Free HK

Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
Not much has been said here about Hong Kong. Seems like its people are in active rebellion. Do you think they have any chance? I understand the protestors have descended on Kowloon which is the gateway to mainland China. The last thing the Chinese government dreads is rebellion by the mainland Chinese. Do you think Kowloon will have any impact?

I see the Chinese are protesting British interference. Typical.
«13

Comments

  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    A much less than 0.5% chance.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    The last time this happened the members of the HK Government that failed to control the situation ended up disappearing after everything calmed down. If the protests continue for too long there will be blood.
  • The British were terrible in China in history. There the Chinese have it right. On all the rest, currently, the Chinese are terrible. I suspect the thing ends like Russia in the Ukraine, who I expect they're talking to.

    The Chinese are currently stealing the children of the Uygher people to destroy the culture and the language of this people. Would such nice people love Hong Kong as it currently operates? Except money.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    The Chinese communist Party will clamp down. China is breaking agreements that date back to the handover. Why we are so such strong trade partners with them goes beyond me.
  • SirPalomidesSirPalomides Shipmate
    The British raped and exterminated their way across several continents but of course China are the bad guys.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    you forgot to add 'now'.
  • SirPalomidesSirPalomides Shipmate
    edited July 8
    The Chinese are currently stealing the children of the Uygher people to destroy the culture and the language of this people.

    Most of the Western reporting on the Uighur issue has been bullshit. A good response to a recent BBC piece: https://medium.com/@sunfeiyang/e284934a7aab


  • SirPalomidesSirPalomides Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    you forgot to add 'now'.

    Yes, now the British are total angels.

  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    do you say that Chinese behavior over the last 5 years and British behavior over the same period is morally equivalent? If so, let's see how you argue the position.
  • SirPalomidesSirPalomides Shipmate
    edited July 8
    NPNP’s implication was that China’s current behavior is morally equivalent to British colonialism- a legacy by the way the British continue to exploit and continues to completely fuck up the world. The British were terrible in China (and India, and Africa, etc) and nothing the Chinese do now compares to that global genocidal frenzy. And the British have never atoned for it- rather they gloss it over or simply erase it with a shit-eating Doctor Who smile. So spare the finger-wagging. China has serious problems but the West as zero moral authority or competence to address them.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    The Chinese are currently stealing the children of the Uygher people to destroy the culture and the language of this people.

    Most of the Western reporting on the Uighur issue has been bullshit. A good response to a recent BBC piece: https://medium.com/@sunfeiyang/e284934a7aab


    What's good about it?
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    The last time this happened the members of the HK Government that failed to control the situation ended up disappearing after everything calmed down...

    Link.
  • SirPalomidesSirPalomides Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    The Chinese are currently stealing the children of the Uygher people to destroy the culture and the language of this people.

    Most of the Western reporting on the Uighur issue has been bullshit. A good response to a recent BBC piece: https://medium.com/@sunfeiyang/e284934a7aab


    What's good about it?

    Quoth LeVar Burton on Reading Rainbow: “But you don’t have to take my word for it!”
  • SirPalomidesSirPalomides Shipmate
    To put things into perspective, here’s how the British handled HK demonstrators in 1967 (the bullets were not rubber): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_1967_leftist_riots
  • tclunetclune Shipmate
    China has serious problems but the West as zero moral authority or competence to address them.
    The notion that only the pure at heart can call others to task for immoral behavior is high-sounding nonsense. We all need to call each other to task when we transgress, and our moral authority resides in the correctness of the call, not in the saintliness of our own history. Perhaps it is sad that we are better able to see the speck in our neighbor's eye than the mote in our own, but we would each do well to listen to the admonitions of the other and weigh them as best we can. Britain does not have to always have been right for China to be wrong.
  • SirPalomidesSirPalomides Shipmate
    We are not talking about individual believers remonstrating with each other for mutual edification. We are talking about nation-states taking selective jabs at a geopolitical rival, for self-serving ends. The USA and UK could stop the war in Yemen in days, but they won't. Kids are dying by the busload there from malnutrition. The Western imperialists love their brutal authoritarians when it suits them. If they were to fulfill their pipe dream of regime change in China (and thank God they won't) the result would be the same as other places they have done so- hell on earth.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    edited July 8
    Several big differences between Tenemmen 20 years ago and the protest today. The biggest difference is the use of social media to reach the common person. Twenty years ago. it was a student movement. Today it involves over 2 million people--ordinary people. Social media is quite different. Now, the Chinese government cannot keep up with the changes to the media (can anyone?) While Facebook is banned. Hong Kong protesters are using Air Drop. When the government catches us, some new platform will be there

    Apparently, it is having an impact.

