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

[Beerina]

Don't serve blacks, period.

You, you, and you, you get the hell out.


I can't wait for NBC's in-depth coverage...of the lives of the athletes in Up Close and Personal segments*!










* Which, by the way, will replace broadcast of actual sports since more people watch when those are on than when actual sports are on.

Alls I have to say is I hope CBC is showing it this year so I can tune in Windsor 9. From previous Olympics to Space 1999, it's served me well.

 

[King of the Americas]

Athletes are being asked to wear 'smog masks'...? REALLY?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/24/sports/othersports/24mask.html

Is this a political protest of the conditions there?

 

[Foolmewunz]

Athletes are being asked to wear 'smog masks'...? REALLY?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/24/sports/othersports/24mask.html

Is this a political protest of the conditions there?

The organizing committee will freak out!
This is the kind of thing they truly don't want. If you get miles of video footage of premier athletes getting off the plane or bus with smog masks on, it's going to make every newscast in the world.
I'm betting there will be huge political pressure from the USOC to not have the athletes do this. (Barcelona has equally bad pollution.... no one made such a dramatic move, there.)

 

[Radrook]

They weren't that protective when I went there and was surrounded by five Chinese airport taxi and hotel accommodation employees and threatened with violence if I didn't hand over money I didn't owe and which they demanded I fork over immediately in USA dollars or else. Had my luggage held hostage until payment was given.

Strange also that the woman I was to marry was hit and killed by a car that same day at the airport she was waiting for me. Going to Beijing? Beware!

BTW

They need to explain to their militarily-uniformed airport security guards that people are not luggage to be moved from one location to another via grabbing suddenly by the arm and without even being given a warning. Need to not move airplain arrivals from one gate to another without warning non-Chinese speakers. Need to not to take a respectful request for English to be spoken if possible as an insult and a reason to call security. And a host of other common courtesies which they seem to naturally lack.

 

[a_unique_person]

The irony is that China is determined to show itself to the world as a modern, free country. Everything it does just shows that it is not. I was watching a news report about a house on a street that is being turned into a showcase, where a garden was to go. Overnight, the house was knocked down, and the garden planted. Amazing. The harder they try, the worse it gets.

 

[Policenaut]

That sounds kind of like the dog and pony show North Korea does whenever outsiders visit. Lights on, lights off.

 

[moon1969]

China should stop supporting Robert Mugabe and the Darfur genocide. Maybe then there should be olympics. I got no problem with China hating that hypocrite and liar Dalai Lama aka holy man Tenzin Gyatso.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Wolfman, I note that in your discussion with Gurdur on this bit about Chinese moderates that you come off as an apologist for the Chinese government. It's not important what some people in government want, claim to want, or appear to want, it is what is done that makes a difference, and sends the message. (See also the problem the Bush administration has over its actions, versus its stated intentions. )

While I love your local knowledge, and the insights you offer, I am skeptical about your objectvity. I have blind spots on a few subjects, so I know how easy it is to go in that direction.

DR

 

[Father Dagon]

I got no problem with China hating that hypocrite and liar Dalai Lama aka holy man Tenzin Gyatso.

More a case of realpolitik and collegial jealousy. Realpolitik also dictates that we should support Dalai Lama in order to annoy the chinese.

Also, I just LOVE the way the chinese burrow themselves deeper and deeper into failure. And the best part of it all - the chinese might not even know that banning all blacks can be considered racist. It's China who is the big victim after all. Enemies of the people stole mah crops and Taiwan!

The irony is that China is determined to show itself to the world as a modern, free country. Everything it does just shows that it is not. I was watching a news report about a house on a street that is being turned into a showcase, where a garden was to go. Overnight, the house was knocked down, and the garden planted. Amazing. The harder they try, the worse it gets.

Dude, that's old hat! Have you read Anhua Gao's To the edge of the sky? The best howler in the book is when the commies are playing international trade fair (I have only read the book in swedish, so it's probably called something else in english.) They are instructed to fool, trick and con the foreigners as much as possible - i.e. exactly how the commies thinks what capitalism is about. It could only be funnier if a bunch of nazis tried to emulate what they thought was proper jewish business practices.

 

[Radrook]

....Also, I just LOVE the way the chinese burrow themselves deeper and deeper into failure. And the best part of it all - the chinese might not even know that banning all blacks can be considered racist. It's China who is the big victim after all. Enemies of the people stole mah crops and Taiwan!....

Banning all blacks? From the Olympics? Are you serious or jesting? I did hear the "N" word used by an interpreter while I was there. I also heard that they complained about the USA sending such an ugly woman as Condolizza Rice on official business to their country. Also, the way they represent blacks, as hyperactive word-drivelling idiots in their martial arts films is a bit weird. So I wouldn't be at all surprised that they would come up with something like that privately but publicly I doubt it since there would be an international outcry to boycot the event.

