"CHINA'S 'SMILING ANGEL IN WHEELCHAIR' Olympics
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Scholarly Pursuits
Forum Name: Current Affairs
Forum Discription: Debates on topical, current World politics
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=24133
Printed Date: 25-Apr-2024 at 02:37
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: "CHINA'S 'SMILING ANGEL IN WHEELCHAIR' Olympics
Posted By: Guests
Subject: "CHINA'S 'SMILING ANGEL IN WHEELCHAIR' Olympics
Date Posted: 12-Apr-2008 at 09:34
|
http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/10/875154.aspx - http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/10/875154.aspx
By Ed Flanagan, NBC News Researcher
BEIJING – In recent days it has been difficult to take away any positives from http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/24043923/ - China's now unfortunately titled torch relay, the "Journey of Harmony to Beijing, " at least based on international news coverage of the events.
Jin Jing, 28, a former Paralympics fencer from Shanghai who uses a wheelchair, won national acclaim for what the media described as her heroics in protecting the Olympic torch from a group of pro-Tibetan protesters (all protesters have been ubiquitously labeled "Tibetan separatists" and "pro-Tibet independence activists" in state media reports). http://www.zonaeuropa.com/20080410_1.htm - Jin's feisty defense of the torch – she suffered scratches and a bruised leg during the confrontation – has been heavily covered by China's media , which has the unenviable task of mitigating the scope of the protests. Protecting the torch "People ask me how I dealt with the danger. I don't think I thought too much about it. I trusted the escorts around me. They were the ones, along with my guide, that faced the danger." Hero’s welcome Jin, who had part of her right leg amputated at the age of 9 after a malignant tumor was found on her ankle and later underwent a year of chemotherapy, is a charismatic woman with a glowing smile. And hungry for a positive Chinese figure to serve up to its audience, the Chinese media clearly saw the star potential in Jin: http://torchrelay.beijing2008.cn/en/index.shtml - at the time of this posting, fully half of the "News" section on the official Torch Relay website were accounts of her actions that day , including one entitled: http://torchrelay.beijing2008.cn/en/torchbearers/headlines/n214299503.shtml - "Jin Jing's mother: I'm proud of my daughter." Online forums have also been abuzz with praise for her and her dedication to the Olympic spirit. One netizen on an Olympic thread wrote, "I burst into tears when I saw how you [Jin] protected the flame, I think you protected the torch and also saved the spirit of the Olympics." Attacks heighten nationalism The majority of such sentiments appeared to be from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120756223485794471.html - angry mainland Chinese blowing off steam over the perceived international humiliation that protesters have brought to the torch and by extension, China. However, if these protests grow, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120701186550979029.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries - the Chinese will likely settle into a siege mentality, an "us versus the world" attitude. It may become increasingly easier for Chinese to look at what many would consider legitimate calls for change http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/pomfretschina/2008/04/a_coming_out_party_to_forget.html - and dismiss them as nothing more than Western rhetoric and propaganda. Excellent. Attacking a young wheel chair bound woman. Free Tibet! Can't wait until the attacks on cancer patients begin.
|
Replies:
Posted By: Dream208
Date Posted: 12-Apr-2008 at 09:53
"However, if these protests grow, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120701186550979029.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries - the Chinese will likely settle into a siege mentality, an "us versus the world" attitude. It may become increasingly easier for Chinese to look at what many would consider legitimate calls for change http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/pomfretschina/2008/04/a_coming_out_party_to_forget.html - and dismiss them as nothing more than Western rhetoric and propaganda. "
One of the protest outcomes that I afraid of the most... The protestors had damaged chance of peace and changes... ironic and sad.
|
Posted By: Killabee
Date Posted: 12-Apr-2008 at 10:09
| The attack on the disabled girl is very sick to watch. Same goes for the innocent Han and Hui Chinese shop owners in Tibet. But many still claim those are just "peaceful protest". |
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 12-Apr-2008 at 16:17
|
Where are our peace loving activitsts on this forum? C'mon guys you stood up against those pesky muslims over cartoons. Why don't you speak up against those pesky mobsters who attacked the handicapped Chinese girl over the olympic torch! You're not being selective are you? That is so ignoble. Freedom of carrying the torch needs you. ------------- |
Posted By: ulrich von hutten
Date Posted: 12-Apr-2008 at 16:23
|
I'm on the spot whenever you need me. ------------- 
http://imageshack.us"> 
|
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 12-Apr-2008 at 16:30
|
Thank you Ulrich. I could always rely on your nonpartiality. ------------- |
Posted By: Brian J Checco
Date Posted: 12-Apr-2008 at 18:23
|
I'm with Ulrich on this one. Sad. A good cause taken a little too far. I don't believe it ought to discredit the movement as a whole, but those individuals ought to be ashamed of themselves.
------------- My Name is Eli Manning. Ponce owns my soul. |
Posted By: Brian J Checco
Date Posted: 12-Apr-2008 at 18:24
|
The PRC's take on it is certainly interesting though. All that "hero" rhetoric is very Soviet-esque.
------------- My Name is Eli Manning. Ponce owns my soul. |
Posted By: Mughal e Azam
Date Posted: 12-Apr-2008 at 18:33
|
Wheres Leonardo? I was hoping hed also read my biased critique of the Islamic religion.
Yep, very motivating lady.
Brian, for the sake of partiality, Washington's refusal to acknowledge the war on both fronts are going bad is very British Imperialist-ic. ------------- Mughal e Azam |
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 12-Apr-2008 at 18:36
|
Good to see a few more of you objecting to the violent aspects of the protests. ------------- |
Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 12-Apr-2008 at 18:44
Though I do think that Tibet should have freedom explored. They aren't in a Nation calling for change, they want their borders back and to be left alone. The Muslims after those cartoons, they called for radical change in the nations that were willing to adopt them, and further more called for deaths for the citizens who exercised their rights in the nation that had adopted them.
So, did Tibet ask China if they could join, or was their former borders seceeded from them and placed in another Nation? Did Denmark force Muslims into their nation or did they offer them a chance to live their?
In either case, death threats aren't acceptable by any means. ------------- "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey 
|
Posted By: Spartakus
Date Posted: 12-Apr-2008 at 18:49
|
Is there anybody who disagrees that China has a huge problem with human rights? Is there anybody who disagrees that Western Media's impartiality is ,continually, being hit and, in some cases, non-existent? Is there anybody who does not know the "job" of US media in covering the war in Irak? Is there anybody who does not know how many Chinese citizens are treated like mice by their government?Is there anybody who does not know that the three great monotheistic religions are misogynistic? Is there anybody who does not know that religions are used politically for the last 4000 years of recorded human history? Damn you all and your hypocritical debates. ------------- "There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. " --- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996) |
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 12-Apr-2008 at 18:59
Ouch. That hurts. We do care and we do like to talk about what we care about. Chill sir Sparty. It's Saturday.  ------------- |
Posted By: The Charioteer
Date Posted: 12-Apr-2008 at 19:20
Im not surprised at all, majority of media reports on China in Australia over the years have been more or less orientating around the "China phobia" theme.
Even my brother who actively protested against China's crackdown on Tiananmen square many years ago has now turned his support to Chinese government even though hes still not content with many of the things they do. But hes just fed up with all the Western "anti-Chinese" propagandas. He protested Chinese government for a better China, but he has realized that the "west" is not, they just would like to see China to weaken, fortunately this isnt 19th or 20th century they couldnt just invade China with their superior military, even though the imperialists are still doing the essential same things to weaker and smaller sovereign nations.
i too used too shout "down with communist" when i was in China, but over the years i have came to understand what this is all about thanks to "anti-Chinese" phenomenon in the "West" which is deeply rooted in racism. their sheer bias and hypocrisy have pushed us to the very opposite of their wishes. And im not really approving and content with many of the things communist do either.
but, rather than "ironic" and "sad", it really is "inevitable", reality doesnt revolve around our personal preferences no matter which side it inclines to be.
the current hypocritical outburst of "pro-Tibetan" trend in the "West" only helped majority of the Chinese and many non-Western people to realize the unmistakable "anti-Chinese" characteristics of the "west", but the predecessor to "China threat", "yellow peril" goes further back at the root.
on the other hand, alot of Australians i know of are objective and open-minded on China, not all "westerners" are as blind and selfish.
Just like French intellectual Hugo once condemn the burning and looting of Yuanmingyuan palace by the joint Anglo-French imperialist armies while majority of people in the West today dont even know the existence of such notorious event. should we be surprised to see the violation of basic human rights of those innocent Chinese citizens(including Chinese, Muslim Hui, Tibetan) by the Tibetan mobsters are being described as "brutal crackdown" ? amazingly BS counterproduced amazingly united front on the Chinese part.
thanks to the "west"s impatience on hoping to destabilize China and their insistence on demonizing China, in the end their efforts would only enhance China's control over Tibet, and they have already helped the Chinese communist to achieve what they couldnt but wanted to achieve, unity of the Chinese people. something no other forces in China could have possibly done better at the present stage.
so "liberal West" keep up with the good works.
|
Posted By: Mughal e Azam
Date Posted: 12-Apr-2008 at 19:24
|
What the Pro-Tibetan protests helped people realize is the sheer hypocracy of those who continue to chant the mantra of human freedom and democracy while actively occupying an Arab nation on no sound basis (and doing a bad job at it too).