    Cleaned up link. BroJames Purg Host
  • SirPalomidesSirPalomides Shipmate
    Indeed, when some urban workers tried to show up at the Tiananmen protests, the student demonstrators pushed them out. It was a consciously elitist movement.
  • We are talking about nation-states taking selective jabs at a geopolitical rival, for self-serving ends.

    No we're not. We're talking about a rebellion fomented and carried out by the people of Hong Kong against the Chinese authorities.
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    Indeed, when some urban workers tried to show up at the Tiananmen protests, the student demonstrators pushed them out. It was a consciously elitist movement.
    Reference?
  • SirPalomidesSirPalomides Shipmate
    If this happened in any place that wasn't a current target for US/UK hostility -say, Egypt- we likely wouldn't be talking about this because the usual sources of information (BBC, NYT, etc.) wouldn't bother reporting about it. This outrage is selected and curated for us by a well-oiled propaganda machine.

    A recurring error in coverage of events like this is the assumption that everyone involved wants the same basic thing, and this basic thing is some kind of liberal democracy. That's the narrative we saw in the various color revolutions, in the "Arab spring," the HK Umbrella movement a few years ago, etc and it was nearly always wrong. There are any number of grievances and motivations that bring people to the streets, and if there are millions of people you can bet there will be contradictions. If by some grossly improbable twist of fate the current round of demonstrations topples the Hong Kong government and PRC control, we would likely see some small faction take control- one most favored/ funded by Western governments- and sideline everyone else. Promised democratic reforms would be continually pushed to the horizon due to alleged threats of subversion; what little social welfare programs exist would be carved up and the usual neoliberal plunder would commence.
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    Ok, SirPalomides, tell us - what do the HK protesters want? And how do you know?
  • SirPalomidesSirPalomides Shipmate
    That's my point- if there are, in fact, upwards of 2 million people, or even half that number, there is no unified "HK protestors" agenda. The "pro-democracy" camp consists of various shades of liberals, social democrats, technocratic professional associations, etc. representing different segments of HK society who don't necessarily see eye to eye on some important issues. Obviously everyone's talking about the extradition law, but if that law is successfully shot down, a lot of people- including the HK elite- would breathe a sigh of relief, but that would hardly exhaust the grievances that have bubbled up. None of the issues from 2014 were addressed. A common complaint is that the same elite circle has run HK since before the handover. How is that going to change?

    Supposing that this gets so big and persistent that the HK government is toppled. Who takes control? "HK protestors" are not a coherent political bloc. In such situations the best organized, best funded groups come to the fore, often a small minority. But will Beijing simply allow HK to break away? Of course not. When the crackdown comes, will the West swoop in to save the day? Again no. From US/UK foreign policy perspective, these people are straw dogs. Getting some people killed, and adding another item to the litany of human rights woes, is all part of the geopolitical game. It won't do anything to help HK but it will give ideological ammo to the continued militarization of the Asia-Pacific region.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    To put things into perspective, here’s how the British handled HK demonstrators in 1967 (the bullets were not rubber): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_1967_leftist_riots

    Neither were the terrorist bombs and murders of the press.
  • SirPalomidesSirPalomides Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    To put things into perspective, here’s how the British handled HK demonstrators in 1967 (the bullets were not rubber): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_1967_leftist_riots

    Neither were the terrorist bombs and murders of the press.

    Says every government justifying every massacre of protestors ever.

