| Username |
Post |
| ashu |
Posted
on 25-May-01 01:38 AM
Biswo wrote:
>I don't think US is an utopia for practicing free speech.
>USA has its own share of attack against democratic norms and >personal freedom. By denouncing a few of Chinese excesses, I am >not supporting US practices.
*****************
Sure, the US may not exactly be "an utopia" for practicing
free speech. But it is certainly the country that has done the most to widen democratic norms and personal freedoms for its
citizens.
When China criticizes the US government for violating human rights inside its own territories, its sources are often
the New York Times, other US newspapers and independent
human rights agencies based in the US itself. What does
that tell you?
Would a newspaper in China or an agency in China have the
same freedom to report on its government? I doubt it.
China's claim in the 1950s that Tibet was its part and that
the invasion was justified has parallels in Iraq's invasion
of Kuwait in 1991. If you remember, Iraq too had made the
similar claims -- saying that the borders had been arbitraily drawn in the 20th century by the British.
But I have yet to read and re-read the sources Trai has mentioned.
oohi
ashu
|
| Biswo |
Posted
on 25-May-01 10:55 AM
>Biswo wrote:
>I don't think US is an utopia for practicing free speech.
>USA has its own share of attack against democratic norms and >personal freedom. By denouncing a few of Chinese excesses, I am >not supporting US practices.
*****************
>Sure, the US may not exactly be "an utopia" for practicing
>free speech. But it is certainly the country that has done the >most to widen democratic norms and personal freedoms for its
>citizens.
Personally, I don't think USA has done the "most" in this regard.
(Scandanavian nation, Canada, Denmark.. are often cited as better)
Sure, people are free to speak up their mind here, but remember,
this is not always true. Government agencies are framing up
people like Las Alamos Scientists (Wen Ho Lee?), and FBI and
other very powerful agencies are routinely accused of hiding
evidences that can undermine their pursuit. If China had
cultural revolution freaks, US had Mccarthyists. (As a movie fan,
I fondly recall Robert De Niro movie "Guilty by suspicion" which
depicts the pain and anguish of Hollywood artists of the era).
It is unfair to compare US and China in terms of legal rights
and personal freedom given to the citizens, and I am not doing
that. But when we talk of China as a bad and rogue nation, we
shouldn't think US as the utopia. US also needs to correct
herself in several fronts.
>When China criticizes the US government for violating human >rights inside its own territories, its sources are often
>the New York Times, other US newspapers and independent
>human rights agencies based in the US itself. What does
>that tell you?
That doesn't undermine my points. China's points are also based
on their Xinhua reporters.
> Would a newspaper in China or an agency in China have the
> same freedom to report on its government? I doubt it.
By China, you mean mainland (not Hongkong and Macao), I guess.
I agree that people are not free to criticize the government
publicly. However, Chinese newspaper routinely carry out reports
on corrupt police, corrupt local cadres, local social problems
like homelessness, and that is a better change from the past.
Regrettably, and by the very nature of govt, they can't write
against the CCP, the Chinese government policies, and seven
paramount leaders of CCP.
>China's claim in the 1950s that Tibet was its part and that
>the invasion was justified has parallels in Iraq's invasion
>of Kuwait in 1991. If you remember, Iraq too had made the
>similar claims -- saying that the borders had been arbitraily >drawn in the 20th century by the British.
>But I have yet to read and re-read the sources Trai has >mentioned.
It is sad that you jumped into such analogy without reading the
sources :-)
Remember, I don't support the incident of 1959. You don't send
the army of your country to chastise a region that you consider
to be aberrant and yours.
Iraq invaded Kuwait because Kuwait was manytimes richer. China
invaded poor Tibet, because the communist leaders fresh from
victory in mainland were "compelled" to free a land that they
consider to be their, and a land that was in utter odious fiefdom.
Colonialism was not the only reason for the attack, I believe.
There are always two parts of a situation: reality and history.
Reality of present is Dalai Lama is a very popular figure in
Tibet, and his celebrity in west is bolstered in part by the
collective hatred and superiority the west still feels regarding
to the nations of east. A rising power of China is not something
the west is very comfortable with, and remember that China
is the only significant adversary of US interest in Pacific coast.
US national interest lies in weak China,no matter how you
encapsule your words.
