February 24, 2009
Dad: “If you promise not to beat others up in the school, I’ll buy you a PS3.”
Son: “That’s blunt blackmailing!”
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to come to the conclusion that 1, the son probably behaved violently in the school in the past; and 2, the son is not likely or willing to behave in the future.
Now look at the following conversation:
The French owner of the two pieces of Chinese treasure from the Forbidden City: “If China promise to respect the freedom and human rights of the Tibetans, I would consider giving them back to China.”
Some Chinese media (and probably the government): “This is blunt blackmailing!”
I have no idea why the Chinese government is ignoring logic recently, such as the Obama speech censorship issue. This reaction seems very much like a tacit admission to me. If China really strongly believes that it liberated Tibet and never violated or has no future intention to violate human rights and freedom in that so-called self-autonomous region, why does it call this blackmailing? If China did nothing wrong, then it has already met the requirement in this “contract.” China can happily say: “Deal! We have already met your requirement. Now hand them over.”
Calling it blackmailing simply proves that China did not or will not guarantee the freedom and human rights of the Tibetans.
December 24, 2008
BBC reported that 59 Tibetans were arrested for spreading rumors and trying to stir up racial hatred and incite violence. It’s already funny enough that spreading rumors can so easily be a crime in China, as if the Chinese public are particularly stupid and they can easily be misled by rumors. (I don’t remember any of the conspiracy theorists who claim that the US government planned 9/11 attack were ever arrested. Aren’t those more “harmful” rumors? How about those who claim that the US has never landed on the moon? Doesn’t that harm the “great image of this great nation”?) But what I want to talk about is the crime for spreading hatred.
Again, I don’t want to talk about whether spreading hate speech can be a crime in itself. For the purpose of this post, let’s assume that it’s super bad and should be punished by law. The problem is, why only Tibetans are arrested for spreading hate speech rather than the Han people? Is this an indication that none of the Han people publicly made any hate speech against Tibetans, Uyghurs, Taiwanese, Japanese, French, Americans, etc.? Clearly there are enough hate speech from the Han people. But apparently they face no punishment from the law.
Let’s further assume that areas like Tibet, Taiwan and so on are indisputably part of China, and those minorities are all, along with the Han, Chinese. Then this current case naturally comes down to this simple fact: 59 Chinese made hate speech against some other Chinese. So the conclusion is Chinese should not make hate speech against each other. Again, why no arrest made for those Han (who are Chinese) who made hate speech against Tibetans, Uyghurs, and Taiwanese (who are also Chinese)?
You see, I am typing this post with my fingers. I don’t remember the last time I was shouting to people again and again that these ten fingers are part of my body; I don’t remember the last time I claim that my fingers are plotting to leave my body; I don’t remember the last time that I decided to punish my fingers for something they did to my body while ignoring the bad things that my other body parts did to my fingers. Sounds pretty ridiculous, isn’t it? That’s about as ridiculous as this whole China’s sovereignty and nationalism are. The Han have always treated Tibetans, Uyghurs, and Taiwanese as de facto aliens. Now the louder they claim that they own these people and lands, the more retarded their logic seems.
January 19, 2008
It’s a great movie: moving story (a true story), magnificent landscape, and good acting (maybe except for Brad Pitt’s English accent. Yes, he’s playing a German who is speaking English with German accent!).
Whenever I think of Dalai Lama, I think of my 6th grade history class when I asked my teacher what does he look like. What we were (and every kid in China is now) taught is basically “Dalai Lama is an unpatriotic bastard who tries to separate China.” Okay, that sounds evil enough. But how come we can find Hilter’s photo easily while no way we can know whether Dalai Lama has the similar facial hair? Seriously, I was only curious about his facial hair then.
Now, years later, I find the irony in the Harry Potter book (yes, you just never know that one day this wizard novel might come in handy). People never use the name “Voldemort”. Instead they use “You-know-who”. The reason is obvious: they are afraid. The reason is also obvious why there are laws banning publishing Dalai Lama’s photo, or bringing his photos into Tibet. If Dalai Lama was indeed “the evil slave owner in the old Tibet”, and the Chinese Army had done nothing but “liberating all the Tibetans from suffering”, then such laws would be nonsense: do you think it necessary or even sane to pass a law saying “no Jewish family should hang a portrait of Hitler on their wall”? Duh!