  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    Getting some people killed, and adding another item to the litany of human rights woes, is all part of the geopolitical game. It won't do anything to help HK but it will give ideological ammo to the continued militarization of the Asia-Pacific region.
    Who exactly is “getting some people killed”?
  • SirPalomidesSirPalomides Shipmate
    edited July 8
    Dave W wrote: »
    Getting some people killed, and adding another item to the litany of human rights woes, is all part of the geopolitical game. It won't do anything to help HK but it will give ideological ammo to the continued militarization of the Asia-Pacific region.
    Who exactly is “getting some people killed”?

    No one, so far (except the suicides)- the Hong Kong authorities are showing more restraint at the moment than their British forebears.

    In the meantime, the NED is definitely involved and of course they love Gene Sharp's "political jiujitsu" which includes provoking state repression and creating martyrs.
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    Then what does this mean?
    Getting some people killed, and adding another item to the litany of human rights woes, is all part of the geopolitical game.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, Hell Host
    tclune wrote: »
    The notion that only the pure at heart can call others to task for immoral behavior is high-sounding nonsense. We all need to call each other to task when we transgress, and our moral authority resides in the correctness of the call, not in the saintliness of our own history. ...Britain does not have to always have been right for China to be wrong.
    Amen, and that's true for the United States as well.

    China gets an F in the human rights department - and there are many reputable news sources that have proven it, not only with the Uighurs, but with others in China. Here are a few examples:
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/05/fake-news-china-dismisses-reports-about-detention-of-uighurs
    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/04/world/asia/un-xinjiang-uighurs-china.html?searchResultPosition=1
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/07/08/why-united-states-should-sanction-mastermind-chinas-crackdown-uighurs/?utm_term=.c9d2a255727d
    That left-wing bastion the Wall Street Journal has also addressed these matters, but it's behind a paywall.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    tibet
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    The last time this happened the members of the HK Government that failed to control the situation ended up disappearing after everything calmed down...

    Link.

    I can't find a report on the web so I reckon I'm wrong about this.
  • SirPalomidesSirPalomides Shipmate
    edited July 9
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    tclune wrote: »
    The notion that only the pure at heart can call others to task for immoral behavior is high-sounding nonsense. We all need to call each other to task when we transgress, and our moral authority resides in the correctness of the call, not in the saintliness of our own history. ...Britain does not have to always have been right for China to be wrong.
    Amen, and that's true for the United States as well.

    China gets an F in the human rights department - and there are many reputable news sources that have proven it, not only with the Uighurs, but with others in China. Here are a few examples:
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/05/fake-news-china-dismisses-reports-about-detention-of-uighurs
    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/04/world/asia/un-xinjiang-uighurs-china.html?searchResultPosition=1
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/07/08/why-united-states-should-sanction-mastermind-chinas-crackdown-uighurs/?utm_term=.c9d2a255727d
    That left-wing bastion the Wall Street Journal has also addressed these matters, but it's behind a paywall.

    That anyone would automatically trust any of these sources, after their reporting on Iraq, Syria, etc. baffles me. Here's a lovely article from the Guardian last year, depicting Al Qaeda wives in Idlib as plucky feminists. With few exceptions the NYT, BBC, and Guardian are propaganda outlets for their governments' foreign policy.

    Also, the first two are just summaries of other sources (BBC, HRW respectively); the third is an editorial.

    The hypocrisy of course is standard with American media. Someone should impose sanctions on the US and UK for its campaign of deliberate starvation of tens of thousands of Yemeni children. And the conditions in the Uighur camps and schools appear to be considerably better than the American concentration camps for migrants.

  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    tclune wrote: »
    The notion that only the pure at heart can call others to task for immoral behavior is high-sounding nonsense. We all need to call each other to task when we transgress, and our moral authority resides in the correctness of the call, not in the saintliness of our own history. ...Britain does not have to always have been right for China to be wrong.
    Amen, and that's true for the United States as well.

    China gets an F in the human rights department - and there are many reputable news sources that have proven it, not only with the Uighurs, but with others in China. Here are a few examples:
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/05/fake-news-china-dismisses-reports-about-detention-of-uighurs
    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/04/world/asia/un-xinjiang-uighurs-china.html?searchResultPosition=1
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/07/08/why-united-states-should-sanction-mastermind-chinas-crackdown-uighurs/?utm_term=.c9d2a255727d
    That left-wing bastion the Wall Street Journal has also addressed these matters, but it's behind a paywall.

