PDA

View Full Version : China



ilw
09-08-2007, 08:30 AM
Venturing into unreported China
China has pledged more freedoms for reporters ahead of next year's Olympics, but when the BBC's Dan Griffiths travelled to the countryside to investigate reports of unrest he was detained and questioned.


The village of Shengyou is a three hour drive south of Beijing, deep in the countryside surrounded by fields of maize. A traditional landscape found across this vast nation - but everything is not as it seems.
My taxi driver tells me that the police have set up checkpoints round the village. He refuses to go any further - so I go the rest of the way on foot. I walk down a narrow lane with broad poplar trees on either side. A small tractor chugs by, the driver stares at me - foreigners are rarely seen around here. Round a bend in the road, I see two white vans. Several policemen are standing beside them. They look as out of place in rural China as I do. The questions come thick and fast. What am I doing? Where have I come from? Who is my contact in the village?

Over the course of the next few hours they will ask me this last question again and again. From nowhere a black car pulls up and I am ushered inside. Two years ago there was a riot in Shengyou. In the early hours of a November morning a gang of more than 100 men entered the village. They were wearing camouflage gear and construction helmets, some armed with hunting rifles, clubs and shovels. What happened next was filmed by a local resident and smuggled out to the international media. The video showed a series of bloody clashes between the villagers and the attackers. Gunshots could be heard above the shouting and screaming. When the fighting finally stopped, six people lay dead, more than 50 were injured.

With the dramatic footage circulating, the authorities moved quickly. State media said the Shengyou residents had been resisting the takeover of their property by an electricity company which wanted to build a power plant. It emerged that there had been a similar clash earlier in the year, which had gone unreported. Several local officials were sacked and the villagers won their claim to stay on the land.

But now the police are back in Shengyou.

I am in the backseat of the black car on the way to the nearby town of Dingzhou. Next to me is one of the men from the checkpoint. He is not wearing a police uniform and refuses to give me his name or show me any ID. The questions keep on coming - how do I know about Shengyou? Why was I on foot? I tell him that my taxi driver was too scared to go near the village. He laughs. At one point he reaches over and tries to grab my mobile phone. I ask some questions of my own - why are they detaining me? What is going on in Shengyou? He says nothing.

At the town's government headquarters, an official shakes my hand. "You are welcome to Dingzhou," he says, pretending that I am an honoured guest. We sit around a large oval table. I am on one side, officials are on the other. Several refuse to give me their names. They want to see my journalist's identity card. And again the questions. New regulations issued this year were supposed to give foreign journalists much greater freedom to travel around the country. They were also supposed to mean less harassment from local officials - a common problem in the past and one that has not gone away. I tell them I heard reports about problems in the village and had come down to look around.

People living near Shengyou say that armed police were sent into the village two weeks ago. That was after residents dug up the bodies of those who had died in the violence in November 2005. They wanted to protest at the lack of official compensation for the families of those who were killed or injured then.

What is happening in Shengyou is not unique. It is another reminder of growing social tensions in rural China. The government has admitted that there were tens of thousands of rural protests last year. Many are about land grabs like the one attempted in Shengyou, others about corruption or the growing gap between rich and poor. The authorities in Beijing say they want to do something about these problems - but often officials at the local level ignore these edicts.

The interview is over. Officials say they will escort me back to the highway. I meet up with my driver, who has been waiting for me. Three officials also get in the car. They sit either side of me on the back seat. Another in the front. This is the China the government wants to portray. As we drive out of town a black car comes alongside. The driver says we must pull over. This game of cat and mouse continues up the highway to Beijing. Finally I tell my driver to ignore them and head home.

"Have you been to Beijing before?" I ask the officials. They laugh nervously. Then I see blue and red flashing lights. The police will not say why they have stopped us, nor will they say when we can go. We wait at the side of the road. Up ahead there is a big neon sign lit up in green - "One World, One Dream". It is the official slogan of the Beijing Olympics. "Is this how you will treat journalists when China hosts the Olympics?" I ask one of them. "Oh, everything will be different then," he says.

