I have to admit that I look forward to seeing the mental acrobatics that will inevitably follow in the statements of Chinese apologists and of course “patriots.”
It’s sad to know that people are still in jail for a democratic movement 16 years ago, and then arresting a reporter covering this is essentially pouring salt on the wounds.
How do the people responsible sleep at night? Rather than counting sheep, do they count GDP statistics to forget their crimes in the name of “stability” and lull themselves to sleep?
The arrest of foreign reporters is a dangerous development. I was criticized nearly a year ago on this exact site for expressing understanding (but not support) for Reporters with Borders’ suggested boycott of the Beijing Olympics. Now, a year later, things seem to only be getting worse. Is this what one calls an “all-around well-off and harmonious society”? I could think of a few other words, like “fu–ed,” but “harmonious” certainly does not come to mind.

May 29, 2005 @ 10:05 pm | Comment

“What’s your definition of a police state? Does China qualify? To me, it is where people are afraid to speak because the police have the power to arrest and hold them at will, as Stalin’s secret police and the Gestapo did.”

I known a country not a million miles away where the secret services can arrest a man, accuse him of conspiring to commit terrorism, lock him up without a time limit or access to a lawyer, and then tell him to his face that they can’t tell him exactly what he has been accused. They can do this based on a denouncement and do not require evidence.

I also know a country that can arbiterily detain any foreign national on the grounds of terrorism, and hold him indefinetely on the grounds that he can go free if he returns to his country of origin, but which is known to have arrested several men claiming asylum who cannot go back to their own countries because they face possible torture and/or execution.

Ring any bells? well one of these countries is America and the other is Britain.

Its a slippery sloap. The first step is small, but the next one is a killer.

May 30, 2005 @ 2:58 am | Comment

I’d hardly be accused of being an apologist for the PRC government, but nevertheless, I think an important distinction has to be drawn here. China has NOT arrested foreign journalists for their reporting of Chinese matters. They have arrested two Chinese who work for foreign newspapers. I’m not trying to defend this action, but to make the point that it will be an entirely different ballgame if you saw (for example) an American employee of a news agency arrested.

And ACB - those laws may be on the books in USA and Britain, but I feel that it’s not really appropriate to try to compare these two countries with China’s record. As with a lot of things, it’s not the words of the law that matter, but the way it is put into practise … one of the most famous examples of this was to make a comparative study of the constitutions of the Soviet Union and the USA, and see how very similar they were …
Furthermore in China, most of the time the government doesn’t really care if it’s obeying it’s own laws or not, when it decides to arrest someone.

May 30, 2005 @ 3:14 am | Comment

One step backwards, but I can’t say I’m surprised. You won’t find me apologising for the CCP, though. ‘State secrets’ is just the same old bullshit excuse. The weiquan movement you posted on a couple of days ago is one of the steps forward China has been making of late. It’s bloody frustrating to read of yet another step backwards.

ACB, “Everbody else is doing it, so why can’t I” is not a valid excuse. Whether it happens in China, America, or Britain is irrelevant, it’s still wrong.

May 30, 2005 @ 4:20 am | Comment

Richard,

I agree, to some degree China doesn’t fit the traditional definition of a “Police State”, but it looks like things are rapidly heading that way.

Arresting journalists, fear among the masses to speak out against anything the Party does or doesn’t do, individuals being arrested/detained on bogus/invented accusations and among an endlist list of other things…registries for anything and everything..

http://thehorsesmouth.blog-city.com/read/1310429.htm

If it walks like a duck…
(sorry about that)

May 30, 2005 @ 8:37 am | Comment

ACB,

I disagree with a great many things that are happening with national politics in America, but your reference to America as a “police state” is rather irresponsible.

It’s like referring to George Bush or any other American politician as a Nazi.

May 30, 2005 @ 8:40 am | Comment

Gordon, ACB etc.

I think there is some reason for concern regarding locking up terrorists without transparent procedure, but the interesting thing I want to point out is that while China locks up (almost) only Chinese with the arbitrariness that only the Chinese police can manage, and without any transparency in procedure, and seems to actually apply rule of law to foreigners, the U.S. has done a pretty good job of, in the end, giving the U.S. citizens locked up on charges of terrorism a trial in the U.S. system.

So the two are opposites, in a sense. And interesting to think about.

May 30, 2005 @ 9:01 am | Comment

Laowai is quiote right. The comparison to the US is rather ludicrous. Look aty tjhe imprisonment of Liu Di (”stainless steel mouse”) by China for posting pro-democracy essays on the Web. When one of her supporters started a petition (Du Daobin), he was arrested and put in jail for quite a while. In the US, we are all allowed to write about Gitmo and criticize it and tell the horror stories about it. And as awful and inexcusable as Gitmo is, it’s not an example of how the US government, even under Bush, operates. It’s something to watch, to condemn and be sure it isn’t allowed to spread. In fact, it’s cause for major demonstrations. But it is not anything like the Chinese system, where no one can be guaranteed safety from, the police (just ask Sun Zhiyang).

No, in this regard the US and China are opposites. In the US, the prisoners can still have their cases brought to the Supreme Court and discussed at length on National Public Radio. In China, I suspect there will be precious little public debate about Ching Cheong and the Tiananmen Square secrets he was investigating.

May 30, 2005 @ 9:12 am | Comment

on the article : if he’s a hong kong resident I’m not sure the distinction of working for a foreign newspaper matters. a chinese citizen was arrested for what is, in their eyes, betraying the motherland. still a bad thing, yes. likely to spread to arrests of actual foreigners, I’m not so sure.

when I think of a police state I think of people who would likely (not possibly, but likely) lose their lives (not just their freedom) for speaking out. doesn’t make what actually happens here better, but it could be worse.

it’s better than 20 years ago though. encouraging people to make honest suggestions then arresting them for it. being worried not about the police catching you if you attend a protest or post to a blog but about your husband/wife/daughter/mother turning you in for thinking counter-revolutionary thoughts. again, doesn’t make it better, but could be worse.

May 30, 2005 @ 9:19 am | Comment

Gordon, I tend to agree. I’ve had this debate with some pro-CCP friends and they deny it vehemently (it’s a true hot button). Bottom line: If the government uses police operating in secret to listen in on what people are saying and doing and invests them with the powers to arrest and hold them, and if this tactic is used to intimidate and silence the population, then you’ve got a police state. For all the bitching about president Bush (much of it from me), we still have our freedom of speech and there is no comparison to China or Uzbekistan or Saudi Arabia. Gitmo is an aberration, a small (but not insignificant) example of abuse of power and, in the American tradition, it is loudly condemned by most clear-thinking people. It does not represent the way America has tradfitionally operated — quite the contrary. What a tragedy, that our president refuses to see just how atrocious it is for our image, and how it gives us no right to protest when Americans are treated similarly by other nations.