But the history is like this: Tibetan rulers have regularly
pledged allegiance to Chinese rulers in Peking. They were assisted
by Chinese in our wars with Tibet also.Nepal is always an
indepednent, and never wanted assistance from powerful southern
force even when it was facing defeat with its war with northern
neighbor. So Nepal and Tibet have been different in terms of their
handling of soverignty.Besides the foreign policy fiasco, Tibet
was also a failure as a state. The truth of faeces-eating, fiefdom
and others were too heinous to be taken normally. China deserves
kudos for liberating Tibetan mass.
Sally and others think China is rapidly settling Tibet with Hans.
That is partly true. No sane Chinese wants to go to Tibet. Can
KTM settle Humla with people from Biratnagar or Kapilbastu?
There is no evidence of forced emigration to Tibet from China.
Chinese have gone to Australia, USA, Canada and several other
nations in history looking for business interest. Some Chinese
have been to Tibet for the same reason. Can't they go there?
Who are we to say where they can go , and where they can't.
China detractors are ambiguous and probably insincere in their
incessant opposition to everything that China does in Tibet.
Tibet needs a free election, and popular mandate to govern it,
not the talk about history. History can't always be guide for
national soverignty. History are still being ignored, and the
best formula for peace now is respect of status quo.The example:
1950 treaty effective annuls Sugauli treaty, but do we get our
land back? We will never get those land back no matter how much
we ask for them, until we become sufficiently stronger
than the country that now posses the land, and we become ready
to shed blood for that land even after we become more powerful.
Also because of volatile geographical demarcation of several
suzerains in those old days,doubts on sovereignty has been very
difficult to determine now. Historical justification are made
just to fool some people, or just to hide the real agenda.
|
| sally |
Posted
on 25-May-01 11:55 AM
Hi Biswo,
A couple of comments. You wrote, "If China had cultural revolution freaks, US had Mccarthyists."
The McCarthyists were horrible, but the body count was a lot lower.
You also wrote, "Reality of present is Dalai Lama is a very popular figure in Tibet, and his celebrity in west is bolstered in part by the collective hatred and superiority the west still feels regarding to the nations of east. A rising power of China is not something the west is very comfortable with, and remember that China is the only significant adversary of US interest in Pacific coast. US national interest lies in weak China,no matter how you
encapsule your words."
I definitely don't consider myself an expert on Tibet–as I said, I look forward to learning more, and maybe this thread will give me a push on that--but I think I can speak here to some ways that you may be misinterpreting the Free Tibet movement and the people involved in it. The political roots of most Free Tibeters tend to be quite left-wing. Some local leaders (I'm thinking of specific people here) initially got involved with political causes during the pro-Sandanista, anti-Reagan times. Others are radical environmentalists, such as Earth Firsters. There's a lot of membership crossover between Free Tibet and movements like anti-globalization, animal rights, and so on. Definitely not the kind of folks who share a "collective hatred and superiority ... to the nations of east" or who tend to champion "US national interest." In fact, the oldest Free Tibeters were probably carrying around Mao's Little Red Book during the ‘60s. If anything, the Free Tibet folks tend to glamorize and exoticize the East uncritically, and slam the West in an equally uncritical fashion.
I agree that Bush's meeting with the Dalai Lama is probably intended to polarize US-China relations. I'm suspicious of his motives and troubled by his hawkish policies in general. But you can't with any accuracy relate the popularity of the Dalai Lama to the right wing or Western interests. I think Bush is just coat-tailing on the Dalai Lama's pre-existing popularity to pursue his own agenda, and hoping he'll look more like a "compassionate conservative" if he can link his hawkish notions to the Dalai Lama's liberal image.
Btw, I just started a book called "Virtual Tibet" on the West's fascination with Tibet; it also deals with Hollywood's interpretation of Tibet. So as a movie fan, you might find it interesting. PS: "Seven Years in Tibet" is better than "Kundun," don't you agree? Just speaking cinematically here–not politically!
|
| Trailokya Aryal |
Posted
on 25-May-01 01:16 PM
>Sure, the US may not exactly be "an utopia"
>for practicing
>free speech. But it is certainly the country
>that has done the most to widen democratic
>norms and personal freedoms for its
>citizens.
>
>When China criticizes the US government for
>violating human rights inside its own
>territories, its sources are often
>the New York Times, other US newspapers and
>independent
>human rights agencies based in the US itself.
> What does
>that tell you?