    That anyone would automatically trust any of these sources, after their reporting on Iraq, Syria, etc. baffles me. Here's a lovely article from the Guardian last year, depicting Al Qaeda wives in Idlib as plucky feminists. With few exceptions the NYT, BBC, and Guardian are propaganda outlets for their governments' foreign policy.

    Also, the first two are just summaries of other sources (BBC, HRW respectively); the third is an editorial.

    The hypocrisy of course is standard with American media. Someone should impose sanctions on the US and UK for its campaign of deliberate starvation of tens of thousands of Yemeni children. And the conditions in the Uighur camps and schools appear to be considerably better than the American concentration camps for migrants.

    Your link is about the persecution of Uighurs.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Dave W wrote: »
    Getting some people killed, and adding another item to the litany of human rights woes, is all part of the geopolitical game. It won't do anything to help HK but it will give ideological ammo to the continued militarization of the Asia-Pacific region.
    Who exactly is “getting some people killed”?

    No one, so far (except the suicides)- the Hong Kong authorities are showing more restraint at the moment than their British forebears.

    In the meantime, the NED is definitely involved and of course they love Gene Sharp's "political jiujitsu" which includes provoking state repression and creating martyrs.

    That's because no one's letting off bombs and murdering journalists.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    tclune wrote: »
    The notion that only the pure at heart can call others to task for immoral behavior is high-sounding nonsense. We all need to call each other to task when we transgress, and our moral authority resides in the correctness of the call, not in the saintliness of our own history. ...Britain does not have to always have been right for China to be wrong.
    Amen, and that's true for the United States as well.

    China gets an F in the human rights department - and there are many reputable news sources that have proven it, not only with the Uighurs, but with others in China. Here are a few examples:
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/05/fake-news-china-dismisses-reports-about-detention-of-uighurs
    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/04/world/asia/un-xinjiang-uighurs-china.html?searchResultPosition=1
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/07/08/why-united-states-should-sanction-mastermind-chinas-crackdown-uighurs/?utm_term=.c9d2a255727d
    That left-wing bastion the Wall Street Journal has also addressed these matters, but it's behind a paywall.

    That anyone would automatically trust any of these sources, after their reporting on Iraq, Syria, etc. baffles me. Here's a lovely article from the Guardian last year, depicting Al Qaeda wives in Idlib as plucky feminists. With few exceptions the NYT, BBC, and Guardian are propaganda outlets for their governments' foreign policy.

    Also, the first two are just summaries of other sources (BBC, HRW respectively); the third is an editorial.

    The hypocrisy of course is standard with American media. Someone should impose sanctions on the US and UK for its campaign of deliberate starvation of tens of thousands of Yemeni children. And the conditions in the Uighur camps and schools appear to be considerably better than the American concentration camps for migrants.

    And the Houthi of course.
  • SirPalomidesSirPalomides Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    tclune wrote: »
    The notion that only the pure at heart can call others to task for immoral behavior is high-sounding nonsense. We all need to call each other to task when we transgress, and our moral authority resides in the correctness of the call, not in the saintliness of our own history. ...Britain does not have to always have been right for China to be wrong.
    Amen, and that's true for the United States as well.

    China gets an F in the human rights department - and there are many reputable news sources that have proven it, not only with the Uighurs, but with others in China. Here are a few examples:
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/05/fake-news-china-dismisses-reports-about-detention-of-uighurs
    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/04/world/asia/un-xinjiang-uighurs-china.html?searchResultPosition=1
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/07/08/why-united-states-should-sanction-mastermind-chinas-crackdown-uighurs/?utm_term=.c9d2a255727d
    That left-wing bastion the Wall Street Journal has also addressed these matters, but it's behind a paywall.

    That anyone would automatically trust any of these sources, after their reporting on Iraq, Syria, etc. baffles me. Here's a lovely article from the Guardian last year, depicting Al Qaeda wives in Idlib as plucky feminists. With few exceptions the NYT, BBC, and Guardian are propaganda outlets for their governments' foreign policy.