May 30, 2005 @ 9:20 am | Comment

Echo, what you’re saying is of little consolation for Mr. Cheong, or the fellow serving ten years for leaking CCP media policy to the NY Times. Maybe it is less horrible than it was, but to me that’s like congratulating Hitler for cutting down the number of Jews he was butchering. Even if he cut it by three-quarters, I’d find it hard to give him credit for being better than he used to be.

My textbook example of police state tactics is this horrifying story, by the same reporter who wrote the Ching Cheong story above. If you haven’t seen it, please read it now. Then tell me how much better things have become under today’s reformers.

May 30, 2005 @ 9:28 am | Comment

Nicely put Richard.

Furthermore, I would add that you or I could send a letter to President Bush at anytime to tell him just what you stated. I wouldn’t dare any Chinese national to try that with Hu Jintao.

As far as listening in, I’ve had some personal experiences with that. When my late fiancé and I were engaged it was not uncommon to have our conversations monitored and if anything sensitive came up, our conversations were quickly terminated and she would have to buy another SIM card for her phone in order for me to reach her.

Deplorable.

May 30, 2005 @ 10:03 am | Comment

Revisiting the article I refer to in my previous post, I see it is so superb and so relevant and so important that I’m going to blockquote a section of it here for those who haven’t seen it. Please read every word carefully:

Nearly 15 years after the Tiananmen Square massacre and 13 since the fall of the Soviet Union, the Chinese Communist Party is engaged in the largest and perhaps most successful experiment in authoritarianism in the world. What happened to the New Youth Study Group offers a glimpse into the methods the party uses to maintain its monopoly on power and the difficult moral choices faced by those caught in its grip.

The fate of the study group also illustrates the thoroughness with which the party applies one of its most basic rules of survival: Consider any independent organization a potential threat and crush it.

The eight members of the New Youth Study Group never agreed on a political platform and had no real source of funds. They never set up branches in other cities or recruited any other members. They never even managed to hold another meeting with full attendance; someone was always too busy.

And yet they attracted the attention of China’s two main security ministries. Reports about their activities reached officials at the highest levels of the party, including Luo Gan, the Politburo member responsible for internal security. Even the president then, Jiang Zemin, referred to the investigation as one of the most important in the nation, according to people who have seen an internal memo summarizing the comments of senior officials about the case.

The leadership’s interest in such a ragtag group reflects a deep insecurity about its grip on power. The party has delivered two decades of rapid growth, defying those who believe economic reform must lead to political liberalization. But it is struggling to manage rising social tension and popular discontent and remains especially wary of student activism, which sparked the 1989 pro-democracy demonstrations in Tiananmen Square.

No, it’s too early to hand out any accolades for political reform in China. If you doubt me, set up a study group in Shanghai to discuss the pros and cons of democracy and let us know how it goes.

May 30, 2005 @ 10:11 am | Comment

actually, yes. I’d like to think that being alive is of great consolation to mr. cheong.

while I agree it is a horrible case, mr cheong was turned in by an informant, not a relative. he can trust his family, if not yet strangers. since I cannot even begin to imagine what it means to not be able to speak, at all, to anyone, about anything potentially controversial without fear of arrest and possible death I have a hard time making an accurate comparison to a world in which a journalist gets arrested for printing it in a newspaper.

I will adjust my original definition of a police state: change ‘likely to be killed’ to ‘possibility of being killed or tortured’. under this definition I think that, as bad as china can obviously be, it is not at present a police state.

you asked a sincere question, I give a sincere answer.

May 30, 2005 @ 10:21 am | Comment

“If you doubt me, set up a study group in Shanghai to discuss the pros and cons of democracy and let us know how it goes.”

Priceless. I may have to use that one for my quote of the day, if you don’t mind?

May 30, 2005 @ 10:26 am | Comment

Echo,

>>>I will adjust my original definition of a police state: change ‘likely to be killed’ to ‘possibility of being killed or tortured’. under this definition I think that, as bad as china can obviously be, it is not at present a police state.

There are some people who would beg to disagree. Harry Wu, for one.

http://www.christusrex.org/www1/sdc/laogai.html

May 30, 2005 @ 10:32 am | Comment

Not just the CCP, but the KMT used the same tactics to suppress freedom of speech (mostly against communists) in the past. If you study the history of early Ching dynasty, the Manchu developed by itself a sophisticated system to suppress the freedom of speech and expression against the ex-Ming’s scholars (to the point of paranoia) who spoke against the government. After they killed off people who criticized the government, they started to persecute people who chose to use different sensitive Chinese words like “sun” and “moon” and there were a lot of great examples, from poets to government officials who were beheaded and got their whole family executed for using the wrong words in writing.

May 30, 2005 @ 10:35 am | Comment

JR, this is the same approach you so often take - when we talk about modern crimes perpetrated by the CCP you bring up Americans killing American Indians. Now you’re saying the KMT was mean to journalists too at some point in its history. If this is the best you can do you are on very thin ice. Just saying others did it too, in the past, is meaningless. Every society has in its past done terrible things. We are talking about the here and now. If the KMT were doing it now, I’d be screaming about it. But they aren’t.

Oh, and you might want to write this down on the back of your hand: Two wrongs don’t make a right.

May 30, 2005 @ 11:05 am | Comment

Richard,

The above comment was not meant to whitewash what the CCP is doing right now. If I didn’t mention about the early Ching history, do you know about that famous incident/event at that point of time?

As for the comment I had about the eradication of native Americans, at the same post, I also listed a lot of things what the CCP did wrong in China.

May 30, 2005 @ 11:14 am | Comment

Echo, while I don’t doubt your sincerity I find your answer strange.

actually, yes. I’d like to think that being alive is of great consolation to mr. cheong.

Bizarre. Like, if someone is falsely accused or rape and thrown in prison they’ll find cheerful consolation in the fact that they are alive? Now, I can’t get into your head to figure out your thought process, but somehow you’ve managed to convince yourself that Cheong is sitting in prison, smiling about how lucky he is to be alive. In my mind, I see him woefully distressed, on the verge of tears, thinking about his wife and family and the horrifying fact that he may be spending a long time in a Chinese dungeon in solitary confinement. Don’t you think that’s how most people react when they are unexpectedly thrown into a Chinese prison?

I am not convinced that a police state needs to torture or kill. But in any case, China I’m afraid has done both.

Oh, and here’s the Free Dictionary definition of police state:

a country that maintains repressive control over the people by means of police (especially secret police)

The Star-Telegram defines it as “”Government can hold you in secret at any time and for any length of time.”

Where did you come up with the definition that it must include death and/or torture? I have never heard this before. Source?

May 30, 2005 @ 11:23 am | Comment

But JR, you’re still playing the game of, “Well, they were bad too! (Even if it was a long, long time ago.)”

May 30, 2005 @ 11:25 am | Comment

I will agree that the Harry Wu case was disturbing. However it was also ten years ago. I do not pretend to know everything about the current state of chinese prisons but all of the journalists I have read about since mr. sun have been arrested, not killed, for speaking. most, if not all, of the protestors as well.

I’m going to quote you to you, richard….