Dear ashu dai,
This tells me that you know a lot about the US but still need to update your inormations on Nepal's northern neighbor. I am not a supporter of the Chinese Communist Party but I don't want to criticize just for the sake of criticizing. Sure, it has its own flaws but look at the bright side.
Regarding Human Rights and freedom of speech, I never understand how can there be something universal when dealing with people of various cultures? So, the universal declaration of human rights has its own flaws. Certain things work for one country, and don't work for many.
Now, about free speech, check out the People's Daily's (the People's Daily is the official newspaper of the Chinese Communist party) bulletin board on the web. You can log on there and post anything you want to. So, its wrong to say that there's no freedom of speech in China.
Regadring the NY Times and other newspapers, we all know who controls them. Everyone with a little sanity knows that the NY TImes editorials are often drafted by the CIA or the State Department people!
>China's claim in the 1950s that Tibet was
>its part and that
>the invasion was justified has parallels in
>Iraq's invasion
>of Kuwait in 1991. If you remember, Iraq too
>had made the
>similar claims -- saying that the borders
>had been arbitraily drawn in the 20th
>century by the British.
No< ashutosh dai. The case of Tibet ius very different than that of Iraq-Kuwait. Kuwait was an independednt country when Iraq sent it's army. BUt, Tibet wasn't an independednt country. Let me ask you, what if our governmnet tomorrow dcides to send the army to Rukum? Is it against any international law? If it is not, then why are we screaming our throats off against China sending its own army to its own territory?
>
>But I have yet to read and re-read the
>sources Trai has mentioned.
Please read those. They will help you understand things better.
>oohi
>ashu
|
| Trailokya Aryal |
Posted
on 25-May-01 01:32 PM
>Hi Biswo,
>
>A couple of comments. You wrote, "If China
>had cultural revolution freaks, US had
>Mccarthyists."
>
>The McCarthyists were horrible, but the body
>count was a lot lower.
Dear Sally,
What's the proof that the US government released the exact no. of people wither dead/wounded/imprisoned or had their careers ruined because of their beliefs?
And also, how can one possibely say that the Free press of the FREE WORLD did not exxagerate the no. of people killed during the Cultural Revolution just to capitalize on the American fear of communism?
>
>I agree that Bush's meeting with the Dalai
>Lama is probably intended to polarize US-
>China relations. I'm suspicious of his
>motives and troubled by his hawkish policies
>in general. But you can't with any accuracy
>relate the popularity of the Dalai Lama to
>the right wing or Western interests. I think
>Bush is just coat-tailing on the Dalai Lama'
>s pre-existing popularity to pursue his own
>agenda, and hoping he'll look more like a "
>compassionate conservative" if he can link
>his hawkish notions to the Dalai Lama's
>liberal image.
>
>Btw, I just started a book called "Virtual
>Tibet" on the West's fascination with Tibet;
>it also deals with Hollywood's
>interpretation of Tibet. So as a movie fan,
>you might find it interesting. PS: "Seven
>Years in Tibet" is better than "Kundun," don'
>t you agree? Just speaking cinematically
>here–not politically!
Who wrote that book? Is it by a Prof at at UC Berkley named something Orville? If yes, then half orf what you read is just PLAIN pure propoganda.
Trailokya
PS-I think that both of those movies you mentioned were HORRIBLE.
|
| Biswo |
Posted
on 25-May-01 01:37 PM
Dear Sally:
>Hi Biswo,
>A couple of comments. You wrote, "If China had cultural >revolution freaks, US had Mccarthyists."
>The McCarthyists were horrible, but the body count was a lot >lower.
I couldn't disagree more, and I am in fact surprised that you
tend to negate my point by quantifying the casualty.
I think both were state sanctioned terrorist drive to eliminate
perceived enemies,and both were same in character and both left
indelible scar in the history of both of these great nations.
>I definitely don't consider myself an expert on Tibet–as I said, >I look forward to learning more, and maybe this thread will give >me a push on that--but I think I can speak here to some ways >that you may be misinterpreting the Free Tibet movement and the >people involved in it. The political roots of most Free Tibeters >tend to be quite left-wing. Some local leaders (I'm thinking of >specific people here) initially got involved with political >causes during the pro-Sandanista, anti-Reagan times. Others are >radical environmentalists, such as Earth Firsters. There's a lot >of membership crossover between Free Tibet and movements like >anti-globalization, animal rights, and so on. Definitely not the >kind of folks who share a "collective hatred and superiority ... >to the nations of east" or who tend to champion "US national >interest." In fact, the oldest Free Tibeters were probably >carrying around Mao's Little Red Book during the ‘60s. If >anything, the Free Tibet folks tend to glamorize and exoticize >the East uncritically, and slam the West in an equally >uncritical fashion.
