Anyone know what is happening in Hong Kong - why the violence?

1246789

Comments

  • I'm trying to think of a prominent Green who is of Asian appearance. I can't think of one, but I've handed out Green How to Votes with an Asian-Australian woman. Samantha Ratnam, leader of the Greens in Victoria is from a Sri Lankan background. By contrast my mate, who has Permanent Residence status, is a social conservative.
  • Depending on what you mean by "annex", California and Nevada were annexed from Mexico.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    Depending on what you mean by "annex", California and Nevada were annexed from Mexico.

    Well, yeah, but assuming the quote is genuine, Kim Jong-il was likely taking the metropolitan USA(ie. Lower 48 plus Hawaska) as a given, and talking about places annexed as separate colonies to that. And, like I say, his main frame of reference would probably be the Far East, where outside of the Philipines, the US had no directly run colonies comparable to what Korea was to Japan.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited August 27
    Gee D wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    I'm wondering if how Chinese people in Australia generally identify politically, and what impact this has on the white majority's perception of them.

    I'm not sure what you mean by "identify politically". If it's in Australian domestic politics, probably across the spectrum. I imagine that those living around here - the families where petite women drive children to school in the de rigeur Maserati 4WDs - vote as conservatively as the vast majority of others. Those in the western suburbs would again be much as their neighbours and most would vote Labor. Maybe some of the younger generation would vote Green. (Simon Toad can speak better about voting Green outside NSW, where the Greens are pretty hard left and anti-semitic rather than tree-huggers.)

    I guess I basically just meant how the generally line up on the political spectrum, and, of possibly more importance, how they are PERCEIVED as lining up.

    In western Canada about 40 years ago, a perception emerged that East Indians(including ones who came via British East Africa) were, if not left-wing per se, at least politically active in a way that was vaguely viewed as subversive. You'd hear dark mutterings about the numbers of turbans seen at political conventions, and street demos where East Indians seemed to be out in full force on some issue related to their homelands, later resentment at turbans and daggers being allowed on the RCMP uniform etc. Of course, the Air India bombing in '85 didn't help matters much.

    East Asians(Chinese, Koreans etc) in that era sometimes got favourably contrasted to the other immigrant groups, as people who came over, worked hard, kept their heads down, and didn't march around in rallies all day. Like I said, there was a bit more resentment against the Vietnamese, partly because they were later, highly publicized arrivals, and also because they came over as refugees, so benefited a bit from government "generosity", and some of the kids later got involved in street gangs and whatnot.

    There was also a perception that most of these groups were likely to vote Liberal, though oddly enough, Sikhs, who were probably the most despised by the rednecks, have ended up with a reputation as being more tilted toward the Conservatives than other groups.

    TL/DR: The rough breakdown of stereotypes in western Canada in the 70s and 80s was that East Indians were troublemakers, while East Asians were hardworking solid citizens.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    I'm trying to think of a prominent Green who is of Asian appearance. I can't think of one, but I've handed out Green How to Votes with an Asian-Australian woman. Samantha Ratnam, leader of the Greens in Victoria is from a Sri Lankan background. By contrast my mate, who has Permanent Residence status, is a social conservative.

    In my experience, parties to the left of centre-left on the political spectrum(eg. anything to the left of Labor in Australia) do a particularly dismal job of attracting immigrants or non-whites into the fold.

    (And I acknowledge Sober Preacher Kid's categorization of the Canadian Greens as "tofu Tories", but I think the fact remains that, as far as public perceptions go, they are viewed as advocating radical change of a progressive sort, and hence to the left of the mainstream.)
  • That Jagmeet Singh guy seems pretty cool.
  • SirPalomidesSirPalomides Shipmate
    edited August 27
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    mate your argument around foreign policy perspectives is ludicrous. It is not racist to prefer a country which has a track record of intervening to prevent an invasion of your country, whose soldiers and sailors have fought alongside yours in battle after battle to a country that hasn't done that and who demonstrably does not share your values and is obviously a likely threat in the future.

    You do everyone a grave disservice by calling something racist which obviously isn't, while there is so much suffering from blatant racism. You are cheapening the term and weakening its force. Shame on you Mr P. You should think about the big picture before you make such foolish assertions in the future.

    Millions of Chinese died fighting the Japanese and tying up their troops so you didn’t have to deal with them. Chinese were being tortured and massacred in Malaysia for their resistance- my grandfather got put in a death camp for helping insurgents (fortunately he was broken out by indigenous militia).

    None of this matters of course because they were Chinese. So your attempt to prove your pro-US bias is not racist just confirms your racism further.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    stetson wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    I'm wondering if how Chinese people in Australia generally identify politically, and what impact this has on the white majority's perception of them.

