Han Han: Why China cannot be a “grand culture”

Still busy, but wanted to get this on the record. When will this guy get a knock on the door in the middle of the night? You have to admire his chutzpah:

Do you know why China cannot become a grand cultural nation? It is because most of the time when we speak, we say “Dear leaders” first and those leaders are uncultured. Not only that, for they are also afraid of culture, they censor culture and they control culture. So how can such a nation become a grand cultural nation? Dear leaders, what do you say?

Actually, China has tremendous potential of becoming a grand cultural nation. Let me tell you a story. I am the chief editor of a magazine which has yet to publish. The Constitution states that every citizen has the freedom to publish, but the law also says that the leaders has the freedom not to let you publish. This magazine has run into some problems during the review process. There is a cartoon drawing. In it, there is a man without clothes — of course, this is unacceptable because the law says that we cannot exhibit the private parts in a publicly available magazine. I agree with that and I don’t have a problem with it. Therefore, I intentionally created an extra-large magazine logo that was placed over the illegal spot of the cartoon. But unexpectedly, the publisher and the censor told us that this was unacceptable too — when you cover up the middle part of a person, you are referring to the “Party Central” (note: “party” is a homonym for “block/shield” and “central” is “middle”). My reaction was like yours — I was awed and shocked. I thought to myself, “Buddy, it would be so wonderful if you could put your awe-inspiring imagination into literary creation instead of literary censorship!”

han_han_naked

______________

Richard Burger is the author of Behind the Red Door: Sex in China, an exploration of China's sexual revolution and its clash with traditional Chinese values.

The Discussion: 109 Comments

Because, his criticism is not against China but for a better China. There is an undertone of subtly, his chutzpah.

February 5, 2010 @ 8:44 am | Comment

If by “grand culture” he means a culture with universal appeal, I believe China can but the CCP’s concept of culture as a tool of state power undercuts this.

The CCP acts as if cultures and cultural values are simply a means of projecting influence around the globe – so-called “soft power”. From this point of view, it’s rational for states to do all they can to ensure their culture and values are promoted internationally, while preventing other states from promoting theirs. If for example foreigners take an interest in Chinese culture that is a “victory” for China, while if American ideas such as individual freedom appeal to non-Americans that is a “victory” for America and potentially a defeat for China. This view explains why on the one hand the CCP invests in Confucius Institutes, the Olympics, international art exhibitions etc and on the other censors the Internet and exerts tight control over its own media.

But if culture is a tool of state power then it follows that Chinese culture doesn’t really have anything to offer anybody who isn’t Chinese and may well be harmful. Culture becomes a kind of poison pill which you want to convince other nations to consume while avoiding their own “poison pills”.

I don’t think anybody who thinks like that can create anything “grand” or with universal appeal.

Personally I think if the CCP wants a “grand” Chinese culture the best thing they can do is leave it alone. The same for any country which wants to use culture as a tool. If you want “soft power”, the best way to get it is not to try to get it.

February 5, 2010 @ 9:22 am | Comment

This is only part of a longer piece. The full version is on ESNW, I believe.

Interestingly, it was a talk given to university students. I wonder how they responded?

Well, I admire the bloke’s wit and courage.

February 5, 2010 @ 11:30 am | Comment

Thank you for posting this. What is most interesting to me in this extraordinary speech is that the call for the removal of artistic censorship is not based on some notion as inalienable rights; rather, the plea is very pragmatic. China will never become a great cultural nation under such restrictions.

“they censor culture and they control culture. So how can such a nation become a grand cultural nation? Dear leaders, what do you say?”

“In this creative environment, all writers/workers are constantly censoring themselves. How can any respectable work be produced in this environment?”

My experience is that in talking about notions of artistic freedom Westerners have a tendency to speak in term of abstractions such as “human rights.” The problem with this type of discourse is two-fold. First such talk is metaphysically suspect. Where do human rights come from? The answer at least in America is that we are endowed with them by our Creator (Jefferson). This solution suffers from the philosophical problem of obscurum per obscurius, that is, trying to explain one mysterious concept in terms of an even more mysterious one. More importantly, such vague, abstract notions are (thankfully) for the most absent from Chinese thought.

By contrast, Han Han’s robust justification for artistic freedom has a clarity and incontrovertibility that is absent from the traditional Western defense. History has aptly demonstrated that great works of art spring from cultures where artistic license is likewise widespread (e.g., Athens, Florence).

February 5, 2010 @ 3:34 pm | Comment

@peter

I would agree. Chinese culture has great riches, but is being ignored/dumbed down by the party who are only interested in the parts they can pervert in an attempt to say that the Chinese people have always enjoyed living in an authoritarian society. I think China/Chinese culture would get far, far more respect if the CCP was not in power.

February 5, 2010 @ 4:35 pm | Comment

“Interestingly, it was a talk given to university students. I wonder how they responded?”
This reminds me of a BBC Have Your Say program set in, as I recall, a Shanghai university. Might have been Peking…can’t recall the details.
Most memorable answer I recall was a government official stating, on record, that China does NOT have a 1 child policy. Seemed to me that things got quiet in the auditorium. The questioner asked the audience how many were single children….pretty much all raised their hands.
I’d try and find it…but it does mean trawling through the last couple of years in the BBC archives. This’ll be when China lying to the world about how it was deserving the Olympic games…

February 5, 2010 @ 5:16 pm | Comment

I remember someone telling me last year that Han han couldn’t be considered China’s “Mark Twain” i.e. a “contrarian” literary voice to the government will…does this post mean that I might have been a at least a little bit right in my estimation of the man?

February 5, 2010 @ 6:02 pm | Comment

Yeah, well, I’m sure that in the official’s mind it wasn’t a lie because it’s actually a “planned birth” policy that allows greater leeway in some places and therefore it can’t be called a “one-child policy” in the strictest sense. Always with the weasel-words, jumping on minor mischaracterizations and errors and ignoring the main point…

February 5, 2010 @ 6:06 pm | Comment

I agree that Han Han is contradictory. You think some naked guy holding a gun would be referred as ‘grand culture?’

February 6, 2010 @ 12:52 am | Comment

Typical pugster comment, missing the entire point. No one is claiming the picture is an example of grand culture. Rather, the issue is whether China’s can be a “grand culture” when it censors anything that doesn’t meet the state’s idea of what culture/art should be.

February 6, 2010 @ 12:56 am | Comment

@pug

Well, I don’t know about you, but quite a bit of people think this is art.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_(Michelangelo)

By the way, did you note the weapon he is holding on his left hand? And it is not covering his…. parts.

February 6, 2010 @ 2:14 am | Comment

Ooops wrong link pasted.

http://tinyurl.com/2x8xvc

(a case of inadvertent self censorship by me…)

February 6, 2010 @ 2:16 am | Comment

He loves himself, doesn’t he?

February 6, 2010 @ 5:45 am | Comment

Pug_ster’s handle really should be putz_ster. That guy never misses an opportunity to post a stupid comment.

It may seem counter intuitive to idiot losers like putz_ster, but Han Han (and the fact that he’s not rotting in some 牛棚 somewhere) actually makes me like China a bit more than I otherwise would. His writing may be overrated, but his opinions put a nice dent in the idea that all Chinese are flag waving lunatics who can’t think for themselves. How much better would China be if there were fewer numbskulls like putz_ster and more people like Han Han? Han Han is a sure sign of progress.

I completely agree with Han Han here. If judged by its ability to export its values, contemporary China is certainly not a great culture. Generally speaking, what is Chinese is backward, and what is modern is foreign. In fact, the phase “modern China” is an oxymoron. A few more like Han Han, and that could change.