 

[Father Dagon]

Banning all blacks? From the Olympics? Are you serious or jesting? I did hear the "N" word used by an interpreter while I was there. I also heard that they complained about the USA sending such an ugly woman as Condolizza Rice on official business to their country. Also, the way they represent blacks, as hyperactive word-drivelling idiots in their martial arts films is a bit weird. So I wouldn't be at all surprised that they would come up with something like that privately but publicly I doubt it since there would be an international outcry to boycot the event.

Ok, I was a bit improving on Wolfmans's OP:

* A lot of the drug trade in Beijing is being run by Africans; so not only are Africans being denied visas or asked to leave, but all blacks are being targeted. Many bars and restaurants have been instructed by the police not to accept blacks, period.​

As ham fisted as it gets. And internets to everyone who can provide pictures of any "no blacks"-signs.

 

[MG1962]

I dont know - a lot of the precautions are very reasonable - Sydney had a squadron of Black Hawk helicopters in the air full of anti terrorist troops the whole time. We had mulitple bag checks, ID checks etc. Bomb squads, sniffer dogs. Every delivery vehicle was x-rayed and visually checked. All the venues were locked down for a week before the games started and this was all in a pre 911 world

 

[Wolfman]

Wolfman, I note that in your discussion with Gurdur on this bit about Chinese moderates that you come off as an apologist for the Chinese government. It's not important what some people in government want, claim to want, or appear to want, it is what is done that makes a difference, and sends the message. (See also the problem the Bush administration has over its actions, versus its stated intentions. )

While I love your local knowledge, and the insights you offer, I am skeptical about your objectvity. I have blind spots on a few subjects, so I know how easy it is to go in that direction.

DR

Darth,

I'm not an apologist for the government as a whole; I am, however, quite a sincere advocate for specific people within that government who are working very hard to bring about positive change (and facing significant risk for doing so). The problem here is the inability of many people to differentiate between the actions of the government as a whole, and the actions/beliefs of individuals within that government.

Consider the American gov't back when slavery was legal. You had people in the gov't who supported slavery (for quite some time, a majority); and you had people in the gov't who opposed slavery. Would it be fair to condemn those who opposed slavery, because the gov't itself supported slavery? Or should we, rather, admire and respect those who, despite the fact it was not popular or even safe (anti-slavery proponents could face violence for their beliefs), worked within the government to try to change the situation for the better?

An "apologist" would argue that the gov't's abuses are acceptable, or that they are not true. That is not what I've done. Quite the opposite, I started a thread that specifically highlighted some of the abuses that are currently taking place.

And I'm trying to demonstrate that the simplistic view of people like Gurdur -- views based on absolute ignorance of the actual situation -- that everyone in the gov't here is some kind of evil despot are fundamentally untrue. Yes, there are power-hungry despots within the gov't; there are also those who are working very hard to bring about positive change.

That doesn't mean that those who want that change are always successful; but for all the problems and difficulties, the Chinese people today enjoy more freedom than they have ever had in 5000 years of Chinese history. And the situation is continuing to improve. That is no small accomplishment, and the people within the gov't who have helped to bring that about -- and who are working from the inside to continue that process of change -- deserve recognition and praise for that. Not to be tarred with the same brush as people like Mao or Stalin.

In general, those who accuse me here of being an "apologist" tend to be those who consider that saying anything good about China, or about specific people within the Chinese gov't, as 'bad'. They have a black-and-white view of the world in which you are either 'all good', or 'all evil'. I attempt to demonstrate that it is very far from being that simple; that while there are still abuses and problems in China, nevertheless the situation is, overall, changing for the better. And the people who are leading that change are people who deserve our support, not our condemnation.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Darth,

I'm not an apologist for the government as a whole; I am, however, quite a sincere advocate for specific people within that government who are working very hard to bring about positive change (and facing significant risk for doing so).

While the potential is tantalizing, results are what we see.

Consider the American gov't back when slavery was legal. You had people in the gov't who supported slavery (for quite some time, a majority); and you had people in the gov't who opposed slavery.

An odd analogy, until I look back at your OP and see the blacks being shown the door among "polite company" in some places in China. I noted in Japan that racism was casually worn like a sweater. Likewise, I imagine, in China.

An "apologist" would argue that the gov't's abuses are acceptable, or that they are not true. That is not what I've done. Quite the opposite, I started a thread that specifically highlighted some of the abuses that are currently taking place.

Fair enough. Keep the updates coming.

DR

 

[Wolfman]

While the potential is tantalizing, results are what we see.

