My Friends, What Do You Want From Us?
[url=http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2008/05/responding-to-chinese-grievances/#comment-2096]http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2008/05/responding-to-chinese-grievances/#comment-2096[/url][font=Arial][font=Arial]The above url is the so-called <Responding to "Chinese Grievances"> by Robert Daly, Center for Global Chinese Affairs Director at University of Maryland.[/font][/font]
[font=Arial][font=Arial] A group of us have been discussing our response way before 5.12 earthquake, and today I finally posted our reply on this website, which is run by Journalism students at UC Berkley, Calif.[/font][/font]
[font=Arial][font=Arial]I have promised to open a separate thread here in the English forum to let more Western friends aware of our response, particularly how we feel about the poem and Daly's way of handling it.[/font][/font]
[color=Red][font=Arial]When we were the Sick Man of Asia, we were called The Yellow Peril. [/font][/color]
[color=Blue][font=Arial]Actually, the Japanese were called the "Yellow Peril". Kaiser Wilhelm II coined the term after Japan defeated China inthe first Sino-Japanese War in 1895. I accept the broader point—that there is a racial component to Western worries about China—but it's best to be clear about the historical facts. And while the racial element is there, that doesn't mean that western attitudes can be reduced to racism. The illegitimate aspects of Western fears do notprove that there are no legitimate grounds for concern.[/font][/color]
[color=Black][font=Arial]Perhaps we have a language twist here, in Chinese there is only one term 「黃禍」, meaning Yellow Catastrophe, which originates from the Yuan Dynasty when Möngke's army penetrated Europe in the 13th century. In any case, the issue is not whether the Japanese or the Chinese is the one labelled, but we ARE LABELLED BY YOU, the West. If you 「legitimate grounds for concerns」 is justifiable, you are practically implying that there are also legitimate grounds for such labelling. Whatever "legitimate ground", if any at all, will not glorify illegitimate aspects of Western fears toward China.[/font][/color]
[color=Red][font=Arial]When we are billed to be the next Superpower, we are called The Threat.[/font][/color]
[color=Blue][font=Arial]Well, yes. Welcome to the club. "Superpower" has never been an unalloyed compliment. China, as you know, has been aleading critic of American hegemony.[/font][/color]
[color=Black][font=Arial]Of course, "Superpower" is not always a compliment, depending on what kind of "Superpower" we are dealing with, and weknow, "Super power" does not necessarily equate hegemony. We criticize the US not on the ground that it is the Superpower, but its aggression, initiating wars, bullying, orchestrating sabotages and exploitation. Shouldn't the substance of the criticism itself bear more significance than who is criticising?[/font][/color]
[color=Red][font=Arial]When we closed our doors, you smuggled drugs to open markets.[/font][/color]
[color=Blue][font=Arial]True. That was bad. It is also true that most of the opium smoked in China during the period referred to was grown in China and, of course, transported and smoked by Chinese. That doesn't excuse Western perfidy, but it does cast doubt on the simplistic Evil Foreigners/Innocent Chinese narrative that is peddled in much Chinese writing about the period. It is also true that, during the same period, the "imperialists" brought the first universities, modern hospitals, women's education, railroads, streetlights, etc., to China. You might fairly respond that Chinese were perfectly capable of adapting the fruits of modernity to China in their own time and manner, without arrogant foreigners forcing these things upon them while violating China's sovereignty, exploiting its natural resources, etc. This is the classic argument between colonizers and colonized. Interestingly, China now stands on the colonizer side of the discussion when it defends its actions in Tibet by pointing out how investment has saved the Tibetan people from their own feudal, backward ways. How worms do turn. [/font][/color]
[color=Black][font=Arial]You admit "That was bad", however, you can take a step further. Nothing you can do about the past, but you can apologize, on behalf of your ancestors. We saw a German Chancellor knelt for the Jews that had been persecuted. Why can't leaders of the Western countries that invaded China do the same? You feel guilt and have mercy towards the Jews, but opt for silence upon the Japanese history book alteration, paying respect to Shrine where war criminals were honoured. Why is there such a disparity between the Jews and the Chinese?[/font][/color]
[color=Black][font=Arial]Your response demonstrates: in Man's history, invaders will never agree they cause calamity to their victims. According to your rationale, 911 ought to take place, for it gave US its justification to enter into wars and retaliations (in fact, that's how US did it), as well as its recollection on bitter gall from its hegemony. The list continues: Bush's gained wider support, drop in US unemployment etc. A rapist can further state to his victim, "I give you a baby."[/font][/color]
[color=Black][font=Arial]For you (and those others who claimed) "most of the opium… was grown in China" hence "it does cast doubt on simplistic Evil Foreigners/Innocent Chinese narrative" it leads us casting doubt on your status as an intellect, which also is the single aspect that many of our forum participants queried if you have over 20 years of experience in your China study. We would invite you to access the following website:[/font][/color]
[url=http://www.plantcultures.org/plants/opium_poppy_history.html,]http://www.plantcultures.org/plants/opium_poppy_history.html,[/url]
[color=Black][font=Arial]for information on where poppy is originated, in particular, the paragraphs captioned "European Impacts" and "the Opium War". If and really if the majority of the opium really be grown, transported in China for self consumption, then how did the British obtain sterling silver out of the trade? What about the plantations the British held in India & Burma? They grew opium for pleasure? Even if poppies were then planted in China, when did it start and who started it if it was the majority of opium sources? Please explain. [/font][/color]
[color=Black][font=Arial]"interestingly, China now stands on the colonizer side of the discussion when it defends its actions in Tibet by pointing out how investment has saved the Tibetan people from their own feudal, backward ways. How worms do turn" This statement is all wrong. China never took the stands of a colonizer. Pardon us, we simply change things that are not fair and just. In the same way we overthrew the Qing Dynasty, the Warlord government, we got rid of the serf slavery system then found in Tibet, for the better development of China as a whole, with Tibet as part of it. Should you have doubts on our claim, you are more than welcomed to visit Tibet in person and ask those Tibetans if they hold any grievances toward the rest of China and not just accepting the hearsay cover-ups from descendents of Tibetan nobles-in-exile for all their inhumane past deeds.[/font][/color]
[color=Black][font=Arial]Lastly, your attempt to compare Tibet situation with colonialism is a comparison of apples with oranges, not unless you consider Lincoln's liberation of slavery is also "How worms do turn"[/font][/color]
[color=Red][font=Arial]When we embrace Free Trade, You blame us for taking away your jobs.[/font][/color]
[color=Blue][font=Arial]It's a complicated issue, but the West can be tagged with some hypocrisy on this one. Sorry about the whining. And hey, congratulations on raising the standard of living of so many people.The Chinese have worked hard and deserve to live more comfortably.[/font][/color]