    Also, the first two are just summaries of other sources (BBC, HRW respectively); the third is an editorial.

    The hypocrisy of course is standard with American media. Someone should impose sanctions on the US and UK for its campaign of deliberate starvation of tens of thousands of Yemeni children. And the conditions in the Uighur camps and schools appear to be considerably better than the American concentration camps for migrants.

    Your link is about the persecution of Uighurs.

    Oops: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/26/syria-idlib-women-children-society

  • SirPalomidesSirPalomides Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    tclune wrote: »
    The notion that only the pure at heart can call others to task for immoral behavior is high-sounding nonsense. We all need to call each other to task when we transgress, and our moral authority resides in the correctness of the call, not in the saintliness of our own history. ...Britain does not have to always have been right for China to be wrong.
    Amen, and that's true for the United States as well.

    China gets an F in the human rights department - and there are many reputable news sources that have proven it, not only with the Uighurs, but with others in China. Here are a few examples:
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/05/fake-news-china-dismisses-reports-about-detention-of-uighurs
    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/04/world/asia/un-xinjiang-uighurs-china.html?searchResultPosition=1
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/07/08/why-united-states-should-sanction-mastermind-chinas-crackdown-uighurs/?utm_term=.c9d2a255727d
    That left-wing bastion the Wall Street Journal has also addressed these matters, but it's behind a paywall.

    That anyone would automatically trust any of these sources, after their reporting on Iraq, Syria, etc. baffles me. Here's a lovely article from the Guardian last year, depicting Al Qaeda wives in Idlib as plucky feminists. With few exceptions the NYT, BBC, and Guardian are propaganda outlets for their governments' foreign policy.

    Also, the first two are just summaries of other sources (BBC, HRW respectively); the third is an editorial.

    The hypocrisy of course is standard with American media. Someone should impose sanctions on the US and UK for its campaign of deliberate starvation of tens of thousands of Yemeni children. And the conditions in the Uighur camps and schools appear to be considerably better than the American concentration camps for migrants.

    And the Houthi of course.

    Yes, the Houthi with no navy and no air force are the ones responsible for the blockade and famine.
  • SirPalomidesSirPalomides Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    Getting some people killed, and adding another item to the litany of human rights woes, is all part of the geopolitical game. It won't do anything to help HK but it will give ideological ammo to the continued militarization of the Asia-Pacific region.
    Who exactly is “getting some people killed”?

    No one, so far (except the suicides)- the Hong Kong authorities are showing more restraint at the moment than their British forebears.

    In the meantime, the NED is definitely involved and of course they love Gene Sharp's "political jiujitsu" which includes provoking state repression and creating martyrs.

    That's because no one's letting off bombs and murdering journalists.

    So your opinion is that, once that starts, the HK police will be fully justified in indiscriminately firing at protestors.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    tclune wrote: »
    The notion that only the pure at heart can call others to task for immoral behavior is high-sounding nonsense. We all need to call each other to task when we transgress, and our moral authority resides in the correctness of the call, not in the saintliness of our own history. ...Britain does not have to always have been right for China to be wrong.
    Amen, and that's true for the United States as well.

    China gets an F in the human rights department - and there are many reputable news sources that have proven it, not only with the Uighurs, but with others in China. Here are a few examples:
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/05/fake-news-china-dismisses-reports-about-detention-of-uighurs
    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/04/world/asia/un-xinjiang-uighurs-china.html?searchResultPosition=1
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/07/08/why-united-states-should-sanction-mastermind-chinas-crackdown-uighurs/?utm_term=.c9d2a255727d
    That left-wing bastion the Wall Street Journal has also addressed these matters, but it's behind a paywall.

    That anyone would automatically trust any of these sources, after their reporting on Iraq, Syria, etc. baffles me. Here's a lovely article from the Guardian last year, depicting Al Qaeda wives in Idlib as plucky feminists. With few exceptions the NYT, BBC, and Guardian are propaganda outlets for their governments' foreign policy.

    Also, the first two are just summaries of other sources (BBC, HRW respectively); the third is an editorial.

    The hypocrisy of course is standard with American media. Someone should impose sanctions on the US and UK for its campaign of deliberate starvation of tens of thousands of Yemeni children. And the conditions in the Uighur camps and schools appear to be considerably better than the American concentration camps for migrants.