    I'm not sure what you mean by "identify politically". If it's in Australian domestic politics, probably across the spectrum. I imagine that those living around here - the families where petite women drive children to school in the de rigeur Maserati 4WDs - vote as conservatively as the vast majority of others. Those in the western suburbs would again be much as their neighbours and most would vote Labor. Maybe some of the younger generation would vote Green. (Simon Toad can speak better about voting Green outside NSW, where the Greens are pretty hard left and anti-semitic rather than tree-huggers.)
    I guess I basically just meant how the generally line up on the political spectrum, and, of possibly more importance, how they are PERCEIVED as lining up.
    [/b]

    If you look to 40 years ago, there was probably a general opinion that recently arrived Vietnamese refugees were on the right. Nowadays, the voting patterns of those recent arrivals from East Asia who have become citizens probably match those of their neighbours. Around here, that matches perceptions. I'm not at all sure about other areas of Sydney.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Gee D wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    I'm wondering if how Chinese people in Australia generally identify politically, and what impact this has on the white majority's perception of them.

    I'm not sure what you mean by "identify politically". If it's in Australian domestic politics, probably across the spectrum. I imagine that those living around here - the families where petite women drive children to school in the de rigeur Maserati 4WDs - vote as conservatively as the vast majority of others. Those in the western suburbs would again be much as their neighbours and most would vote Labor. Maybe some of the younger generation would vote Green. (Simon Toad can speak better about voting Green outside NSW, where the Greens are pretty hard left and anti-semitic rather than tree-huggers.)
    I guess I basically just meant how the generally line up on the political spectrum, and, of possibly more importance, how they are PERCEIVED as lining up.
    [/b]

    If you look to 40 years ago, there was probably a general opinion that recently arrived Vietnamese refugees were on the right. Nowadays, the voting patterns of those recent arrivals from East Asia who have become citizens probably match those of their neighbours. Around here, that matches perceptions. I'm not at all sure about other areas of Sydney.

    I would imagine the same is true in in most places, about second generation immigrants blending with the voting patterns of their neighbours.

    As for Vietnamese refugees in 1970s Australia being viewed as on the right, based on this, that would seem to be the case. In Canada, they didn't really seem to attract that sort of ideological imprinting. Possibly, because unlike Australia, Canada stayed out of the Vietnam War, and remained largely aloof from the surrounding controversies.

  • Sir P., the lengths you have gone to to characterise my position as racist are truly staggering. There is a direct and longstanding defence alliance between the US and Australia of almost 80 years standing. What the hell are you talking about?

    The treatment of Chinese Australians has been in the news today. This poor bloke was arrested back in January, reason not given. His wife was not detained but is not allowed to leave the country. He is in a Kafkaesque position, denied legal representation or family visits, but allowed seven consular visits in the presence of Chinese officials - one for each month of detention. Now, the Chinese Government has advised that he is being investigated for espionage.

    Mr Hengjun's case is not unique. Australians have been arrested in China before. Australians of Chinese background who are involved in studying China or make comments critical of the Chinese Government are routinely harassed here by people apparently acting on the government's behalf. Students studying here are carefully monitored by China. I can go fishing for articles if required.

    The Chinese Government and the Australian Government are adversaries, perhaps frenemies, just as the US and the Russian Government are adversaries. There is no getting around that. Relations might become better again in the future. They seemed to be OK under the Keating and Howard Governments, although I would argue that both Australian Governments hoped that China would liberalise as it became more wealthy. It hasn't yet. Hopefully it will in the future. Hopefully the present regime can change in the way the Russian regime changed in the 1990's - mostly without bloodshed. But that has not been the experience in Europe, when efforts at change were made in the nineteenth century. So we have to deal with what we have - a very rich, technologically advanced totalitarian state.

    Defence through an aggressive stance is a valid and timeworn doctrine. But it is not a doctrine implemented in isolation. The doctrine works in combination with a diplomacy that fosters multiple connections between potential enemies, contacts aimed at maintaining the peace and avenues for resolving issues in the relationship. But without that aggressive defence posture, there is a risk that the warrior elements on both sides will see an opportunity for victory, and the hell in China and Europe, and other places such as Malaya which Sir P. mentioned, during the 30's and 40's, is again realised. MAD worked to keep the big peace, it was the smaller proxy conflicts that it failed to stop.

    There is a solution to this situation in which we live, this swiss cheese peace. But it lies in nations surrendering sovereignty and military superiority to a supra-national organisation that is charged with restoring the peace. I firmly believe that it will happen, but I don't think it will happen in my lifetime. We have come part of the way, with imperfect institutions like the UN, the EU, and private international aid organisations like the Red Cross. But we are not there yet, and to take the next step it will probably take a massive event like another worldwide devastating war involving death on a large scale in the WEIRD nations, or the climate emergency leading to a savage reduction in the wealth and standards of living in the WEIRD countries.

    Until then, it's dukes up and keep talking and smiling. Oh, and keep your friends close.

    So that's the theory behind my desire for the US to make the Pacific its pond. You can criticise me for the theory. You can call me a warmonger. But if you say that my desire is racist or motivated by an underlying racism, then you are making a pro-china political attack that is unsupportable. This is amply demonstrated on this thread.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    That would be the answer. I can't speak of other areas of Sydney, but the arrivals from East Asia have largely settled into life here, going to the usual coffee shops, restaurants, cheering from the the sidelines on Saturday mornings, as well as working in the same places, sending children to the same schools - and have become part of the community. There are differences I've noticed since I retired. The children are more likely to be driven to/from school, while the adults are more likely to use public transport through the day. This latter is probably a hangover from their lives in cities having much better public transport than does Sydney and they've kept to the pattern they developed.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    Sir P., the lengths you have gone to to characterise my position as racist are truly staggering. There is a direct and longstanding defence alliance between the US and Australia of almost 80 years standing. What the hell are you talking about?