[color=Black][font=Arial]It seems whenever you fall shorts of argument,"complication" or the like comes to mind, but we think you can do better. Sorry is useless, instead it's important you and your fellowmen will not make these accusations, can do? It's fair to say American inflation has been kept at acceptable levels because of foreign imports, and your job loss does not drain only to China, but to India, Mexico and others. Your congratulation is hypocritical and somewhat not sincere, a mere act of formality which is not needed. We just want you refraining from accusing us seizing your job opportunities when we embrace free trade.[/font][/color]
[color=Red][font=Arial]When we were falling apart, You marched in your troops and wanted your fair share.[/font][/color]
[color=Blue][font=Arial]There was some marching, but it wasn't all that bad in the grand scheme of things. Take a look at the experience of countries that were really colonized, like the Belgian Congo, to put China's experience in perspective. Again, the forcing open of China's door brought benefits to China together with the insults and exploitation. See the "What did the Romans ever do for us?" scene in Monty Python's Life of Brian.[/font][/color]
[color=Black][font=Arial]We have discussed this above, so we don't want to revisit the issue. We just want to ask : if somebody rapes a woman, should the woman thank him for having a baby or may be HIV ? One of us asks "How come you don't think the same way when you mentioned about Tibet earlier?" You did mention how "Interestingly, China now stands on the colonizer side…" so on and so forth. With a blink, you switched!![/font][/color]
[[i] Last edited by ltbriar at 14-6-2008 08:36 [/i]] [color=Red][font=Arial]When we tried to put the broken pieces back together again, Free Tibet you screamed, It Was an Invasion![/font][/color]
[color=Blue][font=Arial]The history of Sino-Tibetan relations is more complex that either the People's Daily or the Free Tibet movement claim. For a balanced discussion, listen to the National Committee on U.S.-China Relations' recent conference call at here.[/font][/color]
[color=Black][font=Arial]Yes, it's so "complicated" that the Western world can slice Chinese history to suit their appetite, with somebody having few courses on China, or one or two trips to China who then can tell Chinese what IS CHINESE HISTORY, ridiculous, isn't it? Tibet is a part of China, a Chinese autonomous region, not as complicated as you imagine. If you are unfamiliar with Chinese history, no problem, come to China, be my guest! I'll help you understand Chinese history, but please don't claim you understand China.[/font][/color]
[color=Black][font=Arial]Why do we have to listen to the National Committee on US-China Relations' recent conference? US didn't listen to UN or old Europe in their Iraq War either, not to say this is internal affairs. Why shouldn't it be you to understand all the scripts and scrolls of ancient China and Tibet to rectify your mis-perception on Tibet not being a part of China? Can we follow your tracks to promote that California, New Mexico and Texas, and may be all the land of US, in fact, do not belong to the Anglo-Americans?[/font][/color]
[font=Arial][color=Red]When we tried Communism, you hated us for being Communist.[/color][/font]
[font=Arial][color=Blue]True, more or less. And China hated America for being a capitalist liberal democracy. It was a hate- and fear-filled time all around.[/color][/font]
[font=Arial]It's good that you admit hating us, but the problem is, we are not all communists! And we don't dislike America for a capitalist liberal democracy, some of us even admire or envy you at certain point of time before 6.4 incidence. But we gradually learn of your being double standard and hypocrites (which is the essence of theme of this poem, if in case you fail to appreciate.) We dislike America for its aggression and hegemony, and its brutal intervention to other countries if they refuse to follow the American WAY. Think about the disaster of Iraq, lots of lives wasted EVERY DAY. Isn't that a humanity calamity? Did they deserve to be killed? [/font]
[font=Arial][color=Red]When we embrace Capitalism, you hate us for being Capitalist.[/color][/font]
[font=Arial][color=Blue]Not exactly. But America does fear China, in part, because China is gaining wealth and power through following (with Chinese characteristics) prescriptions that were offered by the West.[/color][/font]
[font=Arial]We find you often respond in vague terms, which to us represents your uncertainty and unease, or may be hesitancy in admitting our prescription adaptation is in fact the cause of your fear and therefore hatred? Instead of wasting your energy as such, why can't you actively study Chinese miracle, Chinese characteristics and Chinese history. You may not be aware that China does not hate Capitalism or Free Trade Economy, we are learning from you, but of course that has to be integrated into our history, culture, reality, and infrastructure etc. and just to note, capitalism "germinated" in China not later than the Western world, but much earlier. Furthermore, we do not fear Western world for your development using our ancient innovations, we admire your seriousness about science and just regret we did do the same earlier.[/font]
[font=Arial][color=Red]When we have a billion people, you said we were destroying the planet.[/color][/font]
[font=Arial][color=Blue]The United States is obviously not in any position to offer a moral critique of environmental destruction wrought by other nations. But it is in an excellent position to offer observations from environmental science, to describe best practices based on long experience, and to promote greener technologies in concert with the many Chinese, in and out of government, who are concerned about China's poisoning of its own land, air, and water. The complaint in this line is symptomatic of one of the most dangerous (and charmless) Chinese psycho-rhetorical moves: the tendency to focus on the emotional response to a critique—the perceived insult—rather than the factual claims of a critique. My suggestion is that the Chinese ignore the insults, evaluate the facts, and clean up China's environment for the sake of the Chinese themselves.[/color][/font]
[font=Arial]You wish to direct the issue towards our over-reaction, fine, just how come your people didn't ignore the insults, evaluate the cause of the crisis, recollect on your administration's foreign and military policy? All we saw was overwhelmed patriotism demanding retaliation against the Talibans. With respect to what we have to do, it will be covered later, so we recess for the moment.[/font]
[font=Arial][color=Red]When we tried limiting our numbers, you said we abused human rights.[/color][/font]
[font=Arial][color=Blue]The issue was not the goal, but the methods. In my experience, most Chinese support the One Child policy, at least in theory, even as they are saddened by it. This difficult moral equation is best worked out by the Chinese themselves. But I would have more confidence in China's ability to create an effective and humane population policy if every aspect of the issue could be openly debated and continually re-evaluated.[/color][/font]
[font=Arial]Wrong again. Chinese love large family, more offspring is a blessing. Traditional Chinese belief is that children are "old age insurance", instead of relying on senior allowance or pensions. It's particularly so in rural areas.[/font]
[font=Arial]Even now, few people want just 1 child out of their own intent. These people choose so because of economic pressure, more liberal life-style planning or less preference for traditional family, but they are the minority few, which practically comes to none in rural areas.[/font]
[font=Arial]On the other hand, such policy decision wasn't a morally difficult equation as you put it. We didn't have birth control because we believed "more hands = more labour at work", or simply, some leaders then were still old-fashioned fans of big families. So, it's not what the "intervention, violation of human rights" you are thinking. We believe China will adopt an appropriate population policy for its own. We surely can discuss about it, but will not accept your use of it as trade-off chips with China.[/font]