Then another car pulls up, with representatives from the local office of China's foreign ministry. I know my colleagues in Beijing have been pressing the foreign ministry to take action. "There has been a terrible mistake, we are so sorry." They insist that we must go out for dinner with the officials from Dingzhou, then we can go back to Beijing. It is a strange experience sitting round the same table with the men who detained me.

It is not until the next day that my driver discovers that while we were eating, someone tampered with our car by removing several of the bolts that attach the wheels to the chassis.

It is nearly midnight by the time we arrive back in Beijing. We drive down the wide, brightly-lit boulevards, past the new office blocks.

This is the China that Beijing wants the world to see. But in Shengyou there is another China - a world that goes unreported by the country's state-run media.

China's president, Hu Jintao, has promised to build what he calls a "harmonious society", but three hours south of Beijing no-one in power seems to be listening.

Personally i just can't see china staying in one piece in the long term, it may be quite ethnically homogenous, but its simply too big and there are too many internal issues.

bigboab
09-08-2007, 06:25 PM
Nothing new there. Profit before people. Notice that I did not say progress before people.:whistling

thewizeard
10-18-2007, 08:42 AM
Personally i just can't see china staying in one piece in the long term, it may be quite ethnically homogenous, but its simply too big and there are too many internal issues.

As long as the Tibet part receives the independence it deserves... to begin with ilw..:dry:

bigboab
10-18-2007, 04:19 PM
China has become commercially capitalistic. Tibet will not get its independence as long as it has a prophet.:wacko:

Barbarossa
10-18-2007, 04:21 PM
Are you saying there's no profit in prophesy? :blink:

bigboab
10-18-2007, 05:12 PM
Are you saying there's no profit in prophesy? :blink:

It is not doing Confucius (keeping on thread.:whistling)much good.:P

Biggles
10-18-2007, 09:27 PM
Personally i just can't see china staying in one piece in the long term, it may be quite ethnically homogenous, but its simply too big and there are too many internal issues.

As long as the Tibet part receives the independence it deserves... to begin with ilw..:dry:

There are a lot of ethnic groups in China though - especially to the West and the North. China has a taste for economic prosperity and for international trade it is perhaps time she faced up to what she really wants - Imperial dominion over relatively poor areas like Tibet or real economic power. Tibet is a Buddhist country with its own traditions - shipping in Chinese people to make it more Chinese fools no one.

If China wants respect then she is going to have loosen the stays or risk her prosperity and trade with the West. Time for a boycott or two.

zema
10-20-2007, 08:13 PM
You think so? What about Greenland?



Personally i just can't see china staying in one piece in the long term, it may be quite ethnically homogenous, but its simply too big and there are too many internal issues.

As long as the Tibet part receives the independence it deserves... to begin with ilw..:dry:

zema
10-20-2007, 08:18 PM
I think that is simplification of the Chinese reality. Tibet is very important to China and, by the way, who would cede part of its territory's anyway? UK?




As long as the Tibet part receives the independence it deserves... to begin with ilw..:dry:

There are a lot of ethnic groups in China though - especially to the West and the North. China has a taste for economic prosperity and for international trade it is perhaps time she faced up to what she really wants - Imperial dominion over relatively poor areas like Tibet or real economic power. Tibet is a Buddhist country with its own traditions - shipping in Chinese people to make it more Chinese fools no one.

If China wants respect then she is going to have loosen the stays or risk her prosperity and trade with the West. Time for a boycott or two.

bigboab
10-20-2007, 08:52 PM
I think that is simplification of the Chinese reality. Tibet is very important to China and, by the way, who would cede part of its territory's anyway? UK?



There are a lot of ethnic groups in China though - especially to the West and the North. China has a taste for economic prosperity and for international trade it is perhaps time she faced up to what she really wants - Imperial dominion over relatively poor areas like Tibet or real economic power. Tibet is a Buddhist country with its own traditions - shipping in Chinese people to make it more Chinese fools no one.

If China wants respect then she is going to have loosen the stays or risk her prosperity and trade with the West. Time for a boycott or two.

What Chinese Territory are we talking about here? China invaded Tibet in 1950-51.

zema
10-20-2007, 09:16 PM
everyone invaded some territory at some point, but Tibet is today China and that has been recognized by every country in the world.

