Tiananmen's Bitter Legacy

[Silent]

 

"The lack of info due to censorship is a non issue."

Let me guess - you live in a country without much censorship.

Sure it is a provocative statement but I think for this context, knowing what's going on, it pretty much is. But obviously a lot depends on how the sensoring is implemented. Free press may give info on the facts, but when it comes to public opinion and the private opinion of policy makers things are far more complicated. In my experience, based on only a limited number of events I experienced/was insider and the reporting done on it this free press doesn't do that great a job. At best the stories (based on the facts mentioned) are only half true. Censorship oftentimes does give information on the mindset of policy makers. Of course this info is blurred due to layers of bureaucracy, but I feel if correctly analysed the info derived is not much worse then the half truths of the free press.

 

 

"Sure, we don't know what happens in China, but is it any different for another country?"

Yes. It is.

Thanks for the extensive motivation.

 

 

"Actually in a way censorship may make it easier to find out what's going on"

That's quite the logical knot you've tied yourself in there.

Is it? What is censored gives an indication of what they worry about. A stream of media messages without any response don't.

 

Obviously it's all a bit more complicated but the time I believed that the western way of doing things is the best way of doing things are long gone. Sure, I'm a cynic, I've seen and heard enough bullshit to doubt all authorities no matter or these are government or corporate. Incompetence, personal interests and hidden agenda's are the rule rather then the exception.

[Yorin]

 

Obviously it's all a bit more complicated but the time I believed that the western way of doing things is the best way of doing things are long gone. Sure, I'm a cynic, I've seen and heard enough bullshit to doubt all authorities no matter or these are government or corporate. Incompetence, personal interests and hidden agenda's are the rule rather then the exception.

 

There is nothing wrong with being more concerned and critical of what's going on in one's own country than of other countries. And there sure as hell are a lot of problems with western governments and media. However, the very fact that you are a beneficiary of this freedom, as you can freely talk and post about these problems here, while people can't freely talk about the problems of the Chinese system in China, already refutes your own relativism.

[Guest realmayo]

Is it? What is censored gives an indication of what they worry about.

 

 

Not if you don't know it is censored.

 

......there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know.

[roddy]

Within this context, describing anything as "western" is a cop-out. Five minutes later you're equating the west with the US and then IraqPresidentBushNSA blah blah blah. Democracy? Don't see the South Koreans, Japanese or Taiwanese voting it out. Freer press? Hong Kong seems to enjoy it. Rule of (even harsh) laws? Singapore copes nicely. Yes, none are perfect, but who's arguing for less of them? These aren't Western values, these are just the best humanity has come up with yet*. Seems to me people from Africa to Alabama, from Brazil to Bognor Regis, want more of these, not less.

 

You might be able to cherry-pick a few things China (or Russia, or Iran, or...) does well. I wouldn't say no to the UK's politicians taking a longer-term outlook, for example. But overall? Words fail me. 

 

" the time I believed that the western way of doing things is the best way of doing things are long gone. "

How would you like things done?

 

*and I'm sure we can do better yet...

[Silent]

 

However, the very fact that you are a beneficiary of this freedom, as you can freely talk and post about these problems here, while people can't freely talk about the problems of the Chinese system in China, already refutes your own relativism.

Of course you're right in the sense that open communication is needed to identify and rank problems in a more or less objective/democratic way. I think however that this is only one part of the equation that decides quality of life and progress. Media, often considered public opinion, is mostly the voice of a relative small group from the of middle and upper class. What the media cover is often more driven by making profit then by revealing truth. Don't get me wrong, I do value free speech, but I think it's value is overestimated. Even in the internet era, the great equalizer where every-one can publicly voice their opinion it's hard to get heard for the average man in the street. Nevertheless it's a great improvement in voicing opinions and dynamics have hugely increased. Arab spring is a nice example of how ordinary people voiced their opinion and managed to get change. However look at the results and you see a lot of decreased stability and conflict and little real improvement. The future will learn or this is just a phase towards a better future or a sign of the times where it has become much easier (too easy?) to mobilize a group of like minded people to collectively, sometimes literally, fight for their cause.