[font=Arial][color=Red]When we were poor, you thought we were dogs.[/color][/font]
[font=Arial][color=Blue]This is untrue, and the self-pity in the line is worrisome. America's long record of sympathy for China's poverty is one of the brighter spots in the history of bilateral relations. Americans have donated money, material, expertise, and, in some cases, their lives to alleviate Chinese suffering. While China's great material progress is due primarily to the hard work and sacrifice of the Chinese people, one would be hard-pressed to point to any aspect of China's development that has no connection to the United States. There was some condescension and self-aggrandizement in American sympathy for China, but it's an imperfect world and motives are always mixed.[/color][/font]
[font=Arial]"No Dogs and Chinese Allowed" was put by foreigners in front of a Shanghai Park in older days in China. You can search on Google, though certain people allege it was not true just as if a few Japanese said the Raid of Nanking did not happen. Some Americans sympathize China and we thank them. Likewise, we extended our sympathy when US suffered, such as 911, Katrina and the like. However, it cannot be grouped as "America's long record of sympathy for China". America did help Chinese against Japanese invasion (perhaps the largest help from US to China ever). However, history reveals this is just a small piece of American broad strategic chessboard, that is, helping China was not your prime objective for "Humanity" or "Conscience", but for your own interest in the Far East. America, being one party to the War, and China's alliance, did what an alliance should. Further analysis will reveal the war was won with US's finance and other resources but China took care of manpower, i.e. human lives. To describe this as "alleviate Chinese suffering" is far from factual.[/font]
[font=Arial]We appreciate you substantiate your claim "hard-pressed to point to any aspect of China's development that has no connection to the United States" with evidence and not just a hollow statement that we cannot evaluate.[/font]
[[i] Last edited by ltbriar at 14-6-2008 08:39 [/i]] [color=Red]When we loan you cash, you blame us for your national debts.[/color]
[color=Blue]Yeah. Sorry about that. And thanks for the cash.[/color]
[color=Black]Actually we don't need to respond on this, however we are more interested to know "Why you thank for our cash?" so that we will understand if you really mean it. More importantly we wish to know when will your Congress welcome our investment? Just curious, as we can put it elsewhere.[/color]
[color=Red]When we build our industries, you call us Polluters.[/color]
[color=Blue]China's industries are major polluters, as Chinaitself acknowledges. America is a major polluter too. We must work on the issue together. Again, the tone of the line is worrisome: one should be able to point out, as a matter of fact, that a country is producing a lot of pollution, without being accused of "calling thatnation a polluter." A doctor who tells a patient she has cancer is not calling that patient "Cancerous", or asserting his superiority, or claiming that he has never had or does not currently have cancer himself. He is simply taking an essential step on the road to a cure.[/color]
[color=Black]Quite a number of us find your comparison of cancer patient not appropriate, as we know, cancer is not contiguous, but polluted air and water do spread. Or if you change cancer to SARs, HIVor hepatitis, you will conclude otherwise.[/color]
[color=Black]As you mentioned, it's China that has been polluted, but isn't the pollution resulted from certain Western countries spread the negative effects of their modernization to China and other developing countries, polluting others' environment? The environment pollution caused by China's economic development is a byproducts of the narrow work division of the world industry. When Chinese-made products are exported, the pollution stays in the country. So China is not only a consumer of resources and producer of pollution, but also a major victim of a polluted environment. Perhaps you should now realize that it is not just insult we saw, but a totally twist and switch of cause and effects and the ultimate responsibility.[/color]
[color=Black]Environmental pollution indeed poses a great challenge to the development of the country, and the problem has not been well handled so far. In 2008, the Chinese Government accelerated the transfer of its resource-consuming industries to eco-friendly ones.Under a steady economic growth, the country plans to greatly improve the environment quality in major cities and regions by 2010. Also, by that year, the country's energy consumption per GDP will be reduced by20 percent compared to that of 2005, and the gross emission of pollutants will be cut by 10 percent. At the same time, forest coverage will be raised from the current 18.2 percent to 20 percent. In an unprecedented move, the Central Government will accord environmental protection targets an equal status with economic development.[/color]
[color=Black]To achieve these goals, the Chinese Government will speed up economic reconstruction, during which a number of energy –consuming or low-efficiency factories will be shut down. New projects will be less energy-consuming and less polluted. Projects expected to produce heavy environmental pollution will have to be approved by law if they are to take off. The government suspended 82 projects relating to industries of steel, electricity and metallurgy in January 2007 infour regions, which were found falling to reach the environmental standard. The suspension will not be lifted in these regions and fields until these projects reduce their pollution emission to a qualified standard.[/color]
[color=Black]Furthermore, China will increase its investment in environmental protection. The country plans to pour 1.4 trillion RMB to clean up its environment, a projects that started in 2008 and will end in 2010. In this way, China will fulfill its responsibilities toward the world and attempt to pave the way for an eco-friendly future. These are what China has and will do, but we know that US still rejects to sign the Kyoto Protocol giving various excuses. You still consider US having fair ground to finger point at China?[/color]
[color=Red]When we sell you goods, you blame us for global warming.[/color]
[color=Blue]I think we've covered this one. I'll try not to be as redundant in my comments as the author was in his or her indictment.[/color]
[color=Black]OK, we rest on this too.[/color]
[color=Red]When we buy oil, you call it exploitation and genocide.[/color]
[color=Blue]No one has said that buying oil is genocide. What has been said is that arming and abetting an oil-rich government that slaughters its own people makes one complicit in genocide. The point seems too obvious to spell out, as is the point that the American government has underwritten more than its share of noxious regimes.[/color]
[color=Black]Pardon us, is the focus being "its own people"? So you unconditional support towards Israel, whose bombarding and enclosure of Gaza then excuse yourself for your support because they are not killing their own people? It's undeniable that US utilizes Israel to rock and manipulate Middle East for decades. This is not just aiding and abetting but a coalition. The majority of global humanity casualties, whether military-wise or ecology-wise, has an ultimate link with US. [/color]
[color=Black]China does not have any armed forces stationed abroad, except for peace-keeping. What has China to do with the humanity problems in Sudan? Western Anti-China forces gave us the "assignment". If we take the bait, you can charge us – for breaking our words in intervening other's internal affairs! The underlying intention, perhaps, is to block China's interest in Sudan and Africa.