February 6, 2010 @ 6:38 am | Comment

There’s a difference between a work of art like Michelangelo and the tasteless picture of a faggitity looking, fat, naked, gun toting guy (whom looks like Gan Lu BTW.) If any magazine is crazy enough to post a picture like that it its cover certainly won’t be in business not because of censorship, but because of its tasteless nature.

February 6, 2010 @ 9:21 am | Comment

@pugster – You know, it’s great that I am now apparently banned from Fool’s Mountain for the supposedly awesome destructive power of my sarcasm, but that you can still come here and talk homophobic nonsense. Freedom of speech is great, isn’t it?

February 6, 2010 @ 11:27 am | Comment

If judged by its ability to export its values, contemporary China is certainly not a great culture.

For any country’s values to be “exported”, those values have to be attractive. Coercion, authoritarianism and conformity are not attractive because they are contrary to human nature.

February 6, 2010 @ 11:43 am | Comment

“If judged by its ability to export its values, contemporary China is certainly not a great culture.”

I think that the people of North Korea, Burma, and Zimbabwe would beg to differ! (sarcasm)

February 6, 2010 @ 1:34 pm | Comment

. . . but on the subject of Han Han, there’s an awful lot of pressure on this man’s shoulders, a man who is essentially under no obligation to put himself at any risk, but who occasionally kicks back against the government. ULN’s piece on the guy, which can be found here:

http://chinayouren.com/en/2009/11/19/2515

The idea of someone who lives in a country in which people occasionally pay for their criticism of the government with their lives being criticised by distant journalists as somehow being ‘not rebellious enough’ is grotesque. This is not to say that he necessarily would be more rebellious if allowed, but not everybody wants to follow people like Ai Weiwei or Feng Zhenghu or is obliged to do so. just so long as they do not work against such people what criticism can be made?

February 6, 2010 @ 2:37 pm | Comment

Foarp? You banned out of fool’s mountain?

I left that mountain long ago. Wise fools are too much for me.

February 6, 2010 @ 3:00 pm | Comment

FOARP, in what way are you banned from Fools’ Mountain?

February 7, 2010 @ 12:36 am | Comment

To Peter #5:
well said.

To Pugster:
art is in the eye of the beholder, for starters. THe problem with the CCP (well, one problem anyway) is that they insist on being the purveyors of what is fit for PRC citizens to behold.

To FOARP:
fancy seeing you here. Didn’t realize you had actually been decreed to the same fate as me. I thought you just had a couple of comments nixed.

February 7, 2010 @ 1:19 am | Comment

SKC, you haven’t been banned. If FOARP’s unhappy because his comment was collapsed he should e-mail the admin about it.

February 7, 2010 @ 7:38 am | Comment

FOARP,

I’m surprised that you didn’t get banned from FM sooner. You like to talk about other people rather than the topic itself. I think you try to bite more than you can chew when you are trying offend someone who has the will to ‘censor’ your comments. Talking about homophobic, doesn’t FOARP sound like a homophobic name?

February 7, 2010 @ 10:15 am | Comment

To Pugster,
really? Is that the best you can do? Is having “the will to censor” really a good thing? At best, shouldn’t such will only be exercised with adequate justification? We may be talking about China, but we’re not in China (well, at least I’m not, and neither are you, as far as I know). Considering that FOARP is the abbreviation of that gentleman’s blog, isn’t your characterization a bit beyond the pale? I’m new here, and have not yet familiarized myself with the blog rules; but on the other site, that ought to be grounds for collapse (of course, it probably wouldn’t happen, since you’re on the side of the acceptable POV).

February 7, 2010 @ 12:18 pm | Comment

To Richard,
just wondering if you’re aware of or currently use any online translator that you like. I was trying to read Han Han’s blog but my simplified is just not up to snuff. Thanks.

February 7, 2010 @ 12:37 pm | Comment

Han Han gets a write-up in today’s Shanghai Daily.

http://www.shanghaidaily.com/article/?id=428130&type=Feature

Good on him! Stickin’ it to the Man is fun.

February 7, 2010 @ 3:42 pm | Comment

S.K. Cheung, you can try this: http://www.khngai.com/chinese/tools/convert.php

February 7, 2010 @ 4:07 pm | Comment

Hi Mac,
thanks for that. At least it gets the Chinese into a form that I can read.

February 7, 2010 @ 4:57 pm | Comment

after reading Shanghai daily article, what I can say is Han Han is truly a brave man, a hero who is not afraid of millions of condescending eyes looking down on him. If China has millions or even thousands braves like him, they will make China into a country to be watched out and admired by others. My two cents.

February 7, 2010 @ 8:54 pm | Comment

a big thumbs up for his bravery

February 7, 2010 @ 8:55 pm | Comment

Han Han reminds me of the main character in the novel in the Catcher in the Rye. His ‘Rebel without a cause’ attitude is just that. Most young people grow out of that eventually but somehow Han Han just didn’t grow up. The book ‘Catcher in the Rye’ was censored in many schools in Western countries the very same reasons why Han Han’s radical ideas was censored in Chinese media.

February 7, 2010 @ 10:45 pm | Comment

@pug
Without a cause you said…?

I am curious. Who are you really? Who do you work for?

February 7, 2010 @ 10:59 pm | Comment

To ecodelta,
actually, i think that “without a cause” label was used by TIME in an article about Han Han in November, so it might have been borrowed (though without acknowledgment). I don’t know if the Catcher reference was borrowed, or if it’s original work.

Various articles on Han Han actually suggest that he’s not targeted by censors all that often. They suggest that his “cause”, if he has one, is to point out the brain-numbing stupidity/inefficiency/corruption at the local government level, while leaving the head cheeses in Beijing relatively unscathed.

I certainly hope that the process of “growing up” in China does not eliminate one’s capacity, willingness, and appetite for pointing out the flaws of the Chinese system of governance, at whatever level that drives one’s fancy.

February 8, 2010 @ 12:28 am | Comment

In the first page in the ShanghaiDaily article, Han Han flipped a bird at the judges after receiving a penalty shows what an arrogant, immature, and unprofessional he is. Heck I remembered Serena Williams’s rant toward one of the line judges and later she was fined and even apologized for her behavior. I’m sure if one of the players today in the superbowl flipped a bird at one of the judges, this player will be promptly thrown out of the game, fined, and many of the commentators will say that this player is a classless person.

People set up rules for a reason, no matter how stupid it is and unless there is a very good reason to change it, know nothing people like Han Han are always considered a minority.

February 8, 2010 @ 1:00 am | Comment

putz_ster -

1. “faggitity” (see 16)

Are you kidding me? Your ancestors all the way back to Yu the Great (大禹) are embarrassed for you. As Bugs Bunny would say, “What a maroon!”

2. “Most young people grow out of that eventually but somehow Han Han just didn’t grow up.”

Anyone who uses the word “faggitity” should avoid accusing others of having not grown up.

3. “The book ‘Catcher in the Rye’ was censored in many schools in Western countries the very same reasons why Han Han’s radical ideas was censored in Chinese media.” [sic,sic,sic,sic, and sic]

Not so fast, putz_ster. “Catcher in the Rye,” along with a number of other books (e.g., “Huckleberry Finn” and “Slaughterhouse Five”), was censored in some schools because it was considered inappropriate reading material for young readers. Even so, the novel was still available for sale to adults in bookstores throughout the U.S., thus undermining your lame attempt to establish an equivalence between infrequent acts of censorship in the U.S. (exceptions to the rule) and a censorship regime in the People’s Republic of China that amounts to a wholesale, generational dumbing down of the Chinese people. The list of books and films that have been banned in China is long indeed. Moreover, those works haven’t simply been banned in schools, they’ve been banned everywhere. The situation in China is so bad, in fact, that many works of scholarship and art are not only banned, they are never even produced (i.e., self-censorship). Again, I agree with Han Han. No nation that commits itself to wasting human capital the way China has could ever be considered a “great culture.” That you refer to his ideas as “radical” pegs you for an utter retard. Han Han is not the “poisonous weed” (毒草), putz_ster, YOU are.