Its disconcerting how things have come to be.  ------------- Mughal e Azam |
Posted By: Roberts
Date Posted: 12-Apr-2008 at 19:34
The same who are Pro-Tibetan also opposed US invasion in Iraq. There were big protests in London and Paris. Don't you remember? |
Posted By: Killabee
Date Posted: 12-Apr-2008 at 21:24
They don't overlap with each other. For example, US congressmen Tom Lantos , Hillary Clinton, John Mccain , German Chancellor Angela Merkel supported the invasion of Iraq . Lantos was a well known supporter of Free Tibet movement before his death. Merkel, Mccain ,Hillary called for boycott of Chinese Olympic game. |
Posted By: Dream208
Date Posted: 12-Apr-2008 at 22:34
|
A friend just sent me an email thar marked another downward spiral of these events.
Apparantly, the Chinese forumers has began 'man-hunt' to search where these protestors live [especially the ones attacked the wheel-chair angel]. If one had some knowledge about the habitat of Chinese forum they would know such man-hunt is no joke. The Chinese internet denizens had repeately, and successfuly using such collective effort [what we call 'flesh search engine'] to find out things and peoples they wanted to know [usually about personal affairs of some famous personal, or target of public anger].
The protestors in this event, had become the target of such public anger by the Chinese community around the world unfortunately. And some of their personal info, including address, phone number, and even photos of their homes [ahh, the wonderful google map] had already been posted on the major Chinese forums [such as Tainya]. And there are already outcries calling local overseas Chinese to carry out 'retaliation' action against these people in an eye for an eye fashion.
Sad, sad, sad outcomes... I can only pray there would not be further violence as the resulf of the last 3 weeks' madness.
|
Posted By: The Charioteer
Date Posted: 12-Apr-2008 at 23:46
aside from the question whether this kind of behaviours is practical and reasonable, the Chinese people are obviously angered by the violent behaviors of those "pro-Tibetan protestors".
These "sabotagers" and their western masterminds want to make China unforgettable of its Olympics, they got what they wanted, an "unforgettable Olympics" and a good boost of "Chinese patrioticism" which would make China even harder to destabilize in a foreseeable future.
Thanks to all the "anti-China" smear campaigns,which proven to be "counter-productive".
Actually organization like "Tibetan youth congress" recognized the use of violence in their struggle for independence, just have a look at their recent violent attacks on Chinese embassies in various Western countries while they are still propagandizing China's "brutal crackdown" on recent "peaceful protests" in Tibet, and by "peaceful protests" they mean mobsters burning, looting and smashing infrastructures, beating and killing innocent people.
so pray that they would listen to your prayers. but the world is a realistic place whether one like it or not.
|
Posted By: Spartakus
Date Posted: 13-Apr-2008 at 00:26
So much for "civilization". ------------- "There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. " --- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996) |
Posted By: ulrich von hutten
Date Posted: 13-Apr-2008 at 06:16
Must correct you, at the beginning of the invasion of the Iraq Gerhard Schröder was the german chancellor, and he and his government didn't took part at this act of breach of international law. -------------
http://imageshack.us">
|
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 14-Apr-2008 at 19:20
who ever said disabled people cannot be Nazis just because they are disabled? what about dr. Lovestrange?  if you're familiar with recent German politicians, you'll know MR. Schäuble whose dream it is to create the perfect police state that makes the Stasi look like good neighbours. i wouldn't mind him.... but i'll stop now or maybe i'll suddenly dissapear into oblivion...  |
Posted By: snowybeagle
Date Posted: 15-Apr-2008 at 07:36
No one, in this thread, until *you* brought it up.
Do you have any reason to think that Jin Jing, the subject of this thread, is a Nazi, or otherwise deserves to be assaulted the way she was?
|
Posted By: Killabee
Date Posted: 15-Apr-2008 at 08:08
| Well Said, snowybeagle. Is there any reason why you, Temujin (I was surprised the mass murderer name is used in here. Perhaps names Adolf Hitler or Hideki Tojo should be allowed too) liken Jin Jing to Nazi? Is it just because she is a ill-fated Chinese and she represents the evil regime, that's why you, Temujin, think she must be behind the brutal crackdown of Tibetan, deserve to be paid back by those peaceful Tibetan? |
Posted By: Killabee
Date Posted: 15-Apr-2008 at 08:13
What I meant was Merkel supported Iraqi Invasion when she was still in Bundestag. It will be too lengthy for me to put "former CDU chairman and current German Chancellor". |
Posted By: Brian J Checco
Date Posted: 15-Apr-2008 at 08:20
|
It's less lengthy to be technically specific than to go back and clarify in a later post. Semantics it may be, but those sorts of inaccuracies create misinterpretation which can drag a thread on for weeks under spurious premises for no reason. Always best to err on the side of caution when it comes to specifics.
------------- My Name is Eli Manning. Ponce owns my soul. |
Posted By: Dolphin
Date Posted: 15-Apr-2008 at 14:03
|
Can I make a simple point here? My father has worked with/around disabled people all his life, and I myself worked in a mixed ability (or any other pc name you wish to construct) workplace all last summer. I cannot, judging by my own experience, see why there has been such an uproar surrounding this particular part of the torch relay. Jin Jing, I trust does not wake up every morning feeling like a victim, or preparing herself to be treated like one. So what people, she is in a wheelchair and she was confronted by an individual who tried to take the torch off her. She resisted, like anyone else would, only to return home to cheers of 'HOW BRAVE' and 'POOR GIRL'. At the deepest level, whether meant it or not, such sentiments serve to patronise disabled people, and refuse them the right to be treated like normal citizens.
There is a film, whos name unfortunately escapes me, where a man in a wheelchair is in a bar. He is drunk and abusive to everyone, and picks a fight with one man, continually insulting him and telling him to hit him. To paraphrase, 'hit me like you would hit anyone else. I'm being an arsehole...' He eventually gets a punch and is kicked out of the pub, but he is happier, because he wasn't getting sympathy he didn't deserve. The point was that he wasn't actualy an arsehole, he just didn't want to be treated like a victim. Same principle here, different situation.
Should Jin Jing have been given such attention had she not been disabled? The answer to that question highlights to whos means this sudden hero status is serving, and it is not Jin Jing's. Basically she is now a propoganda tool for the Chinese Government against Tibet, and is a rallying call for unity amongst the Chinese people. But that aside, take the wheelchair and all that it stands for in people's perceptions away, and you have a woman, not a creature to be pitied and patronised. She was no braver than anyone else would be, and in my view, the protester, while still wrong, was no more wrong than any of the others throughout the relay. ------------- |
Posted By: Brian J Checco
Date Posted: 15-Apr-2008 at 14:40
|
Very eloquent, Dolphin. Nice post.
------------- My Name is Eli Manning. Ponce owns my soul. |
Posted By: Parnell
Date Posted: 15-Apr-2008 at 14:43
Most of us completely reject actions like these; targetting the physically weak for a political point. Besides, you'll find most of the people who do sympathise with the protests (like me) are armchair supporters (IE, you're not likely to see me, like, actually protesting) ------------- |
Posted By: Parnell
Date Posted: 15-Apr-2008 at 14:44
|
I think you are thinking of 'Inside I'm Dancing' Dolphin. Who knew aquatic mammals could speak so well? ------------- |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 15-Apr-2008 at 19:33
Dolphin pretty much sumed it up for me: disabled people = normal people. that means no special treatment whatsoever. she obviously only served as a tearjerker to make the Tibet protesters look evil. i'm congratulating them for treating her no different than a non-disabled athlete! 
of course killerbee is a peacefull harmonious username... other than Temujin, i also like Temür (tamerlane) who was incidentally disabled himself!  BTW Temujin was no mass-murder, unless you want to get into a discussion about chairman Mao here... |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 15-Apr-2008 at 20:33
If it had been a strapping wrestler then I doubt that there would have been so much of an uproar, or even an assualt. The example you gave is completely irrelevant, an invalid being obnoxious is just as bad as a healthy person being obnoxious, the point is that this was a physical attack on a handicapped woman by a unhandicapped man, which is what makes it cowardly and despicable.
All in all, its ok to attack wheelchair bound people without any provocation if they are Chinese? Interesting idea. ------------- |
Posted By: Dolphin
Date Posted: 15-Apr-2008 at 21:37
|
You miss the point my friend. What difference does it make that she is Chinese? It is not ok to attack a wheelchair bound person, just as it is not ok to attack a non-wheelchair bound person. The problem lies in differenciating between the two people, as if they were different breeds. I have confidence that I have quite developed and mature attitudes towards disabled people, and to make a distinction between the two is to manufacture a gap of human ability and mindset that is not there. Just my opinion. I'll elaborate in the morning. ------------- |
Posted By: Killabee
Date Posted: 15-Apr-2008 at 23:49
Like it or not , disabled people do get preferential treatment. That's why we have parking lot designated for handicapped people and we will give them seat whenever we are in crammed public transportation. That's called civility and manner . While mentally they are as normal as us, but physically there are certain things that they are incapable of doing like defending themselves against attacker. Attacking a disabled person is no different than attacking a toddler or an aged person, even worse is attacking on disabled women by an able-bodied man for something she is not related to. At least this is most of the countries agree on but I don't know about the country you are living in.
And the other thing she is not served as tearjerker. She participated in the Olympic torchbearing as she herself is an athlete and a member of Chinese Olympic(Paralympic) team. She was selected to be torchbearer long before the Tibetan protest. The other thing is you failed to answer is what warrant her and other athletes to be attacked by protesters? What she the one who fired the bullet into the Tibetan? Was she the one who was put in charge the crackdown of Tibetan Riot?
Killabee is one species of bee, buffoon. Tell me how you can compare Temujin to Mao when
people died under Mao's regime were mostly his fellow Han Chinese caused by his ill-fated The Great Leap Forward policy and Cultural Revolution while the people that Temujin slaughtered were the victims of his military aggression. If Adolf Hilter lived more than 800 years ago, perhaps many of us will be revering him as national pride.  |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2008 at 05:34
|
Eh Killabee, the "buffoon",comment was out of line.
