Tiananmen 20th anniversary brings new repression

[hongi]

The point remains, that you are applying a double standard if you say a nation like the US can have a right to do so while other nation can't.

I'm not.

[ray245]

The point remains, that you are applying a double standard if you say a nation like the US can have a right to do so while other nation can't.

I'm not.

I'm mostly addressing what Sarevok have said, nor am I trying to justify China's expansion of foreign influence as something that is good or bad by bringing up the example of USA.

[Ryan Thunder]

How the hell would making China a pariah state help anybody, may I ask? You act as though the Chinese government is doing jack shit towards helping its population, when they're developing the country, providing villages with electricity, improving access to education and are in the first stages of implementing a universal healthcare system.

And for all your talk of repression, it's not the fucking Chinese who have 2 million people in prison, now is it.

China has less people in prison than the US? How is that possible- they have 4 times as many people

Simple. The United States has a vastly greater fraction of its population in prison (686 per 100,000) than any other nation on Earth. Only Russia and the Cayman Islands have per-capita prison populations that even come close to that of the United States. Even Iran, bastion of freedom that it is, has a mere 229 per 100,000 of its people imprisoned. Myanmar? 118 per 100,000. China only has 111 per 100,000 of its people in prison. Yes, China has far more people than the US. But, even when you consider that and start talking absolute numbers, they have half a million fewer people in prison than the United States does (1.4 million versus 1.9 million.)

Iran actually performs even more executions per capita than China.

And to correct an earlier statement, the United states ranks 20th on that list. I mistakenly said that it wasn't even on it.

[K. A. Pital]

Iran actually performs even more executions per capita than China.

Welcome to theocracy. If they cut down executions for religious reasons and Sharia law, I would believe their execution rate would drop drastically. It's just the barbarism of their legal system.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Honestly, how long is it going to take? Will the fifty year anniversary still be a locked-down date? Do they honestly fear societal upheaval if the concede that they were wrong about this one thing?

Ask the Vatacan, how long it took them to recognize the imprisonment of Galiaio as a bad thing?, I wonder if anyone realizes that they condemed the US Constituion as Heresy in 1854 too.

[Lusankya]

How many countries have a good track record of apologising for their errors in any case? It took Australia until last year to apologise for the stolen generation, and that was for a policy of systemic kidnapping which lasted for something on the order of 100 years. Given how much greater importance Chinese culture places on the concept of face than western culture, I would be surprised if the CCP ever made a straight-up apology.

The best way to see if they actually do consider it to be a mistake is to see whether or not they are taking steps to avoid a repeat of the incident. If I recall correctly, the response to the Tibetan riots was substantially more subdued than Tian'anmen, which could suggest some change in attitude in the last 19-20 years.

[ray245]

How many countries have a good track record of apologising for their errors in any case? It took Australia until last year to apologise for the stolen generation, and that was for a policy of systemic kidnapping which lasted for something on the order of 100 years. Given how much greater importance Chinese culture places on the concept of face than western culture, I would be surprised if the CCP ever made a straight-up apology.

The best way to see if they actually do consider it to be a mistake is to see whether or not they are taking steps to avoid a repeat of the incident. If I recall correctly, the response to the Tibetan riots was substantially more subdued than Tian'anmen, which could suggest some change in attitude in the last 19-20 years.

Too bad many people would just view the response to the Tibetian riots like another Tiananmen incident.

[Lusankya]

Too bad many people would just view the response to the Tibetian riots like another Tiananmen incident.

Yeah, though I don't recall any conclusive evidence of widespread Chinese oppression during the riots. I know some photos came out on some pro-Tibet websites, but if I recall correctly while some showed injured people, they never actually showed how the injuries were caused - and the most damning photo of the PLA was a photo of them sitting around eating their lunch. Didn't the Chinese even allow most of the Buddhist temples to remain open, despite the monks being the source of the problem? Obviously, it's difficult for me to go and find information about the riots at the moment (lol, censorship), so if anyone could check my memory, that would be swell.

I certainly don't recall it being a case like Tian'anmen, where you can look it and go "Yep, that's oppression." I suspect that half the reason that China became the "bad guys" in the riots was because people have been conditioned to view the Tibetans monks as "oppressed seekers of enlightenment" rather than "former political elite". The same people who whine about Tibetan freedom would most likely criticize Taliban insurgencies and riots coordinated by Saddam's men, especially if said events occurred some 50 years after the invasion.

[Darth Hoth]

And for all your talk of repression, it's not the fucking Chinese who have 2 million people in prison, now is it.

Are those two million there because of political persecution, or because they have committed actual crimes? The comparison may or may not be valid, depending on the answer.