You broached a really complicated issue here. I am personally
baffled by the intricate nexus and irony of the way these
left and rebellious civil groups conduct themselves.
While I support their views on several issues, from environment
to animal rights, I dissent on a few other issues like
international trades and a few other issues.
And ,surely, I view somewhat differently in the issue of Tibet.
While I support those people who demand release of innocent nuns
and innocent people forcefully sent to penitentiaries of China,
I don't support the brand of Free-Tibet which is mainly used to
harrass a rising power of east eventhough I have no objection
towards civil right groups protesting against something they
don't like, and in their own land.
I resent the way the government try to bully by interfering in
an internal matter of another nation, and assuming a sanctimonious
posture.
China as I see her has been a weak nation throughout the history.
There is no foreign aggression that China could repel in her
history of 5000 years. Mongolians attacked and won,
French colonised a part of China, Britons won, Germans won and
Japanese brutalised, and decimated the population. The strong
China we see these days is an unique phenomenon. China is the
only credible power from Asia rightnow. And I have strong
reasons to believe that there are a lot of people in the
non-Chinese world who find it little bit difficult to digest.
>I agree that Bush's ..
>a "compassionate conservative" if he can link his hawkish >notions to the Dalai Lama's liberal image.
Often, when I say Dalai Lama is popular, I mean in Tibet. As
you can guess, I am not a fan of Dalai Lama even as I support
his right to remain in his own land.(Btw, he fled Tibet himself.)
I am sad that the present US government is more hawkish, but
there is a limit to which one can go in opposing China.Republicans
and Democrat all know that the mutual benefit lies in constructive
engagement policy with China.
The history is proof: new governments in USA often show
temerity in their dealing with China, but tend to stabilize
after a few months. US will find little support in European
and Asian capitals of its allies for its confrontational policy
towards China.
>Btw, I just started a book called "Virtual Tibet" on the West's >fascination with Tibet; it also deals with Hollywood's >interpretation of Tibet. So as a movie fan, you might find it >interesting. PS: "Seven Years in Tibet" is better than "Kundun," >don't you agree? Just speaking cinematically here–not >politically!
I generally want to watch all China related movies.But, Seven
Years in Tibet has been an exception. I feel uncomfortable to
rent the movie because I know the movie is based on a novel
written by a Nazi fugitive.May be I am wrong to harbor such
prejudice against the writer, but for now, I am not really in a
position to compare Kundun with SYIT.
Thanks for info on Virtual Tibet. I shall try to read the book.
On the related note, I find your comment on South Asian writing
very insightful and beautiful. Yes, there has been this stereotype
that I also find annoying sometimes.
Those who mention about servants and mahals are the ones still
obsessed with the past without realizing that the present has
already differred greatly. These people fondly recall riding a
a chaffeur-driven car in a crowded New York subway.For god's sake,
they should stop writing such nostalgia.
I once met a lady from Nepal. Her status in USA was not even
satisfactory. She was housewife, and didn't have any credible
university degree.
I was in her apartment sipping tea, when she offerred to show me
her photographs. Then she showed me a sketch of an old person
in her wall.
"You know who is he? He is my grand-grand-dad." she told me.
"He looks like a royal person in the portrait!" I replied.
"Well, he was royal Guru." She wanted to tell me that truth
since long, I realised.She actually meant the Guru of Rana as
I found out later.
I refrain from criticizing those people who brag about their
granddad sometimes, because I think may be my criticize are
mainly stemmed from the fact that my granddad was just a common
citizen.
I told her,"Well, you know what, Ranas were the worst rulers we
ever had."
"I know , OTHER people had to suffer a lot.."...OTHER. ARU.