February 8, 2010 @ 1:24 am | Comment

Agreed, flipping the bird was not classy. Certainly can’t recall Schumacher doing something like that.

As for whether that one incident proves that the guy “knows nothing” is probably a bit more debatable. What does seem clear is that this guy’s views draw attention and commentary in China, based on the hits and comments that individual threads on his blog attract. If nothing else, he’s established himself as more than an overnight sensation/flash in the pan. To get the POV of a Chinese person in China who strikes a chord with other Chinese people in China is certainly interesting to me…certainly beats CHinese-Americans telling us what Chinese in CHina should/would/do want.

February 8, 2010 @ 1:51 am | Comment

This has nothing to do with the articles above.

One can know a hero when one see one, this is my definition of a true hero, common people risking their life for righteousness everyday…

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/8500577.stm

February 8, 2010 @ 7:15 am | Comment

@SKC – ” . . . certainly beats Chinese-Americans telling us what Chinese in China should/would/do want”

Agreed, although if anyone seeks this kind of commentary, I can tell where you can find an entire mountain’s-worth of it.

@Raj – Seeing as how they actually sent you an email saying that you were their token anti-CCP representative, why do you continue to put up with the way things have been going on over on that site?

@Putzster – Exactly how many times do you have to get owned before you give up?

February 8, 2010 @ 7:27 am | Comment

SK, I try to delete as little as possible. Putz is here for comic relief. If anyone is truly offended by him let me know. I see his snipes as nearly always backfiring and hitting him right in the middle of his forehead.

February 8, 2010 @ 8:37 am | Comment

To Richard:
Thanks. I’m just getting the lay of the land. Where I used to hang, i was accustomed to most people just instinctively agreeing with him. I guess things are different here….

February 8, 2010 @ 9:01 am | Comment

equivalence between infrequent acts of censorship in the U.S. (exceptions to the rule) and a censorship regime in the People’s Republic of China that amounts to a wholesale, generational dumbing down of the Chinese people.

The better comparison is the huge market share big media corporations take in America. You have party interests (which are easily dismissed and forgotten) vs. corporate interests, which are designed specifically to destroy the nation for profit.

MTV, WMD in Iraq, celebrity obsessed culture, are all signs of this. They have directly led to the consistent “dumbing down” and possibly the downfall of “liberal democracies” everywhere.

February 8, 2010 @ 9:52 am | Comment

SK, since you’re new here, I’d like to introduce you to Merp, aka Ferin, aka Yourfriend. Every comment is the same and can be summarized as follows: “The US is worse.”

February 8, 2010 @ 12:15 pm | Comment

Hi Merp,
as you’ve suggested, “MTV” and a “celebrity-obsessed culture” are in fact cultural phenomena. I don’t see a connection between such phenomena and censorship. Furthermore, although a connection may have been drawn between the presence of such phenomena and some form of “moral decay” as suggested by such good folks as bin Laden himself, I’m not clear on how these things relate to “liberal democracies”, much less to their downfall. It should also be noted that “celebrity-obsession” is not exactly a foreign concept in China either.

I don’t think there’s such a thing as “absolute” free speech, nor would I champion for it. However, it would seem to me that there’s substantially more freedom of speech in some places as compared to China. Furthermore, whereas in some places the extent of such freedoms is determined by the people, in China, not so much.

February 8, 2010 @ 12:21 pm | Comment

Hi Richard,
thanks for the introduction. I’m not familiar with him/her, but certainly well-acquainted with that particular style of argument.

February 8, 2010 @ 12:24 pm | Comment

Han Han reminds me of the main character in the novel in the Catcher in the Rye.

Why? Because they both have dicks?

Holden Caulfield is a snot-nosed teenager bitching and moaning at the world, and that’s all he does.

Han Han is an adult (a very successful adult) who speaks up when he sees things about world he doesn’t agree with and when people tell him to shut-up he raises the middle finger and says “Fuck You!” This is an attitude I appreciate.

February 8, 2010 @ 1:22 pm | Comment

Hi FOARP, Raj, Ecodelta, SK, and Richard. I pretty much have given up on Fools Mountain after the latest spates of Allen’s purges out there.

Richard and Gan Lu, I thought that I was the only one who referred to Pug as Putzster. Congratulations, Gan Lu and Richard! I did my references off-line; you are doing yours on-line.

Han Han makes some interesting points. Value and art are in the eye of the beholder. Leaders who tell you that you can’t publish are demagogues, dictators and authoritarians. Such leaders stifle culture, art and freedom of speech. Great points.

Pug #10

Art is in the eye of the beholder. And you are free to behold as you so wish.

Pug #16

“There’s a difference between a work of art like Michelangelo and the tasteless picture of a faggitity looking, fat, naked, gun toting guy (whom looks like Gan Lu BTW.)”

Come on, Pug. That is a putzy remark. So if it is ok for you to censor what you happen to dislike, I guess it is therefore ok for others to censor you. The street goes both ways, Pug.

Raj #24

FM has turned into a morass. SK is effectively banned. Supposedly, LC is trying to resolve the problems. Nonetheless, I have no faith in him or FM anymore.

Pug #25

Here we go again, more of your racist and homophobic diatribes. Do you have any other tracks of thought, or are you just in a rut?

Pug #33

Sorry, Pug, I read “Catcher in the Rye” for an English class when I was in high school.

Yes, there are people in the US who want to ban books they dislike for whatever moral or religious reason. They burned books in Nazi Germany. And China censors speech and art. They are all wrong.

Pug #36

“People set up rules for a reason, no matter how stupid it is and unless there is a very good reason to change it, know nothing people like Han Han are always considered a minority.”

Pug, would you please explain that non-sequitur? You start off talking about setting up rules and end up insulting Han Han! Huh? Again, typical Pugster!

February 8, 2010 @ 2:08 pm | Comment

Richard #44

As SK indicates, there is a plethora of “The US is worse” thinking at FM. And people who wish to debate with you or insult you based on what they wished you had written rather than what you actually wrote.

February 8, 2010 @ 3:09 pm | Comment

Methinks Merp has forgotten what a free press can do to those in power… not something many in China, I’ll wager, are familiar with.
Certainly the politicians in the UK are now more closely scrutinised because of what some papers have written. And if we think of the US – what brought down Nixon? And from where did the rest of the world learn of Abu Ghraib? And Hu Jintau’s son’s shady dealings in Namibia were exposed by…well, let’s say it wasn’t Chinese :-)
Answers on a postcard please :-)

February 8, 2010 @ 4:05 pm | Comment

“Holden Caulfield is a snot-nosed teenager bitching and moaning at the world, and that’s all he does.”

Er …. no.

He is Salinger in the guise of a snotty-nosed teenager. His sensibility is that an uncorrupted adult, seeing the world very much as it is, with all its phoniness and hypocrisies. Go back to Eng. Lit. 101, Twisted_Colour.

A comparison between Han Han and Holfen Caulfield is completely valid.