 

I don't know where this is going,  but alongside the benefits I see a very clear threat in unlimited free communication. I mean every society has people that feel they've nothing to loose and are willing to go to extremes. If it becomes easy to unite and mobilize these people this can be a huge destabilizing factor. I'm absolutely against interference in free communication, but I'm fully aware that some kind of 'natural order', restrictions, have to exist unless we choose for anarchy.

[Yorin]

You're continuing to refute your own arguments by discussing your personal opinion on these kind of questions, when you say it's benificial to deny the same thing to other people for the sake of safety.

[Silent]

 

These aren't Western values, these are just the best humanity has come up with yet*.

Fair enough and my plea is not to be complacent with that and to keep an open mind. Things are not black&white, often times it is not this or that but finding the right balance between this and that. IMHO their is a clear risk to unlimited, instant,  free and open communication. In the west there is a pressure towards more control and restrictions on communication for a reason. I disagree with the control and restrictions due to my distrust towards the authorities but am fully aware that restrictions may be necessary (at least if you don't want an anarchy scenario). As such I can't say that censorship is unconditionally bad.  I do recognize the benefits of free and open communication. So the question for me is what is the right balance, specially in relation with potentially abusive authorities that will monitor and apply restrictions.

[gato]

Though Arthur Kroeber's piece reads for the most part like a defense of the "Beijing Model", I am in fact mostly worried that there is not going to be much improvement (quite likely deterioration from Hu-Wen years, in fact) in the near term on the problems he pointed out at the end below:

http://www.chinafile.com/reporting-opinion/viewpoint/here-xis-china-get-used-it

In short, China is a successful authoritarian developmental state which is now rich enough to start setting its own rules rather than just accepting other peoples’. That is the Xi project. To recognize this fact does not require one to celebrate it, or to ignore the costs of the authoritarian strategy. So long as it insists on clamping down on information networks, China can never become a global technological leader or anything close to it. So long as it deprives citizens of political and civil rights considered basic in virtually every other middle- or upper-income country in the world, it will remain a cultural desert and its “soft power” will be stunted. These are real costs, and big ones. But they are costs the leadership has decided to bear, and it is a fantasy to think they will be punished for this decision not to emulate the liberal democratic ideal.

[Angelina]

 

Within this context, describing anything as "western" is a cop-out. Five minutes later you're equating the west with the US and then IraqPresidentBushNSA blah blah blah. Democracy? Don't see the South Koreans, Japanese or Taiwanese voting it out. Freer press? Hong Kong seems to enjoy it. Rule of (even harsh) laws? Singapore copes nicely. Yes, none are perfect, but who's arguing for less of them? These aren't Western values, these are just the best humanity has come up with yet*. Seems to me people from Africa to Alabama, from Brazil to Bognor Regis, want more of these, not less.

 

You might be able to cherry-pick a few things China (or Russia, or Iran, or...) does well. I wouldn't say no to the UK's politicians taking a longer-term outlook, for example. But overall? Words fail me. 

 

South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore - colonies, former colonies, neocolonies, they basically can't make a decision against their (de facto) US rulers 

 

China, Russia, Iran - independent places, they can make a decision against the US because they are not being ruled by them 

 

 

American-style freedom was forced upon Japan after Hiroshima. You are saying they are not complaining against it? They can't. 

 

All governments exercise a certain amount of control over their citizens, if they didn't they won't be governments. Isn't the reason they exist to control and rule a community? Therefore, everywhere in the world you will find torture http://http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2013/jul/08/mos-def-force-fed-guantanamo-bay-video, censorship, a secret police, getting rid of your political opponents, manipulation, brainwashing. I completely agree with Silent on his distrust of authorities. All authorities are the same. 

 

However, we can't be ok with torture just because it is happening somewhere else. We can't say "censorship is fine, they do it in other countries too".

 

The US is the strongest country right now. Obviously, people ruled by the US will think US rule gives them the most freedom and their lives (albeit not perfect) are better than what people in Russia, China, Iran have.