People tend to compromise the good intention, principle and
everything when they want to brag how great their family is.
|
| sally |
Posted
on 25-May-01 01:52 PM
Since Trailokya seems very informed about, and supportive of, the Chinese stand on Tibet, I thought I'd look for some links from the other side. I'm sure knowledgeable people on both sides could shoot down each others points from now till the Dalai Lama's 10,000th incarnation, but here are some starting points. These are links to history sections, since that was being discussed. Please note, Trailokya, that I'm not endorsing these as the absolute truth--just giving them out FYI.
from the government in exile:
http://www.tibet.com/WhitePaper/white1.html
from 2 separate pro-tibet organizations:
http://www.savetibet.org/background/history2.html
http://www.freetibet.org/website/menu.htm
Also, re this statement:
"Regadring the NY Times and other newspapers, we all know who controls them. Everyone with a little sanity knows that the NY TImes editorials are often drafted by the CIA or the State Department people!"
Oh, come on.
|
| sally |
Posted
on 25-May-01 02:17 PM
I posted that last bit without seeing the previous two postings. So let me respond:
From Biswo:
"I think both were state sanctioned terrorist drive to eliminate
perceived enemies,and both were same in character and both left
indelible scar in the history of both of these great nations."
Absolutely. But the Cultural Revolution was still worse. Even if the body count was exaggerated. I think softening the negatives is to risk being like that Nepali housewife romanticizing the Ranas and talking about how sad it was that "others" had to suffer.
"While I support their views on several issues, from environment to animal rights, I dissent on a few other issues like
international trades and a few other issues. And ,surely, I view somewhat differently in the issue of Tibet."
Well, that shows you're an independent thinker! :-) I also have more complex views on these matters than I find reflected in a lot of these movements.
"I generally want to watch all China related movies.But, Seven
Years in Tibet has been an exception. I feel uncomfortable to
rent the movie because I know the movie is based on a novel
written by a Nazi fugitive."
Also, from Trailokya: "PS-I think that both of those movies you mentioned were HORRIBLE."
Well, I thought "Kundun" was full of silly romanticizing mysticism. And there were definitely things about "Seven Years" that I disliked. For one thing, it turns the white guy--in reality, of course, a Nazi--into a hero who virtually teaches the Dalai Lama everything he knows. Pretty silly. But from a cinematic standpoint, it worked great as a movie--for me, anyway.
But I could see how someone who knows a lot about that part of the world could be so irritated by the portrayal of the Nazi who knows everything (and probably by other things as well) that it would be hard to enjoy it as a movie. I also like the new "King and I," but I understand Thais were less thrilled by it. Historical drama is pretty hard to pull off.
|
| Trailokya Aryal |
Posted
on 25-May-01 03:12 PM
>Since Trailokya seems very informed about,
>and supportive of, the Chinese stand on
>Tibet, I thought I'd look for some links
>from the other side. I'm sure knowledgeable
>people on both sides could shoot down each
>others points from now till the Dalai Lama's
>10,000th incarnation, but here are some
>starting points. These are links to history
>sections, since that was being discussed.
>Please note, Trailokya, that I'm not
>endorsing these as the absolute truth--just
>giving them out FYI.
Thanks Sally. I visited those sites but they weren't very different than other propoganda sites on the web. For example -both of those sites TELL us that Tibet was an independent country. Well, it was NOT. The facts they present tehre are all twisted fatcs far from the reality. No amtter what Tibetans think or the Tibetan governmnet in exile thinks, the truth remains the truth. But I agree, we need both Chinese and Tibetan perspectives to learn more about this issue. And thanks again for the URls.
Plus, I find it ironic that "concerned" people are mis-interpreting the statements made by his holiness. he hasn't uttered not even once FREE Tibet so, we have to think where it is coming from and why?
>
>from the government in exile:
>
>http://www.tibet.com/WhitePaper/white1.html
>
>from 2 separate pro-tibet organizations:
>
>http://www.savetibet.org/background/history2.
>html
>http://www.freetibet.org/website/menu.htm
>
>"Regadring the NY Times and other newspapers,
> we all know who controls them. Everyone
>with a little sanity knows that the NY TImes
>editorials are often drafted by the CIA or
>the State Department people!"
>
>Oh, come on.
Sally, its not something coming from the top of my head. It is a well known fact that Nixon and Kissinger wrote the NY time editorials and we can't possibely say that the NY times is free of the CIA or State Department's influence.For more on this, read About-Face by James Mann.
Trailokya
|
| Trailokya Aryal |
Posted
on 25-May-01 03:17 PM
>
>Also, from Trailokya: "PS-I think that both
>of those movies you mentioned were HORRIBLE."