    And the Houthi of course.

    Yes, the Houthi with no navy and no air force are the ones responsible for the blockade and famine.

    It takes two to tango. Yes they bloody well are.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    Getting some people killed, and adding another item to the litany of human rights woes, is all part of the geopolitical game. It won't do anything to help HK but it will give ideological ammo to the continued militarization of the Asia-Pacific region.
    Who exactly is “getting some people killed”?

    No one, so far (except the suicides)- the Hong Kong authorities are showing more restraint at the moment than their British forebears.

    In the meantime, the NED is definitely involved and of course they love Gene Sharp's "political jiujitsu" which includes provoking state repression and creating martyrs.

    That's because no one's letting off bombs and murdering journalists.

    So your opinion is that, once that starts, the HK police will be fully justified in indiscriminately firing at protestors.

    Yes and I haven't stopped beating my wife.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    tclune wrote: »
    The notion that only the pure at heart can call others to task for immoral behavior is high-sounding nonsense. We all need to call each other to task when we transgress, and our moral authority resides in the correctness of the call, not in the saintliness of our own history. ...Britain does not have to always have been right for China to be wrong.
    Amen, and that's true for the United States as well.

    China gets an F in the human rights department - and there are many reputable news sources that have proven it, not only with the Uighurs, but with others in China. Here are a few examples:
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/05/fake-news-china-dismisses-reports-about-detention-of-uighurs
    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/04/world/asia/un-xinjiang-uighurs-china.html?searchResultPosition=1
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/07/08/why-united-states-should-sanction-mastermind-chinas-crackdown-uighurs/?utm_term=.c9d2a255727d
    That left-wing bastion the Wall Street Journal has also addressed these matters, but it's behind a paywall.

    That anyone would automatically trust any of these sources, after their reporting on Iraq, Syria, etc. baffles me. Here's a lovely article from the Guardian last year, depicting Al Qaeda wives in Idlib as plucky feminists. With few exceptions the NYT, BBC, and Guardian are propaganda outlets for their governments' foreign policy.

    Also, the first two are just summaries of other sources (BBC, HRW respectively); the third is an editorial.

    The hypocrisy of course is standard with American media. Someone should impose sanctions on the US and UK for its campaign of deliberate starvation of tens of thousands of Yemeni children. And the conditions in the Uighur camps and schools appear to be considerably better than the American concentration camps for migrants.

    It is a lovely, tragic article indeed.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, Hell Host
    So, @SirPalomides, the Chinese government's use of intrusive surveillance, including the routine use of facial recognition software, quizzing Uighur children about what they're taught at home (so that their parents can be hauled off), and taking children away from their families to strip them of their ethnic ties and religion are all For Their Own Good? And the concentration camps are luxurious resorts. Got it.

  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    I reckon that identifying institutions t like The Guardian and the NYT as government propaganda is ludicrous. It's an allegation that sits alongside Trump's attacks on the same outlets. We cannot know directly what happens in the world outside our immediate surroundings. We must trust others to inform us and rely on multiple sources. Who do you trust to inform you, Sir P.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    Who do you trust to inform you, Sir P.

    He appears to be an apologist for the Chinese regime, so the answer to that is probably “Xi Jinping”.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    I was wondering, re apologist--which is his right, of course. I'm just not used to people defending the Chinese gov't.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    Why will nobody call out the Chinese government for its poor-mouthing accusations against the UK government for misplaced imperialism in attempting to interfere when it criticises them?

    If you're some little post imperial state with a failing economy and an insecurity complex, you're entitled to whittle about the iniquities of past imperialist oppression. But if you are a major world power, one of the big three, with a permanent seat on the Security Council, a large army and a powerful economy, that is a rhetorical chip on your shoulder that you forfeit.