“That the (weiquian) movement exists at all and has proven to be effective…”
can you imagine a movement such as this surviving past its first week, let alone taking root, in a police state?

I’m going to pick my old standby of the huankantou riots as a present example. 50 police hurt, a villiage completely out of control, civilians killed during the riot : 0. not a single shot was fired into the crowds. not one.

I’m not sure if I have this number correct and honestly I’m too tired to fact check right now, so feel free to correct me. ~57,000 recorded protests in China last year. How many killed? Do you think Hitler would have spared the guns? Stalin? China, circa 1989?

the question posed was not “does china have a humane system?” it was “is china currently a police state?”

here is my original thought process. (I took the original question in the context of journalism but have broadened my definition since then, as a police state does not just crack down on journalists but on all forms of protest.) if I were a chinese journalist I’d know the risks of what I was doing, yes? there is a possibility/probability I would get arrested for writing an article, depending on how obviously inflamitory I was. I would still do it. were I, or my family, to be tortured or killed instead of imprisoned I have to be honest and say I probably wouldn’t, not unless I thought that one article could actually stand a chance of changing the system. there are more things I would go to prison for than die for.

so all that was really an unnecessarily long winded way of saying: in a police state they point guns at people a lot more.

May 30, 2005 @ 11:37 am | Comment

Echo,

interesting point. I think maybe we’re looking at a new phenomenon if you are correct: the government has decided it

1. can’t lock up villagers when they riot, because they are too volatile

2. journalists are still fair game.

This is so arbitrary though, and it’s just based on powermongering and strategic repression, figuring that Huankantou-like riots can’t do nearly as much damage as free journalism. When will China actually be guided by the rule of law?

May 30, 2005 @ 11:51 am | Comment

echo, if you also quote me to me, you will see I wrote in the post we are commenting on that I have in the past felt China doesn’t quite fit my definition of a police state. That’s because of phenomena like the weiquan movement. However, if the weiquan movement called for democracy, how long do you believe they would last? There have been creeping reforms, and signs of hope. But incidents like Mr. Cheong remind us that the potential for police-state-behavior on the part of the CCP is still alive and well. The most I can say for it is that it’s perhaps not a pure and total police state, but rather a police state that appears to be improving somewhat, with some terrible relapses along the way. It’s not Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia or North Korea. But if you slip up, it can still be almost as bad. Ask my three friends in the study group.

May 30, 2005 @ 12:00 pm | Comment

actually that thought process is really easy to clarify. if in my country ten years ago I would have been shot for doing less (like telling my husband my party boss was a corrupt bastard or learning how to play classical guitar) I’d be really happy I was alive now, albeit in prison, rather than living, or rather dead, back then.

in other words it’s not like he’s sitting around going “cool, public toilets” but at least he’s sitting around.

and come on, you’ve at least got to admit that most people would rather be alive than dead.

but you said his imprisonment was unexpected. unless he’s been living under a rock how could it be? if I were in america in jail for being falsely accused for rape I’d certainly be surprised (mostly because I’m a 5′6″ girl, but I do get your point) and I’d be mad as hell the accuser, and likely any inanimate object within vocal range, but I wouldn’t compare myself to someone in jail for doing something he knew might land him in jail. choang knew the risks of reporting the story he did. it’s screwed up that the risk is there, but unless he’s the least aware reporter on the planet he did know this might happen and made the decision to do it anyway.

by the star-telegram’s definition america is a police state, so I’m not going to agree with that one.

the thing is they simply can’t put everyone in jail. enough people get fed up and they have to either a) rethink things or b) oh hell, I can’t come up with a b right now. the point is that with jailing protestors there is hope, there are only so many cells to go around, and people at large tend to get mad when entire villiages, old ladies and all, land behind bars. but with shooting them there is no one to appeal to, no one you think might hear and not shoot you too; the only hope is revolution or rescue by someone with bigger guns than the opressors, which to many would equal no hope at all.

which is perhaps in part why my definition (no source, you asked a question, I thought about it, that’s what I came up with) does not gel with free dict’s. to me, a police state means no escape, no hope. and right now I am unwilling, perhaps blindly so, that there is no hope in china in this system.

May 30, 2005 @ 12:06 pm | Comment

We should ask Yu Huafeng, Li Minying and Cheng Yizhong if china is a police state.

May 30, 2005 @ 12:17 pm | Comment

Lack of freedom of speech in China is definitely one thing the CCP is guilty of. I am quoting my position from the previous posts.

“If we have to play the Pot meets kettle blame game, you can easily find things you don’t learn from the US history textbooks also.

Just to mention a few, the ethnic cleansing of American Indians. Colonization, Forced Christianization of Native Hawaiians, mutiny against legitimate Queen of Hawaii; Refusal to accept Jewish refugees before WW2; The massive war crimes committed during Vietnam war.

The USA supported the military junta in Greece 1967-1974, Overthrow of democracy and installation of puppet Shah in Iran; CIA trained Mujahideen to make heroin from poppies; Support for Pol Pot (yes both China and US supported Pol Pot)

Training of terrorist groups in Latin America; Destruction of democracy in Chile (the other 9/11). Funding, weapons and training for Nicaraguan terrorists; Funding and organization of death squads in El Salvador; Invasion of Panama and Granada; Support of Saddam’s WMD programs in the 1980s…

Anyway, I believe we are all guilty. It is pretty useless to play the blame game against each others. Let’s have an open and honest discussion to right the wrong of the past and move on to the future.

Posted by JR at April 13, 2005 05:09 AM

You are leading the direction of this conversation. There is definitely no debate about the historical and political openness (closeness) of the CCP. If we are to drop our prejudice and discuss these issues in an open and honest manner. I can also easily think of a list of things I don’t like about the Communist China.

1)Corruption, the Chinese government seriously needs political reforms, judicial reforms, and especially implementing the rule of law, not special relationship.

2) Two China, rich urban area vs poor rural area, the Chinese government needs to spend more resources to help develop the rural western area and take care of the majority population of poor farmers, not just emphasizing on urban development.

3) Pollutions, time to put this into the number 1 priority. I know It is already going out of control.

4) Freedom of speech, China needs independent news outlets and to do away with censorship. it’s one of the most powerful tools in combating corruption.

5) freedom of religion.

The political future of China as a CCP expert from Hong Kong had said last month, there will be political freedom, liberty and democracy in China within the next 20 years. I don’t know if he is right or wrong, but I am cautiously optimistic

Posted by JR at April 13, 2005 10:33 PM “

May 30, 2005 @ 12:18 pm | Comment

-> 1. can’t lock up villagers when they riot, because they are too volatile

I would be fairly amazed if they didn’t, eventually, lock people up over that. however my point was they didn’t shoot into the crowd.

I don’t think the repression is arbitrary, I think it’s still targeted to keep as much control as humanly possible. with huaxi they might have lost the illusion of complete control for a moment but that isn’t nearly as damaging to them as global headlines reading ‘hundreds slaughtered in environmental protest’

richard, what does not being a police state have to do with being a democracy?