([color=DarkOliveGreen][color=DarkOrange]PS I've just translated an article from the Minnesota Daily, a in-campus newspaper of the University of Minnesota, in which the authors wrote Darfur "genocide" is a false accusation, because the problem is starvation rather than genocide. It does not fit the definition of genocide at all. Those interested can visit the following link. We have the original articile in English there as well[/color].)
[url=http://www.anti-cnn.com/forum/cn/thread-67997-1-1.html]http://www.anti-cnn.com/forum/cn/thread-67997-1-1.html[/url]
[/color][/color]
[color=Red]When you go to war for oil, you call it liberation.[/color]
[color=Blue]I don't want to defend the invasion, but I should point out that Americans do not speak of "The Liberation of Iraq." They call it simply "The Iraq War" and most of them oppose it. They oppose it freely in print, in film, and on street corners. They are free to criticize their government's positions, to unpack their government's propaganda, and to not vote for politicians who support the war. [/color]
[color=Black]Sorry to get up on the soap box. Two of the nice things about defending American positions, no matter how wrong headed they may be, are (1) in a pluralistic society, there is no such thingas "the American position" because the government doesn't have a monopoly on meaning. There is therefore no such thing as the unitary「You」 in China's Grievances. (I don't believe in the unitary "We" either.) (2) No foreign critique of the United States is ever asscathing, informed, or effective as critiques offered by Americans themselves. That gives us a thick skin, confidence, a certain immunity to insult.[/color]
[color=Black]Really? Then what exactly did Mr. Benjamin Gilman say when he presented the bill H.R. 4655 (PL 105-338) for the Congress' approval? Didn't he say that 「Mr. Speaker, I introduced HR4655, the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998… 」? Here's the url of your Congressional record. [/color]
[url=http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec98/cr100598.htm]www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec98/cr100598.htm[/url]
[color=Black]We also checked on your thick skin, though, and found that: [/color]
[color=Black]A USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll taken Thursday night finds more than three of four, 76%, approve of President Bush'sdecision to attack even though the United Nations Security Council didnot support the use of force... poll of 602 adults has an error marginof +/-4 percentage points.[/color]
[url=http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-03-20-poll-usat_x.htm]http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-03-20-poll-usat_x.htm[/url]
[url=http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-20-poll-results.htm]http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-20-poll-results.htm[/url]
[color=Black]Further examination of the poll reveals that 70% believed US should take military action when it did and not to wait for UN inspection, 34% thought that the war would end in 1-3 months, 10% thought that American casualties would be several thousands, 41% thought that it would be less than 100. The latest announced casualties exceed 4,000, but sources claimed the Pentagon had covered up and actual number might well be over 15,000. [/color]
[url=http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article2838.html]http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article2838.html[/url]
[color=Black]Your fending of American positions is rather weak:1) Do you believe that China "can" have a monopoly on meaning or youjust choose to believe? Just how often your President or the White House/Administration's spokespersons use the term "The American's position" or "We American think that…"? 2) The above poll results uncovered so much so about being "scathing, informed, or effective". The average Americans are more "brainwashed" by your government agency and media than us. They put themselves on top of UN all along and chose to believe what the administration and media were feeding them.
[/color]
[[i] Last edited by ltbriar at 14-6-2008 08:53 [/i]] [color=Red]When we were lost in chaos and rampage, you demanded rules of law.[/color]
[color=Blue]No. Deng Xiaoping set China on the road toward Rule of Law so that China, in its own interest, could escape from chaos by attracting foreign investment, technology, and managerial expertise.[/color]
[color=Black]Glad to know you believe so, however, we doubt this is the general opinion of the Western mainstream. We would like to believe it is, but the reality is just not so. Furthermore, attracting investment, technology and managerial expertise form just a small fraction of the benefit we actually obtained from Rule of Law. Of course, shortfalls in your observation are excusable as Westerners engage themselves mainly in investment or tourism in China, and hardly pay attention to anything beyond.[/color]
[color=Red]When we uphold law and order against violence, you call it violating human rights.[/color]
[color=Blue]"Law and Order" is not the same thing as "Rule of Law". [/color]
[color=Black]What is your point? Without "Rule of Law", how is"Law and Order" to be achieved? When "Law and Order" cannot be achieved, then where is "Rule of Law"? Your clarification that they are two separate issues actually confirms the fact that Westerners accuse Chinese on one side or the other at their free will. It's no use to tell us they are different. We appreciate you spending the effort explaining to your fellow men not accuse us like that.[/color]
[color=Red]When we were silent, you said you wanted us to have free speech.[/color]
[color=Blue]Sure.[/color]
[color=Red]When we are silent no more, you say we are brainwashed- xenophobics.[/color]
[color=Blue]Americans are too quick to call the Chinese by unpleasant names: brainwashed, xenophobic, nationalistic. This impulse hurts American understanding of what is really occurring in China. But asking your opponents where they get their information, requesting that they make reasoned arguments that consider all of the available evidence, and suggesting that serious historians be consulted in discussions of history is not the same thing as name calling. [/color]
[color=Black]Thank you for your suggestions. Actually most of us comprehend where do Westerners' biased perception and misunderstanding stem from. However we are puzzled why the onus to clarify is upon us, and not your fellowmen, or upon people like you who can be a credible opinion leader for them? At least you won't be conceived as reacting emotionally or self-pitying, right? Our words would simply be ignored given their biasness, don't you think? Would you do us the honour to beour " ombudsman, please?[/color]
[color=Red]Why do you hate us so much, we asked.[/color]
[color=Red]No, you answered, we don't hate you.[/color]
[color=Red]We don't hate you either,[/color]
[color=Blue]Glad to hear it. One of the things that has concerned me about this spring's dustups is that they have created the impression that Americans are anti-Chinese and Chinese are anti-American. Neither is true. I've worked in U.S.-China relations for 22 years, spending equal amounts of time in both countries. There are blowhards in both nations. On balance, however, our mutual fascination outweighs our mutual frustration. The Chinese are gracious hosts, are internationally minded, and are more patriotic than nationalistic.Americans are interested in and impressed by China. That is why we welcome so many Chinese to our universities, our workplaces, and ourfamilies.[/color]
[color=Black]Thanks for your kind words, as mentioned before, we need more Americans sharing the same kind of understanding and appreciate if you would exert your influence in the American circle. In the meanwhile, we will also try to improve our understanding towards the West. It's a pity that a few flies spoilt the broth, so let's each do a spring cleaning in our backyard. [/color]
[color=Red]But, do you understand us?[/color]
[color=Blue]When most of my Chinese friends use phrases like "understand China", they really mean "accept China's understanding of itself" or, more specifically, "accept the Chinese Communist Party's interpretation of things (the 黨意)". But nobody gets to be viewed only as they wish to be viewed. People are smarter than that. My understanding of China is no doubt incomplete (how could it be otherwise?), and is certainly different than the CCP's, but that doesn't make it illegitimate. There are innumerable Chinese "understandings" of China just as there are innumerable American understandings of America. Perhaps we'd be better off if we dropped talk of "understanding" altogether. [/color]