Yes, and no. As I pointed out, China's gone through phenomenal positive change in the past 15-20 years. It is far, far more free today than it was even a decade ago. Yet many people, whenever they refer to the Chinese gov't today, refer to the Cultural Revolution and the Tianmen Square Massacre (actually, a significant number of modern Chinese leaders were victims of the Cultural Revolution, and quite dedicated to trying to prevent such a thing from happening again).

And despite the fact that numerous positive changes have taken place under this government, at the instigation of people within the gov't who seek positive change, many people still insist on comparing them to people like Mao and Stalin.

So many people are not seeing the 'results'; they are seeing only what they want to see, and ignoring everything else.

An odd analogy, until I look back at your OP and see the blacks being shown the door among "polite company" in some places in China. I noted in Japan that racism was casually worn like a sweater. Likewise, I imagine, in China.

The analogy was not in regards to racism, but rather in regards to the fact that it is more than possible to have a government which, as a whole, does things that we consider wrong/evil; yet within that gov't, to have people who are sincerely seeking change and improvement. China still has a long way to go with regards to racial issues.

 

[Radrook]

Don't you think it's rather hipocritical to embargo Cuba because it is communist while doing a brisk business with China which is communist and which fares no better in human rights? Such an inconsistency smacks of hipocrisy and dubious priorities.

 

[Wolfman]

Don't you think it's rather hipocritical to embargo Cuba because it is communist while doing a brisk business with China which is communist and which fares no better in human rights? Such an inconsistency smacks of hipocrisy and dubious priorities.

Consider that the United States, which was founded on the principles of freedom, equality, and democracy, took some 150 years to abolish slavery, give women the vote, etc. And there are still struggles related to equality and equal rights.

Now consider that China, which in 5000 years of history never had principles of democracy or equality, only began the process of change and reform about 20 years ago.

Don't you think it's rather hypocritical to expect China to accomplish in 20 years what it took the U.S. 150 years to do? Change doesn't happen overnight; and people back in the West seem to prefer to remain intentionally ignorant of just how long (and how much struggle) it took to get to where they are today. China's moving in the right direction; and while we should not turn a blind eye to their abuses, or excuse those abuses, we nevertheless should also acknowledge the advances they are making, and encourage further change and reform.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Don't you think it's rather hypocritical to embargo Cuba because it is communist while doing a brisk business with China which is communist and which fares no better in human rights? Such an inconsistency smacks of hypocrisy and dubious priorities.

It could be hypocritical, ..... or pragmatic.

Cuba is small and so close it is totally dependent on the US. Embargo is (probably) an efficient tool against it.

China is larger than the US, lies on the other side of the planet and has plenty of potential trade partners. An embargo will not affect her any more than it will affect the US in reverse. Maybe less.

ETA: Or in other words, if the bully is small, whop him. If the bully is big, join him.

Hans

 

[Radrook]

Consider that the United States, which was founded on the principles of freedom, equality, and democracy, took some 150 years to abolish slavery, give women the vote, etc. And there are still struggles related to equality and equal rights.

Now consider that China, which in 5000 years of history never had principles of democracy or equality, only began the process of change and reform about 20 years ago.

Don't you think it's rather hypocritical to expect China to accomplish in 20 years what it took the U.S. 150 years to do? Change doesn't happen overnight; and people back in the West seem to prefer to remain intentionally ignorant of just how long (and how much struggle) it took to get to where they are today. China's moving in the right direction; and while we should not turn a blind eye to their abuses, or excuse those abuses, we nevertheless should also acknowledge the advances they are making, and encourage further change and reform.

Sorry I gave the impression that China deserves absolutely no credit for its efforts. All efforts at treating people fairly should be commended. Also, there is much that I admire of Chinese culture. For one, its women in my opinion are the most desirable for marriage precisely because of the values they have acquired from Chinese culture. Second, I admire the scientific accomplishments of the past and their ability to move forward again industrially. What I don't admire is their present form of government. But I do recognize that things take time to mend and am in no way judging their efforts at doing this as halfhearted or hypocritical since I am unfamiliar with the details of their efforts and am therefore not qualified to evaluate the situation either pro or con because of that.

 

[Radrook]

It could be hypocritical, ..... or pragmatic.

Cuba is small and so close it is totally dependent on the US. Embargo is (probably) an efficient tool against it.

China is larger than the US, lies on the other side of the planet and has plenty of potential trade partners. An embargo will not affect her any more than it will affect the US in reverse. Maybe less.

ETA: Or in other words, if the bully is small, whop him. If the bully is big, join him.

Hans

Since that is the case, then is it any wonder that weak nations try to acquire nuclear weapons in order to attiain the
same "respect" from the USA that Korea attained in view of the modus operandi you have just described? Shouldn't it be more than obvious that such a policy of respecting the strong and beating up on the weak encourages precisely that reaction? You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure that out. Any explanation as to why those in charge of foreign policy are so nearsighted?