(ie just because human rights have never flourished in certain systems does it mean they absolutely cannot? there’s my honest question, currently an open question on my blog, one to which I am still, rather unsuccessfully, wrangling with.)

May 30, 2005 @ 12:50 pm | Comment

richard, what does not being a police state have to do with being a democracy?

Echo, you are bewildering me once again. Where does this question come from? We were having a discussion of what is a police state. When you have a questiopn like this, please snip the line you are referring to so that we can have context. I have no idea what yuou’re talking about.

by the star-telegram’s definition america is a police state, so I’m not going to agree with that one.

Absolutely, totally wrong. America has one of the best records in the world when it comes to honoring habeus corpus and giving people the right to a fair hearing. Is there one aberration in Guantanamo Bay? Yes, and I complain about it all the time. But that is amazingly rare, and you can see the uproar it has caused. To my knowledge, we have never arrested reporters in a way that even approaches what China does. And if we do, the reporter can always get a fair hearing and be released on bond. And every other paper would write about it. No, we are opposites in this respect, and when you call America a police state or say that it is a country where the police lock up people at will and hold them for unlimited periods, it shows a vast ignorance of America and its history. That would be as stupid as my pointing to the waiquan movement and saying that since a few legal scholars have been brave enough to criticize a few government actions and have gone unpunished, that therefore China is a land of free speech and openness and a government willing and eager to invite criticism from its people.

In addition, the trademark of the police state is a society that lives in fear of speaking out, knowing the police are poised to arrest them were they to do so. Even with the Patriot Act and all the post-911 hysteria in America, there is no such atmosphere here and hasn’t been since the days of Joe McCarthy - another ugly anomaly in American history. In China, however, everyone thinks carefuly before they choose to speakl out publicly in a manner that criticizes the government. Most consider and then decide to remain silent, out of terror of the consequences. That’s a good sign of a police state.

With respect, this may be the single most infuriating aspect of arguing with CCP apologists.They will point to one issue — American Indians, Gitmo — and talk as though they are the only topics that define America. Just like China, America is a complex country that cannot so easily be slotted. America’s history has been one of unparalled free speech, stained with a handful of ugly exceptions that were condemned everywhere. China’s history of free speech is quite different — there’s been practically none to speak of in terms of politics, with only a few very unusual exceptions, such as waiquan.

May 30, 2005 @ 2:42 pm | Comment

And even in Guantanamo, there are marked differences compred to the Laogai. The scandal has cost America dearly, but to compare it to what goes on in China in terms of scale or denial of representation is simply incorrect.

May 30, 2005 @ 3:22 pm | Comment

Gold medal gaols

Today’s SCMP:There is no need to worry about Chinese authorities’ censorship of the press, a senior International Olympic Committee (IOC) member said yesterday, citing Beijing’s eagerness to ensure the 2008 Games are a success. “There will not be censo…

May 30, 2005 @ 7:04 pm | Comment

hey FSN no. 9, well now thirty posts later (i was asleep) i’ll say thanks for pointing that out, i realized i had screwed up using “foreign reporters” after i sent in the post.
i feel like the arrest of a hong kong-er for reporting is a very dangerous step in the completely wrong direction (not that I would encourage the arrest of a Mainland Chinese, of course). is this a sign of further withering away of the “two systems” BS that was tossed out the window years ago anyway? i would say yes.
I must say that such developments are only going to encourage Taiwan, which has quite a lively press, to walk further away from the “motherland”’s smothering embrace.

May 30, 2005 @ 7:42 pm | Comment

Very pretty speech Richard. While you’re at it could you tell the US government to stop sending terror suspects off to foreign countries for torture and interrogation? The US government has already shipped off a couple of Canadian citizens to Syria for some extra work and we’re sort of getting annoyed about it. One of them, Maher Arar, has come back after being tortured for a year and now being a broken man isn’t much fit for work. Thank god for his wife and her public battle to free him and not the gutless Canadian government and their useless diplomatic letters of protest.

I’m very surprised there hasn’t been that much a protest or media spotlight about the US government and their program of rendition as they like to call it. I’ve seen the New York Times do a series about people being sent off and there was a piece by 60 minutes about how the government has a secret fleet of planes to ferry off prisoners but that’s about it. There hasn’t been a huge uproar or hard questioning by government officials. I guess when the torture is done by Americans it’s a big deal but when they outsource it to others, it’s not.

May 30, 2005 @ 7:48 pm | Comment

WKL. yo apparently didn’t read Thomas Friedman in the NYT a couple of days ago.

When America outsources torture it is a huge deal. Have you been reading Andrew Sullivan on the topic? And just about every liberal columnist? We are up in arms, but as usual, this administration just doesn’t care. It’s a hideous stain on the nation’s history and I worry it might never be made clean.

No one’s been more vocal against the atrocities committed against the Constitution by Bush. But this is, as I said, an aberration, an anomaly that he could only have gotten away with in the aftermath of 911. Most liberals and a lot of conservatives have recoiled from this sickening policy. It goes against everything the country stands for, and makes me more determined than ever to do all I can to get America back in the hands of the Democrats.

In a saner time, thios could never have happened. But 911 was Bush’s Reichstag Fire, opening the door to one ouitrage after another. One day we will look back at this time with a sense of sickness, disbelief and revulsion.

May 30, 2005 @ 8:55 pm | Comment

One day we will look back at this time with a sense of sickness, disbelief and revulsion.

I’m trying to imagine a time in the future when I will feel more sickened and revolted than I do now, but I can’t.

(new “mirror” blog address for Mainland surfers: http://papertiger.blog-city.com)

May 30, 2005 @ 9:49 pm | Comment

sigh. how on earth did you read that I think america is a police state?

“by the star-telegram’s definition america is a police state, so I’m *not going to agree* with that one.” (emphasis added)

definitions. the star-telegraph’s definition = “Government can hold you in secret at any time and for any length of time.” the patriot act allows for this to happen legally. I *do not* think america is a police state. therefore I must disagree with the star telegraph’s definition.

(though. in addition to rendition there’s the 13 year old charged with terrorism because he yelled at someone on the playground, the mother and daughter ‘kidnapped’ in iraq by the army when they could not find/arrest her husband…a number of groups have attempted to charge the us with war crimes, one tried in germany at the international court, but no one wants to touch the case, no one wants to be the one to tell the us to stop…but I digress. I truly do not think you can compare china to america, or to anyone else for that matter. I brought america in to disagree with the star-telegraph’s definition, not as a comparison to china. obviously that was a bad idea.)

-> Most consider and then decide to remain silent, out of terror of the consequences. That’s a good sign of a police state.

then why are there so many reporters in jail? why so many protests? if they are so afraid to speak out why do they keep doing it? the point is many are *not* afraid to speak out. they are not afraid because they are willing to go to jail to get the message out. I doubt the same would be true if punishment was a bullet in the back of their head, or their mother’s. that is why, as bad as china is, I do not think t is a police state.