[color=Black]"that doesn't make it illegitimate" -- this is exactly the problem!!! It's not whether your view is illegitimate, but whether you really understand! Westerners are often too bold to satisfy with "I see". We call that "making one an expert out of bits and pieces." Right! Nobody gets to be viewed only as they wish to be viewed! But isn't it also true that nobody should be so presumptuous especially when it comes to understand another race another culture? Shouldn't we consider the feedback from the other party to make sure we truly understand? Though you explicitly admit your understanding is incomplete, when you jumped to CCP's interpretation, you subjectively believe you understood, but in fact you do not really. If somebody like you having over 20 years of dealing in China acts as such, what better chances do we have with common Westerners except being perceived as brainwashed by CCP? We respect your right for your own interpretation, but please, when we ask "do you understand us?" we are actually asking:1) are you truly sincere to know us? 2) do you really understand correctly, or do you just think so but in fact you are biased and distorted in your perception?[/color]
[color=Red]Of course we do, you said,[/color]
[color=Red]We have AFP, CNN and BBC's…[/color]
[color=Blue]The writer is simply putting words into the mouth of an American straw man. [/color]
[color=Black]This is a poetic expression, which nevertheless reflects the reality. A lot of us disagree the way you chose to respond to the poem in a Q&A mode. We will address to this separately. But isn't "saying that we are brainwashed", also pulling our limbs as if we were puppets?[/color]
[color=Red]What do you really want from us?[/color]
[color=Red]Think hard first, then answer…[/color]
[color=Blue]Excellent question. I don't think Americans know the answer. It will take time to figure out. China's growth over the past two decades is without precedent or historical analogy. It has major implications for every sphere of human endeavor. But China is changing and those implications are evolving so rapidly that it is impossible to come to any conclusions about them. How are we to evaluate China's progress and problems? We don't have an adequate measure yet. We couldn't possibly have. China doesn't know what to make of its progress either. As Deng said, it is crossing the river by feeling for stones. But we do know that the stakes are high. That is one of the reasons that events in China are watched with the closest scrutiny and subjected to the most skeptical analysis by non-Chinese. The whole world has a stake in what China becomes so, yes, the world asks questions and, no, the world will not take the Chinese government's word for anything without conducting its own investigations. Congratulations are due to China and are frequently given. But the West, the East—everyone —like the Chinese themselves, has reason to ask where China is heading. [/color]
"[color=Blue]Has reason to ask where China is heading[/color]?" [color=Black]Wait a minute, do you seriously mean it? Of course you may ask, but "havinga reason to ask" implies we are then obliged to answer to your questioning. No, no way we are obliged to do that. In your judicial system, isn't there a principle as "Everyone is innocent and a free man until proved guilty?" And then who empowered you to judge when in your belief of Human Rights, that everybody are born equal? [/color]
[color=Black]It's human instinct to worry things that men are not familiar with. We understand the size and momentum of Chinese development have important bearing and impact on other nations and the World as a whole. For the past 30 years, our government has consistently proved that we are prudent, responsible and cautious inour progress. Like you said, crossing the river by feeling for stones means trials and errors, however, on the other hand, you also mentioned that we are benefit from the past experience of the Western world, did you not? We air such grievances, but what makes us do that? If it were not the repeated prejudice and disparity treatment exerted upon us, we would have treated bygones be bygones. If you review this poem as a whole, you should be able to realize these are the never-ending provocation Chinese faced throughout the past 100 years. Put yourself into our shoes and see how you will feel, and if you will come to the same conclusion "What on earth we have done to deserve such scrutiny and for so long?" So, instead of "What do you really want from us", perhaps there is another prior question "Why did you do such things to us?"
[/color]
[[i] Last edited by ltbriar at 14-6-2008 09:04 [/i]] [color=Red]Because you only get so many chances.[/color]
[color=Blue]Don't end on a threat. It undermines your declared interest in peace.[/color]
[color=Black]This is not a threat, but a reality. Haven't you and your people realized there is a limit to everything, oil resources,ecology…… finally patience? These seven words constitute a threat? Come on! [/color]
[color=Red]Enough is Enough, Enough Hypocrisy for This ONE World.[/color]
[color=Blue]Plenty of hypocrisy to go around. But hypocrisy isan easy and uninteresting accusation. Let's scrap it. Our joint challenge is to manage complexity. [/color]
[color=Black]Scrapping it is the same as sweeping it under the carpet. It's still there.[/color]
[color=Red]We want One World, One Dream, and Peace on Earth.[/color]
[color=Blue]We have One World, whether we want it or not, and everyone wants Peace on Earth. The cultural divide is this: much of the non-Chinese world believes in Many Dreams and it wants them all at once: my dream, your dream, the dreams of people I dislike and disagree with, all competing and evolving and interbreeding in one chaotic, peaceful mess, and may the most beautiful dreams prevail. The One Dream can only be imposed by the One Power. People dislike the One Power. That's the main reason that the Olympic torch was hounded in the West and East. [/color]
[color=Black]Surprisingly we start from language gap and here weare again with another near the end. You mentioned cultural division, but it's just another misunderstanding due to translation twist. As we all know, this is a Beijing Olympic slogan. A slogan basically is a key-line that needs simplicity. But being simple means forgoing details. The Chinese slogan actually says "one same world" and not just "one world". The latter misleads you to believe we just allow uni~ and not multiple options. (Just fyi, even Mao himself said even though he did not believe in Buddhism, Tibetans should be allowed to keep their religion belief as it is part of their culture). See, we return to the topic if you really understand Chinese culture! If you understand Chinese language, then you won't be off by miles.[/color]
[color=Black]"Having same dream" means the spirit of Olympic and the common values like – joint teamwork, friendship, progress, harmony, participation and aspiration, representing that the whole World, as called by the Olympic spirit, have the same dream of pursuit for the common good future. Don't you also wish for that? How does "One Power" come by? You're just misled by your "ONE" and run along your own track, getting farther and farther away! To Westerners, Peace is p-e-a-c-e, but in Chinese, it is Harmony, Together, plus Equality, Balanced, Smoothness. Just think, under equality when everyone is equal, can ONEPOWER be imposed? It may be embedded in your "PEACE", but surely not in our meaning of Harmony and Equality![/color]
[color=Red]This Big Blue Earth is Big Enough for all of Us.[/color]
[color=Blue]It had better be.[/color]
[color=Blue]Good luck in the Olympic games. [/color]
[color=Black]Yes, It'd better be. [/color]
[color=Black]Thanks for your wish, you have a saying "There's a Silver Lining to each Dark Cloud" eh?[/color]
Annex:
[color=Black]When we were preparing to respond, earthquake hit China. With such calamity and severe loss of lives, Western media continued in their blood-thirsty meanness. Spiegel accused the Chinese Government "Staatliche Propaganda nutzt das Erdbeben" (the State propaganda used this disaster", Liberation in France described this as" Une catastrophe si bien exploitée" (A fully exploited disaster), Mirror from UK was more subtle: " I say "extraordinary" because this was the day China, momentarily at least, shook off its old instinct of secrecy and suspicion", even a Hollywood actress grabbed the chance to say "is that Karma". These press us asking further questions:[/color]
[color=Red][b]When we were closed for the media, you said we don't have Freedom of the Press.[/b][/color]
[color=Red][b]When we now open up for news coverage, you said we are doing it for PR.[/b][/color]
[color=Red][b]Just which government can possibly have 1.3 billion people to participate in PR?