    I note here that you suddenly dropped the point about WWII. But I'll point it out again-you talk about the American Pacific battles as if China was just twiddling thumbs. One set of sacrifices matters, another, in the same war, against the same enemy, doesn't. Racism, plain and simple.

    That you hope that China turns into another 90's Russia- where life expectancy plummeted as the country was raped by ex-Soviet nomenklatura and foreign capitalists- is another mark of your hatred for Chinese people. Every argument you make that you're not racist just digs the hole deeper.

    As for critics of the PRC getting harassed in Australia, hardly unique to the PRC. I know a guy who lived and worked in East Timor. He published a blog post criticizing the Australian government's past policy with regards to the Indonesian military. The Australian embassy in Dili somehow found it and got the government to get him fired and expel him from the country. I guess you and the PRC share some values after all.

  • stetson wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    Depending on what you mean by "annex", California and Nevada were annexed from Mexico.

    Well, yeah, but assuming the quote is genuine, Kim Jong-il was likely taking the metropolitan USA(ie. Lower 48 plus Hawaska) as a given, and talking about places annexed as separate colonies to that. And, like I say, his main frame of reference would probably be the Far East, where outside of the Philipines, the US had no directly run colonies comparable to what Korea was to Japan.

    Except Guam, the Marshall Islands, Mariana Islands, American Samoa, Palmyra Atoll, Wake Island, and Midway Atoll.
  • You are obviously misinterpreting my posts. I don't know whether you are being malicious or just obtuse. Sure, China fought against Japan, just like Russia fought with the allies. Both countries were led by monsters, although in Mao's case his abuses as far as I know began after he had beaten the nationalists. We in the West didn't find out about those atrocities until much later. Geopolitical realities drove China and everyone else apart though, especially from us in the West. There was probably fault on both sides.

    The USA fought in Australian waters during WW2. Their sailors died defending us against the Japanese fleets in our immediate vicinity. They fought with us, on the same ground. Then, after the war, they entered into an alliance with us. They pledged to cover us with their nuclear umbrella during the cold war, on condition that we didn't develop the bomb ourselves. We fought together again in Korea, where the enemy was China. We have fought together in the Middle East, for what, a decade in Afghanistan, and in Iraq. We will fight with the USA again in Iran if we have to because they are our closest allies and they saved us from imminent occupation by the Imperial Japanese Army, a fate that befell China, to its ruination. To be saved from the fate that China suffered at the hands of the Japanese, that is something to be thankful for, for generations. Ordinary Americans spilled their blood for us, and on the designated days of the year, and on the anniversaries of battles as they come up, we will remember them.

    Where was China after WW2? What was China doing when it wasn't opposing the objectives of the USA and its allies in the 1950's and beyond. The Chinese leadership was busy starving millions. That's where it was. It was starving the millions you say I hate. I rather think Mao hated them.

    Where was China in the 1970's when Gough Whitlam visited in an attempt to open relations with the Chinese Government and the long process of engagement began in an effort to bring China out of its self-imposed hell. The Chinese Government was inducing Chinese kids to inform on their parents, to attack their elders and all those other horrors in order that Mao might win a factional battle within the Party. I rather think that those kids who were induced to do monstrous things and the adults who were attacked and imprisoned were hated by Mao and the Chinese Government, not by me.

    Where was China and Deng Xiaoping in the 1980's? He was busy refining the Communist's police state, not reforming it, and allowing his cronies to line their pockets with the free money flowing from the West while brutally repressing any attempt at political freedom. Do I hate the Chinese people? No, I rather think Deng Xiaoping and the communist government of China hates the Chinese people.

    I would have to research the crimes of the leadership in more recent times. I was rather distracted from the late nineties being mad, so I don't have the information at my fingertips, even to paint in broad brush strokes. You could probably tell me more about their crimes in this period Sir P., if you had a mind to.

    So it is obvious who is prejudiced against the Chinese people. It is the Communist Government of China, it is the glorious monster Mao. It is his sidekick Deng Xiaoping and today it is the great and powerful Xi Jinping who hates and despises the Chinese people. Its he who runs this state system of justice, he who imprisons millions of his own, he who may well order mass bloodshed on the streets of Hong Kong. It is the Chinese Communist party and its apologists who hate the Chinese people. If they loved the Chinese people they would set them free.

    Now do you understand? I think you already do.

    I don't propose to respond to everything you say. Most of it is obvious claptrap, but if you really want a detailed response to a salient point you think I missed, please point it out like you did above.

    I'm not going to respond to your laughable comparison between the actions of the Chinese police state, and the actions of our greedy government who committed all sorts of crimes in trying to rip valuable oil rights off one of the poorest nations in the world. There is currently a trial going on concerning that sordid episode, a trial of the whistleblower and his lawyer. One massively important difference is that many Australians have expressed their anger and dismay about the actions of our Govt. There have been investigative reports on telly, many articles in newspapers and online and of course ordinary people's responses. None of us have been threatened, none of us have been arrested, none of us have been questioned, none of us have been tortured to extract a confession. That's because criticising the Govt is what we do on a daily basis. It is what we call freedom of speech and freedom of political expression. The comparison with the Chinese Communist Party leaves China's government, once again, in the position of hating it's people. The Chinese Govt hates the Chinese people, Sir P., not me.