[Lusankya]

And for all your talk of repression, it's not the fucking Chinese who have 2 million people in prison, now is it.

Are those two million there because of political persecution, or because they have committed actual crimes? The comparison may or may not be valid, depending on the answer.

Well, I'm not sure how much "ridiculously huge sentences for minor crimes" counts as oppression. Sure, cases like a life sentence for stealing a toolbox are due to the guy committing a crime, but when the punishment is so far in excess of the crime committed, how is it not a form of oppression? The whole "tough on crime" angle which is espoused in the US revolves mainly around punishing the criminals, rather than protecting society, and while yes, these people technically have committed a crime, in many cases the punishment they receive is one they don't deserve.

The policies in the US especially seem to be adverse to minorities, which would be indicative of either a systemic failure or systemic discrimination on the part of the US (can't say which). I'm not sure how China's treatment of minorities in regards to imprisonment fares in comparison. The only vaguely relevant source I can find is this which says that imprisonment in Tibet is proportionally less than that in other parts of China, which would lead to a lower or similar rate or incarceration for Tibetans than for Han Chinese. (I do, of course take that source with a grain of salt, but if the figures are accurate, it would suggest that on ethnic issues, China fares better than most Western countries.

[Darth Hoth]

Well, I'm not sure how much "ridiculously huge sentences for minor crimes" counts as oppression. Sure, cases like a life sentence for stealing a toolbox are due to the guy committing a crime, but when the punishment is so far in excess of the crime committed, how is it not a form of oppression? The whole "tough on crime" angle which is espoused in the US revolves mainly around punishing the criminals, rather than protecting society, and while yes, these people technically have committed a crime, in many cases the punishment they receive is one they don't deserve.

Life for armed robbery does seem a little excessive, even for a repeat offender, since no one was hurt. However, when people compare it to dictatorship or the good, old Main Labour Camp Administration, it still seems all too much like gratuitous America-bashing.

The policies in the US especially seem to be adverse to minorities, which would be indicative of either a systemic failure or systemic discrimination on the part of the US (can't say which). I'm not sure how China's treatment of minorities in regards to imprisonment fares in comparison. The only vaguely relevant source I can find is this which says that imprisonment in Tibet is proportionally less than that in other parts of China, which would lead to a lower or similar rate or incarceration for Tibetans than for Han Chinese. (I do, of course take that source with a grain of salt, but if the figures are accurate, it would suggest that on ethnic issues, China fares better than most Western countries.

My gut reaction to official Chinese figures is to drown them in a couple of metric tons of sodium chloride, especially when they concern contentious issues.

[Lusankya]

Life for armed robbery does seem a little excessive, even for a repeat offender, since no one was hurt. However, when people compare it to dictatorship or the good, old Main Labour Camp Administration, it still seems all too much like gratuitous America-bashing.

Describing it as a "little" excessive is a huge understatement. The big difference between China and the US is that while the Chinese might have harsher punishments, the US punishments are far more prevalent (while still being far in excess of any reasonable punishment).

Yes, I am harsher on the US than on China, but I don't see why I shouldn't be. The US is the richest nation in the world, while China is still a developing country. The US has the ability to improve education, and to provide better services to its citizens, while China doesn't. In fact, not only is China poor, but many of its problems (such as the illiteracy rate in the countryside) cannot be solved within a generation, because the resources to provide adequate services or adequate education simply do not exist. China may have restrictive information policies and less freedom of speech than the US, but these are areas which are improving. Quite frankly, the expectations some people place are unrealistic and unreasonable, because there is no way that China will change as dramatically as some people hope for without a dramatic political shift, which is just as likely to cause greater instability in the country. In plenty of areas China has the excuse of being a crappy third world country, and can point out that on pretty much every count, quality of life is improving. When the US is crap, what excuse does it have?

My gut reaction to official Chinese figures is to drown them in a couple of metric tons of sodium chloride, especially when they concern contentious issues.

Chinese treatment of ethnic minorities is actually pretty good compared to Western countries. The main reason I take it with a grain of salt is because it's Tibetan figures, and they usually want to downplay fears of Tibetan separatism. If it was Mongolian figures, I'd consider it about as accurate as the official figures for Han incarceration.

[Darth Hoth]

Describing it as a "little" excessive is a huge understatement. The big difference between China and the US is that while the Chinese might have harsher punishments, the US punishments are far more prevalent (while still being far in excess of any reasonable punishment).

Then that is a separate issue from political repression, which was the original topic. Excessive punishments for real crimes, of which a person has been duly convicted, is in my mind not a fair comparison to imprisonment in labour camps for political activism (real or perceived), which was brought up in this thread.