[/b][/color]
[[i] Last edited by ltbriar at 14-6-2008 09:09 [/i]]
Actually this is the covering letter
In which we address the way that Robert Daly's improper way of handling the poemtrying to meander away from the core message the poem tries to bring out - a way a number of us feel, slimmy and low brow!
=================
[b][color=Blue]One Common World; One Common Dream[/color] [/b](by Nemo Cares of Anti-CNN.com)
[i]A pure simple dream is no intended for your lust,[/i]
[i]Western Politicians so arrogantly positioned![/i]
[i]Your desire for whatever super weapons, we care not ;[/i]
[i]Yet, other than that, pause to glance upon ~[/i]
[i]Those struggling in poverty, in midst of crossfires ~[/i]
[i]Their dreams; anyone cares to know? Anyone?[/i]
[i]A happy life in peace, just that simple.[/i]
[i]In your vision, room for "A happy and peaceful World for sharing" ?Anywhere?[/i]
[i]Should your dream not be built at the expense of others' ,[/i]
[i]Then we are in the same World, and shall share one Common Dream.[/i]
[i]Life is essentially quite simple, only muddled when some of you ~[/i]
[i]Persistently measuring others with your own Scale;[/i]
[i]Shearing of views and lives of others to suit your frame.[/i]
Dear Mr. Daly:
We sincerely thank you for your response to "My Friends, What Do You Want From Us", which actually spawned deliberation among ourselves for the possible discrepancies between Chinese and Western cultures. We do appreciate your being open and frank, however we do not concur with your view on certain areas, which we feel might be due to language barriers and cultural misinterpretations.
This poem is basically precipitated from a long series of emotional provocations that Chinese feel all these years in our experience with the West. Treating it as a Q&A probably distracts the readers from the aforesaid perspective. "Should the extensive echoing to this poem among Chinese be generalized as us being over-sensitive and self-pitying, or rather the discontent to the West's being self-contradicting and patronizing" is what we would like to bring forward. Actually, one of us has commented, "I used to think Westerners like to believe in God, now I know that they like to play God themselves".
The self-pity, as you put it, will not be self-activated. Perhaps unconsciously you tend to put yourself from a higher elevation than you should, however, we as intellectuals should always caution ourselves tobe objective and factual. There is a newspaper ads punch line which we'd like to quote "Everybody can have an opinion, but is yours an informed one?" We sincerely hope that foreigners refrain from too liberally commenting on China and Chinese affairs, not until they equip themselves with adequate knowledge on our history and true facts, simply because ethically this is irresponsible, and unfair. For the past few months, we have been busy updating our knowledge about Tibet. To our surprise, there are certain Western scholars who spent enormous efforts in researching (some of them spent over 20 years in their studies), making extensive travels and staying in Tibet and neighbouring regions. We discover that the more they understand, the more their conclusions accord with an average Chinese's view.
Chinese culture, like your own and many others, is unique. The uniqueness is reflected in our different philosophy about life, life-style and our values. If Human Rights is truly honoured, then mutual respect is crucial when it comes to intercultural issues. As you are probably aware, Chinese race consists of over 50 different ethnic and minority groups. We respect and appreciate each other's culture including the Tibetan's – one big happy family, as we often put it. US is also well-known for its immigrant culture as the "melting pot". Whatever we each call it, each of us has our unique ways in managing ourselves. Of course we may not agree with some of your ways, nevertheless we accept your ways "as-is" out of respect. We would not pass judgement on you as to how you should handle your own issues or if your values make sense, because we are equal, and who are we to judge you? We would like the same kind of respect reciprocated by your fellowmen. Fair? After all, we do believe you hold that everybody is equal, and not that some are more equal than the others.
This poem outlines the occasions that the West (we do recognize you have different interest groups, but still some self-conflicting accusations can be coming from the same group of people at different occasions) criticizing China from all fronts without realizing they are actually in conflicts. It is quite clear that lines in the poem go in pairs to illustrate different contradicting situations and different perspectives of interpreting a situation. Instead of your "self-pitying", it's frustration we feel when we see clearly there is no intention or likelihood that the West will try to understand. It just represents our pondering as to how come you guys act in such a funny way? See if it helps you understand: it's like you're happy watching TV at home, a stranger suddenly comes in and pees in your living room right in front of you. It shouldn't have happened, but it did, not just once, but repeatedly as if your home was a public toilet.(See, do you really understand us?) It's almost like the office joke about the 2 laws: Rule #1 the boss is always right; Rule #2: if not,see Rule #1. No, sir, we are not a self-pitying nation, we had not been, and will not be. We have no intention to retaliate when we attain Superpower status either. That is not Chinese way. Our tradition calls for loyalty and forgiveness, but the offenders must truly be remorseful.