------------- |
Posted By: snowybeagle
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2008 at 07:38
That is unfortunately, just human nature.
People do mean things without a thought, expecting the others to be able to take it and lump it.
Did the anti-globalisation protestors ever worry their riots might endanger lives of others?
Many humans are callous to the point that they won't blink an eye at the sight of an abled man hurt in the process of their callousness.
It is both a regret and a consolation that only the sight of a disabled hurt would give them pause. A regret because that's what it took, a consolation because at least something did.
|
Posted By: snowybeagle
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2008 at 07:42
Disabled or not, what has she done to deserve being assaulted?
Are you, an AE moderator, advocating that Torch Bearers for the 2008 Olympics be assaulted?
|
Posted By: Spartakus
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2008 at 09:00
|
Well, i can reply to you diplomatically, it was not the girl they attacked, but the torch that happened to be in her hand. You see, if they saw her in the street, without any torch, they would not attack her.
------------- "There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. " --- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996) |
Posted By: snowybeagle
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2008 at 09:19
Ah, of course I see your point completely ... in both the ironic and non-ironic ways ...
Like the people who died during the 911 incident were not attacked by the hijackers commandeering the 2 planes crashing into the WTC towers ...
It was not the people the hijackers attacked, but the buildings that the people happened to be in (the buildings representing some symbols which they happen to object to).
We do see, that if these hijackers see these people in the street, not in the WTC building, the hijackers would not have attacked them ...
Should we continue to apply the same logic to the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki ...? Or Agent Orange in Vietnam?
|
Posted By: Spartakus
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2008 at 09:22
|
Your examples are way too extreme to compare to an attack to a torch. Also, they are incorrect. You see, 9/11 hijackers precisely attacked the people as well as the building. Hiroshima and Nagasaki had as their precise target the Japanese civil population.
------------- "There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. " --- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996) |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2008 at 09:52
|
It was the girl they attacked, if it had been a strapping wrestler they would have suddenly discovered the value of polite non-violent protests. ------------- |
Posted By: Spartakus
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2008 at 09:53
|
Depends.
------------- "There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. " --- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996) |
Posted By: snowybeagle
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2008 at 10:07
Is that so?
Did the hijackers know or care about identity of individuals in the WTC?
Did the individual identities of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki victims matter to the US when they decided to drop the A-bomb?
But to accomodate your finer feelings, perhaps I would use the example of a woman assaulted by a robber targetting her purse. Perhaps the purse was not just a purse but a symbol of decadence and the rich fleecing the poor.
You can make a case that the target was the purse, not the woman per se, but the culprit is no less responsible for any assault on the woman.
|
Posted By: snowybeagle
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2008 at 10:19
Many so-called protestors are also quite aware of how much they can get away with in different countries.
They can travel across the world to protest against G7 or G8 or World Bank or IMF in USA or Europe, tearing up the streets in the process, but not to Dubai or Singapore where there was a real chance of them getting caned and imprisoned, for a long time.
|
Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2008 at 16:44
|
The 9/11 hijackers wanted to kill people, it was said they didn't even think the buildings were going to come down.
The protestors went for the Torch, not the person. It didn't matter who it was, they knew what route it was going and were going to be their anyway. The time they chose to attack worked against them, though I'm sure they did it because it was close to where they were at the time. I highly doubted they were plotting to make a move on disabled people, and seeing as how people are lazy and like easy pickings, they probably went to the nearest route to them.
And if my point is wrong on that, it still doesn't mean they plotted against disabled.
We are talking about people who are passionate about making a point because they feel they have been wronged and are under the yoke of a oppressive regime. It doesn't matter whether we think that or not, it's how those people feel. And getting that torch or even going for it was going to do what protests are aimed at, getting their cause on the front page of news outlets. It worked, but it could be argued that it backfired. ------------- "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
|
Posted By: snowybeagle
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2008 at 18:23
Probably not that it'd tumble down, but they were targetting the building all the same.
It's not like they checked who were in there before hitting it.
While the intent was on the Torch, it does not diminish the culpability on the assault on the bearer.
But it is a different matter to excuse them for doing something like that to another human being.
They may have their grievances, that does not give them more right to hurt others.
|
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2008 at 21:30
they targeted the torch, not the protesters. why do you think they had fire extinguishers with them? wet t-shirt contest?
she represents the country/government that did it.
both killed Chinese.
was responsible for the deaths of millions of "fellow" Germans. you realize this is a history forum? |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2008 at 21:33
i assume it was her own choice to be or accepted beign a torch-bearer so if she assumed she would only get smiling faces in paris she was wrong indeed. i advocate to ignore and boycott the torch relay initiated by Nazis in 1936 and everything that has to do with it. |
Posted By: Spartakus
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2008 at 22:04
You ignore the very basic principle of that terroristic strike. The point was not just to demolish a building (if they wanted to make a symbolic hit they could as well hit the Statue of Liberty), but to demolish it while there were working people in it. And you do not have to be an expert to think that people inside that building would be Westerners and, therefore, US citizens as well. After all, it was in American soil!
It counted that they were Japanese, which can as well be an individual identity. ------------- "There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. " --- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996) |
Posted By: Killabee
Date Posted: 17-Apr-2008 at 00:12
So? They should bear any responsiblities and consequences that might occur and face condemnation . Just like if I want to snatch your wallet and accidentally kill you. Should I be let go because my aim is at your wallet and not your life?
According to your logic, the Palestinian did a heck of job in Munich since they took down the athletes who respresented the occupier of their nation.
That's why you picked Temjin as screenname?
He killed people out of his race more than his own kind same as your hero Temjin.
|
Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 17-Apr-2008 at 01:13
One side chose the wrong time.
------------- "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
|
Posted By: snowybeagle
Date Posted: 17-Apr-2008 at 08:44
So where's the fire extinguisher when the guy attacked Jin Jing?
That is a matter of personal opinion.
She was there for the Olympics, she was not there to defend what happened in Tibet.
And whether she was or was not a representative of the country, it gave no right for anybody to attack her.
And Let's all keep ad hominem attacks out of it, and that includes targetting the AE id chosen by individual members. |
Posted By: snowybeagle
Date Posted: 17-Apr-2008 at 08:49
Whether she should expect only smiling faces is irrelevant.
People has a right to show smiling faces or not to show smiling faces, as they pleased. People has no right to physically violate her, or anybody else for that matter.
You are entitled to your personal opinion.
The Torch has come to signify to many different people something different and unrelated to the Nazis. I can only recall one Torch bearer by name, Cathy Freeman from Australia, and watching her carrying the Torch on the last leg during the 2000 Sydney Olympics, I am sure there was nothing remotely Nazi associated with the torch as far as she was concerned.
Other people are entitled to their opinions what the Torch symbolises.
Your personal opinion does not give you or anyone else to physically violate others who hold different views.
|
Posted By: snowybeagle
Date Posted: 17-Apr-2008 at 08:59
If you had been in the USA, like these hijackers had been, you'd have realised what a cosmopolitan place USA is, especially New York, what more Manhattan, or an office building like the WTC would be like.
The death toll included nationalities from some 80 different countries!
And so why should the assailants of the Torch bearers be excused from charges that they attacked the human beings who were the bearers, instead of attacking just the Torch?
They did physically violate the bearers, even if their target was supposedly the Torch.
|
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 17-Apr-2008 at 11:38
Agreed. The thing is however there weren't any adverse consequences. If there were then the courts are open to claims for compensation.
She was? How was she hurt (I mean physically, not just had her feelings hurt)?
At the moment this seems to me to be mostly a silly storm in a teacup.
Personally I agree with Temujin the whole torch relay thing should be done away with, though only partly because it was started by the Nazis, more because it is a waste of time an money. It should go along with all the other nationalistic flag-waving and medal ceremonies and such, which, apart from anything else, are dead boring and get in the way of the action. They never used to have them.
I wouldn't mind the Games being permanently held in Greece either, though that doesn't concern me so much. ------------- |
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 17-Apr-2008 at 14:38
|
Unfortunately gcle2003 that is what protestors actually want, to question the value of holding the Olympics in countries they have animosity towards. These demonstrations have been so lopsided that the demonstrators are losing credibility in my eyes. Free Tibet! Alright. Fine. No Problem. "Um, China. Free Tibet will you pretty please?" All the while the majority of Chinese are being ignored. Maybe they want more rights too. So let's try. "Excuse Mr. PRC. I am asking you kindly to give all of your citizens more rights, if you don't I'm going to stalk you and your Chinese brethren I'm going to upset the applecart. I'm going to extinquish the torch. You'll see how powerful I am. Response, "Bug off westerner."
Protests are glorified political maneuvering for the masses. Gives marginal power over things that directly can't be controlled. And if protesters have a chance at going after a handicapped girl or yelling at the faces of Olympic supporters, then they will feel empowered in doing so and feel all the stronger for it. Yet nothing really is accomplished. Because this is international politics and politics has many twists and turns mostly played by the big dogs. I am not saying not to give the protestors their chance. Protesting at least raises awareness. What I am getting at, aside from the difficulties in assuming protests actually effect foreign countries, is that things we consider sacred to the Olympics are now being questioned. The Torch and Olympic sites are a modern traditions. To lose that over politics is like losing personal rights due to the passing of a local law limiting certain behaviors. My wish is for the protestors to protest. For the masses to know that politics are the main reason. To have diverse host countries for each and every Olympics. To keep the flame alive and to encourage appreciation to the host people. Tommorow the political jousting will still continue. Will the Olympic flame? ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 17-Apr-2008 at 16:03
|
Much of what you said, about protesting in general, I agree with. However, I do think that in relation to the topic of this thread a mountain is being made of a molehill. Has anyone even broken a fingernail in all this?
