In Defense of Commies; China, Western Criticisim and Me

I have to say I am getting sick of all these people taking shots at the Chinese. It isn’t simply the “loony left”, the people who wish to be like China and other Socialist countries in every way possible (hypocrites who are jealous of Soviet “success”), but many people on the right of the spectrum as well. Take Ed Morrissey’s article about a Chinese protester yesterday. Now I like Morrissey’s work, and anyone who has spent time on my blog knows I like to it a lot, but I can’t sit by and let much of these ignorant statements go, not when they continue to villainize an entire country because of the actions of a few government officials.

Every time we hear about the “Chinese Government”, an entity which has almost become as hated as “The Man”, we think of an all powerful, tyrannical ruler which has enslaved and impoverished its people to fulfill its dark desires. Many people, especially on the left (looking at you Jack Layton, Leader of the NDP) like to lump the “Chinese Government” in with the “Chinese People”, and simply villainize the entire population of the country. It would be foolish for me to say that there isn’t any factual basis for much of these beliefs, but I do believe that this is an extreme characterization of the Chinese Communist Party and the people of China. Let’s not forget much of the information that does make it to the nightly news, the “truth” which is spoke which is spoke of about China comes from dubious sources at best.

That’s right, you heard me, DUBIOUS. This isn’t the first article Ed Morrissey has put out on the “evil and tyrannical” Chinese, last August he came out and quoted a report from The Guardian, a paper which many have noted for its sometimes extreme left-wing bias, about the mistreatment of reporters who were covering the “peaceful” Free Tibet Protests…

John Ray, a correspondent for ITN, says he was “bundled away, pushed to the floor and pinned down” before being “manhandled into the back of a police van.” …

“They are claiming I tried to unfurl a Tibet banner. I did not at any time try to unfurl a banner and I have never possessed any banner or protest material. I was there simply to report on a demonstration, not to take part in it in any way,” he tells The Guardian.

Haven’t we seen this kind of one-sided reporting on this side of the Pacific? What about the arrest of Amy Goodwin at last year’s Republican Convention? Even Ed Morrissey himself reported on this story, discussing the other side which Goodwin’s supporters left out. The problem is, as we saw with this incident, that when you do get one side of the story, the “victim” has full authority on the “truth” of the incident. From a left-wing source, as The Guardian has shown itself to be, we see the usual villainization of a group of people who’s voice isn’t being reported, whether that is purposeful or simply because of the variety of communication issues which exist between the Chinese authorities and the Western media. On that note, while these protests in Beijing were relatively peaceful, those in Tibet definitely weren’t…

We all remember the reporting of the riots in Tibet last year, reporting which got CNN Jack Cafferty in trouble with his remarks, which were as usual ignorant and ill-advised. We remember that many people looked to the Dhalai Lama for the “truth” on what was going on, quoting his spokesmen who were saying that Chinese authorities’ response to the Tibetan rioters was “baseless”. I can tell you from what I know about the Chinese government and how it deals with protests, both big and small, that the military presence in Tibet was there long before the protests, something which a friend of mine, “Mrs Robinson”, can even testify too. Her visit to the region had surprised her since she wasn’t aware that the Chinese had already began watching the area, even using tanks to maintain an uneasy peace. The violence started as the Olympics got closer, with the Dhalai Lama’s supporters looking to make a political statement, if not fulfill some “perverted desire” to become martyrs for the cause.

Yes you heard me right, MARTYRS. It isn’t simply Islam which celebrates those who have “died for the cause”, it also seems that the Dhalai Lama and his supporters have made similar efforts for their cause. As discussed on TibetBlogs, the aim of this protest, to many it would seem, was simply to become “martyrs for the cause”. Whether it be laying under tanks, running into gun fire, etc many of these people were looking to die in service of the movement. Does the Dhalai Lama denounce this? Not at all, he uses it to further his cause. He is among the most dangerous people in this whole fiasco, a religious and political leader with absolute moral authority, that WE have bestowed upon him with our proclamations of his “purity”, a man who’s followers are more than happy to sacrifice their lives for his cause. How is it that we can still take him seriously, especially after his most recent display of twisted mentality (like I’m going to take sexual advice for a man who has forsaken it)?

Once you realize that the “credible source” most news agencies use is this man and his followers, you really have to question what is being said. You can criticize me for being “biased” in favour of the Chinese people, but I really think much of what I have said here is because I have seen both sides of the issue, not simply swallowed a narrow view of a complex situation. If it isn’t Tibet, it is China itself. The situation in that country is very hard to understand if you haven’t lived it yourself. Over-population in urban areas, a mostly uneducated country which depends even the lowest forms of employment to pay the bills, etc. The country as a whole is decades behind the West and it is unrealistic to simply judge the actions of the people and their government by our standards, whether that is the standards of living, the standards of education, or the standards of human rights.

I can tell you from my own experience that the Chinese government doesn’t exist as a united body with total control of all political decisions in the country. You have numerous different agencies, different governing bodies within China’s many provinces, each answering to a variety of different Communist Party officials, each with their own agenda, whether they are looking to do their best for the country or the best for themselves. Even within the Communist Party you have the believers and non-believers, those who believe in Chairman Mao’s dream and those who realize their luxury depends on maintaining a failing system. Even though it is a failing system, the fact that they have adopted many principles found in Western capitalism to strengthen their economy, as well as granting Tibet and other region in China limited autonomy through negotiations, which does include their recent talks with the Dhalai Lama, shows that they are willing to make the necessary steps towards making realistic reforms to maintain it, to make their system work as best as it can. China can’t simply change overnight, nor should it, if we have learned anything from the Soviet Russia’s collapse…

Let’s try to take that into consideration next time we “cherry-pick” stories about protesters being “silenced” in China… After all, it isn’t like that doesn’t happen here…

UPDATE: Not to criticize Ed Morrissey anymore then I have with this article, but I was a little taken back by his latest posting, this concerning the abolishment of marriage in California. To me this proposition is simply a political move made by an anti-Proposition 8 group, sort of a “if the gays can’t have it, no one can” situation, but not to Ed. He went on about how this libertarian idea appealed to him, discussing “pros” and “cons” of the issue…

As a practical matter, eliminating marriage as a government sanction and forcing couples into partnership contracts would eliminate barriers to adoption and benefits for gay couples, at least in California. It would also avoid the state-recognition issue that the Massachusetts Supreme Court created and which the Defense of Marriage Act attempted to pre-empt. Since the couples would not have government-sanctioned “marriages”, other states would not have to recognize them as such, but the contracts would be enforceable anywhere in the US — probably a lot more enforceable than marriages are today. Those who want to claim “marriage” could have that sanctioned by their religious organizations instead of relying on the state.

Most opposition to this will rest on adoption and the profound nature of changing the way society treats its foundational building block, the family. In practice, DPI might not really change much anyway, since I believe California allows for private adoptions by singles and gay couples, and people are free to arrange their families in such manner anyway without government approval as “marriage” now. However much the libertarian argument appeals to me — and it does — I have to wonder whether we gain much in taking such a step, and what we lose in comparison.

Come on Ed, call it like it is, like the reader who emailed you did. You’re slipping… And if I can tell, so can serious critics…