Please don't judge us with your Western values and concept. You may perceive that individualism is suppressed in China without considering it's merely because it is your value standard, not necessarily that of the Chinese. Chinese, however, are like bees and ants in the insect kingdom. Our value system is that individual achievement at one's freewill is not the sole primary goal. We have to consider for other higher levels – the collective good for family, then community, nation, human race and the universe), and we are not alone. Japanese and Korean cultures also possess such characteristics, just in a varied format. While you accept Japanese and Korean cultures and value systems, why would you have problem with ours, just because we lack a so-called voting system of "democracy"? Are you guys playing God again here?
Chinese culture calls for reciprocation. You respect me, I reciprocate ten times as much, but we discourage "an eye for an eye" unless we are backed against the wall. We don't want to have any problem with anyone in the World, but we also want to be left alone minding our own business. Look at how we name other countries in Chinese! America is country of beauty, UK is country of the best in floral species, Italy, Meaning for Big Luck, France, country of law and method, Germany, country of good virtue, and even our historical rival Japan, is Solar Oriented. (but do you know how they used to call China?) We have no problem with anyone, so why on earth everybody is picking on us? What did we do to you? (leave aside what you did to us). We welcome the Westerners to understand us. Anything not clear, please ask, we will try our best to help you understand. But just please don't blame us out of your imaginary voodoo. We mean nobody no harm. Touch base for now? Thank you.
Best Wishes
Amigo and friends from the Anti-CNN forum
[[i] Last edited by ltbriar at 14-6-2008 09:17 [/i]] Hearing these statements makes me realize how blind we really are in the West. Very few Westerns could answer you questions with a decent answer or a straight face. Perhaps your questions don't need a response, just a set of eyes........
-Samtom [url=http://www.anti-cnn.com/forum/cn/viewthread.php?tid=43907&pid=877150&page=11&extra=#pid877150]http://www.anti-cnn.com/forum/cn/viewthread.php?tid=43907&pid=877150&page=11&extra=#pid877150[/url]
For those who understand Chinese and would like to visit the Chinese thread, please feel free to do do at the above link.
We may sound a bit harsh in our response, but we must say we are disappointed by how the Westerners see us than enraged.
We understand how the prejudice and misperception arise, but unless recognized by the Westerners of their shortfalls,
there is nothing we can tell them otherwise. Just as how can you tell a person born blind what daylight is like?
However, the comfort of our massive research and material covered all these times, the more real study and knowledge about China,
about Tibet, the more likely that particular Westerner understand that we are telling the truth, not the Dalai Lama or Tibetans in exile
nor the Western media like the well know Mr. Wagner of Spiegel. [quote]Original posted by [i]samtom[/i] at 14-6-2008 08:09 [url=http://www.anti-cnn.com/forum/en/redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=16960&ptid=2131][img]http://www.anti-cnn.com/forum/en/images/common/back.gif[/img][/url]
Hearing these statements makes me realize how blind we really are in the West. Very few Westerns could answer you questions with a decent answer or a straight face. Perhaps your questions don't need a ... [/quote]
Yes, that's what all the volunteers at Anti-CNN are working on -- to fill the gap.
The gap of language, the gap of facts, the gap of culture..... and so on.
We try to communicate in your language how most Chinese feel on the issues,
and we translate Western media coverage (good ones and biased ones) to let our fellowmen understand --
not every Westerner is prejudice against China.
[url=http://www.anti-cnn.com/forum/cn/forum-30-1.html]http://www.anti-cnn.com/forum/cn/forum-30-1.html[/url]
It may be difficult for you to join our discussion, but the above link is the translation section,
where we put together all the English/Chinese, Chinese/English (plus French, German, Russian, Japanese but just into Chinese for the time being)
There are quite a few Chinese/English pieces that worth browsing.
That's a small part we'd like to contribute to have a better real understanding between Chinese and the World.
And thank you for your posting. Appreciate if you would invite your friends to visit our site as well. Thank you kindly.
[[i] Last edited by ltbriar at 14-6-2008 08:22 [/i]] Thanks, Itbriar.
The bias and prejudice from the West is caused by many reasons in the past 200 years. It is always there. In 2008, such bias and prejudice reached the peak, which let Chinese really begin to think of it deeply.
In the past 200 years, the West created the rules on the earth and has been trying hard to keep these rules, actually, no Asian country really threatened the West's controlling position based on these rules even if Japan is rich economically.
But now China is coming, the West fears that China will change the rules and then change the world patter, which is benificial to the West.
The fear in the West's heart deeply made them do something very unreasonable in 2008.
Regards "The bias and prejudice from the West is caused by many reasons in the past 200 years. It is always there."
The West is Evil. The West is bias. Their media reports half-truths. Their people are racist. I grow so tired of these comments over and over again. I'm very glad that people that hold such a grudge against the West are in the minority. I imagine most of the majority believe in a bonding relationship between China and the West. A growing sense of global community and responsibility between the two of us.
Whether you like it or not the West has the best universities in the world, even according to your Shanghai Educational Index. Believe it or not, when we criticize it is to benefit the people (in this case the Tibetans, and sorry but I'm on their side). I suppose the Chinese aren't bias and prejudice. Just the West right? This is ridiculous. [quote]Original posted by [i]ltbriar[/i] at 14-6-2008 07:52 [url=http://www.anti-cnn.com/forum/en/redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=16951&ptid=2131][img]http://www.anti-cnn.com/forum/en/images/common/back.gif[/img][/url]
[url=http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2008/05/responding-to-chinese-grievances/#comment-2096][color=Red][font=Arial]When we were falling apart, You marched in your troops and wanted your fair share.[/font][/color]
[color=Blue][font=Arial]There was some marching, but itwasn't all that bad in the grand scheme of things. Take a look at theexperience of countries that were really colonized, like the BelgianCongo, to put China's experience in perspective. Again, the forcingopen of China's door brought benefits to China together with theinsults and exploitation. See the "What did the Romans ever do for us?"scene in Monty Python's Life of Brian.[/font][/color][/url] [/quote]
So many comments to make on this guy's frequently ridiculous reply,
Regarding China's occupation by foreign troops:
"THERE WAS SOME MARCHING, BUT IT WASN'T ALL THAT BAD...?
he doesn't mention a [i]single death[/i] caused by the occupying Western powers (just one example: how many Chinese died in the Boxer Rebellion alone, fighting unarmed?); the colonizers insufferable demands for total immunity during the occupation; the extortion of Hong Kong from China, the theft of China's national treasures, the list goes on and on.
That "What did the Romans ever do for us" scene is a blight on the otherwise excellent Monty Python group, it's a blanket justification of Western (specifically British) empire, from British people.
And man, I'm sick of the "China's 'colonization' of Tibet is just the same as a Western country's colonization."