With regard to the torch, i'm not objecting to it directly, but to the whole charade of parading it around the world. In fact it would be rather neat if at the close of the Games a spark of the flame should be directly handed over to the hosts of the next Games to care for and use in relighting next time.
I agree the actual lighting of the flame is an impressive - and not nationalistic - ceremony. Mostly I remember Mohammed Ali lighting it in Atlanta.
For youtube - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seF7noys9QQ - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seF7noys9QQ
Like I said, I wouldn't be upset if Greece were made the permanent host, but I also don't mind it rotating. But it is supposed to rotate between cities - the Games are awarded to cities not countries, and I can do without the sight of any national flag anywhere at any time during the whole fortnight. ------------- |
Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 18-Apr-2008 at 03:58
here is another story of a brave chinese student that doesnt get the same attention, well the right attention. This is a nice foot note of moderate and independant thinking - brave in the face of some very ugly attitudes and the shameful behavoiur.
 picture from the NY times
http://news.google.com.au/news?hl=en&tab=wn&ie=UTF-8&ncl=1151938325 - http://news.google.com.au/news?hl=en&tab=wn&ie=UTF-8&ncl=1151938325
Grace wang
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 18-Apr-2008 at 06:58
|
Occupational hazard of taking unpopular stances. But I agree she is a brave girl, though hardly "unnocticed" as the King of Sparta would have us believe.
Incidentally, no western news agency noticed Jiu either, it was the Chinese media which "outed" her.
GLCE2003, Jiu Jing suffered bleeding and bruises due to the attack on her by the brave and fearless Tibetan protestors.
------------- |
Posted By: snowybeagle
Date Posted: 18-Apr-2008 at 09:21
I believe the first post of this thread made some mention about it.
But even if she had been a martial artist fully capable of knocking out any aggressors and not get hurt in the process, it'd still be no excuse for attempting to physically violate her.
Nobody don't have the right to hurt even a single hair of another person.
You mean like making a mountain out of a molehill?
I suppose that would depend on what you would refer to as the "mountain" and what you would refer to as the "molehill".
A human being, the Torch bearer was assaulted. That is neither a molehill nor a mountain, it is a fact.
That she was lionised for propaganda purposes by the PRC could be a mountain, but that does nothing to diminish that it was a wrong thing to do to her.
That she was not seriously injured is also not a molehill - i.e., it is cowardly, it would be a total lack of integrity to trivialise the fact that physical violation has occurred.
What is worse is one of AE's moderators, Temujin, tried to bring in Nazism and wheelchair together, citing an entirely ficticious Dr Strangelove, when there is nothing to remotely associate Jin Jing with being a Nazi or otherwise an evil person or deserves being assaulted.
Cathy Freeman carried the Torch during its last leg in the 2000 Sydney Olympics, she being an Australian Aborigine, as a representative of a country whose country once inflicted horrors on her ethnic group. And at the time of Freeman's carrying the Torch, the Australian government had yet to apologise for the Stolen Generations.
Any association of the Torch with Nazism is purely a matter of personal opinion - one does not have the right to impose it on others, nor expect to be justified when they acted upon it to physically violate others who do not share the same opinion.
There shouldn't be any comparison between Australia and China, but then again, there shouldn't be any obligation for any sportsman carrying the Olympic Torch to bear responsibilities for his or her government's misdeeds, neither from the past, nor at the present.
And on the issue that there shouldn't be an issue that it was a bearer on wheelchair being assaulted, there's both yes and no.
As a volunteer interpretor and tutor for the deaf for more than a decade, I do affirm that people with disabilities should expect the same dignity in treatment as any others.
But I also object to the proposal that they are the same as people without disabilities, the sameness extending to being treated in exactly the same way.
You're not respecting a deaf person if you expect to communicate with a deaf person by talking like you would to a normal hearing person, unless you have foreknowledge that the deaf person is fully capable of such communication via cochlear implants (and don't assume lip-reading is a perfect substitute).
Similarly, assaulting a wheelchair bound person is not the same as assaulting a fully abled person, ceteris paribus. The protestor who attacked Jin Jing may have done the same to a fully-abled Torch bearer, but it does not mitigate the worsening of his wrong in doing so to a wheelchair person.
This got nothing to do with the personal capacity, capability or dignity of the victim.
The ignominy of an abled person attacking an innocent disabled is inexcusable.
On Jin Jing having acquitted herself admirably for her performance during the attack, I have no doubt.
Even an abled person in similar situations might not have kept as cool, so she definitely did well, though I won't support her being used for propaganda purposes.
What didn't they used to have?
Torch relay was a late intro, but flag wavings and medal ceremonies were there since revival of modern Olympics.
I don't mind the last part myself, for a different reason.
I thought it'd be nicer if the participants of the Games were not identified with their nationalities but as members of a common human race.
That way, no nation has any reason to wave its flag around the Games, though cities might, since the host is a city, it might become an inter-city Games.
Unfortunately, there were practical constraints to maintain the Olympics at inter-country level at the moment.
For one thing, it limits the number of participants from bigger and richer countries, allowing people from the smaller or poorer countries more chances at more medals.
Medals alone isn't the sole reason for a participant to take part in the Games, of course, but a free-for-all would probably favour people from bigger/richer countries over smaller/poorer countries, and would likely affect the participation levels in an undesirable way, linking it to the wealth and population size of a country.
And more important than medals during the Olympics are enabling those without such advantages to be able to better participate.
I wouldn't want to see, for example, an Olympics Basketball tournament dominated exclusively by various teams from USA only.
As a matter of fact, even in business, there's such a thing as anti-trust or anti-monopoly laws to give the smaller players a chance.
|
Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 18-Apr-2008 at 10:33
|
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 18-Apr-2008 at 11:23
They were neither brave nor fearless.
But thanks for introducng a note of sanity here. How much bleeding and bruising? ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 18-Apr-2008 at 12:00
Sparten just contributed that there was some bleeding and bruising, which at least begins to put the thing into perspective.
Of course they don't. Insofar as someone hurt her they should be held responsible for compensation, with damages either agreed or fixed by a court. For criminal action you would have to take into account whether the hurt was intentional or not, or whether it was the result of an attempt to commit some other crime.
However, de minimis non curat lex .( http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/D/Deminimisnoncuratlex.aspx - http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/D/Deminimisnoncuratlex.aspx )
You mean like making a mountain out of a molehill?
[/QUOTE]
Yes.
It's an opinion.
You have a funny idea of physical violation. That she was not seriously injured is precisely what makes it a molehill. In fact she doesn't appear to have been 'injured' at all - scratched and bruised isn't 'injured'.
He did nothing even remotely like calling her a Nazi. He pointed out that the Nazis invented the whole torch relay thing (I can add helped by the Nazi-sympathising IOC chairman, Avery Brundage, who was responsible for its later continuance, and a lot of the other nationalistic aspects that have crept into the Games.) He was right. We would be better off without it.
It's making up fictitious allegations like that that causes a lot of the problems here.
[/QUOTE]
Cathy Freeman carried the Torch during its last leg in the 2000 Sydney Olympics, she being an Australian Aborigine, as a representative of a country whose country once inflicted horrors on her ethnic group. And at the time of Freeman's carrying the Torch, the Australian government had yet to apologise for the Stolen Generations.
Any association of the Torch with Nazism is purely a matter of personal opinion
[/QUOTE]
No it's not, it's a historical fact. We're supposed to take history seriously here.
And Mohammed Ali lit the torch at Atlanta, recognition of his sporting excellence in spite of his opposition to US policies in his prime, and his stand against the Vietnam war, which nearly landed him in prison.
I wonder what the probability of a famous anti-Communist protester lighting the Olympic flame in Beijing is?
Nope. They were introduced in 1932. http://www.olympic.org/uk/games/past/index_uk.asp?OLGT=1&OLGY=1932 - http://www.olympic.org/uk/games/past/index_uk.asp?OLGT=1&OLGY=1932
I don't see that that is true at all. I assume minimum qualifying standards would still have to be met, and there'd have to be some kind of pre-qualifying meets in various places. Most of the main contenders from small countries even now actually live and train in large countries: I suspect rivalry between colleges and clubs would still continue to pull in athletes from overseas, just as it does overwhelmingly now in soccer.
Consider how many players from small countries play in the European Champions' League now. Or in the US basketball leagues for that matter.
I agree though that this is something that needs to be borne in mind.
[/QUOTE]
Medals alone isn't the sole reason for a participant to take part in the Games, of course, but a free-for-all would probably favour people from bigger/richer countries over smaller/poorer countries, and would likely affect the participation levels in an undesirable way, linking it to the wealth and population size of a country.
And more important than medals during the Olympics are enabling those without such advantages to be able to better participate.
I wouldn't want to see, for example, an Olympics Basketball tournament dominated exclusively by various teams from USA only.
As a matter of fact, even in business, there's such a thing as anti-trust or anti-monopoly laws to give the smaller players a chance. [/QUOTE] ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 18-Apr-2008 at 12:04
Sparten just contributed that there was some bleeding and bruising, which at least begins to put the thing into perspective.
Of course they don't. Insofar as someone hurt her they should be held responsible for compensation, with damages either agreed or fixed by a court. For criminal action you would have to take into account whether the hurt was intentional or not, or whether it was the result of an attempt to commit some other crime.