    Oh look I did respond. Let me know if more detail is required. But I'm not writing to order.

    An anecdote to match yours: You know, my Vietnamese mate really hates the communists. He hates the Vietnamese communists and he hates the Chinese communists, and he hates Australian communists too. He copped heaps of shit at work. Racist shit. For the first decade, people tried to get him sacked over and over, but he always managed to wiggle out of trouble (he tells the story). He finally joined a Union, and after a full on attempt to sack him that went to the Commission, the Rep mentioned racial discrimination and my mate never had a problem again.

    He said to me that the organisation we worked for was like the communists in the way they worked, keeping secrets and playing people off against each other. But they were amateurs, he said. You lose your job, it's a bummer, but it's OK. You get another one. But when you lose your job in communist run countries, you don't just lose your job. You get sent for reeducation. Sometimes, you survive. Sometimes, you don't. He fled Vietnam because his mate, who was in the party, got arrested. He figured he was next. We have lots of Chinese dissidents and others who just got scared and decided to run. What a great Government you apologise for. Are you sure you don't hate the Chinese people too?
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    Depending on what you mean by "annex", California and Nevada were annexed from Mexico.

    Well, yeah, but assuming the quote is genuine, Kim Jong-il was likely taking the metropolitan USA(ie. Lower 48 plus Hawaska) as a given, and talking about places annexed as separate colonies to that. And, like I say, his main frame of reference would probably be the Far East, where outside of the Philipines, the US had no directly run colonies comparable to what Korea was to Japan.

    Except Guam, the Marshall Islands, Mariana Islands, American Samoa, Palmyra Atoll, Wake Island, and Midway Atoll.

    Well, I was using this map as my reference. Would those colonies be included in the blue shadings?

    In any event, what I was getting at was what would have been in KJI's mind when he allegedly made that statement. It seems plausible to me he wouldn't have been thinking of small islands in the Pacific that are rarely mentioned in the history books or the news.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited August 27
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Where was China in the 1970's when Gough Whitlam visited in an attempt to open relations with the Chinese Government and the long process of engagement began in an effort to bring China out of its self-imposed hell. The Chinese Government was inducing Chinese kids to inform on their parents, to attack their elders and all those other horrors in order that Mao might win a factional battle within the Party. I rather think that those kids who were induced to do monstrous things and the adults who were attacked and imprisoned were hated by Mao and the Chinese Government, not by me.

    Where was China and Deng Xiaoping in the 1980's? He was busy refining the Communist's police state, not reforming it, and allowing his cronies to line their pockets with the free money flowing from the West while brutally repressing any attempt at political freedom. Do I hate the Chinese people? No, I rather think Deng Xiaoping and the communist government of China hates the Chinese people.

    This is all true, I'm sure. Though it should be read into the record that from the time of Nixon's handshake up to about 1992 or thereabouts, China was a pretty close ally of your sainted Americans(duckduckgo Three Worlds Policy).

    Granted, a few idealistic right-wingers in the US looked aghast upon this cynical hook-up, but for the most part, the Washington foreign-policy establishment was quite happy to ally with a nation of a billion people with a big army, run by thuggish autocrats who hated the USSR as much as the US did.

    A further historical irony in that, in Taiwan these days, it is the KMT, who I gather by your reckoning must have LOVED the Chinese people, who now want to island to get closer to the commies on the mainland.

  • It's not saintly America Stetson. You have that wrong. It's about standing with your proven mate.
  • Hard to tell, since most of those colonies are in the west Pacific, and may or may not be blue.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    edited August 28
    Simon Toad - Totally agree, especially with your long post. The US came to our aid while Churchill was wanting to protect and keep the Indian Empire.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited August 28
    cheers Gee.

    @stetson I reckon that American and Chinese detente between 1974(?) and 1992 was driven by geopolitical realities too. It's instructive that you date its ending in 1992, roughly the time when the Soviet Union collapsed.

    I have a vague recollection of KMT atrocities during the civil war. Did they ally with the Japanese at one point during the 1930's? I think they may have, but I'd have to look it up. Are they still around in Taiwan? I think their politics has developed into a multi-party system, and that the nationalists lost power at some stage, but I haven't kept up.

    We all know why the Chinese Communists do what they do, don't we. They do it because they know that if they granted the Chinese people the freedom they deserve, they would be out of power very quickly and some of them might well lose their freedom and/or their lives too.

    Sir P. alleges that I hate Chinese people. He makes the allegation in a bald statement, undisguised. So I used Sir P's language to point out who really hates the Chinese people: the Chinese Government and their apologists. I'm not seeking to set up a well thought out hate scale though, as the reference to the KMT suggests. I'm seeking to justify my position and defend myself against the charges Sir P is throwing at me in their attempt to defend the Chinese Communist Party.