>
>Well, I thought "Kundun" was full of silly
>romanticizing mysticism. And there were
>definitely things about "Seven Years" that I
>disliked. For one thing, it turns the white
>guy--in reality, of course, a Nazi--into a
>hero who virtually teaches the Dalai Lama
>everything he knows. Pretty silly. But from
>a cinematic standpoint, it worked great as a
>movie--for me, anyway.
Yeah from Cinematic standopoint they were both great movies, but from historic standpoint, they were awful.
>
>But I could see how someone who knows a lot
>about that part of the world could be so
>irritated by the portrayal of the Nazi who
>knows everything (and probably by other
>things as well) that it would be hard to
>enjoy it as a movie. I also like the new "
>King and I," but I understand Thais were
>less thrilled by it. Historical drama is
>pretty hard to pull off.
I heard the new version of King and I is totally differnt than the old one, is it true?
Trai
|
| sally |
Posted
on 25-May-01 03:55 PM
Trailokya wrote: "Sally, its not something coming from the top of my head. It is a well known fact that Nixon and Kissinger wrote the NY time editorials and we can't possibely say that the NY times is free of the CIA or State Department's influence.For more on this, read About-Face by James Mann."
Thanks for the reference. The Nixon-and-Kissinger era was certainly a fascinating era, with an incredible amount of abuse by the US government.
But you did put it in the present tense ("are often drafted"), and maybe I'm naive, but I'm just not convinced that's the case today. I'm not saying the US is some kind of utopia of free speech--actually I think corporate power squashes a lot of diversity of opinion, and does so far more effectively than government ever has, in the US at least.
As for whether the NY Times is INFLUENCED by the CIA/State Department nowadays, that's a different matter. I suppose the editorial board gets no shortage of pressure from both Republicans and Democrats, and also probably draws a fair amount of its "facts" from State Department sources whose information may turn out to be questionable in the long run. But that's different than saying the editorials "are often drafted" by the US government.
For one thing, such a phrasing assumes the US government is a unified force with some controling power over the press. We may dislike the similarity between the two parties, and decry the tendency of editorial boards to present alternative viewpoints, without falling into the trap of talking about the US government as if it's some kind of monolithic entity.
Anyway, thanks for the references. You're clearly a well-read guy. And I'm sorry to confess that I can't read Nepali well enough to read that one book you mentioned ... maybe someday!
|
| Biswo |
Posted
on 25-May-01 04:00 PM
Dear Sally:
Your links were from the very easily distinguishable sources. Even
the name freetibet, savetibet etc indicates what I can see there!
It's like going to the Chinese govt websites to know stuffs about
Tibet!
Rather than becoming independent, we are being influenced by one
source or another. So, we have some kind of issue-wise allegiance
to some organizations. Sad truth, huh!
I disagree with your standard of headcounting/bodybagcounting
again. We can count this way: how many people opposed the
oppressors and how many of those got sentence?
Those who were suspected of being involved with communist party
were asked to give names of their collegues, and implicate them.
Those who refused this trampling of their faith and honor were
brutally persecuted. I have this question: was there any communist
who said he was communists and still was spared by the govt
persecution? The most horrible reality of all these is even
supreme court sided with those persecutors.
So, let's face the truth of the past. We both owe nothing but
hatred to these perpetrators of the human rights. Rather than
defending these people, let's expose them, and pass down this
lesson to the posterity.
> But I could see how someone who knows a lot about that part of
> the world could be so irritated by the portrayal of the Nazi who
> knows everything (and probably by other things as well) that it
> would be hard to enjoy it as a movie.
Portryal of a Nazi fugitive as a hero is very difficult to digest,
and I know that most of the Americans don't want to teach their
kids the stuff that ,even unwittingly, tries to mitigate the past
offense by lionizing a Nazi fugitive.
I don't know if the movie makers paid money to somebody in Germany
who still harbors the same prejudice against minorities in their
society that some people harbored fifty years ago.
Whenever the unemployment rate rises in Germany, neonazis there
tend to vent their anger against minorities, mostly foreigners
from impoverished south asia and Turkey.
For us, the movie may be just for fun. But for those Neonazis and
wanna-be-neonazis, it is great satisfaction to see one of their
man as a hero.It ENCOURAGES them.
I don't even know if the moviemakers paid money for the story
right to somebody who is repentant. It is gruesome to think of the
possibility of such money ending up in some such organization.
Movies like Red Corner, Kundun, and SYIT either appear
too rhetorical and preoccupied in their opposition of CCP, or
are textured with plain and untenable silly plot.