February 8, 2010 @ 7:33 pm | Comment

Methinks Merp has forgotten what a free press can do to those in power

Next to nothing as history proves.

as you’ve suggested, “MTV” and a “celebrity-obsessed culture” are in fact cultural phenomena. I don’t see a connection between such phenomena and censorship.

I was addressing the notion that China was being dumbed down by government propaganda. I’m willing to be good money that in 20 years, the youth of China will be much less dumbed down as Fox News is barred from entry into the Chinese marketplace.

February 9, 2010 @ 9:53 am | Comment

Certainly the politicians in the UK are now more closely scrutinised because of what some papers have written.

Not really. They just get a slap on the wrist, the country cares for a split second, and then it’s back to business as usual.

February 9, 2010 @ 9:55 am | Comment

Merp: “In 20 years, the youth of China will be much less dumbed down as Fox News is barred from entry into the Chinese marketplace.”

Sadly, Fox News would be a decided improvement over both CCTV and Phoenix.

Merp:(in response to “Methinks Merp has forgotten what a free press can do to those in power.”) “Next to nothing as history proves.”

This is just about the dumbest thing ever said anywhere. I’m aghast.

First putz_ster, now Merp. Co-captains of the pro-China professional circle jerk team.

February 9, 2010 @ 11:00 am | Comment

To Merp #52:
as has been pointed out to me by astute observers such as ULN, those Chinese who seek an unfettered view of the outside world can do so with some additional effort. The difficulty is that not everyone chooses to make that additional investment. Now, i absolutely agree that whether they choose to or not is their decision to make. However, for those who happily subject themselves to the auspices of the GFW, if you suggest that they are not actually dumbed-down, I would instead ask whether less constraint by the GFW and more unfettered access to the information they seek might help them to further wise-up from their current level.

You seem to not think highly of Fox News. Me neither. However, no one forces me (or you) to watch them. Besides, anyone who so willingly provides fodder to Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert won’t be all bad in my book. I have no problem with Fox News being on the landscape of choices that people can make. On the other hand, i would have a problem if Fox News was the only sanctioned thing out there.

February 9, 2010 @ 1:00 pm | Comment

Merpsy, Merpsy, Merpsy…
Your personal opinions, as the Great Helmsman would have told you, are but dog farts in the wind. References please to back up your arguments. I have provided for mine and for those that have no references, I can provide reams on request :-)

Faux News – who watches that for news? Helloooooo…..

February 9, 2010 @ 3:27 pm | Comment

Merpster
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/7191123/MPs–expenses-parachute-payments-suspended-as-three-face-criminal-charges.html
Just pre-empting you ;-) But hey, it’s not the BBC…’cos we all know the BBC is the ONLY news source in the UK…or is that the West? I dunno – you’ll tell me :-D

February 9, 2010 @ 3:31 pm | Comment

By looking at the comments here, most people here are more interested in talking about me and Merp than Han Han. This place seems to be THE China basher’s rant site because they couldn’t win a fair and square debate with the so called ‘brain washed’ people at FM.

Talking about Han Han, his latest rant is about how the 50 cent party members earning 10 cents for every time he/she post something. Personally, I think Math could’ve posted this. The only thing I can say about this is that Han Han is original.

http://www.chinasmack.com/bloggers/han-han-fifty-cent-party-must-work-overtime/

February 10, 2010 @ 2:34 am | Comment

Putz, they only talk about you and Merp because the two of you say really dumb things, to wit:

There’s a difference between a work of art like Michelangelo and the tasteless picture of a faggitity looking, fat, naked, gun toting guy (whom looks like Gan Lu BTW.)

Surely you can defend your government without resorting to language like this. Or can you?

February 10, 2010 @ 2:39 am | Comment

Richard,

Oh yeah, and Gan Lu was apparently making kind comments about me before I said that. Riiiggghhtt.

February 10, 2010 @ 3:32 am | Comment

Sadly, Fox News would be a decided improvement over both CCTV and Phoenix.

Have you ever *watched* Fox News? CCTV is better, so is Al-Jazeera.

This is just about the dumbest thing ever said anywhere. I’m aghast.

When is Bush going to be sent to trial for crimes against humanity? I’m still waiting. It’s never going to happen.

I have provided for mine and for those that have no references

You haven’t and you never have. That aside those are perhaps the ugliest three people I have ever seen in my life.

the two of you say really dumb things, to wit:

I don’t. You do. I don’t weasel around and try to kiss ass though, that might be the problem.

As for Han Han, I’m sure American fans of the toothless counter-culture would really love him. That book cover is not art. There are real casualties of censorship but that is not one of them.

February 10, 2010 @ 4:48 am | Comment

putz_ster: “Gan Lu was apparently making kind comments about me before I said that.”

Don’t get your panties in a twist, girlfriend. I may not have played nice, but I told the truth. You’re a retard.

February 10, 2010 @ 7:19 am | Comment

To Pugster #58:
I haven’t been around here long enough to make any blog-to-blog comparos. However, I didn’t realize there had been a debating contest between the two. As for “fair and square”, that would hardly describe the debating style of some folks over there, and would certainly be an overly-generous description of at least one editor.

And man, if I could get a nickel for every time someone says “bash” and “brainwash”…

To Richard,
the ironic thing is that he’s not defending his government. He typically (based on what I’ve observed elsewhere) besmirches his own government, while speaking glowingly of another. What I have always failed to understand is why he (and others like him) choose to live here rather than in the place they supposedly find so much more appealing. That would be putting his money where his mouth is. For instance, I find Canada’s system far more appealing than China’s, which is why i live here, and not there.

February 10, 2010 @ 7:33 am | Comment

putz_ster: “This place seems to be THE China basher’s rant site because they couldn’t win a fair and square debate with the so called ‘brain washed’ people at FM.”

Fool’s Mountain was an interesting blog for several months back in 2008. Sadly, however, it rarely merits a visit these days. Rule of thumb: Any blog that accepts submissions from putz_ster is in obvious decline.

February 10, 2010 @ 7:44 am | Comment

“You haven’t and you never have. That aside those are perhaps the ugliest three people I have ever seen in my life.”
If I have never provided references for my assertions….where did you see the “three ugliest people” in your life?
Lying and insults are not arguments, especially when they are not backed up by any evidence – even your ugly assertion is annecdotal and a personal opinion. As you have shown, your personal opinion isn’t worth much – and this is not my own opinion but appears to be backed up by the opinions of everyone not using the handle “Merp”.

February 10, 2010 @ 8:07 am | Comment

Welcome to Merp-land, Mike.

Gan Lu, don’t let putz get to you. He is a pure, 100-percent troll who, like Merp, is here to derail threads and create chaos.

February 10, 2010 @ 8:29 am | Comment

Sorry Richard, fell for the bait. I’ll keep trying to rise above it….

February 10, 2010 @ 8:35 am | Comment

Pug #58

By looking at the comments here, most people here are more interested in talking about me and Merp than Han Han.

Actually I am responding to your comments like “faggitity (sic) looking, fat, naked, gun toting guy (whom looks like Gan Lu BTW.)” in #16. Let’s look at your comment in #25, “Talking about homophobic, doesn’t FOARP sound like a homophobic name?” Now aren’t these comments the height of maturity and rational discussion?

Then there is your incoherent non-sequitur in #36, “People set up rules for a reason, no matter how stupid it is and unless there is a very good reason to change it, know nothing people like Han Han are always considered a minority.” Huh?

Granted, I am picking on you and yes, ridiculing you for what you write. But what does this have to do with China-bashing and Merp?

This place seems to be THE China basher’s rant site because they couldn’t win a fair and square debate with the so called ‘brain washed’ people at FM.

