I take offense with the following part of the article:
"Other repressive nations that have developed local versions of Linux include North Korea, which built the KDE-based Red Star OS to help wean it as a nation off of an unfortunate dependence on Windows made by the capitalists over at Microsoft."
China is a "repressive nation"? Says who? Britain, the leader in colonialist aggressions, mass slavery and blatant interventions to third nations?
Yes, China is a "repressive nation." Especially when it comes to technology, e.g., "The Great Firewall."
No, Britain is not a "repressive nation." The British government surely takes some repressive actions, but not to such a degree as to be labeled a repressive nation.
>No, Britain is not a "repressive nation." The British government surely takes some repressive actions, but not to such a degree as to be labeled a repressive nation.
Are we talking about the same "CCTV everywhere" nation?
The same "lackeys of the united states --GW Bush etc-- policy and partners in war crimes" nation?
Yes, we are. Britain is not perfect, but it does not deserve to be lumped in with China as a "repressive nation."
In my opinion, this style of argument is not helpful. It reminds me of this quote:
"To say that the CIA and the KGB engage in similar practices is the equivalent of saying that the man who pushes an old lady into the path of a hurtling bus is not to be distinguished from the man who pushes an old lady out of the path of a hurtling bus: on the grounds that, after all, in both cases someone is pushing old ladies around." -William F. Buckley
Google the Good Friday Agreement. The test is in how the country deals with a persistent low level civil war. We talked and accepted the need for compromise.
>Yeah, Britain hasn't been repressive in this sense for at least the last ~250 years
250 years? They had colonies all over the world until merely 50 years ago. Doing stuff from direct slavery to mass executions, to fighting natives asking for freedom with submachine guns. And they still interfere in their ex-colonies politics (not to mention being the US lackeys and partners in all kinds of invasions). They even cheered when their "prince" did his first killings of their "enemies" in Afghanistan, like they had any reason for being there in the first place.
There is no comparison to China's Taiwan: "That should be China's attitude". Also Tibet. Clearly not a Chinese country but of course that doesn't stop them.
The government of Taiwan also thinks Taiwan is part of China... it's a dispute over which government is the rightful ruler of the geographic entity comprised of Taiwan plus the mainland.
China also never killed, directly or indirectly, millions of people in Taiwan. Britain can't say the same thing about India, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.
It's hard for people who don't know about the history of China (sorry staticfish for making this assumption) to understand why it behaves the way it does now. The century of humiliation and the civil war (not to mention Japanese invasion) has left its mark on the Chinese psyche. The one thing they learned from all that mess was that China had to be 'one', dissidence could not be allowed; otherwise there would be constant bickering and infighting. Although surely they're repressive, there's a reason for that which is not pure malice and evil
But in absolute terms, has been a far more repressive nation than China. Among the world's larger nations in world history, China's probably been among the least repressive.
>Tiananmen square. Murders against any form of civil disobedience.
Kent state shootings. And lots of similar actions, from the Wounded Knee incident to the Wako siege.
>Secret and non-secret alliances with North Korea.
Secret and non-secret alliances with Pinochet, Videla, Saudi Arabia and pretty much every corrupted government and dictatorship on earth.
>Occasional acts of aggression on Japan.
Constant acts of aggression towards any country that doesn't bend down backwards for their interests, from Vietnam to Iraq etc. The only nation to drop nuclear bombs on civilian towns.
>Great firewall, general suppression of information from citizens.
Patriot Act, data retention, DMCA, general suppression of information from citizens, J.E Hoover, McCarthy
>Massive amounts of political corruption.
Haliburton, Wall Street ties, paid-for senators, gun lobby, etc etc
>Human rights violations aplenty.
Death penalty for teenagers (one of the only 5-6 countries in the world to do that), Guantanamo, waterboarding and other torture, medical experiments on unsuspecting humans (by the US in Guatemala), sponsoring the Death Squads and other favorable dictatorship practices, seggregation (until 1970), disproportionate percentage of the black population in jail, ...