However, de minimis non curat lex .( http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/D/Deminimisnoncuratlex.aspx - http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/D/Deminimisnoncuratlex.aspx )
Yes.
It's an opinion.
You have a funny idea of physical violation. That she was not seriously injured is precisely what makes it a molehill. In fact she doesn't appear to have been 'injured' at all - scratched and bruised isn't 'injured'.
He did nothing even remotely like calling her a Nazi. He pointed out that the Nazis invented the whole torch relay thing (I can add helped by the Nazi-sympathising IOC chairman, Avery Brundage, who was responsible for its later continuance, and a lot of the other nationalistic aspects that have crept into the Games.) He was right. We would be better off without it.
It's making up fictitious allegations like that that causes a lot of the problems here.
No it's not, it's a historical fact. We're supposed to take history seriously here.
And Mohammed Ali lit the torch at Atlanta, recognition of his sporting excellence in spite of his opposition to US policies in his prime, and his stand against the Vietnam war, which nearly landed him in prison.
I wonder what the probability of a famous anti-Communist protester lighting the Olympic flame in Beijing is?
Nope. They were introduced in 1932. http://www.olympic.org/uk/games/past/index_uk.asp?OLGT=1&OLGY=1932 - http://www.olympic.org/uk/games/past/index_uk.asp?OLGT=1&OLGY=1932
I don't see that that is true at all. I assume minimum qualifying standards would still have to be met, and there'd have to be some kind of pre-qualifying meets in various places. Most of the main contenders from small countries even now actually live and train in large countries: I suspect rivalry between colleges and clubs would still continue to pull in athletes from overseas, just as it does overwhelmingly now in soccer.
Consider how many players from small countries play in the European Champions' League now. Or in the US basketball leagues for that matter.
I agree though that this is something that needs to be borne in mind.
------------- |
Posted By: snowybeagle
Date Posted: 19-Apr-2008 at 00:13
Whether these violations would be prosecutable, or whether the victim even wants to do so, does not change the fact that it happened.
So when is it in your opinion okay to deliberately get physically rough with someone without their consent?
I don't think it is funny to think to hold that nobody has the right to even merely scratch or bruise her, or anybody else, in the first place.
I never mentioned anything about what should be compensated to her - that's a matter for the courts and a matter of legal/moral opinion.
Instead of simply admitting the fact that she was violated physically, many posters just try to trivialise it.
The only other people I know who trivialise physical violations in similar fashions are culprits of sexual harassments in the office, pointing to "traditional culture" and that "she got to expect it."
Here is the original post he made when he brought it up, and what it's in response to.
Why question whether a disabled person can or cannot be a Nazi at all if there is nothing to associate a Torch relay bearer with Nazism, not anymore than Cathy Freeman or Mohd Ali?
Fact is the relay was started by the Nazi.
Fact is the torch was started earlier.
Fact is people are free not to associate it with the Nazi but with the Olympic spirit.
Gotta go now. will post more later.
|
if you're familiar with recent German politicians, you'll know MR. Schäuble whose dream it is to create the perfect police state that makes the Stasi look like good neighbours. i wouldn't mind him.... but i'll stop now or maybe i'll suddenly dissapear into oblivion... Posted By: Maharbbal
Date Posted: 19-Apr-2008 at 01:51
|
gcle once more proved he was a heartless monster. The poor girl is in a wheelchair now! She was an athlete and now she is unable to even walk!!! At least the Chinese in Tibet have the decency to finish off those they brutalize. That is what I call civilization. ------------- I am a free donkey! |
Posted By: snowybeagle
Date Posted: 19-Apr-2008 at 04:03
Slim to none, but that's hardly the point here.
Any bearer is free to decide for himself or herself what the Torch symbolises.
And while others are free to disagree, they are not free to attack the bearer who has different ideas.
It just said "At the victory ceremonies, the medal winners stood on a victory stand and the flag of the winner was raised."
But medals had been awarded even way before that.
Maybe the stand and raising the flag of the winner is what you object to, but these are hardly unique to the Olympics.
In any case, the Olympics game had been evolving since it was revived at the end of the 19th century, and features such as staying in Olympics village, doping tests, and many of the competitive events today weren't part of the original modern Olympics Athens 1896 or 1900.
Just because something is an added feature alone is not necessarily a good reason to remove them. It all depends on its raison d'etre.
Which contenders from small countries live and train in large countries?
What is the basis for claiming most of them come under this category?
So how many of them are there?
Do they even have enough to form credible national teams for their own countries?
|
Posted By: snowybeagle
Date Posted: 19-Apr-2008 at 04:06
Her unable to walk got nothing to do with the assault.
Quite an uncalled for comparison.
|
Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 19-Apr-2008 at 05:38
|
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 19-Apr-2008 at 11:11
The question is what really happened and how serious it really was.
It's never completely OK. But that's only my opinion, not a fact. Anyway, what I said was an opinion is whether what happened actually amounted to an assault.
What's strange is to call it a physical violation. That usually refers to rape, though it can also mean giving serious injury.
Or, alternatively, many posters try to make a mountain out of a molehill.
The comparison is absurd.
It remains true that Temujin did nothing like calling her a Nazi, as your own quote shows. Of course torch bearers can be Nazis. They can have any political viewpoint, religion or ideology you care to name.
Fact is you were wrong. You confused the torch with the flame, which was introduced in 1928. The association of the torch with the Nazis is a fact, not an opnion.
------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 19-Apr-2008 at 11:49
Wasn't me that brought up Kathy Freeman in the first place. It may seem irrelevant, but both the Freeman and Ali instances indicate the political nature of the choice of athlete lighting the flame.
Again you keep on with 'attack'. As maharbbal put it cogently, if ironically, it wasn't the protesters who put her in the wheelchair.
(Maharbbal - it takes one heartless monster to know another
 )
But not in ceremonies involving national anthems and flags held in the stadium on podiums and so on. In at least one Games, I forget which, the medals were posted to the recipients. And a few times anyway they were presented en masse at the end of the whole Games.
Which hardly excuses it. It started with the Olympics, and it makes it even worse that it has been widely copied.
True. Olympic villages for instance are on the whole a good thing. Holding the Games over two concentrated weeks is ôn the whole a good thing. Splitting off the winter Games is a good thing.
But pandering to nationalism and political ideology isn't.
You don't seem to actually follow sports at all. Even many of the UK contenders live and train in the US. On the one hand this is because the facilities are better, on the other it's because universities in particular are keen to recruit talent. Sometimes of course it isn't small country to large country, but rather developing country to developed one, as with Kipketer moving to Denmark, or Obikwelu to Portugal. Sometimes it's one big country to another, as with Russia's Sharapova in the US.
Multitudes. Look at the team sheets of the UK Premiership teams any weekend. At the top you're fairly lucky to see an English name. It probably isn't so marked in US basketball, but there are certainly a surprising number of southern Slav names around.
Small nations quite often field teams all the players of which regularly play in big country leagues, since that is where the money is.
I don't see why there should be anything wrong with having the 64 100m sprinters, say, with the best times recorded in the world in the past year, qualified for the Games without any regard for their nationality at all. ------------- |
Posted By: snowybeagle
Date Posted: 19-Apr-2008 at 17:11
How serious is a matter of opinion.
What happened is not.
You may choose to think what happened is not serious, but it does not negate the fact that it happened.
So are you saying it is not completely NOT OK either to deliberately get physical on someone without permission?
Ah, so are you suggesting that opinion is a matter for the legal courts, and the performance of the lawyers?
All rapes are physical violations, but not all physical violations are rapes.
Any unwanted and forced physical contact is a form of physical violation (and we're not talking about two individuals trying to pass each other in a narrow corridor).
If you mean by lionising the victim or using it for propaganda purposes, yes.
Neither blowing it up nor playing it down is honest.
Absurdity is triviliasing the incident to being immaterial because it was merely scratches and bruises.
But was this particular disabled Torch bearer one?
If not, why was he following up to the report of the attack on this particular disabled Torch Bearer by saying disabled can also be Nazis?
If you want to be fussy about it, I didn't directly say Temujin called her a Nazi either, but you chose to interprete it and responded saying "He did nothing even remotely like calling her a Nazi."
I didn't confuse anything.
There is much more to the Olympic Torch than just association with the Nazis. That too is a fact.
Before there was a Relay, there was first a revival of the Olympic Torch in 1928.
Since 1936, including 2008, there have been 18 relays organized by the hosts, and numerous changes have been introduced to the Relay since 1936.
No one denied the Nazi introduced the concept in 1936.
But it is sheer narrow-mindedness to insist that that should be the only or the primary association of the relay.
It is akin to insisting that because the modern rocketry developed after WW2 were all traced back to the V-2 rocket technology introduced by the Nazis, modern rocketry is only to be associated with Nazism or a symbol of Nazism.
And what's so Nazi about them?
And it was the Paris 1900 Olympics IIRC that they pulled people off the streets to become participants.
And they used to insist on oaths of amaterism.
Used to have something against competing on the Sabbath day too.
Formal protocols used to require flags to be dipped when passing by the King (1908 London), but Americans broke that tradition and blazed the trail for others to follow suit.
Lots of things changed during the course of modern Olympics.
Not everything necessarily for the better, but I won't demand any particular change just to suit personal sensibilities of individuals. The Games belong to more than any individual today.
True enough.
But flag raising, medal stands podium aren't limited to nationalism or political ideology.
We were discussing about sportsmen from *small* countries. Not sure of your expectations, but UK is hardly small.
Seems applicable only for soccer.
Isn't that what's happening now?
There is no limiting entries for individual events from any particular country.