I don't trust people like Daly who talk to people they don't even know so informally: "And hey...", Well,...", "eh..." "Sure." He pretty much drips condescension.
What a great country the US is, it can have bozos like this as University Directors.
Glad you came back at this person, he needs challenging. >> [b]Glad you came back at this person.[/b]
It's not me, the rebuttal is a team-work of many others in the Chinese Anti-CNN forum.
>> [b]I suppose the Chinese aren't bias and prejudice.[/b]
First of all, good for you to realize you are "imagining" about your apportion of minority and majority. Fyi, I personally was pro-USA in my younger days, but after seeing what I had seen in the Western world, both in America and Europe, I changed my perception. The West, especially the administration and politicians, are not as fair and just as they claim themselves.
If you review your posting, and if you are honest with yourself, you should be aware that you are expressing purely from your emotion and perception, without a single supportive fact for all your imagination, belief, accusation etc.
As we have put in the response, the more the Western people really understand the facts and real history, not the stories that the Tibetan in exile and Dalai have been feeding you, they will realize who is speaking the truth. The pro-Tibetan writer claimed they have evidence in Tibetan scripts, but so have we, from even more ancient times, and in abundant quantities.
Let's forget the history of whether Tibet has been a part of China. Just take the theocracy for debate purpose, you said you are on the side of the Tibetans. So are you saying under Human Rights that 5% of the population owns the lives and properties of the other 95% is justifiable under human rights? Who authorize anyone on earth to enslave others, and then come out clean after they were driven away from such Kaste system? Do you realize that the exile government keeps the majority of the Tibetans in Dharmsala as refugee so that they can assure of continuous financial support from US States Department and the Western charity organization? Do you realize that most of the Tibetan travel to India each year are just religious pilgrims and not refugees per say?
The Western world exploited natural resources to build their economy and wealth, and now they turn around to use ecology and environmental issue to restrict developing countries pursuit for a better lives, saying Tropic rain forests are at risk. If you are not prejudice, why is there nobody telling the Japanese stop using disposable chopsticks in their sushi shops. Do you realize those chopsticks come from forest in Indonesia, the Philippines, with Japanese and Taiwanese companies being the biggest buyers? Where is the Green Party to such exploitation of other's natural resources?
Go have a look at Lee Guan Yew's article in Forbes.com please. And think about this sentence,
"The West has always thought of Tibet as a romantic Shangri-la, high in the Himalayas,populated with a meditating Dalai Lama and monks in serene monasteries. To China, however, Tibet was a backward society of feudal landlords that kept its farmers--90% of the population--illiterate serfs. Since taking control of Tibet,China has abolished the Indian-based caste system and agricultural serfdom. It has built medical centers, schools, roads, railways and airports, introduced telecommunications and cell phones, increased tourism and raised living standards."
[b]Please tell me which one is more humane? [/b]
To preserve your Tibetan Shangri-La, so that you guys can spend 2 weeks annual vacation refreshing yourselves in this exotic "paradise" and then go back to your luxurous Western living the rest of the 365 days, leaving the Tibetans in your "live paradise museum" with primitive living, don't know what internet is, what the World is like, what is university education.
[b]OR[/b]
To let all Tibetans live a decent living, in a decent dwelling, with decent education, when they are sick, they will seek treatment in a hospital rather than taking a living buddha's shit.
Human rights? yes, yours or theirs? and why can't they have the same right as you, simply because they are born in Tibet, and then they are bound to remain uneducated, blinded by their religion, living a substandard life?
btw, are you aware that Tibetans now have Ph.D. scholars of themselves, who used to be serfs? If Dalai and his gangs had been allowed to do what they want, these scholars should still be illiterate serfs, nothing else. But now, they can help to improve themselves as well as their fellowmen in Tibet. Isn't this what the West had been trying to do in Africa? And why do you think you are doing the right thing in Africa, and yet we are blamed for cultural genocide? You call this fair and just? non-prejudice?
[color=Blue]If you are from the Tibet in exile camp, then peace be with you, otherwise, shame on you and your so-called human rights.
In case you may think I come from Mainland China, then, you are WRONG.
[/color]
[[i] Last edited by ltbriar at 15-6-2008 03:29 [/i]] Nice job~! Itbriar~
How to tell sincere comments from biased one?
I should say that we Chinese should be more open minded to listen to and accept different views. To me, the quoted comments made to the poem by Prof. Robert Daly seem to be sincere, though could still be of bias in a certain degree. To sincere comments, discussion should be carried out in a more sincere way. Sorry I don't want accuse ltbriar for lacking sincerity, but the touch of stire may offset the sincerity.On the other hand, one can easily perceive the lack of sincerity from those biased people, for instance, Emont (11th post in this thread). Therefore, the word "Westner" may have a reference to some very different groups of Western people. There are may stupid "rebuttals" online that amount to white-washing history. You think that is bad? Here is a terrible rebuttal from a woman named "Ann Lau":
[url]http://ajfortin.com/2008/04/13/china-asks-my-friends-what-do-you-want-from-us/[/url]
In her rebuttal, she makes America out to be this generous benefactor of the Chinese people. Apparently, she's never heard of the Chinese exclusion act. This stupid woman is some kind of artist/wannabe activist. She was the stupid woman who came up with the handcuffs logo for the Olympic protest. If you do a search for her on the internet, you find that this woman hates China.
I wrote a response to her rebuttal on that blog, but gosh-darn it, it was deleted! How long ago was the Chinese Exclusion act? Oh right, 1882.
Reply 17# Emont's post
Rofl!!! Schooled!!!!!;P :lol [quote]Original posted by [i]Emont[/i] at 21-6-2008 01:25 [url=http://www.anti-cnn.com/forum/en/redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=17286&ptid=2131][img]http://www.anti-cnn.com/forum/en/images/common/back.gif[/img][/url]How long ago was the Chinese Exclusion act? Oh right, 1882. [/quote]
What's your point? It didn't get repealed until 1943. So anyone who says that America welcomed Chinese people with open arms during the Chinese revolution is bogus.
Goddamn, you're a real a-hole.
[[i] Last edited by JohnnyReb at 21-6-2008 02:14 [/i]] [quote]Original posted by [i]flamingmonkey[/i] at 21-6-2008 01:43 [url=http://www.anti-cnn.com/forum/en/redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=17289&ptid=2131][img]http://www.anti-cnn.com/forum/en/images/common/back.gif[/img][/url]
Rofl!!! Schooled!!!!!;P :lol [/quote]
Read my response above before you get on the band wagon with your little brown buddy there.
Page:
[1]
2