 

I don't know, instead of saying all countries are bad, I am trying to think that all countries are good and I am trying not to hate anyone. Even the concept of 'West' is pretty imperialistic. I am not sure how to define it. Said's Orientalism maybe? Maybe previous world powers were to the east of the new emerging powers. They called themselves West in order to go east and conquer the rest of the world. Anyway, I won't hate the West, there are some good things there. Maybe the West has more freedom of expression than China? 

[Demonic_Duck]

Not sure why you felt the need to include the word "maybe" and a question mark. You might as well say "maybe China has more freedom of expression than North Korea?" Note that saying "X has better Y than Z" doesn't commit you to the position that X's Y is perfect, or even that it's particularly admirable.

[roddy]

Like I said, if you equate 'western values' with 'the US', you're missing the point. Japan and Korea have anti-American movements, due to military bases and crimes by US soldiers, and plenty of other valid reasons. I'm not aware of any substantial anti-rule-of-law, anti-voting, anti-freedom-of-the-press movements. No doubt there's some fringe wanting a monarchy back (which the US might love, it has no problem with that in the Middle East), and a failed attempt to put a democracy in place in a nation without the institutions can easily make a strong-man dictator look preferable. But who, in a functioning nation, ever voted to have the right to vote taken away? To be less informed? To be entitled to less equal treatment by the state?

"Obviously, people ruled by the US will think US rule gives them the most freedom "

Not even close to being true. Not even in the US. People aren't that stupid. 

 

​Anyway, lets get past the US. Lets give another 'Western' nation a chance to be blamed. Lets take.. Portugal? Norway? New Zealand?

[Angelina]

maybe China has more freedom of expression than North Korea?

 

I want to visit Korea and see what it is really like. Do you want to join me? 

 

 

But who, in a functioning nation, ever voted to have the right to vote taken away?

 

Yes, no one has ever said no to universal suffrage. My point is that South Korea, Japan and other places you have mentioned did not choose to have the American type of freedom, they were occupied by the United States. As I have said they are still being ruled by the US de facto. They have benefited by American technology and they have the freedom to say what they want, as long as they don't rebel against the Americans. Can South Koreans vote to re-unite with North Korea?

 

 

To be less informed?

 

How much do South Koreans know about North Korea? They might have the Internet, but they are not completely free. 

 

"Obviously, people ruled by the US will think US rule gives them the most freedom "

Not even close to being true. Not even in the US. People aren't that stupid.

 

The United States has good PR, where did I say people are stupid?

 

I am not saying American people are brainwashed, I am saying all governments brainwash their subjects. Maybe in certain countries people are allowed to talk about brainwashing. Does it mean they are free? Does it mean they are not being being brainwashed? 

 

​Anyway, lets get past the US. Lets give another 'Western' nation a chance to be blamed. Lets take.. Portugal? Norway? New Zealand?

 

What is a 'Western' nation Roddy?

 

 

I don't have anything against any nation. I have personally witnessed American censorship in Macedonia. Still, I think the United States is not a bad place. Just like China. 

There are times like Tiananmen and 9/11 after which the freedom people have has been limited. Tiananmen has definitely affected Chinese research. American research hasn't recovered either. What can we do? 

[Angelina]

The American Tiananmen 

 

 

http://www.ice.gov/sevis/i901

 

In 2004, Congress mandated all international students and exchange visitors must pay the SEVIS I-901 fee, which funds the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) and SEVIS. This fee is separate from visa fees and school SEVIS administration fees.

 

http://www.ice.gov/history

 

In March 2003, the Homeland Security Act set into motion what would be the single-largest government reorganization since the creation of the Department of Defense. One of the agencies in the new Department of Homeland Security was the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, now known as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement or ICE.

ICE was granted a unique combination of civil and criminal authorities to better protect national security and public safety in answer to the tragic events on 9/11.

Leveraging those authorities, ICE has become a powerful and sophisticated federal law enforcement agency.

 

So if you personally pay for people to monitor you, it means it is ok? Is this what American democracy and transparency looks like? 