  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, Hell Host
    ...See, now I too am qualified to write for a reputable publication like the Guardian. ...
    At one point I was a frequent contributor to two of the news sources I cited earlier. I know their standards for fact-checking and for sources, because I worked with them. I know that what you allege about those standards simply is not true.

    Here's yet another article, from yet another respected publication, which quotes from other sources. I'm sure you'll find a way to dismiss it, too, but the allegations of organ harvesting - and not just from your China Tribunal - are too firmly established. (ISIS has been another source for harvested organs. Are you going to defend them, too?)

  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, Hell Host
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    ... So it is obvious who is prejudiced against the Chinese people. It is the Communist Government of China, it is the glorious monster Mao. It is his sidekick Deng Xiaoping and today it is the great and powerful Xi Jinping who hates and despises the Chinese people. Its he who runs this state system of justice, he who imprisons millions of his own, he who may well order mass bloodshed on the streets of Hong Kong. It is the Chinese Communist party and its apologists who hate the Chinese people. If they loved the Chinese people they would set them free. ...

    Mao certainly hated a lot of his own people, particularly the rural peasants and the Tibetans. His successors haven't been much fonder of them, although the reports of cannibalism have, thankfully, died down.

  • Problem with "his own people" was that he didn't think they were--any more than the Yezedi, Marsh Arabs, Kurds, etc., etc. have been accepted by the governments where they reside.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Stalin and Mao each killed many of their own people. Much, much more than the numbers of Jewish people killed by Hitler.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited August 28
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    cheers Gee.

    @stetson I reckon that American and Chinese detente between 1974(?) and 1992 was driven by geopolitical realities too. It's instructive that you date its ending in 1992, roughly the time when the Soviet Union collapsed.

    I have a vague recollection of KMT atrocities during the civil war. Did they ally with the Japanese at one point during the 1930's? I think they may have, but I'd have to look it up. Are they still around in Taiwan? I think their politics has developed into a multi-party system, and that the nationalists lost power at some stage, but I haven't kept up.

    I don't believe the KMT allied with the Japanese. In fact, they were allied with the Communists at one point. Complicated history, of which I know not much beyond the broad contours.

    But yes, they are still very much around in Taiwan, and are the main opposition party, and the likely rulers if and when the pro-independence DPP gets tossed out. Their seemingly weird realignment with Beijing is based on their shared belief in One China. When the mainland was hardcore Communist, the KMT saw themselves as the true representatives of all China. But now that it's blatantly obvious that Beijing speaks for China, and anyway China isn't that Communist anymore, the KMT has switched to emphasizing Taiwan as a province of China, in opposition to the pro-independence movement,

  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Gee D wrote: »
    Stalin and Mao each killed many of their own people. Much, much more than the numbers of Jewish people killed by Hitler.

    Aye, genocide by neglect is far more effective than by design in terms of sheer numbers. But not by proportion. As in Rwanda and Cambodia.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Just to clarify something I wrote above...

    the KMT has switched to emphasizing Taiwan as a province of China, in opposition to the pro-independence movement

    That was poorly worded, and I didn't mean to suggest that the KMT advocates that Taiwan immediately start functioning as a province of China. What I meant was that they emphasize that the island and the mainland should ultimately be considered part of the same political entity, and that until such a union becomes fully feasible, Taiwan should pursue closer and friendlier relations with the PRC.

    And I'm sure there are many permutations of that viewpoint, just as, in the Republic Of Korea, the left-wing detente view covers everything from "We must join the DPRK under the benevolent leadership of Kim Jong-un", to "Well, the Norks are a bunch of bastards, but negotiations are probably better than just screaming at them, as long as we keep our military strong."
  • I made it very clear throughout this thread that I'm not a CCP apologist and far from being a fan of Mao. So Simon Toad reveals himself to be a liar as well as a racist. If he wants to discuss it further, he can take it to Hell.
  • Rossweisse wrote: »
    ...See, now I too am qualified to write for a reputable publication like the Guardian. ...
    At one point I was a frequent contributor to two of the news sources I cited earlier. I know their standards for fact-checking and for sources, because I worked with them. I know that what you allege about those standards simply is not true.

    I didn't "allege" anything. I pointed out what is basically public information that is readily provable by anyone with a google search- the China Tribunal was created by an organization managed entirely by Falun Gong members. This is not an allegation or a conspiracy theory but something proven by simply looking at Falun Gong's official press (the Epoch Times) and seeing how all the names on the ETAC management list are Epoch Times contributors. I don't care what you saw at the Guardian- they may very well have high standards in general- but sometimes standards drop and in this case they clearly did. The only way you can argue against this is by making an improbable claim that each of the names Susie Hughes, Margo MacVicar, etc. are borne by two different people, one working at Epoch Times and one managing ETAC.

    Forbes magazine, whose motto is literally "the capitalist tool" (look it up), edited by its namesake, long-time rightwinger and now Trump cheerleader Steve Forbes. You have a curious definition of "respected."

    The "other sources" cited are the Kilgour-Matas team, whose allegations have been undercut by the Washington Post's own research. Also worth noting that Kilgour and Matas work at the behest of yet another Falun Gong front group. Perhaps at this point you will allege that the Washington Post is run by PRC apologists?
  • stetson wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    cheers Gee.