Biggles
10-20-2007, 09:22 PM
everyone invaded some territory at some point, but Tibet is today China and that has been recognized by every country in the world.

Well maybe excepting the Tibetans

bigboab
10-20-2007, 09:24 PM
everyone invaded some territory at some point, but Tibet is today China and that has been recognized by every country in the world.

Oh! Really?

http://www.friends-of-tibet.org.nz/occu.html

Biggles
10-20-2007, 09:46 PM
I can't say I have ever considered Tibet anything other than an occupied country. If the Chinese are so confident let the Tibetans have a plebiscite on whether they wish to remain part of China.

zema
10-21-2007, 06:01 AM
Plebiscite is not allowed by any major world power to happen in any country if there is no political interest of these major powers to let it happen! Who cares for people! :blink:

I can't say I have ever considered Tibet anything other than an occupied country. If the Chinese are so confident let the Tibetans have a plebiscite on whether they wish to remain part of China.

zema
10-21-2007, 06:06 AM
Was Tibet a country or a region?:whistling

I can't say I have ever considered Tibet anything other than an occupied country. If the Chinese are so confident let the Tibetans have a plebiscite on whether they wish to remain part of China.

zema
10-21-2007, 06:10 AM
Oh! Really? Friends of Tibet? Meaning what - supreme truth, funded by whom!?



everyone invaded some territory at some point, but Tibet is today China and that has been recognized by every country in the world.

Oh! Really?

http://www.friends-of-tibet.org.nz/occu.html

ilw
10-21-2007, 09:25 AM
I can't say I have ever considered Tibet anything other than an occupied country. If the Chinese are so confident let the Tibetans have a plebiscite on whether they wish to remain part of China.

tibetans would lose the plebiscite, one of the first things china did was flood the country with han chinese people who supposedly outnumber tibetans in tibet by 7.5M to 6M.

zema
10-21-2007, 10:20 AM
One of the reasons "Chinese did flood..." was because people living there were in such state that they needed teachers, doctors, engineers, etc. "Seven years in Tibet" is very good reading written from the guy sent by Hitler to Tibet.

ilw
10-21-2007, 10:50 AM
One of the reasons "Chinese did flood..." was because people living there were in such state that they needed teachers, doctors, engineers, etc. "Seven years in Tibet" is very good reading written from the guy sent by Hitler to Tibet.

I'm not saying the place wasn't a complete backwater beforehand, but you make the invasion sound altruistic, do they really need more doctors, teachers and engineers than there are people in the whole country? Be realistic, it's pure demographic warfare - a perfect democracy killer.

bigboab
10-21-2007, 12:04 PM
Oh! Really? Friends of Tibet? Meaning what - supreme truth, funded by whom!?




Oh! Really?

http://www.friends-of-tibet.org.nz/occu.html

Let's not fall out over a piece of broken china.:)

zema
10-21-2007, 12:19 PM
First of all I donīt call it invasion and I think it is a bit strange to ask if "they really needed doctors"?. Isnīt it something that we would like for every person to have access to health care?. I would remind You of an interesting remark from a visitor to Dalai Lamas (not present one) palace - horrified to see heads of Dalai Lamaīs opponents in the glass jars in the palace.
China, historically speaking, was always invaded without being invader itself. Mongols, Japanese and in modern times by the Western countries that nearly destroyed China. Chinese people did not forget it. For that reason they built Great wall to protect themselves from Mongols. Great Channel was built to stop Japanese. Tibet has the same importance for China.
So when Western medias drums support for independence for Tibet then it is quite moral to ask also people like ilw (http://filesharingtalk.com/vb3/../../members/ilw-2734) and thewizeard (http://filesharingtalk.com/vb3/../../members/thewizeard-27827) when they make comments like



Personally i just can't see china staying in one piece in the long term, ..., but its simply too big and there are too many internal issues.
As long as the Tibet part receives the independence it deserves... to begin with ilw..:dry:

why there is nothing in world medias about Greenland and their 50 000 citizens that want to have independence from Denmark, Basque, etc...? So ilw (http://filesharingtalk.com/vb3/../../members/ilw-2734) following Your thinking, Denmark (with Greenland is much bigger then China) should be split apart because it is too big?

