiananmen Square, where hundreds or even thousands of people were killed in 1989". He has since corrected me in a subsequent email (our exchange continues, and is quite interesting), that while he used the expression a few times, apparently the other uses were by other journalists, not by him.

However, my point of disagreement with his was not that Tiananmen Square was in some way excusable, or acceptable. It was the fact that the Globe and Mail's articles about China tended to use this description regardless of what the article was about; and that the estimate of "thousands" of people killed at Tiananmen Square was not one widely supported by the vast majority of authorities on the massacre. It was a deliberately prejudicial sentence, inserted because the author knew the negative sentiments that its inclusion would immediately arouse. Since my bone of contention with Geoffrey York is that he presents a very deliberately biased perspective, this was relevant.

One of the issues that has come up in my exchange with Geoffrey is the ongoing use of Tiananmen Square in many articles about China. If we're going to talk about Tiananmen Square every time we mention China, then why do we not talk about the 22,000 Japanese who were interred during WW II in Canada, and had all their property illegally stolen from them, every time we talk about Canada?

Geoffrey's response was that the Japanese internments happened some 60 years ago, and were no longer relevant; whereas the events at Tiananmen Square happened 2 decades ago, and were still relevant.

I then replied that if we are going to apply time limits, then since China's invasion of Tibet was some 50 years ago, we should also stop mentioning that. Its old news, no longer relevant...if one accepts the premise that such things have pre-determined time limits.

My own argument is different. I argue that such things should be based on the current government's involvement in the issues being discussed. The current leaders in China had nothing to do with Tiananmen Square; nor have they engaged in any massacres of a similar nature. Criticize them for abuses that they are responsible for, yes. But constant and deliberate efforts to tar them with the imagery of 1989 are intellectually and morally dishonest.

By the same token, although the invasion of Tibet happened some 50 years ago, there are still specific abuses being acted upon the peoples of Tibet by the current government; and therefore, even though it happened 50 years ago, it is still a relevant issue, and it should be discussed in relation to the current government's actions and responsibilities.

 

[Boo]

Wolfman,

I understand your hesitation and reservations. I think I worded my question poorly in what I was asking.

Given the changes made, how likely is it that these changes will remain in effect after the games or will policies return to the status quo? Do you see the overall changes made as positive or negative in the life of the general population?

Much of what I've read seems to focus on the negatives and the restrictions being placed on anyone that might be considered a minority or outsider. There have also been the positives such as the new railways lines and the alternating traffic days that have seem to have alleviated much of the traffic congestion and possibly improved the local air quality. The security patrols seem a potential for both positive and negative depending on the level of paranoia and zealousness of those patrolling along with the response to information passed on by the patrols.




Boo

 

[Wolfman]

Wolfman,

I understand your hesitation and reservations. I think I worded my question poorly in what I was asking.

Given the changes made, how likely is it that these changes will remain in effect after the games or will policies return to the status quo? Do you see the overall changes made as positive or negative in the life of the general population?

Much of what I've read seems to focus on the negatives and the restrictions being placed on anyone that might be considered a minority or outsider. There have also been the positives such as the new railways lines and the alternating traffic days that have seem to have alleviated much of the traffic congestion and possibly improved the local air quality. The security patrols seem a potential for both positive and negative depending on the level of paranoia and zealousness of those patrolling along with the response to information passed on by the patrols.

Boo

Barring unforeseen events of a particularly dramatic nature -- such as terrorist attacks -- I believe that once the Games are over (and by this, I mean both the regular Olympics and the Paralympics...the regulations will stay in place until both events are concluded), things will pretty much return to 'normal'.

 

[Wolfman]

Oh, I do, I do. Let's test your reading comprehension.

You tried previously claiming my views are "based on absolute ignorance of the actual situation", which is a lie. You've already been challenged on that, you remained silent. I guess you prefer being abusive to being rational. You also tried implying there that I had claimed that "everyone in the gov't here is some kind of evil despot", which is another lie, and you've again been challenged on that, but you dismally failed to answer the challenge.

Actually, I was just waiting until I had more time to address to you.

I stated, near the beginning of this thread, that there were moderate leaders within the Chinese government. I very clearly differentiated that I felt there were people within the Chinese government who were moderate, and people who were hardliners. And I stated regret that the more moderate voices, who previously had been leading the Olympic effort, had been usurped by the hardliners.

Your response?

"China's moderate leaders"? Really? Compared to what? Compared to Mao Tse-Tung, the Gang Of Four, or saya, abroad, Stalin?

So, let us summarize. I talked about people who were actively promoting change within the Communist Party; you responded by comparing them to Mao, the Gang of Four, and Stalin.