Nice rant, Pug. Your word-weapons unfortunately just don’t hit their intended target. Pug, based on your illogic, teleology, diatribes, name-calling and biased assimilation which you present in your arguments at FM, there is no “fair and square debate” with you. And that goes for raventhorpe/rv, Jason, Charles Liu, chinktalk, hainan89, facts, wahaha, jpan, tanjin, flags and others. At least you have company over at FM. Save for a few at FM, there is rarely an opportunity for actual debate and deep discussions.

Brain washed? Huh? Where does that remark come from?

Thanks for pointing out Han Han’s post which appears at ChinaSmack. That is a pretty interesting POV which Han Han presents about 50¢-ers and their party. Certainly is thought-provoking. BTW, I for one am appreciative for the work which Fauna and others do out at ChinaSmack.

I wonder how many of these 50¢-ers have showed up at FM?

February 10, 2010 @ 10:36 pm | Comment

For instance, I find Canada’s system far more appealing than China’s, which is why i live here, and not there.

Actually it’s because you want to enjoy the standard of living provided by Canada’s mass genocide and hundred years of rape and murder.

If Adolf Hitler had created some kind of economic powerhouse after exterminating all the Poles and Jews I’m sure you’d move there as soon as they loosened their Aryan purity laws.

where did you see the “three ugliest people” in your life?

In that article you linked :)

Pug, based on your illogic, teleology, diatribes, name-calling and biased assimilation

Now that we’re done paraphrasing the Internet Guide to Online arguments, what he says is not off the mark. The discussion is framed in a way that it naturally takes an anti-Chinese turn. This is why everyone who isn’t at least a mild China hater avoids this place like the plague, whereas I stay just for the entertainment value.

February 10, 2010 @ 11:25 pm | Comment

Merp at his best.

I don’t think anyone here is a China hater. You know I’m not, so your histrionics are absurd. And you know it.

February 11, 2010 @ 12:07 am | Comment

So then how do you explain the fact that you CONSTANTLY allow outlandish, unsupported claims (70 million deaths during Mao’s reign) to pass unchecked, while the truth about the Iraq War (1.2 million dead in 5 years) gets me banned automatically?

If it’s a thread about China, and someone else makes it a thread about China compared to the rest of the world (READ: Europe and America), and I counter outright lies and misinformation I get banned. Sounds like an agenda to me.

February 11, 2010 @ 12:59 am | Comment

Merp, let’s go through the BS in your comment point by point.

1. You aren’t banned and you know it, much as you’d love to wallow in the martyrdom you’d enjoy if you were.

2. Like you, I have ranted on this blog against the Iraq War and all the needless deaths for years. But I do not use it to say that because those people died it somehow mitigates those who died under Mao. You are free to comment on the deaths in Iraq. But not if you simply keep spamming threads with the same reflex response about Iraq and the American Indians. Under that “logic,” China can commit practically any atrocity and not be blamed because America did bad things, too.

3. I have questioned the “70 million” claim several times on this blog and I rejected it. But it is not incorrect to say that those deaths have been attributed to Mao. They are attributed to Mao on a daily basis, by the left and the right, probably erroneously though there’s no way of knowing for sure. I believe the number is more likely 40-50 million, but once you get into numbers that stratospheric one thing is certain: Mao is way up there in terms of lives lost under his magnanimous leadership.

4. There are no “outright lies” that I can see and request that you highlight what you’re referring to. What I do see is you being hysterical, defensive, apoplectic, consumed in a combustible combination of jealousy and a deep sense of inferiority that causes you to seek validation through mockery and hostility which, ironically, only deepens your neurosis and keeps you trapped in a vicious circle of hate and venom. Other than that, I love your comments.

February 11, 2010 @ 3:30 am | Comment

In fact, if you have not noticed, my whole point about the Native Americans, aside from throwing it in the face of the Western-liberal-democracy-is-flawless!!-Hallelujah-the-world-is-saved camp, is that China has little to gain from aspiring to “be like America”.

China cannot afford America’s lifestyle because the world would turn black with poison. They also need to avoid America’s historical mistakes, the big one being genocide and whitewashing. It’s the right thing to do, and in 50 years we can continue to rub it in their face. The fact that China has myriads of thousand year old minority cultures while America destroyed all of hers will certainly get armchair activist panties in a twist.

That fits in nicely with overall view that China can’t afford America’s demented political circus either.

It has nothing to do with “America does it so China should do it to”. It has more to do with “America does it so China should avoid it”.

February 11, 2010 @ 4:09 am | Comment

How many lives has been ruined because of Mao and/or the system he helped to set up?

40-50 million deaths because of Mao?

That is bad enough, but much there is a crime worst than that. There is a worst crime than outright murder or letting other die because of your actions, and that crime is ruining the life of people.
Making it miserable, hopeless, meaningless, useless, etc. Crushing they hopes, dreams, potential, love and family. When your are murdered you are dead, that is the end. But living a live without hope, seeing as your youth your very life passes away in from of you without being able to do anything to change it, or actively prevented to do it… That is real hell on earth. Better dead than that.

How many millions of victims would then be?

….And the consequences of his actions are still being felt today.

February 11, 2010 @ 4:40 am | Comment

I’ll bet if you ask most Chinese Mainlanders of a certain age about the Cultural Revolution, you’ll not get misty eyed nostalgic smiles. That is pretty much Mao’s legacy as it was pretty much his last act. It was lucky he died and allowed the CCP to change tack…
As for claims of 70 million (this, I take it is from Mao, the untold story – an angry diatribe, I have to say. Each page dripped with venom…but it was a compulsive read :-) ) vs 40-50 million, vs lesser numbers….heck, as soon as you hit a few hundred thousand that’s pretty much a holocaust. And for that to be attributed to someone’s policies, policies which plainly were doomed to catastrophic failure but which were carried out because of…fear, that must reflect on the person. Mao, Stalin, Blair, Bush – they all have to face the music. Unfortunately, most only face it after death – even the Chilcott Inquiry Blair attended is described as a whitewash – but Blair’s reputation, in the UK public’s eyes at least, is in tatters.
As for China hating – count me out. I love China. Saving up for the faily holiday later this year. Politicians, on the other hand…ooooh, don’t get me started!

February 11, 2010 @ 4:56 am | Comment

How many lives has been ruined because of Mao and/or the system he helped to set up?

No one knows. What is guaranteed to have happened though, was an increase in life expectancy over the time period.

40-50 million deaths because of Mao?

Unsourced claim.

How many millions of victims would then be?

A little dramatic? You’re forgetting that both sides of the Cold War committed atrocities affecting hundreds of millions.

40-50 million, vs lesser numbers….heck, as soon as you hit a few hundred thousand that’s pretty much a holocaust.

Bad way of putting it. Do you know how many people die a year? Tens of millions. There isn’t a Holocaust being committed every other month. Disease, natural disasters, can only partially be blamed on governments. If you want to put it that way the Indian government is currently orchestrating a two Holocausts every year with malnutrition and disease.

The matter of CCP misrule is really none of your business. It happened and there’s nothing anyone can do about it except fixed what has gone wrong- and you and other Westerners are incapable of contributing to that.

but Blair’s reputation, in the UK public’s eyes at least, is in tatters.

There will be another Blair.

February 11, 2010 @ 5:08 am | Comment

Merp, there is a difference between dying of natural causes and dying a death that was wholly unnecessary. And the 30-40 million figures come from Chinese statistics according to more than one book I’ve read (and not by “anti-China” writers). But this is classic trolling – look at how you’ve steered the thread off its topic and into an argument about the number of people who died unnecessarily under Mao. I advise others not to take the bait. This is a perfect example of how Merp and putz operate. Seize on a detail, even if it’s largely irrelevant to the topic at hand, and derail the entire conversation. Nice work.