It's the team sports that a country is limited to fielding only 1 team, and giving more opportunities to smaller countries. |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 19-Apr-2008 at 22:30
What is an opinion is what you should call what happened. What happened happened, but neither of us was there to tell what happened.
It is certainly OK to deliberately get physical on someone without permission sometimes and in some circumstances. Or we would not have police forces.
I'm also holding that sometimes 'getting physical' is an overstatement of the situation that happened. It's 'getting physical' to push in front of someone in a queue, but it hardly amounts to assault. Or, if you take a very broad meaning of 'assault' then the 'assault' may well not be serious.
Yes.
Which is why I said 'usually'. It's cognate with French 'violer' which always (in the case of a person) means 'rape'.
Why aren't we? We're talking specifically about the attempt to snatch something from the hands of someone in a wheelchair (or not in a wheelchair for that matter). I doubt there was any intended physical assault. If the snatcher has succeeded in grabbing it from her, I don't in the least imagine he would have hit her with it.
I think you can only have one entrant in a number of non-team disciplines. For instance in the one-man yachting classes, and the single sculls.
However the more general point is that each country is limited in how many competitors it can field, but entitled to field athletes even if they are nowhere near world-class, which sometimes leads to ludicrous situations. ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 19-Apr-2008 at 22:36
What is an opinion is what you should call what happened. What happened happened, but neither of us was there to tell what happened.
It is certainly OK to deliberately get physical on someone without permission sometimes and in some circumstances. Or we would not have police forces.
I'm also holding that sometimes 'getting physical' is an overstatement of the situation that happened. It's 'getting physical' to push in front of someone in a queue, but it hardly amounts to assault. Or, if you take a very broad meaning of 'assault' then the 'assault' may well not be serious.
Yes.
Which is why I said 'usually'. It's cognate with French 'violer' which always (in the case of a person) means 'rape'.
Why aren't we? We're talking specifically about the attempt to snatch something from the hands of someone in a wheelchair (or not in a wheelchair for that matter). I doubt there was any intended physical assault. If the snatcher has succeeded in grabbing it from her, I don't in the least imagine he would have hit her with it.
That appears to be a factual statement of what occurred. What happened is what happened. If all that resulted was scratches and bruises, then all that resulted was scratches and bruises. That is precisely an objective measure of the seriousness of the incident.
Because someone had imputed they could not be.
That was when the Olympic flame was first lit. Not when the torch became a symbol.
Again you're confusing the flame with the torch.
Possibly. However the introduction of the Torch, like Riefenstahl's immortalisation of it, marked a significant change in the nationalistic spirit of the Games. It isn't just Hitler and the Nazis, it's the reign of Avery Brundage as Chairman of the IOC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avery_Brundage - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avery_Brundage
Not really. There were rockets before the V2, in the Napoleonic wars and before that. The first liquid-fuelled rocket, ancestor of the V2 and today's space exploration rockets, was launched in 1926 in the US.
Nothing. I said the choices were politically inspired. I don't think the Olympics should be either political or nationalistic.
And, incidentally, while we're on the subject, I think the ancient Greek tradition should be followed and countries currently engaged in warfare should be banned from the Games.
They may not be limited to it, but when they play national anthems and raise national flags they're enshrining nationalism.
I don't mind if they have a ceremony where the winner gets to play his favourite record and wave his old school tie. As long as I can switch channels.
Your other examples of changes are trivial compared to the growth of nationalism and the infiltration of politics. The only significant one is the change to allow professionals to compete, although there the problem is that in some sports (e.g. soccer) it's still only half-way.
No, but it's smaller than the US. Denmark is hardly 'big' but Kipketer going there is still relevant. My point is that athletes move to where the facilities, the opportunities and the money is. I quoted some small countries. But check out for yourself where athletes from the West Indies and Africa actually live and train.
Well, it will only apply to team games, won't it? In some sports, like cricket, restrictions on the number of overseas players limit the opportunities but the fact that those restrictions are wanted shows that more would come in if they could. (Currently of course in cricket India counts as a big country which is why pretty well all the world's top players have signed up to play there right now.) It wouldn't surprise me if you could put together a Croat basketball team of which all the players regularly played abroad, or a Dominican baseball side. Of course in non-team games like tennis and golf everyone plays pretty well everywhere anyway.
There's a limit on the maximum number of competitors one country can have in any one event. That is, for instance, you can only have three entrants in the 100m, 3 in the 200m and so on (I don't think it's always three). The maximum number of competitors a country can have in one sport depends on how many events the sport is divided into.
I think you can only have one entrant in a number of non-team disciplines. For instance in the one-man yachting classes, and the single sculls.
However the more general point is that each country is limited in how many competitors it can field, but entitled to field athletes even if they are nowhere near world-class, which sometimes leads to ludicrous situations. ------------- |
Posted By: snowybeagle
Date Posted: 20-Apr-2008 at 07:43
An attempt which the perpetrator has no right to attempt at all in the first place.
Intended or not, that's what it amounts to.
A snatcher of purse might have not intended to hurt the victim or physically jostle her, he is no less culpable for the whole incident, including getting physical with the victim.
It may not be serious, which is a matter of opinion, but it still occurred and it is still an incident.
Don't try to make it seems that nothing happened, that's what I'm saying.
Show that imputation.
Nope. You are confusing it with the fact that there are more than one association to the Torch and to the Relay.
Which is history. History like Baron Pierre de Courbetin, founder of the modern Olympics, who initially refused to allow participation of women, and conceded only for events where women's modesty could be "preserved".
Modern Olympics is no more about sexual discrimination than the Relay is about Nazism.
So what? What I posted was post-WW2 rocketry are traced back to the V-2, not rocketry itself. Read carefully what others posted.
So what has it got to do with this whole exchange?
The Olympic truce? Not a bad idea.
You already can do that.
I'm from a small country ... some of my country's swimmers train in the US and in Australia.
And it all costs a lot of money, which my country can afford, but many others can't.
Perhaps ... like how members of the Timor Leste team was able to participate for the first time not under the Indonesian flag but their own national flag during 2000 Sydney Olympics ...
Didn't win a single medal, which was not surprising, but their very presence was a moral booster to many people, judging from the standing ovation they got ...
the Olympics spirit transcended nationalism ... just because people were proud to represent their own country didn't mean they were antagonistic to people from other countries ...
Or the 1956 Melbourne which saw the international crowds cheering for the Hungarians beating the USSR in water-polo ...
Czech Emil Zapotek spoke of 1948 London Olympics "The revival of the Olympics was as if the sun had come out. I went into the Olympic Village in 1948, and suddenly there were no more frontiers, no more barriers. Just the peoples meeting together. It was wonderfully warm."
What you call nationalism apparently did not distract many participants from camaderie among sportsmen.
|
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 20-Apr-2008 at 10:51
Agreed. But not my point.
If there is serious damage, he's liable. I've already agreed with that. The important question is whether there was enough damage done for anyone to worry about.
And what I'm saying is don't try and make out anything serious happened.
The impression many people had been giving was that somehow the girl must automatically be innocent because she was in a wheelchair. Temujin was questioning that assumption, and it's reasonable to do so.
There was no 'Olympic Torch' until 1936. That's factual. There was an 'Olympic Flame' lit in 1928, resurrecting the ancient Greek custom of keeping a flame burning throughout the period of the Games. But there was no 'Torch' until the Germans introduced the concept of lighting the flame in Greece and carrying it from there to Berlin in 1936.
Before 1936, no relay and no 'Olympic Torch', either in the modern Olympics or the ancient ones.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympic_Flame - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympic_Flame
and everywhere else that I can see.
Which is what this forum is about, no?
The Olympics still discriminates between men and women: the only question is how and to what extent, unless you're advocating no distinction should be made at all.
However, the Olympics has become less and less discriminatory on gender grounds, while becoming more and more influenced by nationalism and politics. The former is a good thing, the latter a bad one.
You're implication was that it started with the V-2, just as the relay started in 1936.
Watch more carefully what you write.
This whole exchange is about politics in activities associated with the Games. The whole thing is certainly political, and largely it appears nationalistic.
In the past, in travelling through a country, the torch has been carried by athletes from that country, not from the host. Here for some reason a Chinese athlete was carrying it through Paris, not a Frenchwoman. Why would that be if not for nationalistic reasons?
Then your swimmers need better agents. Nike and Adidas and the others don't care what country you come from, just how good you are. (And I suppose sometimes how good-looking you are, but I don't know what's to be done about that.)
That's a great example of politics getting mixed up with sport. That's not 'transending nationalism' it's enshrining it.
Politics again. And Melbourne isn't a terribly good example, since at least seven countries boycotted the Games for political reasons (one of them, ironically, the PRC, because Formosa (as it was then called) was allowed to compete.
I remember the 48 Olympics. I was at Wembley for the soccer final in which Sweden beat Yugoslavia 3-1. It terms of international harmony it was probably the last great Games. The anti-Fascist wars were over, and the cold war was only just beginning.
Even then though there was a fuss when a Czech gold medallist defected rather than return home after the recent Communist takeover.
It's not among the sportsmen that the problems usually arise. Even in 1936. ------------- |
Posted By: snowybeagle
Date Posted: 20-Apr-2008 at 16:37
That is happened is enough.
Do show which post claimed that a girl in wheelchair must automatically be innocent.
Fine, I won't use the term flame and torch interchangably - without the Flame, there won't be a Torch, so the Torch did originate from the Flame.
Sure, and that would also mean to make a distinction whether it *is* history or it is still *not over*.
Perhaps, but we no longer keep the discrimination today has no longer the ghost of Courbetin's, and given how Torch relay has had many bearers of what the Nazi would term as inferior races, Freeman and Ali being among them, there is no significant Nazi ghost there either - except for those who want to keep it alive.