I keep comparing china now to china before because I think china before *was* a police state. the simple fact that there are currently reporters printing the truth and ~57,000 protests last year alone speaks to the fact that they are *not* afraid to at least try and change the system, they are not all staying silent.

you said : “However, if the weiquan movement called for democracy, how long do you believe they would last?”
so I asked : “what does not being a police state have to do with being a democracy?”

May 30, 2005 @ 11:22 pm | Comment

This is a follow-up comment to one I made a month or so ago about China’s militarizing its young people. This comes from a small news item in yesterday’s SCMP through Xinhua. The headline says “More than 13,000 military schools set up for teens” That was done by the end of last year. Quoting more, “The schools were set up by the education authority to provide extracurricular national defence and patriotic education, Xinhua reports.

Probably a minor thing, but one wonders why it is needed by a self-proclaimed, “peace country.”

Richard, could you set up a periodic update blog for follow-up comments?Sometimes it is hard to stick them in a following blog topic without sort of disrupting its flow.

May 30, 2005 @ 11:56 pm | Comment

Good point pete. I also read that article.

I think the 13,000 schools are more designed to ‘promote national unity’ (I interpret that more as ‘moulding/twisting young people’s minds into blind obedience to the chinese nation–but that’s only my opinion ).

Still, it’s another frightening development nonetheless. I’m becoming more an dmore concerned about the road the chinese government appears to be taking vis-a-vis nationalism/patriotism.

I really do believe that both nationalism and patriotism are generally bad things. Both words carry far too many negative connotations as far as I’m concerned and the potential for mis-use is huge.

Reinforcing the already high levels of nationalism, xenophobia and victim mentality complex within mainland china is certainly not the road I would like china to take in the year 2005.

The anti-Japan protests are still fresh in my mind, in fact I’m still trying to get to grips with that whole episode.
Thanks.

May 31, 2005 @ 1:38 am | Comment

China is a police state, on top of that, a very corrupt police state.

I agree that the way the ccp makes use of the nationalism and patriotism is awkard and dangerous.

But there is no real xenophobism in China, except that towards Japan that is at least partially justifiable.

The rivalry between China and Japan is something any ruling party in China dare not concede.

In terms of the direction China chooses, it partly depends on how other countries treat China.

If they are to demonise China, China would more likely be a demon for them. If they are to work with China, China would more likely be a partner for them.

May 31, 2005 @ 2:40 am | Comment

“I’m trying to imagine a time in the future when I will feel more sickened and revolted than I do now, but I can’t.”

What an exclamation!?

If all your feelings come from what happens in China, you might have your reason to think that way.

I admit China is the Source of Sins, is that all right for you?

May 31, 2005 @ 2:48 am | Comment

“And even in Guantanamo, there are marked differences compred to the Laogai. The scandal has cost America dearly, but to compare it to what goes on in China in terms of scale or denial of representation is simply incorrect. ”

You can always find this kind of differences when comparing China to other countries. All these differences could become excuses to emphasise the critisism towards China and play down (actually ignore) the similar atrocities committed by others.

As you have given so many differences, may I suggest another two?

“what goes on in China in terms of scale or denial of representation is simply incorrect”

The scale is due to the size of population of China.
The denial is due to the average poverty of Chinese who care more about “face” than others.

May 31, 2005 @ 3:02 am | Comment

bing, i disagree that xenphobia is acceptable, even partially acceptable, under any circumstances. Mainland china wallows in xenophobia and a lot of it is encouraged by the govt.

I don’t want to get into another debate about whether Japan has apologised enough or shown enough remorse to satisfy china or whatever because I really don’t care that much about events 60 years ago.

Your comment re “it depends how other countries treat china” is fairly typical of other comments I’ve heard in the prc.

From where I’m sitting the rest of the world has shown enormous encouragement to china’s economic development. As china has used (hugely exaggerated if you read The China Dream by Joe Studwell) domestic market as a bargaining chip, foreign firms have transferred over massive amounts of technology over the last 20 years.

It wasn’t chinese scientists and the R&D departments (are there any?) of chinese firms that “invented” mobile phones, TVs, DVDs, cars etc etc. The economic success of the last 20 years is due in no small part to the west, Japan and Taiwan. This hardly justifies the general suspicion china has against those foreign countries.

ALso, china has never had a real “friend” in history. China’s “friends” either have to accept china as the dominant side in any partnership or they end up being invaded either sooner or later.

“Demonise” china is a word open to vast interpretation and as far as the chinese govt are concerned any country that has even the slightest negative opinion and/or refuses to accept any part of china’s world view is ususally accused of “demonising” (or a hundred other words) china.

Phrases such as:

“If they (other countries) are to demonise China, China would more likely be a demon for them. If they are to work with China, China would more likely be a partner for them.”

…seem to me to be unique to china. I haven’t heard Americans, Japanese, Africans etc. use such language.

Would you please explain what exactly would happen should china decide to “be a demon” to another country?

May 31, 2005 @ 3:07 am | Comment

“But there is no real xenophobism in China…”
Definitely news for me and my girlfriend, who don’t exactly get the warmest reception at quite a number of places and from quite a diverse array of people. There’s quite a lot of xenophobism, but no one will admit that. Instead they try to give it a name like “special Chinese characteristics” or “Chinese tradition.” Just like murderous tyranny and outright suppression is “representing the peoples’ interests.
That was followed by: “…except that towards Japan that is at least partially justifiable.”
At least partially justifiable? Well I must admit that I like you for not saying “completely justifiable” or something like that, but I do not think that anything can justify the things that I have heard people say about perfectly friendly Japanese in China, not only behind their backs but also to their face.
Xenophobia is not justifiable anywhere under any circumstances.

May 31, 2005 @ 3:12 am | Comment

On the comparision of USA and China I would just like to ask how many USA-dissidents sought asylum in the PRC in the last ten years?

On the other hand it’s becoming harder and harder to promote democracy and freedom of speech when more and more people associate these ideas with Mr. Bush holding a gun in his hand.

May 31, 2005 @ 3:16 am | Comment

“Definitely news for me and my girlfriend, who don’t exactly get the warmest reception at quite a number of places and from quite a diverse array of people.”

I’m sorry if you can’t find warmest reception in China. It’s the way nowadays a lot of Chinese treat strangers or each other, not to mention foreigners.

Because they don’t treat you warmly, they are xenophobic?

May 31, 2005 @ 3:30 am | Comment

yes, in fact, the things that i encountered were xenophobic.

i know chinese people also treat other chinese people like shit all the time, but quite a few people have a real ax to grind with foreigners, especially foreigners with asian girlfriends.

so please don’t simply say “Because they don’t treat you warmly, they are xenophobic?” about a situation that you don’t know about. you don’t want to admit that there is xenophobia, but that is no reason to doubt someone else’ experience. trust me, i’m not a very sensitive guy, but my girlfriend and i have always received a much much warmer welcome in the rural USA (which as we are all reminded constantly here, has plenty of race issues) than we have been in all of China. That is because China is a xenophobic country, but no one will admit it.