Your other comment with the nasty words about your fellow commenters here isn’t getting published, old sport.

February 11, 2010 @ 5:25 am | Comment

Merp, change your tone or go away. I’m not letting those comments in.

February 11, 2010 @ 5:33 am | Comment

“The matter of CCP misrule is really none of your business. It happened and there’s nothing anyone can do about it except fixed what has gone wrong- and you and other Westerners are incapable of contributing to that.”
:-D Aaaah, the surest sign of a lost argument.

Anyway, now he’s lost face a-plenty, back on topic. What is Chinese culture, exactly? WHat era is the culture we see from? I’m asking as the culture I see from the CCP dynasty isn’t…well, Chinese. Or culture, come to that (bit like what this Han Han is talking about, I guess – though I’ll bet there’s someting in his writings that the westerner in me is apparently genetically incapable of seeing ;-) ).

February 11, 2010 @ 5:51 am | Comment

What is Chinese culture, exactly

Either culture descended from the Central Plains neolithic or, if you want, the cultures of the various people living in the ROC/PRC

February 11, 2010 @ 6:00 am | Comment

Merp – yes…but elevate that. Western culture – what’s that to you? $20 says you’ll give me some stereotypical US culture that is very incompatible with European culture…and European culture is…? Edith Piaf while sipping coffee at a pavement cafe?
What is Chinese culture as seen in the west? Has the CCP contributed to that in any meaningful way (other than “Made in China”)?
I’m interested – it’s something my wife and I talked about…especially saving. As all Chinese, apparently saving is intrinsically Chinese…yet my parents saved. All due to starvation and war, etc, etc…yet my grandparents in Austria had hunger…and war. And they saved too….so that’s also western culture. “Ah, we save for eventualities like, umm, health care” Yes, but I pay taxes (I’m not in the US, I have ACC, http://www.acc.co.nz/index.htm) so, in a way, I am putting money aside for eventualities too. What is insurance other than, basically, money aside for problems? Same problems, same outcomes, slightly different solutions resulting in money you made not being used by you.
What is Chinese culture? What is western culture?

February 11, 2010 @ 6:16 am | Comment

Merp – yes…but elevate that. Western culture – what’s that to you? $20 says you’ll give me some stereotypical US culture that is very incompatible with European culture…and European culture is…? Edith Piaf while sipping coffee at a pavement cafe?

What is Western culture, it’s a tired old euphemism. European culture would just be the various cultures of Europe.

What is Chinese culture as seen in the west?

Racist stereotypes of Cantonese

I’m interested – it’s something my wife and I talked about…especially saving. As all Chinese, apparently saving is intrinsically Chinese…yet my parents saved.

It’s just that East Asians save more, not really “Chinese” alone.

yet my grandparents in Austria had hunger…and war.

It’s nothing near what China has seen in its past.

February 11, 2010 @ 6:26 am | Comment

To Merp #69:
“Actually it’s because you want to enjoy the standard of living provided by Canada’s mass genocide and hundred years of rape and murder.”
— thank you for achieving so much with one short comment. At the very least you’re espousing brevity, so kudos for that.
First, you’ve illustrated Jerry’s observation of responding to what you hoped I had said, rather than what I had said. I said “Canada’s system”, as in political system, which is one where I can look up most things that I want, and say most things that I want, without the central government/big brother telling me what, how, and when I should think.
Second, if you are as fond of China’s system as you are dismayed by “America’s”, then by god I hope you’re accessing this blog from the middle kingdom, for that’s what I meant by “putting (their) money where (their) mouth is”. If you’re railing against “American” society while reaping the benefits thereof, well, that’s pretty lame. You’re not lame, are you?
Third, if you are going to speak in defense of aboriginal peoples, who have legitimate grievances that merit redress, you should do so in a dedicated manner rather than the cheap simpleton statements you’ve made here.
Fourth, to go along with your “what if’s”, I’ll say that “if” there was no Mao and China was a democracy, I might still be living there. The really funny part is that, if China was a democracy, you’d be really stuck…what other authoritarian state could you contemplate calling home?

February 11, 2010 @ 2:05 pm | Comment

Merp is the master of the ad hominen argument.

February 11, 2010 @ 2:43 pm | Comment

@merp

Either culture descended from the Central Plains neolithic or, if you want, the cultures of the various people living in the ROC/PR

The term “culture” has been “abused” in such loose terms by dear merp that it is no longer meaningful at all. It becomes a “catch-all” umbrella phrase for everything under the sun. Do the Miao people possess the “Chinese culture” which you have defined so carelessly and loosely? How about the Dai people? The Hui people? Even if you are talking about the Han people, there is so much diversity within the Han culture. Are Northern and Southern Chinese culturally homogeneous? Is Shanghainese culture the twin of Cantonese, Minnan or Shandong cultures? It goes to show all along what is wrong with merp ever since he/she/it has started on this blog: inability to engage in critical thinking and analysis. Time to hit the books merp.

February 11, 2010 @ 3:42 pm | Comment

@merp

40-50 million deaths because of Mao?

Unsourced claim.

Reminds me of Ahmedinejad when he was denying the Holocaust or Ishihara when talking about the Rape of Nanking.

February 11, 2010 @ 3:45 pm | Comment

@merp

The fact that China has myriads of thousand year old minority cultures while America destroyed all of hers will certainly get armchair activist panties in a twist.

Hmmm, it makes one wonder why the Manchurian language is in danger of becoming almost extinct.

February 11, 2010 @ 3:50 pm | Comment

Aaah, Merp, I see you have no idea at all. Never mind.

Good job face transplants are a reality these days, eh ;-)

February 11, 2010 @ 3:52 pm | Comment

@merp

No one knows. What is guaranteed to have happened though, was an increase in life expectancy over the time period.

Hmmm.. but i don’t think Liu Shaoqi and millions of victims of the CR and GLF who are now lying six feet under would agree with you.

February 11, 2010 @ 3:55 pm | Comment

European culture would just be the various cultures of Europe.

An excellent example to teach students what makes a statement tautological. Good job merp.

February 11, 2010 @ 3:58 pm | Comment

I’m coming a little late to this but the logical inconsistency astounds me…if one defends China’s actions by the reflexive, “America did it too!” and then turns around and says that China cannot repeat America’s mistakes and become as “black” as the US, er, well, isn’t that a tautology?

February 13, 2010 @ 5:42 am | Comment

@S.K Cheung
First, you’ve illustrated Jerry’s observation of responding to what you hoped I had said, rather than what I had said. I said “Canada’s system”, as in political system, which is one where I can look up most things that I want, and say most things that I want, without the central government/big brother telling me what, how, and when I should think.
Second, if you are as fond of China’s system as you are dismayed by “America’s”, then by god I hope you’re accessing this blog from the middle kingdom, for that’s what I meant by “putting (their) money where (their) mouth is”. If you’re railing against “American” society while reaping the benefits thereof, well, that’s pretty lame. You’re not lame, are you?
Third, if you are going to speak in defense of aboriginal peoples, who have legitimate grievances that merit redress, you should do so in a dedicated manner rather than the cheap simpleton statements you’ve made here.

Go tell that to Western expats in China.

there was no Mao and China was a democracy, I might still be living there. The really funny part is that, if China was a democracy, you’d be really stuck…what other authoritarian state could you contemplate calling home?

If there were no America and Canada, then I guess you’d contemplate moving to Haiti or India? Yeah I didn’t think so either.