    @stetson I reckon that American and Chinese detente between 1974(?) and 1992 was driven by geopolitical realities too. It's instructive that you date its ending in 1992, roughly the time when the Soviet Union collapsed.

    I have a vague recollection of KMT atrocities during the civil war. Did they ally with the Japanese at one point during the 1930's? I think they may have, but I'd have to look it up. Are they still around in Taiwan? I think their politics has developed into a multi-party system, and that the nationalists lost power at some stage, but I haven't kept up.

    I don't believe the KMT allied with the Japanese. In fact, they were allied with the Communists at one point. Complicated history, of which I know not much beyond the broad contours.

    But yes, they are still very much around in Taiwan, and are the main opposition party, and the likely rulers if and when the pro-independence DPP gets tossed out. Their seemingly weird realignment with Beijing is based on their shared belief in One China. When the mainland was hardcore Communist, the KMT saw themselves as the true representatives of all China. But now that it's blatantly obvious that Beijing speaks for China, and anyway China isn't that Communist anymore, the KMT has switched to emphasizing Taiwan as a province of China, in opposition to the pro-independence movement,

    I don't believe Chiang Kai-Shek ever aligned with the Japanese but wiping out the communists was clearly his priority and if the Japanese had offered a truce and to help him fight the reds I imagine he would have taken it. He compared the Japanese invasion to skin cancer and the communist movement to heart cancer.

    The KMT did have a semi-alliance with Nazi Germany- his son Chiang Wei-kuo spent some time as an officer in the Wehrmacht . Hitler liked Chiang's staunch anti-communism and Germany had a lot of business interests in China which made them sympathetic to China and reluctant to sever relations in Japan's favor. Eventually they had to pick a side though and they reckoned Japan was the stronger anti-Soviet ally.

    The relationship wasn't fruitless though- Chiang's crack troops were trained by German advisors. Unfortunately most of them were killed in the meatgrinder that was the battle of Shanghai- Chiang was desperately hoping that if he made a strong stand against Japan in Shanghai, in sight of the various foreign powers who had concessions in the city (Westerners were able to observe much of the battle from their hotel rooms), he would rally international support. That didn't really pan out and his best units were shattered. It did demoralize and aggravate the Japanese soldiers enough though that discipline started to break down, which contributed to the Nanjing massacre that followed.

  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited August 28
    The "other sources" cited are the Kilgour-Matas team, whose allegations have been undercut by the Washington Post's own research. Also worth noting that Kilgour and Matas work at the behest of yet another Falun Gong front group. Perhaps at this point you will allege that the Washington Post is run by PRC apologists?

    David Kilgour was my MP for many years. Never voted for him. I knew he had advocated on behalf of Falun Gong, but I did not know until just now that he was also a writer for the Epoch Times, with his most recent byline being just a few days ago.

    From the research I've been doing, Falun Gong almost seems to be trying to follow the model set by the Reverend Moon and his Unification Church, ie. oddball hybrid East Asian religion tries to make a splash in the west via large-scale artistic and cultural projects and right-wing media properties(the Moonies, of course, have the Washington Times).

    A main difference would be that, in China, Falun Gong does seem to be genuinely persecuted, whereas in the ROK, Moon and Company hobnobbed for years with the political and business elites(and allegedly also with the DPRK elites). Very very little interest in Moon's religion in Korea these days, almost all the Moonies I've met are foreigners, and amount probably to less than a dozen people, total.

  • On a side note, KMT shares the PRC's one China policy, and in fact Chiang was much more of a Han chauvinist than the CCP ever was. His view was that all the ethnic minorities in China (including the Tibetans) are really just versions of Han and they should all be integrated to Han culture. While the PRC is not above its own Han chauvinism, the official policy, which is occasionally even an actual policy, is of encouraging the various groups in preserving their own cultures and languages. Accentuating the various ethnic groups is very common in PRC propaganda- if you flip through channels on TV in China you're likely to see variety shows or documentaries showcasing fashion, music, dancing, etc. from the various groups. There are Uighur singers and actors who are teen idols throughout China. A lot of this of course is to project the message, "See, we can all live in harmony under the same government" but it would be wrong to dismiss it as all for show.
  • Another side note- alongside the communist party, there are eight legally permitted but basically toothless political parties, including a KMT that had split off from the main KMT toward the end of the civil war. I was surprised to find that these little parties have actual members who don't consider themselves CCP stooges, though it's pretty obvious there's no way they can compete or disagree substantially with the CCP.
  • stetson wrote: »
    The "other sources" cited are the Kilgour-Matas team, whose allegations have been undercut by the Washington Post's own research. Also worth noting that Kilgour and Matas work at the behest of yet another Falun Gong front group. Perhaps at this point you will allege that the Washington Post is run by PRC apologists?

    David Kilgour was my MP for many years. Never voted for him. I knew he had advocated on behalf of Falun Gong, but I did not know until just now that he was also a writer for the Epoch Times, with his most recent byline being just a few days ago.

    Oh wow, I had assumed he was otherwise unconnected to Falun Gong, and that they were simply using him. Now I see that he has a couple effusive praises for the Shen Yun show including this one where he declares it "the best show I've ever seen" and this one:
    In the dance story, a police officer comes to regret his actions after personally experiencing the kindness of several Falun Gong practitioners whom he had initially been tasked to attack.