Chinese treatment of ethnic minorities is actually pretty good compared to Western countries.

Is that confirmed by objective sources?

[ray245]

Chinese treatment of ethnic minorities is actually pretty good compared to Western countries.

Is that confirmed by objective sources?

What does it take to be an objective source in your opinion?

[Darth Hoth]

Preferably, one that does not have a stake in what the answer of a study would be. Since that very rarely happens in real life, one that has less of a stake in it. Preferably also one known from earlier accounts to be at least somewhat reliable; and/or one that can show its methodology for review, when applicable. Transparency and earlier behaviour is important.

The Chinese government or its affiliates I would not consider objective sources in most cases, if your question was pointed in that direction.

[ray245]

The Chinese government or its affiliates I would not consider objective sources in most cases, if your question was pointed in that direction.

If the Chinese government is really intent on oppressing the minorities in Tibet for example, I find it peculiar that they bothered to invest in that region to begin with.

[Darth Hoth]

Since the Afrikaners invested in South Africa after they colonised it, they obviously cannot have been discriminating against the Blacks who lived there before . . .

Thank you for one-liner statements and black/white fallacies, this contributes majorly to the discussion.

For that matter, did I even say a word about Tibet? I questioned the claim that China generally treats its minorities better than first-world Western countries generally do, is all. To me, it sounds odd, given their social and economic stages of development.

[Lusankya]

Then that is a separate issue from political repression, which was the original topic. Excessive punishments for real crimes, of which a person has been duly convicted, is in my mind not a fair comparison to imprisonment in labour camps for political activism (real or perceived), which was brought up in this thread.

What if political activism is a crime in that country? And would it not also depend on the nature of said political activism? For example, approximately 1000 people are currently being held or convicted in relation to the 2008 Tibetan riots. Said riots were politically motivated. Are these "politically motivated imprisonments"? And assuming that one recognises Chinese sovereignty in Tibet, separatist movements could be considered analogous to treason or conspiracy to commit treason.

In regards to the Tian'anmen issue in the OP: The Chinese government initiated temporary measures against people who were related to the initial incident and who were considered more likely to take extreme action during the anniversary than others. It's extreme, yes, but it's hardly imprisonment in labour camps either.

Is that confirmed by objective sources?

Well, minorities are given education in their native language up to secondary level, they get exemptions from the one child policy, they're not kidnapped from their parents, they're don't routinely get lynched, they might be poorer than your average Han Chinese, but the CCP is investing in infrastructure to help them - Tibet, for example, has more government spending per capita than any other mainland Chinese province. Are you aware of how shitty western treatment of minorities actually is? Compared to Australian treatment of Aborigines or American treatment of blacks, it's outright benign.

The biggest danger to Chinese minorities is demographic shift, which is only an issue insofar as some of them perceive themselves as "ethnicity x" before they consider themselves to be Chinese. The proportion of such people varies by location (more amongst Tibetans, fewer amongst Mongolians, etc.).

[Darth Hoth]

What if political activism is a crime in that country? And would it not also depend on the nature of said political activism? For example, approximately 1000 people are currently being held or convicted in relation to the 2008 Tibetan riots. Said riots were politically motivated. Are these "politically motivated imprisonments"? And assuming that one recognises Chinese sovereignty in Tibet, separatist movements could be considered analogous to treason or conspiracy to commit treason.

Obviously there would be degrees; if the activism is violent, the state must be able to intercede against it, so as to protect the health and property of innocents. The problem is when even peaceful or harmless activities are indicted.

In regards to the Tian'anmen issue in the OP: The Chinese government initiated temporary measures against people who were related to the initial incident and who were considered more likely to take extreme action during the anniversary than others. It's extreme, yes, but it's hardly imprisonment in labour camps either.

Stas Bush brought up the Gulag, and there has been a general line of argument around here that excessive American penalties are, implicitly at least, comparable to political repression, a sentiment with which I do not agree.

Well, minorities are given education in their native language up to secondary level, they get exemptions from the one child policy, they're not kidnapped from their parents, they're don't routinely get lynched, they might be poorer than your average Han Chinese, but the CCP is investing in infrastructure to help them - Tibet, for example, has more government spending per capita than any other mainland Chinese province. Are you aware of how shitty western treatment of minorities actually is? Compared to Australian treatment of Aborigines or American treatment of blacks, it's outright benign.

Are blacks in the present-day U.S. routinely lynched or kidnapped? You will excuse me if I find that doubtful. I see nothing in these rights that the average Western European country will not grant its native minorities (immigrants being another issue, in most locales).