[Silent]

 

Like I said, if you equate 'western values' with 'the US', you're missing the point.

You made such a claim now a couple of times, I don't think anyone did make such a claim. A US example is something different then equating but to my knowledge the US is still considered the west.

 

 

But who, in a functioning nation, ever voted to have the right to vote taken away?

Don't know about actual votes but every once in a while there are voices to restrict voting rights as simple put low educated/less intelligent people are considered unfit to understand the issue's and consequences. Obviously a path fraud with all kind of traps, but in principle not that silly a point of view.

 

 

To be less informed?

I think this happens quite often. At least a fair number of people choose safety over privacy and as such for the consequence of self-sencorship. Far more profound, people vote for secret services and as such to be less informed about subjects that affect (national) security.

 

 

To be entitled to less equal treatment by the state?

Some years back there has been a debate in the Netherlands about waiting lists for medical care where there was a serious plea to serve people with a job faster then people without a job. So yes, there are people that seriously promote less equal treatment.

[Guest realmayo]

This topic has got very silly. Angelina believes that the US currently rules Hong Kong. And believes that the US charging foreign students a fee equates to the Tiananmen massacre. Come on ...  

[Angelina]

The US is charging foreign students a fee in order to monitor them. I hope they will drop this fee just like I hope Chinese people will be open to talk about the Tiananmen massacre. Am I an idealist?  

[roddy]

The idea that democracy was forced upon South Korea does disservice to the South Koreans who died trying to get it. It seems your contempt for the US is distorting your view of the rest of the world. I don't think you're an idealist, I think you're unnecessarily cynical and pessimistic. 

 

I'm not changing anybody's mind, and nobody's managed to change mine. I'm out. 

[Angelina]

RIP! That's completely different matter and those people deserve nothing but our respect. 

 

I have no contempt for the US. I don't believe countries like China and Russia, which don't have to wait for an approval from the US when dealing with certain matters, are necessarily evil. I hope there will be more freedom of expression in China.

 

Can you try and change your mind? You think there is no hope for China to improve? Why? 

[Guest realmayo]

The US is the strongest country right now. Obviously, people ruled by the US will think US rule gives them the most freedom 

 

This is illogical too.

 

When parts of China were ruled by Japan, did those Chinese people think Japanese rule gave them the most freedom?

When parts of Europe were ruled by Germany in the 30s and 40s, did those people think German rule gave them the most freedom?

Did Czechs and Hungarians ruled by the USSR think Soviet rule gave them the most freedom?

Do Tibetans sing and dance in the streets because they love the freedoms afforded them by Beijing?

 

 

Seriously. Imagine a US glass that looks half-full and a Chinese one that looks one-quarter full. Even though neither of them are 100% full it's still possible to compare and say which one you'd prefer.

[Angelina]

When parts of China were ruled by Japan, did those Chinese people think Japanese rule gave them the most freedom?

When parts of Europe were ruled by Germany in the 30s and 40s, did those people think German rule gave them the most freedom?

Did Czechs and Hungarians ruled by the USSR think Soviet rule gave them the most freedom?

Do Tibetans sing and dance in the streets because they love the freedoms afforded them by Beijing?

 

 

Probably Japanese-language media was trying to convince the Chinese how they are free

Probably German-language media was trying to convince us how we are free

...

Chinese-language media is trying to convince the Tibetans how they are happy and dancing in the streets, and how they are living in Shangri-La

English-language media is trying to convince us how we all have human rights and freedom, it might not be perfect, but, hey, at least we are not China, Russia, or God forbid North Korea.

 

Seriously. Imagine a US glass that looks half-full and a Chinese one that looks one-quarter full. Even though neither of them are 100% full it's still possible to compare and say which one you'd prefer.

 

I don't prefer any glasses, I wish all glasses are 100% full. How can I make the half-full US glass and the one-quarter full Chinese glass both 100% full? 

 

I am sorry I talk about the US only. I am not sure what the concept 'West' means and thus I am reluctant to use it.