    That is even more so if you are yourself imperialist, you oppress subject peoples and a substantial and implicit part of your imperial mythology is Han racism.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    spot on in my book Enoch.
  • Rossweisse wrote: »
    So, @SirPalomides, the Chinese government's use of intrusive surveillance, including the routine use of facial recognition software,

    Sounds familiar... Again the hypocrisy and lack of self-awareness is striking.
    quizzing Uighur children about what they're taught at home (so that their parents can be hauled off),

    Standard Cultural Revolution type stuff, except this time it isn't Han inflicting it on other Han. It's mean, crude, and likely counter-productive, sure. As it sometimes does, the PRC is overreacting in a hamfisted way to a real problem. Are you familiar with the Urumqi riots from 10 years ago? Or the knife-attacks in Kunming? Or the fact that Uighurs constituted a notable presence in Syria, joining ISIS and other vicious sectarian groups?

    When some Saudi-funded psychos flew planes into the World Trade Center, the US destroyed a couple of countries and killed hundreds of thousands of people who had nothing to do with it. That's completely okay though.
    and taking children away from their families to strip them of their ethnic ties and religion are all For Their Own Good?

    This is nonsense. Uighur culture is quite visible in China. John Sudworth's BBC report, despite trying to show the camps in the worst possible light, nonetheless shows classes being conducted in both Uighur and Mandarin languages, with Uighur script on the walls. TV programs in the PRC routinely promote Uighur singers and dancers as part of a general drive to promote an image of multi-ethnic unity and loyalty. Before 2009 most Chinese would think of Uighurs as those happy, singing people from Xinjiang.
    And the concentration camps are luxurious resorts. Got it.

    Some of them are surely shitty, as such camps tend to be. I'm not aware of reports though of people drinking out of toilets. In some cases the "concentration camps" are like boarding schools, or even night classes that the "prisoners" commute to from home.

    Maybe you should go back to defending the Confederacy on some other thread?
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    I reckon that identifying institutions t like The Guardian and the NYT as government propaganda is ludicrous. It's an allegation that sits alongside Trump's attacks on the same outlets. We cannot know directly what happens in the world outside our immediate surroundings. We must trust others to inform us and rely on multiple sources. Who do you trust to inform you, Sir P.

    Trump says something quite different- he accuses them of treason. The NYT responded to that by casually admitting that it has its articles reviewed by the state department before publication.

    The Guardian and NYT routinely publish misinformation that supports the broad foreign policy aims of their respective governments. The deferential relationship between the NYT and Washington Post and the US government has been quite open for decades. It isn't something they are forced to do but something the top editors and owners do willingly. The Vietnam war raged for years before facts on the ground forced these outlets to question the official narrative. There was a brief moment in the 70's where they seemed to be more independent. Then the Reagan reaction started and they got back into line, and have stayed there ever since.

    Of course we all rely on outside sources to inform us. That doesn't mean we automatically take their word for it or parrot whatever they spoon-feed us. When you read an article, look at the sources they use. Did their reporters actually go to the place in question? If not, who are they relying on to supply information? If its some NGO, find out more about it.

    I generally give more credence to reporters who are willing to take the risk of visiting the places they talk about, or follow lines of inquiry that don't necessarily fit the narrative their editors want. One of the most scandalous things about the reporting on the Syria war was how many reporters never went to the places they were talking about. Granted, there was a good reason for that- the "rebels" they were glorifying were kidnapping or murdering journalists who made them uncomfortable. So these western journalists- usually camped out in Damascus, or outside the country entirely- just grabbed reports from various "experts" or NGO's, which were often jihadist front groups like the White Helmets.

    There are few wholly unreliable sources, and no wholly reliable ones. Even the NYT and Washington Post occasionally publish great articles but their bias is clear. All media outlets have biases which need to be kept in mind. Al Jazeera has some great reporting but they are also Qatar state media, so they will be grossly distorted on certain issues.

  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    Who do you trust to inform you, Sir P.

    He appears to be an apologist for the Chinese regime, so the answer to that is probably “Xi Jinping”.

    Yeah. Likewise everyone who opposed the Iraq war was a Saddam and/or terrorist sympathizer.

  • An article from late last year, by someone who visited Xinjiang: https://palladiummag.com/2018/11/29/a-week-in-xinjiangs-absolute-surveillance-state/

    It's a very disquieting picture, but provides a lot of context missing from the standard Western reporting.
Sign In or Register to comment.