Which brings us back to the actual topic of this post, “state secrets,” the most ‘extreme’ of crimes blamed on those who dare to say anything less than positive about this country…

May 31, 2005 @ 4:07 am | Comment

“I don’t want to get into another debate about whether Japan has apologised enough or shown enough remorse to satisfy china or whatever because I really don’t care that much about events 60 years ago.”

I couldn’t care less either. All I care is Japan is not to and doesn’t have the ability to commit that atrocity to China again in the future.

“From where I’m sitting the rest of the world has shown enormous encouragement to china’s economic development. As china has used (hugely exaggerated if you read The China Dream by Joe Studwell) domestic market as a bargaining chip, foreign firms have transferred over massive amounts of technology over the last 20 years.

It wasn’t chinese scientists and the R&D departments (are there any?) of chinese firms that “invented” mobile phones, TVs, DVDs, cars etc etc. The economic success of the last 20 years is due in no small part to the west, Japan and Taiwan. This hardly justifies the general suspicion china has against those foreign countries. ”

No one argues about that. China benefits hugely from opening its market and learning from the west which have done a great job in helping China to come to today’s prosperity. Having said that, the west benefit hugely from China too. There is no free lunch and China paid for what it gained.

“ALso, china has never had a real “friend” in history. China’s “friends” either have to accept china as the dominant side in any partnership or they end up being invaded either sooner or later.”

What is a real friend for a country? Isn’t it a bit naïve to talk about countries having really “friendly” relationships with each other? Does Japan have a real friend? The US? Any Human being knows that is established on the Japanese lickspittle and their strategic enemy - Red China. And even such friendly buddies were sworn foes dozens of years ago.

“”Demonise” china is a word open to vast interpretation and as far as the chinese govt are concerned any country that has even the slightest negative opinion and/or refuses to accept any part of china’s world view is ususally accused of “demonising” (or a hundred other words) china.”

“Demonise” means exaggerating the bad and ignoring the good.

May 31, 2005 @ 4:23 am | Comment

Bing,

I’m pretty sure Other Lisa’s comments were directed against the Bush administration, not China.

Not treating others warmly is certainly not xenophobia, but often the impetus behind it stems from xenophobic views based on stereotypes. Does this happen elsewhere? Yes - UK, Japan (god knows), the USA, France, etc. Fortunately in these countries there is a free media to voice a counter opinion and gives people a chance to counteract racism. I have to be honest here, and say that I don’t know much about recent Chinese media opinion - do you find many Chinese reports defending the Japanese? I think Free media has a profound effect on a country - it shows how people don’t agree with each other. And it tempers nationalism and racism.

i remember a perfect example of Chinese non-racism - during the world cup in japan, where one state sponsored newspaper declared that the Chinese must rely on being crafty, since the Africans had strength, and the Europeans and Americans (by implication, the white ones) had skill. This kind of crap needs to be stamped out. China so often sets the terms of how China will suceed - with craftiness, by using the Western technology to better themselves, by expressing solidarity in the face of demonic international pressure and unfairness. It’s just so one-sided. China will succeed in every area, doing everything, if they let themselves! But there are psychological limits on how the Chinese psyche wants to succeed, because it reaffirms a national identity. Unfortunately, this means that Japan is Public Enemy Number 1 for years to come - until it becomes the U.S.A. And then we’ll see more racism against whites.

Look, the U.S. does it too - but we’ve got severe moderating forces in the form of free speech. The population of the U.S. that doesn’t like to think too much can choose their opinion from one readily accessible side or the other. Can the Chinese? This isn’t a rhetorical question - I’d really like to know what you think about the last two questions I asked.

May 31, 2005 @ 4:26 am | Comment

“so please don’t simply say “Because they don’t treat you warmly, they are xenophobic?” about a situation that you don’t know about. you don’t want to admit that there is xenophobia, but that is no reason to doubt someone else’ experience. trust me, i’m not a very sensitive guy, but my girlfriend and i have always received a much much warmer welcome in the rural USA (which as we are all reminded constantly here, has plenty of race issues) than we have been in all of China. That is because China is a xenophobic country, but no one will admit it.”

You feel hurt by “quite a few” Chinese not comfortable with your Asian girlfriend so that you brand China as a xenophobic country. That seems fair because I know some Chinese do dislike the fact that some other Chinese (often female) would marry anyone at any expense as long as they are foreigners, which unfortunately happens quite a lot, although doesn’t justify the discrimination they often get.

A couple of teenagers threw half bottle milk at me. A pair of blokes littered the remains of their KFC at me. A drunk shouted at me “you shit Chinese all around the world”. Even a toddler muttered “Chinese whore” after he failed to get a pound coin from me.

Those are only a few of what I have encountered in this country, UK, during the last 3 years. I don’t have an English girlfriend; I don’t wear or say anything that may offend them. I just walked on the street and what’s wrong with me?

But I don’t think UK is a xenophobic country, because I can still work, study and live here doing my own business and enjoy my life and I know there are more than 60 million people in this country, not everyone of them throwing litter at me and some of them actually very helpful and friendly.

There is no basis for most Chinese to be xenophobic towards the West. I think many of them like foreigners in their country and want to have foreign friends.

When you say something like: “Instead they try to give it a name like “special Chinese characteristics” or “Chinese tradition.” Just like murderous tyranny and outright suppression is “representing the peoples’ interests.”

It seems you don’t believe there are any Chinese characteristics or Chinese tradition and thus have no respect to them. How could you expect others to respect you then?

May 31, 2005 @ 5:14 am | Comment

Ching Cheong Detained For Zhao Manuscript

Peking Duck got the story first, but let me provide some follow-up. {Just assuming that everyone that reads this blog will read the Peking Duck faithfully as well. And if you aren’t, you should.}.
The Standard provides a story this morning on Ching Cheon

May 31, 2005 @ 5:28 am | Comment

“do you find many Chinese reports defending the Japanese? I think Free media has a profound effect on a country - it shows how people don’t agree with each other. And it tempers nationalism and racism.”

I enjoy free media outside China and I’d like the people inside China to have free media too. That’s only my thought, however, and I don’t know if a free media is guaranteed to do good, or to what extend the freedom the media should have for nowadays China.

“China so often sets the terms of how China will suceed - with craftiness, by using the Western technology to better themselves, by expressing solidarity in the face of demonic international pressure and unfairness. It’s just so one-sided. China will succeed in every area, doing everything, if they let themselves! But there are psychological limits on how the Chinese psyche wants to succeed, because it reaffirms a national identity. Unfortunately, this means that Japan is Public Enemy Number 1 for years to come - until it becomes the U.S.A. And then we’ll see more racism against whites.”

Picking up an enemy NO. 1 is the best way for you to catch up or keep guarded. That is how US regarded the soviet and US and Japan regard nowadays China.

“Look, the U.S. does it too - but we’ve got severe moderating forces in the form of free speech. The population of the U.S. that doesn’t like to think too much can choose their opinion from one readily accessible side or the other. Can the Chinese?”