Biggles
10-21-2007, 12:44 PM
Zema

To bring the issue closer to home. I don't think anybody would contest that Kosovo is not historically Serbian territory. The Churches and towns are all Serbian. However, it is now populated by ethnic Albanians who are effectively wanting independence but in reality would really be part of a greater Albania. Demographic forces have been used to secure political goals.

The Chinese have flooded Tibet with Chinese people most of those 7m arriving after the 1959 uprising. However, the fact remains that ancient Tibetan values, religion and social systems were overthrown by a foreign army and the Tibetans don't like it and would like to see the Chinese leave. This is not going to happen as Tibet has no army and a tiny population in comparison to China's 1.1b. The best that can be hoped for is that international pressure will see the return of the Dalai Lama and a restoration to a degree of Tibetan culture. The Chinese are integrated into the World economy. They need the trade that is the underpinning of their economy. It is in their interests to be seen to be a moderating and reasonable force in World politics.

zema
10-21-2007, 01:02 PM
Biggles

what home!? Scotland?


Zema
To bring the issue closer to home...


Re: China - I am not an expert on China and Chinese affairs but being trained as a doctor of Traditional Chinese Medicine I think that I can make a comment that lot of people on the West that talk about China donīt have a clue about it! They easily apply own home brewed standards to distant countries, nations, etc. as just ones - at the same time avoiding the same standards for their countries, nations, etc.

By the way, Biggles, it is notorious truth that, since Marco Polo, days China had surplus in trading with West. Even then as today we need them more then they do need us. So nothing new under the sun. :D:D:D

Biggles
10-21-2007, 01:47 PM
Biggles

what home!? Scotland?


Zema
To bring the issue closer to home...


Re: China - I am not an expert on China and Chinese affairs but being trained as a doctor of Traditional Chinese Medicine I think that I can make a comment that lot of people on the West that talk about China donīt have a clue about it! They easily apply own home brewed standards to distant countries, nations, etc. as just ones - at the same time avoiding the same standards for their countries, nations, etc.

By the way, Biggles, it is notorious truth that, since Marco Polo, days China had surplus in trading with West. Even then as today we need them more then they do need us. So nothing new under the sun. :D:D:D

Kosovo is certainly a lot closer to Scotland than China - that is for sure :)

As a Scot the issues of self determination and autonomy in relation to a larger neighbour are also live political issues.

China is a key economic power in the World economy and that is where her future lies - not in outdated imperialistic dogma. The economic freedom and wealth that is growing in China will inevitably bring changes - something the current rulers are all too aware of - hence the recent calls for the Communist Party to re-invigorate itself.

ilw
10-21-2007, 02:37 PM
First of all I donīt call it invasion and I think it is a bit strange to ask if "they really needed doctors"?.
no i meant don't you think it strange that they needed to import more engineers doctors and teachers than the entire indigenous population? and what would you call it? I honestly can't even think of a euphemism that would cover it


Isnīt it something that we would like for every person to have access to health care?. I would remind You of an interesting remark from a visitor to Dalai Lamas (not present one) palace - horrified to see heads of Dalai Lamaīs opponents in the glass jars in the palace.
China, historically speaking, was always invaded without being invader itself. Mongols, Japanese and in modern times by the Western countries that nearly destroyed China. Chinese people did not forget it. For that reason they built Great wall to protect themselves from Mongols. Great Channel was built to stop Japanese. Tibet has the same importance for China.
So when Western medias drums support for independence for Tibet then it is quite moral to ask also people like ilw (http://filesharingtalk.com/vb3/../../members/ilw-2734) and thewizeard (http://filesharingtalk.com/vb3/../../members/thewizeard-27827) when they make comments like
links are broken and i'm not sure why you'd want links?