@sp
Reminds me of Ahmedinejad when he was denying the Holocaust or Ishihara when talking about the Rape of Nanking.

So I guess I could accuse Timbuktu of killing 990,000,299 Martians in Space War 3, and if you said “what?” I’d automatically have the right to compare you to Hitler, Pol Pot, George Bush, and Sauron.

Boring and uncreative. The 40-50 million figure was totally manufactured. The deaths in Iraq now and Europe during WW2 were measured thoroughly and scrutinized by many independent organizations. Allied soldiers examined concentration camps. The Nazis meticulously documented their victims. There are mass graves that can be dated.

40-50 million dead by Mao was pulled out of thin air by propagandists working for America at the height of the Cold War. It could be 1 million, or 100 million, no one really knows- yet.

Do the Miao people possess the “Chinese culture” which you have defined so carelessly and loosely?

I know you’re trying to be clever, but it depends on what you consider “Chinese”. There are various overlapping categories under “Chinese cultures” depending on what you mean by “Chinese”.

Are Northern and Southern Chinese culturally homogeneous? Is Shanghainese culture the twin of Cantonese, Minnan or Shandong cultures? It goes to show all along what is wrong with merp ever since he/she/it has started on this blog: inability to engage in critical thinking and analysis. Time to hit the books merp.

I know you’re again trying to be smart, but do accept the fact that these “catch-alls” are used quite ubiquitously in linguistic and historical discussion. You will often hear of things like “Indo-European culture”. This refers to a very specific time period- it’s not my job to hold your hand and guide you through the basics.

Hmmm, it makes one wonder why the Manchurian language is in danger of becoming almost extinct.

Hmmm, maybe because the Manchurians enacted policy that made Mandarin official in every Chinese speaking area they could get to? Maybe because they recognized that they could not uphold their rule without making some cultural concessions?

February 14, 2010 @ 9:14 am | Comment

@merp

I know you’re again trying to be smart, but do accept the fact that these “catch-alls” are used quite ubiquitously in linguistic and historical discussion. You will often hear of things like “Indo-European culture”.

So if definitions are used often enough, it make them naturally correct and adequate definitions?? One thing is you didn’t argue against the point that culture is something hard to define. What use does labels like “Indo-European culture” serves? Or “Asian culture”? These labels fails to capture diverse and complex nature of what we come to know as “culture”. Just because such convenient labels are used frequently doesn’t make them necessary “right”.

And i am not trying to be smart but to offer questions about labels which people conveniently employ for their argumentative ends but seldom really think about what those labels really mean and entails. At the very least, i don’t go around making myself look smart by claiming in a typically tautological fashion with statements like “European culture would just be the various cultures of Europe.” Sorry to be rude, but I thought that was quite embarrassing for someone who have been ranting about “culture” but offer only such “insights” for us.

Boring and uncreative. The 40-50 million figure was totally manufactured.

I am trying to point out that every accused perpetrators of crimes against humanity and their apologists react in similar fashion: the numbers must be manufactured by the other side. If you can say that the “40-50 million figure” is fabricated, why can’t Ishihara say the number killed during the Rape of Nanking is manufactured too? They will dispute your sources as much as you may dispute others independent sources against you. Numbers aside, i believe most would agree that the Holocaust, Rape of Nanking, Cultural Revolution, Stalin’s collectivization are enormous in human costs and sufferings by any measure. The point is historical revisionists, no matter what their nationalities are, often reacted in a defensive manner.

February 14, 2010 @ 11:51 am | Comment

Hmmm, maybe because the Manchurians enacted policy that made Mandarin official in every Chinese speaking area they could get to? Maybe because they recognized that they could not uphold their rule without making some cultural concessions?

To the extent that most Manchurians even sinicized their surnames? Don’t think any Manchu rulers go to the extent to adopting Chinese surnames but how come the Manchurians don’t even have Manchurian surnames these days???? Strange isn’t it?

February 14, 2010 @ 12:19 pm | Comment

@merp

Go tell that to Western expats in China.

Most Western expats came to China because of generous monetary offers. But you don’t see them ditching their US, Canadian, UK, Australian, NZ citizenship and passports for PRC citizenship and passport. On the other hand, thousands of Chinese are ready to move permanently to the “decadent West” and ditch their PRC citizenship in their quest for a “Western” passport. Care to explain???

February 14, 2010 @ 12:26 pm | Comment

If you can say that the “40-50 million figure” is fabricated, why can’t Ishihara say the number killed during the Rape of Nanking is manufactured too? They will dispute your sources as much as you may dispute others independent sources against you. Numbers aside, i believe most would agree that the Holocaust, Rape of Nanking, Cultural Revolution, Stalin’s collectivization are enormous in human costs and sufferings by any measure. The point is historical revisionists, no matter what their nationalities are, often reacted in a defensive manner.

Nice, SP. Thanks.

Of course, that’s not going to stop Merp from insisting China is being unfairly picked on; nothing’s going to change that. it’s in his DNA and defines who he is, a perpetual victim.

February 14, 2010 @ 12:33 pm | Comment

“I guess I could accuse Timbuktu of killing 990,000,299 Martians in Space War 3, and if you said “what?” I’d automatically have the right to compare you to Hitler, Pol Pot, George Bush, and Sauron.”

Don’t joke about Space War 3, I have Martian family and they don’t find that stuff funny at all.

February 14, 2010 @ 12:49 pm | Comment

To #92:
“Go tell that to Western expats in China.”
— if western expats were responding to what they hoped you had said, rather than what you had actually said, then I would suggest that they should avoid that. But right now you’ve got that market cornered.
I’m not sure who would be considered an aboriginal person in China and who would not, so my saying that to a western expat might draw some puzzled stares.
I would agree that westerners who are living in CHina should be thankful for the hospitality.

“If there were no America and Canada, then I guess you’d contemplate moving to Haiti or India? Yeah I didn’t think so either.”
—actually I could go to most places in the world, since, thankfully, there aren’t too many authoritarian joints out there. Ahhh, the advantages of choice. I suppose if China became a democracy, you could always apply to Burma or North Korea or something. Good luck with that. Happy trails to you.

February 14, 2010 @ 1:41 pm | Comment

SP
“On the other hand, thousands of Chinese are ready to move permanently to the “decadent West” and ditch their PRC citizenship in their quest for a “Western” passport. Care to explain???”
As my wife told me it’s all because it’s easier for visas ;-)
Funnily enough, China is also the biggest market here in NZ for parents coming over
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10620758

February 14, 2010 @ 1:56 pm | Comment

If you can say that the “40-50 million figure” is fabricated, why can’t Ishihara say the number killed during the Rape of Nanking is manufactured too? They will dispute your sources as much as you may dispute others independent sources against you. Numbers aside, i believe most would agree that the Holocaust, Rape of Nanking, Cultural Revolution, Stalin’s collectivization are enormous in human costs and sufferings by any measure. The point is historical revisionists, no matter what their nationalities are, often reacted in a defensive manner.

Because Ishihara has been defeated by overwhelming evidence to the contrary of his claims. the 40-50 million figure was manufactured at the height of the War of Lies and Propaganda.

The US has declassified many of its lies recently. We’re starting to see that many civilian casualties (200-300k) in the Korean War were committed against SK civilians by the SK army under US supervision-

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/world/stories/DN-koreaexecutions_19int.ART.State.Edition1.462b0c6.html

The Cold War is also much more “recent”. Uncovering the truth is not politically expedient. World War 2 by comparison is ancient history, and those who had a stake in covering their tracks are mostly dead.