Read carefully what I posted again. Here is the quote from the post I made:
In case you missed it, let me highlight the relevant part in bold.
And allow commercialism to run even more amok? No, thank you, though it's not like I got a say it in myself.
You complain of nationalism during medal awards spoil the Games but you think nothing of the even more ubiquitous rampant commercialism ???!!!!
How does cheering for a liberated country enshrine nationalism for people from other countries??!!!
They did it for humanitarian reasons, which incidentally, is what the non-Tibetan pro-Tibetan supporters are claiming for protesting against China. |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 20-Apr-2008 at 21:26
he was directly comparing her with unrelated shopowners in Lhasa which he called innocent. |
Posted By: snowybeagle
Date Posted: 21-Apr-2008 at 04:23
That post does not show Killabee saying the Torch bearer is innocent simply by being a disabled person.
he said "attack on the disabled girl is very sick to watch". He didn't say anything about her being innocent because she's on wheelchair.
He also said attacks on the innocent Han and Hui shopowners are sick to watch.
None of these got anything with claiming a person on wheelchair must automatically be innocent.
|
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 21-Apr-2008 at 11:54
What happened? Who got hurt? How badly? Let's be objective about this. Is kicking someone in the ankle as bad as chopping their head of? A sense of proportion is needed here.
I said that was 'the impression many people had been giving', not that it was in a specific post. People were leaping to their feet accusing the protesters of all sorts of things, and nobody had pointed out that maybe the girl shares some of the blame. It's that absence I'm pointing to: I can't provide an instance of something not being there.
Not that I would impute much blame to her personally because I doubt she had much choice in the matter, but the organisers of the relay certainly share some of the blame. Maybe Chinese athletes shouldn't have been carrying the torch through France (or any country but China) in the first place.
Yes. Later. Thousands of years later.
You're the one that said 'It's history' as if dismissing it. I agreed with you it was history, but I don't think that makes it unimportant.
There is certainly continues to be a nationalist ghost in the Games today. That first started getting serious in 1936, and it still continues. 1936 was the first Games which were threatened with being boycotted for political reasons, and there are still threats of boycott today. The Games of 1956, 1976, 1980, 1984, 1988 were boycotted and 1972 was threatened with boycott. In 1992 and 2000 Afghanistan didn't participate. Since 1968 only the 1996 and 2004 Games saw all member countries participating, and now we're threatened with boycott again.
Exactly. You were wrong to say it was akin. The institution of the torch and the relay started with the Berlin Games in 1936. Modern rocketry did not start with the V2. Hence the two are not akin.
Commercialism doesn't kill people. Nationalism does. Commercialism - in this area - only discriminates on the basis of talent, not on race or nationality and not that much on gender. Commercialism means money from rich countries goes to athletes from poor ones.
This was the team sheet for Arsenal when they played in the UK premiership this weekend:
The only British name on the whole list is Walcott, and he's black, and doesn't usually start.
That's the way commercialism defeats nationalism.
It's supporting one nation against another.
True, but I don't agree with them calling for a boycott either.
------------- |
Posted By: snowybeagle
Date Posted: 21-Apr-2008 at 18:53
Just stick to the facts, or facts as best as known, which is what's reported, and that won't be an issue.
Leave it to others to blow it up or play it down as they wish.
We were discussing Temujin's response to Killabee's here.
Before you can blame someone, you got to identify what the misdeed is.
Then why suggest she got any blame in the first place?
1928 to 1936? Don't seem that long.
Not dismissing but putting it into context.
Read carefully again - it's "the modern rocketry developed after WW2".
This refers to post-WW2 developments in modern rocketry, not modern rocketry developed only after WW2.
It's nationalism outside the Games that kill. Commercialism outside the Games led to destruction of much natural environment, not to mention waging war for oil/resources in the guise of war on terrorism or other excuses.
And don't forget the dopings.
Commercialism is more pervasive and more malignant to sports than nationalism.
They didn't support Timor Leste or Hungary because of they loved these particular nations or hate others, but because of humanitarian reasons - these countries were victims. |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 22-Apr-2008 at 10:27
Agreed. That cuts both ways.
I didn't. I simply pointed out that the issue hadn't been raised. Whether she was forced to take part or not I don't actually know (and I don't know if anyone else here knows), but it's a legitimate issue to raise.
Certainly the fact that someone is disabled doesn't mean he or she should be exempt from any possibility of criticism, which is what I understand Temujin's point to be.
The Olympic flame was introduced in antiquity, at least theoretically in 776 BC. The torch was introduced in 1936 AD. According to my arithmetic that's 2,712 years.
Modern rocketry - i.e. liquid-fuelled rockets - started before WW2. Military rocketry in general started long before that.
Yes but let's stick to the topic. The Olympics has steadily been ruined by nationalism: the original Olympics were specifically designed to celebrate the community of all the athletes. Commercialism has made more money available to athletes from poor countries, simply because given commercial motives you do not care what nationality and athlete is.
Precisely. By far the worst doping scandals have involved Soviet-era communist countries, for whom fostering nationalism was a political aim to support the regimes.
And incidentally China has been as concerned in doping stories as any country. Remember 'Ma's army'?
Why? It means the best athletes get higher rewards, irrespective of their country of origin, which means the athletes are even more motivated to do better. And the worst result is that you're exposed to more advertising.
How does it hurt sports if athletes carry a Nike logo on their singlets or their shoes?
The world's most commercialised sports - tennis, golf, angling, motor-racing, cycling - still pull in most spectators: how has commercialisation damaged them?
That the cause is a good one doesn't stop it being nationalist/political.
------------- |
Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 22-Apr-2008 at 10:40
Indeed. The rampant nationalism surrounding the 2008 games has totally put me off from watching. I'm afraid the whole concept of the Olympic games is going to be ruined should this escalate. |
Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 23-Apr-2008 at 00:35
|
the status symbol of hosting the olympics brings in such political > nationalistic dimensions to the games to start with. Why did the PRC get the games? it was a welcome matt from the rest of the world, at the same time a chance for the PRC to show they are walking amongst the big league. I think we did this too soon, our leaders closed their eyes for the trade dollar and right now the PR train wreck has shown egg on their faces as much as that of the CCP. Pretending everything is ok, doesnt mean other issues simply fade away. Economic growth is meaningless without political freedoms.
The (mainly reactive) nationalism surrounding these games will spoil the party more so than any protester that set it off or beyond any gain for the CCP - after it had intitally encouraged it for its own domestic political gain. I hope that everyone gets their deserves.
|
Posted By: snowybeagle
Date Posted: 23-Apr-2008 at 02:00
Okay, we got press reports and pictures showing someone physically attacking her.
What have anyone got to show she is supposed to be guilty of something?
Whether she was forced to take part is irrelevant.
We're talking about the insinuation associating her and Nazism.
That might be what he intended, but that's not what he posted.
Killabee said the attack on a person in a wheelchair is sick to watch, as attacks on innocent Han and Hui shopkeepers in Tibet.
Temujin questioned why a disabled person cannot be a Nazi.
If there is no suggestion that she should even be a Nazi in the first place, why bring it up?
There's a lot of other things a disabled person can be, but unless there is something to suggest he/she is one, bringing it up is irrelevant.
It's like introducing a new colleague at the office, and say, "This is Jane, she's never been raped."
This is just weaseling with words.
Nobody has said she was supposed to be immune to criticism.
But if someone wants to say she's not to be immune, then first suggest what she's supposed to be critisized for and provide the basis for it.
Which Temujin has never done when he introduced Nazism into it.
When the Olympic was revived in 1896, the Flame was not.
It was re-introduced in 1928. The modern Flame is derived from the ancient Flame, the Relay from the Modern Flame.
Not dismissing but putting it into context.
There's modern rocketry before WW2, and modern rocketry after WW2.
The post clearly refers to the latter, which made use of German V-2 technology.
The V-2 technology was a milestone in modern rocketry and significant enough to denote a new phase.
Commercialism has been more subversive than nationalism in the Games.
The original Olympics were restricted to only the Hellenes.
This is the modern Olympics.
You don't want to see national flags in the Games, I don't want to see Coca-Cola or Visa.
Don't forget much of the money from commercialism to the poor countries actually come when where the corporations reap from "low costs" in poor countries in the first place.
It's worse when the likes of Ben Johnson and Marion Jones did it without "nationalism" forcing them.
Do not confuse the athlete's prize for winning the race and his price for product endorsements.
If it is really his reward, then he would be entitled to it even though he refuses to have anything to do with product endorsement or allow his pictures taken for any publicity purposes.
And how does it hurt sports if athletes carry their national flag on their singlets?
Nope, it just doesn't make it safer from people who got a bone to pick with nationalism.
The last thing on the minds on those who gave standing ovation to Timor Leste delegation is nationalism.
Indonesia is neither a military nor economic threat to Australia. There's no basis for accusing the moral support to Timor Leste on nationalistic agenda.
|
Posted By: snowybeagle
Date Posted: 23-Apr-2008 at 03:19
Economic growth in countries like China is what brings about greater political freedoms.
So do I ... so do I ...
I suspect it is a truism anyway. It's just that it happens either in an unexpected way, or it happens without us knowing.
|
Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 23-Apr-2008 at 04:14
like? the PRC has done no real political change.In tibet or in China proper
|
Posted By: snowybeagle
Date Posted: 23-Apr-2008 at 04:33
More PRC citizens had been allowed to travel and move abroad than ever before, and the number keeps growing.
In urban areas, there is a growing clout from middle-class citizenry that saw emergence of independents running for office.