As long as the Tibet part receives the independence it deserves... to begin with ilw..:dry:
Originally Posted by ilw
Personally i just can't see china staying in one piece in the long term, ..., but its simply too big and there are too many internal issues.

why there is nothing in world medias about Greenland and their 50 000 citizens that want to have independence from Denmark, Basque, etc...? So ilw (http://filesharingtalk.com/vb3/../../members/ilw-2734) following Your thinking, Denmark (with Greenland is much bigger then China) should be split apart because it is too big?
i meant big in both the population and geographics sense. But i've been thinking about it and i suppose if they devolve power enough any size country is manageable. The centralised power structure they have now though is a recipe for disaster




but being trained as a doctor of Traditional Chinese Medicine
oh you and me are going to get on just fabulously [/sarcasm]

zema
10-21-2007, 03:44 PM
Biggles

I can understand Your motivation and line of thinking and that issue of Tibet is for Your somehow emotionally related to issue of Scotland. End of the story.

Still You make mistake arguing that Chinas future lies... "not in outdated imperialistic dogma". From historical point of view China was always closed society in the last few thousands years. They never occupied any other country (although You will say - Tibet! - any other?) they did not impose their lifestyle or political systems to others. The purpose of my writing is to try to give other angle in viewing events maybe different then our media have.

zema
10-21-2007, 03:51 PM
Have You been in Tibet?

no i meant don't you think it strange that they needed to import more engineers doctors and teachers than the entire indigenous population? and what would you call it? I honestly can't even think of a euphemism that would cover it...
i meant big in both the population and geographics sense. But i've been thinking about it and i suppose if they devolve power enough any size country is manageable. The centralised power structure they have now though is a recipe for disaster

Hmm it sounds like playing monopoly - this time with humans destinies! Fair enough - we are going nowhere with this discussion.

bigboab
10-21-2007, 06:05 PM
Have You been in Tibet?

no i meant don't you think it strange that they needed to import more engineers doctors and teachers than the entire indigenous population? and what would you call it? I honestly can't even think of a euphemism that would cover it...
i meant big in both the population and geographics sense. But i've been thinking about it and i suppose if they devolve power enough any size country is manageable. The centralised power structure they have now though is a recipe for disaster

Hmm it sounds like playing monopoly - this time with humans destinies! Fair enough - we are going nowhere with this discussion.

We would get nowhere with any discussions if we need to have visited the country discussed.

In ending, would you please leave that old Scotsman alone. Especially as he does not wish Scotland to be independent.:)

ilw
10-21-2007, 06:14 PM
Have You been in Tibet?

no i meant don't you think it strange that they needed to import more engineers doctors and teachers than the entire indigenous population? and what would you call it? I honestly can't even think of a euphemism that would cover it...
i meant big in both the population and geographics sense. But i've been thinking about it and i suppose if they devolve power enough any size country is manageable. The centralised power structure they have now though is a recipe for disaster

Hmm it sounds like playing monopoly - this time with humans destinies! Fair enough - we are going nowhere with this discussion.

no idea what you're talking about.

thewizeard
10-03-2008, 02:18 PM
In any case China will not fall apart, in fact it's heading to be the world's financial hub and the axis where the rest of the world economies will be revolving around. Within 20 years we all might even have to learn Chinese as it barges the English language from it's number 1 position....take heed...

all this of course if we get past 2012 and the return of Niberu.. lol



..which, we might not.

peat moss
10-04-2008, 02:30 AM
I think we should teach our children Mandarin or Cantonese in school instead of French like we do in Canada . Having a second language would give our children a step up .

Children learn so fast if given an opportunity .

clocker
10-04-2008, 11:54 AM
Within 20 years we all might even have to learn Chinese as it barges the English language from it's number 1 position....take heed...

Unlikely, although learning a second language is a good thing anyway.
China, divided by many dialects and an unwieldy language, has pretty much adopted English as the official language of business and science.

To read a Chinese newspaper, one must be conversant with at least 3000 characters and official dictionaries contain 40,000 +, so a Chinese keyboard can be a nightmare.
Furthermore, a character's definition is fluid, depending on context and intonation, so Chinese, which can be extraordinarily precise when spoken, is poorly suited to written mediums.

No doubt that as influence accumulates in the East, elements of Chinese language will become integrated in world culture but I think it's unlikely to totally displace simpler languages like English or Spanish.