We can’t. But are you 100% sure that is not a good thing for China now? Think about how long it will take to build a new airport in China compared to that in India or UK.

May 31, 2005 @ 5:38 am | Comment

Bing,

On the contrary, I’d say the UK is a very, very xenophobic country - English for the English and all that (my Aussie friend would often say it sarcastically, since he couldn’t wait to get off this forsaken island). There are some great people here, and the government attitudes are generally good towards people, but man, there are some huge race issues here, as you’ve demonstrated with your experiences. The incidents of racial attacks and abuse in the UK outnumber those in most any other country per capita, I’d say, although I’m not totally sure about this. By the way, where are you?

The dangers of xenophobia is that it assumes 1) that all people in the “home” group are the same and that 2) all the people in the “strange” group are the same. It is damaging to both, and grossly simplistic. What I’m trying to figure out is where the diversity in opinion lies in China.

If you are in SE England give me a shout at my email - I’d like to sit down for a pint if you’ve got time.

May 31, 2005 @ 5:45 am | Comment

“Picking up an enemy NO. 1 is the best way for you to catch up or keep guarded. That is how US regarded the soviet and US and Japan regard nowadays China.”

Yes, and I profoundly disagree with this. Just because others do it, do you think it’s acceptible?

“But are you 100% sure that is not a good thing for China now? Think about how long it will take to build a new airport in China compared to that in India or UK.”

This is a long discussion, but look - I’m not insisting on direct democracy or anything but I think free media would make China less inflexible, which I ultimately would make it much stronger.

May 31, 2005 @ 5:50 am | Comment

Also - Just wondering - did Japan and So. Korea use the “Enemy No. 1″ policy in reaching the rapid economic development they did? Upon reflecting, I’d say that this strategy doesn’t actually afford that many benefits - it certainly screwed over Russia, and, some would argue, much of the rest of the world. But I guess that’s the point, isn’t it? It benefitted the States. But it certainly wasn’t a peaceful rise, and not one I’d encourage China copying.

May 31, 2005 @ 5:53 am | Comment

Right so I need to take back the statistic on racial attacks in the UK in any country. I meant developed country, and at present. Please correct me if I’m wrong. It’s kind of irresponsible to guess like this, but it really seems pretty rife in the UK

May 31, 2005 @ 6:00 am | Comment

I can’t believe anyone is saying there isn’t xenophobia in China.

One word: Laowai.

Everyday (remember, I live in Xinjiang, the Alabama of China) I get stared at, pointed at, the “HELLLOOO!” and my personal favorite, the constant neck craning as I pass in the supermarket to “see what the foreign creature eats”. This is not racism, though I am classified as laowai because of my appearance. Laowai does not indicate a race - it indicates that I am a foreigner, an alien, a strange creature who might as well have landed my flying saucer next to Carrefour to pick up some cheese. It doesn’t matter if I’m black, white, brown or green; sometimes I’ve even seen Asians branded laowai because they speak only English and dress and act very differently. There are two species of human to the average Chinese citizen: Chinese, and everybody else, the laowai.

I don’t see this anywhere else in the world. Occasionally you get some rural hick in the US, sure, being xenophobic and saying “look at them foreigners and their weird-ass clothes”. But the word laowai is a pretty much universal way to talk about foreigners. We are always “foreigners”. There is xenophobia in other countries, but I’ve never encountered a country where 99% of the people refer to me as “foreigner”. Instead they call me Dave. They think of me as an individual, and my foreignness gives them little or no useful information. Indeed, my nationality, American, doesn’t give them much useful information either, because they know too well that stereotypes often fail to be right.

The use of laowai has two other effects. One is that it blurs together our cultures and makes us indistinguishable. One student said to me “Your people colonized the third world, your people stole to become rich!” when discussing copyright protection. I guess he meant Europeans. Never mind my ancestors were Irish and knew a thing or two about getting colonized and being poor. But all white people got lumped together - the laowai way of thinking makes these distinctions unimportant. The other effect is it takes away our individuality. I’ve had conversations that go “what’s your name?” “Dave” and then they turn around and discuss me with their friends - always referring to me as laowai, not Dave.

Bing says people cursed at him about being Chinese in the UK. That’s racism, and I bet they use Chinese as a catch-all for Asians and if Bing was Thai they’d probably still say “Chinese whore”. As for Chinese fury towards Japan, I don’t know if that counts as racism because Japan is a nation, not a race. They’re Asian and so are alot of other people. But it is mindless hate. That’s not xenophobia either.

It’s xenophobia when someone is treated like a zoo animal as they walk to the store. It’s xenophobia when being a foreigner means I “can’t understand because I’m not Chinese”. It’s xenophobia when my girlfriend can’t tell certain people about me because they’ll be in shock that I’m a foreigner and she can’t date another species. Everything that draws a line saying “here are Chinese people, and here is the rest of the human race”. Sounds pretty lonely.

May 31, 2005 @ 6:21 am | Comment

Xenophobia from Webster: fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign.

Do Chinese fear or hate foreigners? At most they are curious and sometimes rude and not used to seeing them around. You must have different experiences in Xinjiang and Shanghai. Think about this from the locals’ point view. They might be rude, but that kind of rudeness doesn’t derive from Xenophobism.

May 31, 2005 @ 6:34 am | Comment

Bing

IMHO, what you see as being good natured and curious has a dark underbelly, which most every Laowai in China has experienced, and which is in some ways very much akin to what you’ve experienced in the UK, although not as overtly racist. There is a systematic discrimination of foreigners, particularly of non-asian ethnic backgrounds. sometimes this discrimination is “beneficial” but often times not. They are both based on a perception of the foreigner AS foreign, and this separation gives rise to discrimination.

I’m sorry that you’ve experience such crappy incidents in the UK.

May 31, 2005 @ 6:40 am | Comment

to constantly draw a line of separation between yourself and foreigners is to create an environment of mutual ignorance and alienation. An environment like that can easily foster distrust, hate and fear. You’re right Bing, it’s not quite the Websters definition - but my point is that China has developed a very advanced environment of mutual ignorance and alienation between Chinese people and the rest of the human race. The mindset and thinking for xenophobia is there, the only thing missing is the fear and hate. It just takes one bad incident, like this one at Yellowfrog. When a Canadian made plane crashes in China, some Chinese people made comments like:

“Why do we still use damn foreigners-made planes to fly in the sky?” (为什么还要用他妈的外国人制造的飞机上天呢?)

Concepts like laowai set a kind of thinking that, while without hate or fear, creates a meaningless distinction between Chinese and “foreigners”, a distinction needed to hate or fear in the first place. If a Canadian plane crashes in another country, rarely do you hear the reaction “it came from abroad, therefore it sucks”. There’s an inverse to all this, of course, which is that part of Chinese society says “it came from abroad, therefore it is superior” - hence all my students say “China must develop by learning the secrets of advanced foreign countries” - but the idea of China having a superior idea of their own? They shake their heads and mutter that “this is very difficult”. 1.3 billion people and yet they feel they don’t have the resources to have one original idea! Why? Because something in their head says “you are Chinese, you cannot do the same things white people can”. This is not the same as thinking “you’re short, he’s tall. He can dunk but you can’t”. Thinking is limited by physical characteristics, if you’re a healthy human being.