>Causing an environmental catastrophe. Fucking up the entire planet in the process.
The same. Refusing to sign world treaties on the matter. Dumping their waste on poorer third world countries. Leading the "la-la-la-no-global-warming-la-la" paid-experts denial.
>Tibet, Taiwan, etc etc
Vietnam, Korea, (...) Iraq, Afghanistan, (...)
See how it looks from the other side of the looking glass?
Wait, I'm British. You were talking about Britain. Why did we suddenly switch to the USA?
Also, half of your rebuttals are inaccurate and half are not comparable in the slightest.
No, there is no western version of the horrors of "Tank Man". A lot of the Chinese i've spoken to do not even know this happened, and the other half refuse to see it as a problem. You're a textbook example.
The USA isn't the greatest country for a lot of this stuff, I'll admit, but at least it doesn't go as far as to commit the terribly inhumane atrocities of China. There is no suppression of readily available information (blocked search queries, etc).
The enviromental stuff doesn't really hold up either. Yes, the US is a terrible polluter of the world, but in Los Angeles, arguably one of the most polluted cities in NA, you can look outside your window and see further than 100 meters. This is not the case in many Chinese cities.
The wars that have spanned the last five decades (Middle East, Asia, South America) have been brutal, bloody, and in many case unwarranted, but again, this is nothing to the blatant and open genocides caused by the Chinese. Half of the country is in extreme poverty. Examples: Three-Year Famine, Mao's "1000 Flowers Bloom".
Yes, you make some good points. Its not that long ago that you couldn't see further than 100 metres in London though, which last time I checked was part of Britain (different and all as it is from the rest of the island).
I suppose the issue is that most major powers do a lot of shady stuff, and it can be difficult for any of us to think objectively on these matters. With regard to famine and poverty, it wasn't all that long ago that people starved in the islands of Great Britain and Ireland while the smaller island was still a net food exporter.
I don't think that Britain is particularly repressive right now (except for all the CCTV's) while I do think China is, but it takes a complete ignorance of history not to realise that once upon a time, these roles were reversed.
Google Earth alterations of military installations != great firewall.
Show me a military that's cool with open aerials of their bases. The U.S. just got lucky that they had a bit of jurisdiction over the first company to do it. Don't act as if it's asymmetric due to other nations having a larger conscious, it's not. It's just a simple lack of power.
>Wait, I'm British. You were talking about Britain. Why did we suddenly switch to the USA? Also, half of your rebuttals are inaccurate and half are not comparable in the slightest.
Really? I'd like to see how. China is mostly a country that hasn't attacked or bothered anyone. Tibet and Taiwan are disputed areas next to mainland China -- not some remote countries they decided to invade and exploit as colonies. Unlike Britain (and the US, France, Belgium etc) that has soaked large parts of the world in blood, theft, and slavery for centuries.
Heck, a British guy speaking about China re: Tibet and Taiwan? Oh, the irony. Britain stole Honk Kong from China (some 15,000 miles away from "his own business") and attacked China to enforce their trade (of opium among other things).
>No, there is no western version of the horrors of "Tank Man". A lot of the Chinese i've spoken to do not even know this happened, and the other half refuse to see it as a problem.
The horrors of the "tank man", have an estimated 250 to 2500 dead.
No "western equivalent"?
For one, the Britain, in the Opium Wars, killed around 40.000 Chinese. That's from 200 to 20 times more.
And here's another: "the British detained not 80,000 Kikuyu, as the official histories maintain, but almost the entire population of one and a half million people, in camps and fortified villages. There, thousands were beaten to death or died from malnutrition, typhoid, tuberculosis and dysentery. In some camps almost all the children died".
Mind you, this is just one example of tons of British atrocities the world over.
As for not acknowledging the Tien An Men incident (or it's importance), well the Guardian article from where I took this speaks volumes: "Deny the British empire's crimes? No, we ignore them".