Rather, what about watching Yellow Earth or Farewell my concubine?
(I am just kidding. I presume most of our readers,including you,
have already watched them!)
|
| sally |
Posted
on 25-May-01 04:01 PM
PS: Re "Anna and the King" (actually that's the right name for the newer version of "King and I.") It's quite different. I know 1950s "The King and I" is supposed to be a classic, but geez, the King (as played by Yul Brynner) is so ridiculous. I caught it a few years back with a Nepali person who became quite angry at the insulting way Brynner portrayed a person with an accent.
The Chinese actor who plays the King in the newer, Jodie Foster version is quite believable as a king. For one thing, he seems to have something better to do than hang around with the governess. The romance is also believable.
Btw, the story it's based on--Anna Llewellyn's memoirs--appears to have been largely fraudulent. If you pay close attention to this new version you'll see there is a subtle reference to the fact that every culture needs it's fairy tales. I took that as a subtle admission that the story itself is untrue; a nice touch on the part of the screenwriter.
|
| sally |
Posted
on 25-May-01 04:07 PM
Sorry ... stuff keeps crossing ... I guess this link is like a chat room right now, eh? (Actually I've never been in a chat room. Just guessing.)
Anyway, Biswo wrote "Your links were from the very easily distinguishable sources. Even the name freetibet, savetibet etc indicates what I can see there! It's like going to the Chinese govt websites to know stuffs about Tibet!"
Absolutely. That's why I included them. But if Trailokya can support the Chinese view, why can't we be open-minded and look at the other side too? Frankly, I suppose they both have their points.
|
| Trailokya Aryal |
Posted
on 25-May-01 04:12 PM
>But you did put it in the present tense ("
>are often drafted"), and maybe I'm naive,
>but I'm just not convinced that's the case
>today. I'm not saying the US is some kind of
>utopia of free speech--actually I think
>corporate power squashes a lot of diversity
>of opinion, and does so far more effectively
>than government ever has, in the US at least.
I sicerely apologize for not making myself clear on that one. Yes, I used the present tense to imply that the NY TIMES is still not free of the CIA or DOS's influence. If this has happened in the past, then I am sure this happens even today.
>As for whether the NY Times is INFLUENCED by
>the CIA/State Department nowadays, that's a
>different matter. I suppose the editorial
>board gets no shortage of pressure from both
>Republicans and Democrats, and also probably
>draws a fair amount of its "facts" from
>State Department sources whose information
>may turn out to be questionable in the long
>run. But that's different than saying the
>editorials "are often drafted" by the US
>government.
Well, they were often drafted by the people in the governmnet and I am sure this happens even now.
>For one thing, such a phrasing assumes the
>US government is a unified force with some
>controling power over the press. We may
>dislike the similarity between the two
>parties, and decry the tendency of editorial
>boards to present alternative viewpoints,
>without falling into the trap of talking
>about the US government as if it's some kind
>of monolithic entity.
>
>Anyway, thanks for the references. You're
>clearly a well-read guy. And I'm sorry to
>confess that I can't read Nepali well enough
>to read that one book you mentioned ...
>maybe someday!
Thanks but I am nowhere near you or some otehr people here in terms of "reading". I am just out of school graduate who doesn't know what he wants in life.
Trailokya
|
| Trailokya Aryal |
Posted
on 25-May-01 04:15 PM
>
>Rather, what about watching Yellow Earth or
>Farewell my concubine?
>(I am just kidding. I presume most of our
>readers,including you,
>have already watched them!)
I agree. Yellow Earth, Red Shorghum and Fairwell my concubine are far better than Seven years in Tibet, Kundun and The Little Buddha.
Trailokya
|
| Biswo |
Posted
on 25-May-01 05:55 PM
>That's why I included them. But if Trailokya can support the
>Chinese view, why can't we be open-minded and look at the other
>side too? Frankly, I suppose they both have their points.
Dear Sally:
I understand your point.
China is different from what one perceives walking along the
alley of Wall-Mart or browsing the papers of western newspapers.
(I also don't believe NYTimes stuff are written in Pentagon!
Let me read the book.)China sometimes reminds me of the story of
elephant and blinds. What we see, what we touch is likely to
shape our view about her, while she represents something more
knowledge-demanding and diffirent abstraction/concretes.