Unlike before, people are now better able to protest against illegal land seizures for developments, including those attempted by members of the local CCP chapters.
Power and wealth are inseparable. When the distribution of wealth changes, so does the balance of power.
The crazy thing in China is even some of the newly wealthy people are joining the CCP - membership still has its benefits. And this is changing the nature of the CCP from the inside.
Empty slogans don't fill the stomach.
The reasons why communists got into power in Russia and in China were because of the hungry.
Going by Abraham Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, once the basic needs for food and safety has been met, people will naturally demand for more, and further up the pyramid will be political rights.
There is no way a country with a thriving economy with rising middle class can withhold political rights from them.
Considering the history of most wealthier democracies in the world today where political rights for every individual is enshrined, it followed a similar pattern. A rebalancing of power from an exclusive elite to the middle-class, and a long process before political rights finally trickled to the poorest.
|
Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 23-Apr-2008 at 04:44
|
forward thinking, yes the rising middle class is a elephant in the room, but can you predict the CCP's reaction to, lets say power sharing or evolution into something more open? expecting them to step aside or allow more freedoms which could eventually question them is a stretch at this point in time. I hope my doubts are wrong Another biggie around the corner, if not now, is the growing differnce in wealth between the urban and the rural as well as inflation. Freedom of movement is one thing, freedom of expression, information, political affiliation and religoius practice is another.
|
Posted By: snowybeagle
Date Posted: 23-Apr-2008 at 05:01
While I hope the transition will be peaceful, it is perhaps too much to expect it to be entirely trouble-free - few entities in power ever relinquished their monopoly without a fight.
The future is in the hands of the younger generations of party cadres. While previously, most authoritarian regimes held on to power through the military, the PLA today is no longer the preferred route to success for the younger generations, weakening the symbiotic link necessary for the same mechanism that kept such regimes in power.
Wealth gap between the masses and the middle class is certainly the biggest threat to the social order and to the future. It is a clear and present danger.
Unfortunately, some of China's parvenus seemed to be ignorant of this reality and instead chose to live in decadence behind a false sense of security in newly built barricaded enclaves. If the poor do riot in the future, those enclaves would be their graveyards instead of sanctuary.
China's educated have discovered the Internet. Despite attempts by the authorities to retain control, they are learning it is an impossible task and is slowly resigning to having to come to terms with it.
Actually, I observe that most of the younger generations of Chinese today are more concerned with getting rich, and then have freedom of expression, rather than the religious freedom or political affiliation.
|
Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 23-Apr-2008 at 07:17
|
the poor do riot, reports do sometimes come out of unrest in rural China, IIRC Hunan province not that long ago. Not only do they do this beucaue of their living standrds but local corruption and heavy handed authority. Mind you we never know all the root causes on the outside.
Im not sure how much debate or information does make it through the middle class, I presume that the vast majority do not get alternative views from what is proscribed by the CCP, certianly not on the more sensative topics like Tibet. They way i see the standard PRC reaction, is one of shock that such a thing is even an issue and that the fault lies with foreigners be it their media or the 'Dalia clique'. This seems an attack on them and thats what the CCP has been promoting for their own benefit.
There isnt even any question of legitimacy or equility (that is Han vs Tibetan choice in the matter of their mutual relationship). While our media can control the debate by choosing its boundaries, the limitations in the CCP world is so strict one can question the existance of any debate on the fundamentals of such issues.
|
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 24-Apr-2008 at 22:05
why was she brought up in the first place? why is she called an angel? whats that got to do with anything? if the author calls her angel without giving references, i call her Nazi without giving references. she was not the only torch-bearer beign attacked, why focus on her? |
Posted By: snowybeagle
Date Posted: 24-Apr-2008 at 23:21
She was the person attacked.
For protecting the Torch she was carrying.
Which author? The originator of this thread did not call her an angel, he was quoting a news article.
And no, even if a poster here called her an angel without giving references, it only gives you the right to dispute calling her an angel, but it does not give you the right to call her a Nazi without giving references.
This thread is about this particular incident. If you have reason to think this thread should not even be in AE, you are free to mention it.
If you think other attack incidents should be similarly highlighted, you are free to do so.
|
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 25-Apr-2008 at 10:34
As a generalisation that is true. However it overlooks the fact that wealth and power accrue mostly to the people who already have it. Unless constraints are put on the accumulation of power, the natural tendency of government is towards oligarchy.
But they distract from it, as authoritarian regimes have shown throughout history. Orwell's Animal Farm and 1984 depict accurately what happens.
Don't know about China but that certainly isn't true about the Soviet Union.
Which is why those who wish to deny political rights make a point of raising feelings of insecurity by focussing on dangers and threats of interference, either from abroad, or from malcontents and 'counter-revolutionaries'. Of course it is even more effective if they can link malcontents at home with foreign subversion.
The standard way of tackling that threat to the autocracy is by raising the working classes against the middle (which is essentially what happened in bringing about the Bolshevik revolution, and is at the heart of Marxism in general).
Well, that's the route to achieving a wealthy democracy, certainly. But it isn't that easy to achieve, and it certainly isn't inevitable. ------------- |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 25-Apr-2008 at 19:05
which hungry? you mean those hwo starved after the commies took over? commies only took over because they won the civil war, backed by the evil western Soviet Union.
that doesn't make one an angel unless you don't know what an angel is. besides it was her bodyguards who protected the torch. she was just carrying it
news have authors too..... |
Posted By: snowybeagle
Date Posted: 26-Apr-2008 at 04:32
One protestor got through to her while the other guards were occupied, so she did play an active role in protecting the torch.
Like I said, you are free to disagree whether she deserves to be called an angel, but it does not give you any right to call her a Nazi.
A better conduct than this is expected from an AE moderator.
|
Posted By: snowybeagle
Date Posted: 26-Apr-2008 at 11:02
http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2008/04/nationalists-paris-torch-relay-hero-now-a-traitor/ -
|
| http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2008/04/nationalists-paris-torch-relay-hero-now-a-traitor/ - Hero to Traitor: The Difference a Day Makes
Lanzhou-based blogger Liang Fafu wrote a post examining the nationalists’ demonization of Jin. Liang’s commentary is no longer available on his blog but has been re-posted by someone at 6571.net. Translated by CDT: Below is a news item: 2008-04-16 14:24:00 Source: Xinmin.cn. Netizen Comments: 480. Summary: Olympic torch bearer Jin Jing has publicly said she hopes netizens will be prudent in handling calls to boycott Carrefour as the first victims of such a boycott are likely to be the many Chinese who work for Carrefour. Below is some of the commentary from netizens: Netizen from Jinan, Shandong: “Jin Jing is bullshit! Speaking on behalf of Carrefour. I think she’s a traitor.” Netizen from Beijing: “Torch bearer Jin Jing, I earnestly request you to shut your mouth. You’ve done your duty already. Don’t go around making irresponsible remarks. First she’s missing a leg, now she’s missing a brain.” Netizen from Dalian: “This c*nt’s attitude is the same one the Qing rulers had after the Eight Allied Forces came. What was the result then? Are you capable of representing the Great Han Race? Do you what you’re supposed to do!” Netizen from Chengdu: “Someone goes to France once and it’s like she thinks she’s French. Jin Jing speaks with the voice of an utterly brainless evil-eyed wolf traitor. No wonder her original work unit wanted to get rid of her.” Netizen from Jiangmen, Guangdong: “Jin Jing??? A cultureless, brainless stupid c*nt!!! And she’s a torch bearer…I demand we rip the torch from her hands!!!” Look at the face of these nationalists. A few days ago, Jin Jing was a hero because of her courage in the face of attacks from [splittists], but today she becomes a traitor because her conscience led her to point out reality: a boycott of Carrefour will harm the Chinese people who work there. Even if she’s wrong, it’s her right to freely express what she thinks. Why curse her so crudely? In my opinion, the harm done to her here is worse by far than the harm done her by the [splittists]. These nationalists are attacking her for her handicap, launching inhumane personal assaults on her. In the eyes of the nationalists, Chinese workers losing their jobs—losing the money they need to support their families—is a matter of no consequence. For love of country, everybody should be willing to starve to death before going to work for a foreign company. This leaves me speechless. To use such cutting rhetoric to attack a handicapped girl, to assault her on the basis of her handicap—－where has these nationalists’ humanity gone? As long as you love your country, it’s OK to dispense with humanity, dispense with basic respect for other people, dispense with basic respect for the dignity and spirit of a handicapped girl? From this you can see just what kind of thing a nationalist is. Ironically, the New York Times has just run a long piece on China’s love for Jin Jing: “Sympathy on the Streets, But Not for the Tibetans“ |
After excoriating a respected news editor for advocating greater freedom of speech and venting their anger on a Chinese student at Duke University for trying to promote dialogue between pro-China and pro-Tibet protestors, Chinese nationalists have turned their sights on a new, and frankly shocking, target: Jin Jing, the wheelchair-bound fencer declared a national hero last week after using her frail body to protect the Olympic flame from protesters in Paris. Jin’s crime? Expressing doubts over plans for a boycott of French retailer Carrefour–a boycott motivated in large part by the treatment she received in Paris. All which goes to show mindlessness isn't restricted to any nationality.
I just hope rational-minded Chinese like Jin Jing will prevail and stand firm against nonsensical people driven by irrational emotions, or a new generation of Mao's Red Guards will appear.
Moderates always got an unfair label of not taking a strong stance, which is not true.
Moderates aren't moderate 'cos they try to balance themselves between extremes, but because they reject extremism in the first place. The moderate path is not a middle path but a path based on rationality and on clear conscience.