>The wars that have spanned the last five decades (Middle East, Asia, South America) have been brutal, bloody, and in many case unwarranted, but again, this is nothing to the blatant and open genocides caused by the Chinese. Half of the country is in extreme poverty. Examples: Three-Year Famine, Mao's "1000 Flowers Bloom".
Those are internal issues, and they get to do what they please with their own citizens. Political changes (like from a humiliated colony for britain and Japan to a sovereign nation) always have a blood toll -- in China, that has 1 billion population, that toll will be bigger. Sure, a lot of those killings were misguided, but that's their issues to solve.
It's not like Britain didn't have its own internal civil wars in its past (or they didn't repress the Irish and the Scots). Or like it doesn't have people in poverty (heck, tons of people in England are uneducated, piss poor, living on the dole and with petty crimes). Compared to most of the affluent Western Europe, it can be argued that England does the worst in terms of poverty -- in places like Yorkshire, Bradford, et al.
I think you two are comparing two evils. It doesn't matter which empire is the lesser of the two evils - ALL empires should be scorned. Why don't we all agree on this fact? The next thing we should be persuaded on is the democratization and decentralization of these two empires.
Unfortunately, I think most Chinese living there have bought the government's argument that if any of the stuff you mentioned above would not exist, it would "disrupt" the "unity" of their society. So everyone must stay in line for the "greater good", even if violent action is necessary against some individuals.
What's the scariest thing in such situations is not one tyrant or another. If only that was the case, it wouldn't be too hard to replace him. The scariest part is when a culture forms around that tyrant's ideals. Because that will be very hard to "kill" or replace. It can take generations, depending on how deep that culture goes.
Look even at US. Let's say the TSA was a complete and total mistake, and history will prove that to be right. But how long will it take to kill the TSA? It's already been a decade, and I can easily see it last another decade. So is it just Bush or Obama at fault for keeping TSA? No. It's country's culture right now that TSA and plenty of other "counter-terrorist" measures (including the stamping of the 4th amendment) are "needed".
When you look at it from that point of view, you begin to understand why most Chinese may not necessarily see what their government is doing as a bad thing, because they themselves think their measures are good and necessary.
Hmmm, how about we try to stay together so China will not be broken apart by the West like the former Soviet Union? Yes, maybe the average citizens don't necessarily think this way and they are brainwashed by the government. But it's not like we don't understand the government has bad deeds. We think to ourselves, what more can we do to make better if we were to reign China instead of the communist party? Yes they are the ones that are corrupted, and they are also the one that did the Tiananmen massacre, no need to flat out deny that. But it's ok, they are the one that also made China stronger. Don't argue saying that but all those things we are ok with are wrong on principle, when US was becoming stronger or any other country for that matter, did they do nothing wrong? Don't get me wrong though, from individual levels, I do not agree with the government's doing. However, from a national and cultural level, the party's interest is to see China grow stronger so they have more power, while we don't necessarily want to see them having more power, but we are on the same line of thinking that we want to see China stronger. Even though they may do things that harm individuality in process, I'll refrain from speaking for all of Chinese population, but at least I buy it.
Let's say the TSA was a complete and total mistake, and history will prove that to be right. But how long will it take to kill the TSA? It's already been a decade, and I can easily see it last another decade..... It's country's culture right now that TSA and plenty of other "counter-terrorist" measures (including the stamping of the 4th amendment) are "needed".
This is well illustrated by the media-incited reaction to the recent relaxing of the pocketknife ban. Somehow the squawky news shows could find dozens of people prepared to worry on-camera about getting stabbed with penknives in an airplane, as if that were ever a problem anywhere ever. They even had "experts" talk about the clear and present danger of hijacking-by-threatening-a-baby-with-a-knife. (Because that's such a common method for e.g. robbing banks.) I almost suspect someone at the TSA had coordinated it with the media beforehand, but there will never be a shortage of purse-clutchers ready to affirm the status quo.
That's an interesting point, but it's really difficult when you talk to a Chinese person and they flatly deny tiananmen square, or that their government is suppressing their own freedom.