Let's agree that China is a great nation, a society of civility
which happens to have a different view on a lot of things. The
irony is we are as implacable as the Chinese rulers in our
conviction that they are on the wrong side of the history.
There is one plain truth about China which you will realise if
you go to China: that the Chinese are also great people, & they
are also as compassionate as Americans and other people of
this world.( & that they also value heritage as much as we value,
and that they are supporting rest of the world by supplying with
cheap goods without which our life couldn't have been such better
in these days.)
|
| Trailokya Aryal |
Posted
on 25-May-01 07:03 PM
>
>China is different from what one perceives
>walking along the
>alley of Wall-Mart or browsing the papers of
>western newspapers.
>(I also don't believe NYTimes stuff are
>written in Pentagon!
>Let me read the book
Dear Biswoji,
The truth remains the truth. I don't say the state department people or the CIA people write the editorial everyday. But, this does not mean they don't. They do when there's issues related to international relations and other "important" issues. They often dicate the editorials on the phone! Kissinger used to do that, and I don't think the new security advisor won't do it when she needs to. So, if things as such can happen in the 70s, then how can we say that this does not happen today? The Trial of henry Kissinger also has more on this.
>Let's agree that China is a great nation, a
>society of civility
>which happens to have a different view on a
>lot of things. The
>irony is we are as implacable as the Chinese
>rulers in our
>conviction that they are on the wrong side
>of the history.
I agree. We need to undertsand China and the CHinese people better.
I remember reading this in a book by Fairbank- The US made a wrong decison by siding with Taiwan. they should have sided with the PRC. The American governmnet could not understand that the revolution of 1949 was indeed the will of the one billion people of China. The US because of its enemity towards China, only made the people of the both countries suffer (or something along the line of this, in his book , The US and China).
>There is one plain truth about China which
>you will realise if
>you go to China: that the Chinese are also
>great people, & they
>are also as compassionate as Americans and
>other people of
>this world.( & that they also value heritage
>as much as we value,
>and that they are supporting rest of the
>world by supplying with
>cheap goods without which our life couldn't
>have been such better
>in these days.)
I agree. The Chinese, for the most part are very friendly and quite welcoming. because of the experience I had in China, I am going back again for a year starting this August.
Trailokya
|
| Trailokya Aryal |
Posted
on 25-May-01 07:06 PM
>
>China is different from what one perceives
>walking along the
>alley of Wall-Mart or browsing the papers of
>western newspapers.
>(I also don't believe NYTimes stuff are
>written in Pentagon!
>Let me read the book
Dear Biswoji,
The truth remains the truth. I don't say the state department people or the CIA people write the editorial everyday. But, this does not mean they don't. They do when there's issues related to international relations and other "important" issues. They often dicate the editorials on the phone! Kissinger used to do that, and I don't think the new security advisor won't do it when she needs to. So, if things as such can happen in the 70s, then how can we say that this does not happen today? The Trial of henry Kissinger also has more on this.
>Let's agree that China is a great nation, a
>society of civility
>which happens to have a different view on a
>lot of things. The
>irony is we are as implacable as the Chinese
>rulers in our
>conviction that they are on the wrong side
>of the history.
I agree. We need to undertsand China and the Chinese people better. There weren't many people in the US who understood China and how to deal with it, and those few people were either imprisoned or had their careers ruined during the domestic Mcarthycism. Fairbank, who understood China was spared--though he too suffered--because of his connections and the fact that he was a Prof at Harvard.
I remember reading this in a book by Fairbank- The US made a wrong decison by siding with Taiwan. they should have sided with the PRC. The American governmnet could not understand that the revolution of 1949 was indeed the will of the one billion people of China. The US because of its enemity towards China, only made the people of the both countries suffer (or something along the line of this, in his book , The US and China).
>There is one plain truth about China which
>you will realise if
>you go to China: that the Chinese are also
>great people, & they
>are also as compassionate as Americans and
>other people of
>this world.( & that they also value heritage
>as much as we value,
>and that they are supporting rest of the
>world by supplying with
>cheap goods without which our life couldn't
>have been such better
>in these days.)
I agree. The Chinese, for the most part are very friendly and quite welcoming. because of the experience I had in China, I am going back again for a year starting this August.
Trailokya
|
| Trailokya Aryal |
Posted
on 25-May-01 07:09 PM
Sorry, I had to repost my previous message as I had forgotten to include some facts about the plight of China specialists in the US.
Trailokya
|