Don’t believe what they tell you.

that’s not going to stop Merp from insisting China is being unfairly picked on; nothing’s going to change that. it’s in his DNA and defines who he is, a perpetual victim

China IS being unfairly picked on. The US gets the heat it does because they deserve it- China is focused on because of biased media spinsters like you.

February 15, 2010 @ 7:14 am | Comment

OK…so then the situation is….if it is reported by the west it is a lie but if the CCP tells you it is the truth.

Yeah…that makes sense :-)

February 15, 2010 @ 7:50 am | Comment

OK…so then the situation is….if it is reported by the west it is a lie but if the CCP tells you it is the truth.

I don’t go by what the CCP says. I go by what everyone with a brain knows- the numbers about deaths in China were completely fabricated on the spot.

Unless you want to hash out your methodology for determining the numbers of deaths during Mao’s 26 year reign, no one worth anything is going to respect your estimates.

The Holocaust stands out as one exception where mass murder is accurately measured. This is because the Nazis more or less tracked every person they killed, either that or they created mass graves which were easily accounted for.

In China under Mao, there was chaos across several provinces during the CR, and a flood coincided with the GLF, which was likely to have killed 3-4 million people on its own.

Again, it’s best not to take Cold War propaganda seriously unless you just enjoy being a lemming.

February 15, 2010 @ 11:12 am | Comment

Merp, you might be the only one I’ve heard question that tens of millions of peasants starved to death during the Great Leap Forward. Even today’s young Chinese know this happened, even if they don’t directly blame Mao for the calamity. That many, many millions died is a matter of fact, not conjecture. Whether it was as high as 30 or 40 million I can’t say, but there is ample documentation of widespread death in the tens of millions from the famine. Have you read Hungry Ghosts?

I don’t question that hundreds of thousands of innocent Chinese were murdered and raped in the Nanjing massacre, because I’ve read the material about it (first-hand accounts, Iris Chang’s book, several history books on WWII). But you wouldn’t be Merp (ferin) if you didn’t reject any data about deaths under Mao while embracing wholeheartedly the numbers of Chinese killed under the Japanese. If there’s one thing you are, it’s predictable.

February 15, 2010 @ 1:12 pm | Comment

Because Ishihara has been defeated by overwhelming evidence to the contrary of his claims

Obviously those who continued to paid annual visits to the Yasukuni Shrine don’t think Ishihara was “defeated” in anyway. If they can be in self-denial, why can’t you?

February 15, 2010 @ 1:18 pm | Comment

Obviously those who continued to paid annual visits to the Yasukuni Shrine don’t think Ishihara was “defeated” in anyway. If they can be in self-denial, why can’t you?

Yes because someone who denies falsehoods is the same as someone who denies truth.

In other words people who refuse to believe the world is not 6,000 years old are no different from people who refuse to believe that the world is flat.

So lets go by your world, where everyone who says anything is to be believed lest they are compared to Holocaust deniers.

Hey, America killed 43,003,129 Martian babies and NASA covered it up! If you disagree you’re just like Hitler!

I take it you’re admitting you don’t know any facts at all and this is why you’re wasting everyone’s time with your hollow and circular arguments.

February 17, 2010 @ 5:01 am | Comment

To #105:
the world is a lot older than 6000 years old, and that’s not hard to prove. It’s also not hard to prove that the earth is not flat.

So in fact, there are things you can prove, and things you cannot. As for how many people’s deaths can be attributable to Mao, that probably falls under the category of things that cannot be proven. It’s only in those circumstances, where there is no categorical proof, that things come down to what you choose to believe. Clearly, you choose to believe something that others do not, and vice versa.

But it seems even you accept that millions of people died during the CR/GLF/famine/floods, and those weren’t “natural” deaths. So at the very least, those are on Mao since they occurred under his watch, even if you choose to believe that they didn’t result from his direct acts. Of course, we can then debate whether Mao’s actions resulted in the famine, but that would once again fall under the auspices of what you choose to believe.

February 17, 2010 @ 3:00 pm | Comment

As for how many people’s deaths can be attributable to Mao, that probably falls under the category of things that cannot be proven.

So you agree with me.

But it seems even you accept that millions of people died during the CR/GLF/famine/floods, and those weren’t “natural” deaths. So at the very least, those are on Mao since they occurred under his watch, even if you choose to believe that they didn’t result from his direct acts. Of course, we can then debate whether Mao’s actions resulted in the famine, but that would once again fall under the auspices of what you choose to believe.

It seems even you? Let me ask you, was your family actually affected by Mao’s rule or are you just trying to portray me as a rabid Communist-lover because you can’t be bothered to think of something more original?

Again, it’s more open to debate than WW2 atrocities. For one, there is not as much data on the subject.

February 19, 2010 @ 3:27 pm | Comment

“So you agree with me.”
—that would depend on what you’re suggesting that I’m agreeing with. If your point is that Mao is not definitely directly responsible for millions of deaths because there is no definitive proof of such direct responsibility, then yes, I can agree with that. But if you try to take it further by saying that, by extension, Mao should not be implicated in those deaths at all, then you’re on your own with that one. As I already suggested in #106, they occurred on his watch, and he was the top dog, so the buck stops with him.

“are you just trying to portray me as a rabid Communist-lover”
—let’s not kid ourselves. The self-portrait you paint is far better than any portrayal I can muster.

February 20, 2010 @ 1:14 pm | Comment

李敖直指韩寒:一进入知识境界就出局!

不久前李戡与大陆80后作家韩寒引发的「口水仗」自然是当日媒体关注的焦点,对此话题父子二人均给予回应,只不过或许是吸收之前没管好嘴巴的教训,李戡此番的回答显得中规中矩;相比之下,父亲李敖则老辣许多,他直指韩寒「要是只写小说、只赛车完全没有问题,但一进入知识的境界就出局了」。

一句「韩寒算老几」,韩寒的「粉丝」自然对说这话的李戡口诛笔伐,就连一些中立的网民也都指责他「小小年纪,过于狂妄」。今日父亲在旁,李戡锋芒明显收敛了不少,李敖笑言:「这是因为他知道不要抢了我的风头」。

「我们原本就是两个不相干的人,现在被动不动放在一起,我自己也是很意外。」说起韩寒,李戡言语里流露出些许无奈,对于外界指陈文茜力挺他是因为二人想借合伙攻击韩寒来炒作自己,李戡说「从来没有想过」。

「从那个时候起就没完没了,我一天到晚被媒体穷追不舍,其实这也没什么,就是运气比较差而已」,用有点自嘲的口气,李戡回答了记者的提问,他直言自己不明白,为什么大陆有那么多作家,就偏偏要天天把韩寒拿出来,「其实不一定要一直提韩寒的事情,我对大陆的一些人也是很了解的,我们可以多谈这方面的问题」。

李戡的老实回答倒叫身边的李敖坐不住了,他接过话筒补充道:「我的儿子很忠厚,不大说一些过分的话,我来做一个公道的评论」。

李敖举例说明一个人不能超越本位去生活。那么什么才是韩寒的本位,在李敖看来就是写小说。他说:「韩寒如果不超出他的本位,仅仅是写一些小说,他肯定可以写一辈子;赛车也可以尽管赛,因为这是健身的范畴,但他如果超出这个范围,就会很痛苦。」

他说,就好比你要和一个历史学家谈司马光的《资治通鉴》,你必须把294卷都通读一遍,「因为这是进入知识境界的先决条件」。

李敖说,韩寒现在的举手投足很显然难以在这个境界扎根,「我们希望他能够扎根进去」。

August 30, 2010 @ 1:17 pm | Comment

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.