When you go to prove it on the internet, it still seems like they just do not want to believe. I find that very difficult to deal with.
I'm not going to win friends here, but it's much like talking with an Israeli.
>I'm not going to win friends here, but it's much like talking with an Israeli.
Or an American, for that matter.
Americans still believe they are a "progressive" and model nation for freedom.
Segregation was merely 40 years ago. People go to jail for decades for procession of marijuana. They execute teenagers. They execute (period -- almost all western countries have stopped this shit). People still are told (and ...believe!) that Truman dropped nuclear bombs on civilians "to end the war" and that "his hands were tied". The number of incarcerated people is record breaking for any nation on earth -- and the vast majority of them are black. Plus -- people still believe they have the right (or even ...obligation) to intervene, that is invade, other countries, either to "bring democracy" or because they have "strategic interests" there.
>Americans still believe they are a "progressive" and model nation for freedom.
Not all Americans. Look at HN or any semi-educated social circle.
A lot of your points just bring up tit-for-tat historical talking points. Yes a lot of countries have done a lot of terrible things throughout history, especially the west, but we're talking about now. 2013.
Today I just read an article describing how the Chinese have just sent 12 escaped North Koreans back to NK to be welcomed by torture and generations the same fate.
2013 China is a disgusting example of a modern and humane country.
But the tit-for-tat is totally relevant! At least for things happening in the present day. Most people's countries are doing things you disagree with: but within a country, even if you oppose someone doing something, you can usually sympathize with the rationale behind it. When the media deflects attention to those evil people with different color skin across the ocean, it's very easy to simplify things.
Case in point: those escaped North Koreans weren't merely refugees but defecting soldiers who had shot their superior officer. Do you think China liked being in that situation? You can either cause a major international row with a nuclear-equipped rabid dog who for historical reasons is sitting a couple hundred miles away from your capital, or you can send a rebellious military unit back for certain execution.
What would you have done? And let's make this sharper: what would your country's military bureaucracy have done?
Why not let people who have actual local knowledge and care about changing things focus on what local people's actual priorities are and the real pain points for human wellbeing?
I agree with you for
* Tiananmen square. Murders against any form of civil disobedience.
* Great firewall, general suppression of information from citizens.
* Massive amounts of political corruption.
* Human rights violations aplenty.
These are suffered by the Chinese people, but unfortunately that's not what you really care about...
For the other points, especially the ones with foreign policies, China is much nicer (or you may even say weaker) than other countries. For me, I just hope despite all the political shows, there will be no war nor region conflicts.
Anyways, I guess he's offended by the word "repressive nation", use "repressive government" would be a little better.
What makes something a gulag? Throwing people in prison for petty crimes like drugs or prostitution? Forcing them to labor?
The developed English-speaking countries have far more people imprisoned for those kinds of offenses than does China, despite having a fraction of the population. Does that make English-speaking countries repressive? (My answer would be yes, for the record, for both.)
Or is it the political imprisonment? That's even more disturbing, but the lines about hundreds of thousands of prisoners really don't apply to them: it's closer to the hundreds or the thousands. Far, far too many (too many = >0), but let's not lose perspective, here.
Allowing local bureaucrats unchecked decision making abilities when it comes to who gets locked up where. Last I checked, that's pretty hard to pull off in the West, despite all the rest of our problems. And when it does happen, it's an outrage when we find out.
> When will the Peoples Republic grant self-determination to Tibet? That would be the action of a self-assured and mature state.
Probably around the same time a certain self-assured and mature state grants self-determination to the indigenous people of Alaska, Hawaii, and large parts of the Southwest. The rest of the country is a lost cause; ethnic cleansing and violent displacement has assured that going back is impossible.
"Other repressive nations that have developed local versions of Linux include North Korea, which built the KDE-based Red Star OS to help wean it as a nation off of an unfortunate dependence on Windows made by the capitalists over at Microsoft."
China is a "repressive nation"? Says who? Britain, the leader in colonialist aggressions, mass slavery and blatant interventions to third nations?