[Shroom Man 777]

Of course it's totally fair to hold a nation that has just recently been an agrarian shithole to the same standard as prosperous western democracies, when said nation is still striving to modernize itself into a nation that's not an agrarian shithole - all the while ignoring the complexities of said nation, the sheer quantity of its billion + population, the momentum of how many thousands of years of rigid ass-backwards culture, and all the other problems faced by a growing future-superpower surrounded by not-entirely-friendly nations.

Maybe, I don't know, we should be content that said giant changing nation has at least gone a long way from the sad state it was merely two decades ago and is a better place to live in now than, say, Somalia or some other Goddamn Libertopian shithole. Maybe we should also take into consideration that said nation has made more progress in the last couple of decades than many western civilizations have done in their also comparatively long history of brutalization against people like the negroes, injuns and other forms of minorities (who, in the first place, were displaced/slaughtered by those very same western peoples).

Or maybe not and we should continue to belittle and heckle said nation and apply our own stringent standards to it and complain when it fails to meet up to them, when in fact our own cushy western societies may not meet all those lofty standards either.

[Lusankya]

Are blacks in the present-day U.S. routinely lynched or kidnapped? You will excuse me if I find that doubtful. I see nothing in these rights that the average Western European country will not grant its native minorities (immigrants being another issue, in most locales).

Actually, the kidnapping was referring to Australian government policy regarding the aborignies between 1870 and 1970s.

How's this for a statistic: Tibetan life expectancy: 67, Australian Aboriginal life expectancy 60-62.4 (Tibetan life expectancy has doubled since 1959 - Aboriginal life expectancy has remained relatively stagnant in the same period)
Difference between TIbetan life expectancy and Chinese life expectancy: 6 years
Difference between Aboriginal life expectancy and Australian life expectancy: 18-20 years

That's right - China takes better care of the health of its least-favourite minority group than Australia does. They're taking proactive steps to improve health, to improve living conditions and to improve literacy and education, while at the same time Australia has done jack shit. The West isn't just America, you know. The difference between Tibetan and Han health (6 years) is actually on the lower end of differences between minority and majority life expectancies (4-10 years), and this is a gap that they've managed to close significantly within 50 years, much of which was spent in a period of social and political unrest.

One thing that you are missing in the rights that I mentioned for Chinese minorities (language, one child policy exemption) is that these are rights not granted to Han Chinese. Han Chinese are not taught their local dialect in school - their schooling is done in Mandarin, and the local dialect is suppressed, and an exemption from the one child policy means that not having to follow it is special. The reason for the difference in language treatment between Han and minorities is that the Han is that the CCP recognises the cultural differences for the minorities and is attempting to accommodate them. Now, of course they are also encouraging a national Chinese identity, and naturally that is impacting the minority cultures, but it's up to you to provide evidence that that's a bad thing.

And why are you discounting attitudes towards immigrants? Do immigrants suddenly "not count" or something?

[Shroom Man 777]

Maybe if China confined the Tibetans to shitty ghettoes ruled by tribal law, where rape, alcoholism and various vices are commonplace, and where the local authorities won't interfere in "tribal matters" - i.e. exactly what Australia does with its aborigines - then maybe it'll be better for guys like Darth Hoth and everyone else?

[K. A. Pital]

Excessive punishments for real crimes, of which a person has been duly convicted, is in my mind not a fair comparison to imprisonment in labour camps for political activism (real or perceived), which was brought up in this thread.

Yeah, but you do realize that the "good old administration" of labour camps had most of it's population convicted for non-political crimes like robbery, etc. - they just had extremely harsh sentences for everything? The difference is the presence of politicals, but what is their weight in the overall number of incarcerated?

Excessive punishment for real crimes is not the same as political persecution, but it's critical to this system.

[Ryan Thunder]

<snip>
That's right - China takes better care of the health of its least-favourite minority group than Australia does.

But... They're run by an oligarchy with little to no accountability to anybody but themselves. Where's their incentive to form a functioning state beyond the point where they become disgustingly wealthy? I know we could do it, but when was the last time anybody like us ever made it into any position of executive authority?

This does not compute!

[Qwerty 42]

Honestly, how long is it going to take? Will the fifty year anniversary still be a locked-down date? Do they honestly fear societal upheaval if the concede that they were wrong about this one thing?

Ask the Vatacan, how long it took them to recognize the imprisonment of Galiaio as a bad thing?, I wonder if anyone realizes that they condemed the US Constituion as Heresy in 1854 too.

Could I see a link on that? I don't doubt you, I'd just never heard that before.