    “That piece was my favourite one, where it converted the policeman from the government to the values of Falun Gong,” Mr. Kilgour said.

    He added that he believes the values of Falun Gong—truth, compassion, forbearance—which are universal values, “are the values of China” and will again become the values of China in the future.

    “So I am enormously encouraged by this [performance]. It’s an artistic achievement, unparalleled achievement,” said Mr. Kilgour.

    I've never seen the Shen Yun show myself. I remember though my wife and I considered buying tickets for a show near us, a few years ago. I knew about the FLG connection but I nonetheless took the promotional material at face value- that this was a presentation of classical Chinese dance and culture. But before I decided to splurge, I read some reviews. The reviews ranged pretty much from, "It had some cool bits but also some weird propaganda moments" to "What the hell did I just watch?!" The only people who praised the Shen Yun show the way Mr. Kilgour does were being cited in Shen Yun promo material or were Falun Gong members.

    The fact that these "independent" researchers don't disclose these connections, and that the journalists summarizing their findings don't bother to find it out, would I bet be a huge scandal if, say, the organization in question were connected with a foreign government. But because it's Falun Gong and it supports an anti-PRC narrative, no one will touch it. If anyone did they would get an avalanche of "CCP apologist" smears like on this thread. I'd be willing to bet that the Washington Post article I linked above was deluged with that stuff.
  • I made it very clear throughout this thread that I'm not a CCP apologist and far from being a fan of Mao. So Simon Toad reveals himself to be a liar as well as a racist. If he wants to discuss it further, he can take it to Hell.

    Oh? You say you are not an apologist, but your posts tell a different story.

    You love throwing the insults around Sir P. It's a pity that you can't sustain a cogent criticism. Your behavior towards me has exposed the paucity of your position.

    My responses to your repeated allegation of racism show that my position concerning Australia's present strategic conundrum is based in part upon the utter bastardry of the Chinese Government towards its own people and in part upon Australia's long and beneficial alliance with the United States.

    You have utterly failed to address this in your recent post, and instead you try to withdraw with another kick.

    Stop kicking, Sir P. It is doing you no good. If you would like to show that you are a person of honour, kindly withdraw your insults.
  • Ooh, here is last week's article, from noted Chinese Communist propaganda outlet NBC News, detailing the Epoch Times rising role among right-wing crank news sites.
    By the numbers, there is no bigger advocate of President Donald Trump on Facebook than The Epoch Times.

    The small New York-based nonprofit news outlet has spent more than $1.5 million on about 11,000 pro-Trump advertisements in the last six months, according to data from Facebook’s advertising archive — more than any organization outside of the Trump campaign itself, and more than most Democratic presidential candidates have spent on their own campaigns...

    Former practitioners of Falun Gong told NBC News that believers think the world is headed toward a judgment day, where those labeled “communists” will be sent to a kind of hell, and those sympathetic to the spiritual community will be spared. Trump is viewed as a key ally in the anti-communist fight, former Epoch Times employees said.

    In part because of that unusual background, The Epoch Times has had trouble finding a foothold in the broader conservative movement...

    “Even when discussing more fringe-y sites, conservative journalists tend to reference Gateway Pundit or Infowars,” Bauer said. “The Epoch Times doesn’t tend to come up.”

    You hear that? Until recently the Epoch Times was considered too weird for the Infowars crowd.

    I note that the NBC writers studiously avoid the word "cult", referring to them instead as a "spiritual community." But the testimony they give from former members speaks for itself.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Oh wow, I had assumed he was otherwise unconnected to Falun Gong, and that they were simply using him.

    Yeah, I have to say, reading all this about Kilgour has been a little surreal. You have to factor in that I grew up seeing his lawn signs all over the neighbourhood at election time, and I know at least one of my parents voted for him.

    I also recently read an old book he wrote, about western Canadian politics and culture, and it was pretty good. My guess is he got involved with this current advocacy as a matter of principle, and just sort of got drawn into the world of Falun Gong. I'd be surprised if he's actually endorsing pro-Trump politics(he crossed the floor from Conservative to Liberal about halfway through his career), but his wiki does say that he abstained on the same-sex marriage vote, so who knows.

  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited August 28
    In part because of that unusual background, The Epoch Times has had trouble finding a foothold in the broader conservative movement...

    “Even when discussing more fringe-y sites, conservative journalists tend to reference Gateway Pundit or Infowars,” Bauer said. “The Epoch Times doesn’t tend to come up.”

    You hear that? Until recently the Epoch Times was considered too weird for the Infowars crowd.

    One thing to keep in mind, though, is that Infowars etc are what you might call neo-islolationist, ie. for all their craziness, they generally oppose overseas adventurism and war. If Epoch Times is viewed as neo-con drumbeating for war against China(or whoever else), that could explain the forsty reception from Alex Jones.