To me, this demonstrates A) your complete ignorance as to the actual politics within the Communist Party here, B) your blatant willingness to tar all members of the Communist Party with the same brush, comparing them to people like Mao and Stalin even though none of China's current leaders have ever committed any acts even remotely comparable to those of Mao or Stalin.

If you wish to contend that you were not, in fact, absolutely wrong (or completely ignorant), then please cite for me examples of abuses committed by any of China's current leaders that even come close to the abuses of Mao, the Gang of Four, or Stalin. You made your challenge, and I answered. Now, I return the challenge to you -- present any evidence besides your own personal opinion that China's leaders (moderate or hardline) deserve comparison to Mao or Stalin.

All that you've done, really, is Godwined the thread; but instead of using Hitler, you used Mao and Stalin. Nevermind that the comparison is entirely inaccurate.

Now let's look at the rest of your silly evasive abusivness here:

All that is most disingenuous of you, Wolfman, most disingenuous indeed. Mr. York said to you, "I have no reasons for any personal bias". He didn't actually lay claim to being fully unbiased (importantly, since one can only see so much and research so much); he simply noted he had no reason for personal bias, and then he noted that you may well be seen as having reason for personal bias, given your position and associations. Then you, Wolfman, you make a whole lot of unsubstantiated assertions back to Mr. York, and I note that while he was careful to give sources in his reply to you, you weren't careful to give full sources in your response to him, were you, Wolfman?

In a subsequent email, Geoffrey has also stated quite unequivocally that, "My articles are not based on personal opinion, no matter what you might think." Would you care to explain to me how that also indicates that he does not believe he has any personal bias, or that his personal opinions do in fact color what he writes?

Then you claimed, "you will find that I always seek to provide a balanced perspective. Yes, I have bias...but I present both sides of the argument".

Read this entire thread. I've presented both positive and negative aspects of what is happening right now. I've been quite unequivocal in condemning some of the actions -- such as barring blacks from bars, or kicking people out of Beijing based on their ethnicity -- while at other times presenting more positive aspects. That is what I mean by "balance".

Really? How do you do that, Wolfman? By making personal attacks on anyone daring to differ with your opinion? Do you provide "a balanced perspective" by making unsubstantiated claims, then just following it up with personal abuse? By failing to give sources in reply?

You seem to confuse "agreeing with everyone" for "balance". Seeking to provide "balance" doesn't mean that I'm going to agree with every idiot here.

And when one of those idiots ignorantly compares modern Chinese leaders to Mao and Stalin, I will take exception, and disagree quite vehemently. For all the problems China has today, the abuses of the current government are not even remotely comparable to those of Mao or Stalin.

How interesting, Wolfman, that you personally abuse a reporter for reporting on China simply because he didn't give the view you wanted. Or that you weren't brave enough to write the abuse to him direct, despite him having the courtesy to answer your corrospondance, but you do it instead on a bulletin board where he won't see it. Or that you make personal attacks on posters here simply because they don't have the view of the Chinese govt you like, and when you are challenged to justify your ridiculous personal attacks, apparently you're not brave enough to do so, but instead you simply try some different personal abuse.

Actually, I've stated to him several times -- and he understands -- that my contention with him is not in the fact that I simply disagree with him. It is in the fact that he presents highly biased personal opinions as "facts". And his ongoing contention that, in fact, he is not biased, and that his articles are not based on personal opinion.

Dearie me, Wolfman, obviously your idea of what the phrase "balanced perspective" actually means differs very greatly from the commonly accepted meaning of that phrase indeed.

Whereas your definition differs not only from the commonly accepted meaning, it actually exists only in another universe. Again -- demonstrate to me how your comparison of modern Chinese leaders (and particularly the moderates within the Chinese Communist Party, to whom I was specifically referring and whom you referenced in your reply) are in any manner, shape, or form comparable to Mao, the Gang of Four, or Stalin.

Tsk? What will you do now, abuse me some more, and abuse anyone else disagreeing with you, instead of actually rationally answering points and instead of actually rationally making your case? Just wondering.

Oh, I'll certainly continue to abuse you. There are others here who've disagreed with me, and whom I haven't 'abused', but have rather responded in a fairly calm and reasoned manner -- because the arguments they express have merit, even if I may disagree with them.

Your only real contribution to the discussion, on the other hand, has been a comparison to some of the worst despots in recent world history, and an attempt to claim that China's modern leaders are in some way comparable to them. It is a comparison entirely without merit, and one that I can only conclude is based on incredible ignorance of the topic.

If you disagree with me, and feel that your comparison was in fact justified, then all you have to do to prove me wrong is to accept my challenge and demonstrate that your comparison was, in fact, both fair and accurate.