May 31, 2005 @ 7:01 am | Comment

Laowai,

Thanks for your comment. I don’t really mind what happened to me in UK. I could understand their feelings though not their behaviours.

It takes time for people to accept other races or foreigners to be part of their community and learn to coexist with them. The amount of time required for this process varies, sometimes hugely, in different countries.

I’m not against either Christian or Muslim. But when I see mosques shooting up around an area of traditional Christian population with their hundreds of years’ symbolic landscape changed forever, I can feel what the old missionary who visits me regularly feels. That is where the xenophobia comes from.

When Spanish arsonists burnt down ‘Made in China’ shoe centres, I can feel what the local manufacturers feel, who blame the Chinese shoes for their bankruptcy. That is also where the xenophobia comes from.

I’m really sorry for what foreigners encounter in China. Be it curiosity or dislike, it is wrong and makes you in sometimes great distress. But still I don’t think that is xenophobia, at least not in the form or for the same reasons you would encounter in other countries.

May 31, 2005 @ 7:25 am | Comment

sorry, last line of my last post should say “thinking is NOT limited by physical characteristics if you’re a healthy human being”

Bing, if you don’t think it is xenophobia, I’m curious: what would you call it?

May 31, 2005 @ 7:34 am | Comment

stupidity

May 31, 2005 @ 7:36 am | Comment

Bing,

that’s very forgiving of you.

I understand what you are saying about China, although I think we have yet to see the full extent of any xenophobia and racism in China. As China gets more powerful, there will be lots more immigration, to say nothing of the 54 other ethnicities demanding a better lot, etc. China has been fortunate, and at the same time very unfortunate, to have been secluded so much. We may, in the future, see that China is like every other previous conceptually (this part is important) ethnically homogeneous country: inflexible and conflicted. Britain, Japan, Germany, France, Turkey and the U.S. have all struggled immensely with it in the past and will continue to in the future.

May 31, 2005 @ 8:23 am | Comment

Laowai

You reckon the UK is a racist country? You’re joking aren’t you? Have you been over here lately?

Where on earth, with respect, do you get your figures suggesting that recial attacks outnumber anywhjere else per capita? I’d be genuiniely interested in reading them.
Thanks

May 31, 2005 @ 9:10 am | Comment

I live in the UK. I have for the past three years.

“All types of racial violence in the UK remains high and the Macpherson report has had an impact - either in forcing the police to take racial violence seriously, or on prompting victims to report more cases. In the years from 1994-8 reported racist incidents in the Metropolitan police area were around 5000 year-on-year. But in the year 1998/99 the number of reported incidents rose to 11050 (an increase of 89%) and in the year 1999/00 the figure has more than doubled again to 23346 (an increase of 111%). In 2000/01 all racist incidents recorded by the police in England and Wales was 53090.

According to the British Crime Survey there were 280000 racially motivated incidents in 1999. 98000 of these (ie 35%) were against Black, Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi people (who comprise 7%of the population). Those at greatest risk to racial attack are Pakistani and Bangladeshis at 4.2%, followed by Indians at 3.6% and Black people at 2.2%. This compared with 0.3% for white people.”

http://www.irr.org.uk/2002/november/ak000005.html

This survey is done by the UK government in Wales and England:

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/ssd/surveys/british_crime_survey.asp

“The 2003/4 British Crime survey however shows that the number of victims of racist attacks remained the same as in 2002/3 (206,000).”

Race and Crime Statistics, Home Office 2005.
http://www.blink.org.uk/bm/manifesto_section.asp?catid=22

I’ve never experienced any racially motivated attacks I have a .3% chance of being the victim of racial abuse, but some of my friends are more than 10 times as likely to be the recipient of such abuse - close to all my Chinese friends have, many of my black friends have and some of my south asian friends have too.

Come on - pubs named “Blackamoors Head”? It’s worse than naming your baseball team the Braves.

May 31, 2005 @ 9:33 am | Comment

TThanks Laowai, I know you’re in the UK as I read Public Enemy and you posted about yourself last week if I remember correctly.

I’ve never been aware that the UK is a hotbed of racial attacks. I’m not into “defending” my country at all–not my style, I was just surprised at your post. I wonder the comparitive figures are vis-a-vis other Europen countires?

Anyway, I’ll pick this up again back on your blog as we’re way, way off topic here.
Thanks

May 31, 2005 @ 9:46 am | Comment

A article in The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1461208,00.html) has some numbers on racist/xenophobic comments in Internet forums about Condoleecca Rice after her visit in China:

… “He says that of 800 messages he has read about her visit, no less than 70 involved racist comments about her colour: of these, only two were relatively moderate; the rest were vicious, describing Rice as a “black ghost”, “black dog”, “black woman” and “black bitch”. One stated, “You are not even like a black ghost, a really low form of life,” and another, “Her brain is even more black than her skin.” One writer said: “I don’t support racism, but this black ghost really makes people angry, the appearance of a little black who has made good.” …

May 31, 2005 @ 9:47 am | Comment

Martyn,

I try to keep my blog more or less China-related, because it’s my way of practising my Chinese and thinking about China during an China un-related PhD. But please email me if you’d like. I’m more than happy to talk about it. I think the UK is a great place with a lot of potential, but it’s in the middle of a lot of ethnic and national conflict.

May 31, 2005 @ 9:54 am | Comment

… “He says that of 800 messages he has read about her visit, no less than 70 involved racist comments about her colour: of these, only two were relatively moderate; the rest were vicious, describing Rice as a “black ghost”, “black dog”, “black woman” and “black bitch”. One stated, “You are not even like a black ghost, a really low form of life,” and another, “Her brain is even more black than her skin.” One writer said: “I don’t support racism, but this black ghost really makes people angry, the appearance of a little black who has made good.” …

While opposing the idea of Xenophobic China, I have to admit there is a matter of truth in Racist China.

This kind of thing might not happen in US (I really don’t know, just a guess) for its law and the reality that black ethnic group accounts for a considerable part of US society.

In China, few will get sued for being racist.

May 31, 2005 @ 10:14 am | Comment

davesgonechina:

Please comment more on this site dave.

May 31, 2005 @ 10:16 am | Comment

It might happen on Klan sites. But not mainstream chat rooms.

I would propose that racism and xenophobia, despite what davesgonechina has to say, is inextricably linked and that the webster definition is overly technical and outdated. Not to group here, but German, Japanese, China, UK, USA all fundamentally structures supporting Xenophobia - the definition of race and its link to nationality. Until these concepts are resolved, these cultures will continue to experience problems with race, culture, xenophobia etc.

May 31, 2005 @