    Corrected quoting code. BroJames Purgatory Host
  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, Hell Host
    I didn't "allege" anything. ...
    You made false statements about the fact-checking policies of several news organizations. I have written extensively for two of them. I know what those fact-checking policies are, and you are completely in error about them. I notice you're not challenging my statement.
    Forbes magazine, whose motto is literally "the capitalist tool" (look it up), edited by its namesake, long-time rightwinger and now Trump cheerleader Steve Forbes. You have a curious definition of "respected."
    "Capitalist tool" is, of course, a self-deprecating joke. The publication itself is respected. Editorial stances are not the same as reporting policies.

    You are a consistent apologist for the PRC. I don't get it. Again, even if Falun Gong are a bunch of cultists, they're still being murdered - and that's unequivocally wrong.



  • You are a consistent apologist for the PRC. I don't get it. Again, even if Falun Gong are a bunch of cultists, they're still being murdered - and that's unequivocally wrong.

    I get it. You meet this sort quite alot in Australia.
  • SirPalomidesSirPalomides Shipmate
    edited August 29
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    I didn't "allege" anything. ...
    You made false statements about the fact-checking policies of several news organizations. I have written extensively for two of them. I know what those fact-checking policies are, and you are completely in error about them. I notice you're not challenging my statement.

    I made no such false statements. I, again, made the demonstrably true statement that the Guardian did not check the facts on this story. Yet again you avoid addressing the very clear and specific evidence that they majorly dropped the ball on Falun Gong and uncritically reproduced the “findings” of a Falun Gong front group. You have yet to even marginally admit, “Hey, maybe that wasn’t a great idea...” Instead you scramble for more “evidence” for your foregone conclusion, but which turns out again to be more Falun Gong propaganda. You don’t appear capable of exercising a modicum of critical thinking. If as you claim you did in fact write for these publications then that’s really another strike against their credibility.
    You are a consistent apologist for the PRC. I don't get it.

    Uh huh. Anyone who doesn’t accept some doomsday cult’s propaganda at face value is a PRC apologist. The Washington Post, the New Yorker, NBC- all PRC apologists in Rossweisseworld. You clearly have a nuanced and informed view of the world around you.
  • SirPalomidesSirPalomides Shipmate
    edited August 29
    Some questions for the Falun Gong organ harvesting narrative:

    Why would the independent China Tribunal not be upfront about its connections with Falun Gong?

    Why would the authors of Kilgour-Matas study not disclose that at least one of them was a Falun Gong associate and that their study was launched by a Falun Gong organization?

    Why would journalists for respected publications not bother checking up on this publicly available information about their sources? And if they did check up on it, why did they not mention it in their articles?

    When reporters for the Washington Post investigated and found the Kilgour-Matas claims highly improbable, were they in fact participating in a cover up operation for the Chinese government? If so, what does this say about the reliability of the Washington Post?

    Why would the New Yorker publish an article citing the above Washington Post investigation? Is the New Yorker also participating in a disinformation campaign by the Chinese government?

  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, Hell Host
    I made no such false statements. ...If as you claim you did in fact write for these publications then that’s really another strike against their credibility. ...

    More insults, SirP? You certainly seem to enjoy flinging them around. You did make false statements, but we can't let that get in the way of your apologetics.

    Reading the other sources, it does look as though the non-voluntary organ harvesting has diminished recently. But it did happen, and it seems that some of it is still going on.

  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, Hell Host
    For those who are still interested in what's happening in Hong Kong, here's a cogent and well-informed column from New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof. He covered Tiananmen, and he sees frightening parallels here.

    In addition to being an old China hand himself, Kristof is married to Cheryl WuDunn, a Chinese speaker who was the NYT's first Asian-American reporter. They bring unusual insights to their coverage.

  • Rossweisse wrote: »
    I made no such false statements. ...If as you claim you did in fact write for these publications then that’s really another strike against their credibility. ...

    More insults, SirP? You certainly seem to enjoy flinging them around. You did make false statements

    But nevertheless, he was correct on the deficiencies of the particular article you cited.
  • Rossweisse wrote: »
    You did make false statements

    Then name them. Everything I said about the Guardian I backed up with very straightforward evidence that you have, to date, not even attempted to address.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, Hell Host
    That involves taking your word on the sources.

    If I was wrong about that, I apologize. But the evidence remains that it's still going on, if on a smaller scale.
  • Rossweisse wrote: »
    That involves taking your word on the sources.

    Except it doesn't. Once again, I encourage you not to take my word for it and look for yourself. You can go on the Epoch Times website yourself and find the names of ETAC's top managers as contributors. And then you can go back to ETAC's own website and note that none of these connections are disclosed. This ain't exactly intrepid investigative journalism but apparently it was a step too far for a Guardian journalist.

  • Legitimate posters admit when they are wrong.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Why would the authors of Kilgour-Matas study not disclose that at least one of them was a Falun Gong associate and that their study was launched by a Falun Gong organization?

    Well, I'm not sure if Kilgour was a Falun Gong associate at the time he wrote the study, or if he got involved with them on a more personal level as a result of the study.

    In any case, it seems quite plausible that Kilgour initially got the assignment because he was known to be someone with fairly Cold War-ish views on foreign-policy.

    Interestingly, researchers working for the US Congress issued a report that found the credibility of Kilgour-Matas to be a bit sketchy.

    (Sroll down to the page labeled CRS-7)

Sign In or Register to comment.