China blocks Wikimedia from entering World Intellectual Property Organization(wikimediafoundation.org)
wikimediafoundation.org
China blocks Wikimedia from entering World Intellectual Property Organization
https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2021/10/05/china-again-blocks-wikimedia-foundations-accreditation-to-world-intellectual-property-organization/
311 comments
not a fan of China government but in this case I tend to believe them, I've seen Wikipedia volunteers spread actual disinformation in a concerted effort especially on politically charged topics.
That's not what's happening here though. China has for years put enormous effort into promoting its worldview on the China/Taiwan issue in every way it can, even though that worldview contradicts the facts on the ground. Taiwan is de-facto an independent country with its own government and military sovereignty, and the majority of citizens of Taiwan are happy with that arrangement.
China saying that Wikipedia Taiwan is spreading misinformation is just an effort to warp reality to fit China's alternate-universe version of the facts.
China saying that Wikipedia Taiwan is spreading misinformation is just an effort to warp reality to fit China's alternate-universe version of the facts.
Taiwan (i.e. the ROC) is not a "de-facto" country, it _is_ a country.
I don't get the feeling you're anti-Taiwan, but I think calling Taiwan a "de-facto" implicitly questions its status and should be avoided.
I don't get the feeling you're anti-Taiwan, but I think calling Taiwan a "de-facto" implicitly questions its status and should be avoided.
I'm reasonably certain the "de-facto" wording is used as Taiwan isn't actually recognised formally and fully as an independent country internationally. Thats not to say it shouldn't be, but it acknowledges the current truth.
They don't even officially acknowledge themselves to be an independent country; they claim all of China as their territory, not just Taiwan.
The ROC definitely considers itself a country.
And I'd like to point out that the ROC and the PRC don't even have the same land claims. The PRC claims the mainland and Taiwan. The ROC claims the mainland, Taiwan, and Mongolia. Mongolia claims Mongolia. There are three separate countries making these claims.
The fact that (some of) their claims overlap doesn't magically mean that the ROC and PRC aren't two separate countries. It just means that they are two countries that claim more land than they control.
And I'd like to point out that the ROC and the PRC don't even have the same land claims. The PRC claims the mainland and Taiwan. The ROC claims the mainland, Taiwan, and Mongolia. Mongolia claims Mongolia. There are three separate countries making these claims.
The fact that (some of) their claims overlap doesn't magically mean that the ROC and PRC aren't two separate countries. It just means that they are two countries that claim more land than they control.
This is very much outdated and a relic of the times when anti-communist world powers believed they could maybe remove communism from mainland china. It is a believe held today only by a small minority. https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3951560
This is just wrong.
As of today, the governments in Beijing and Taipei agree that there is only one China and that Taiwan is part of it. That's the "One China" principle.
Taiwan does not assert that there is a sovereign country whose territory consists of the island of Taiwan. Taiwan's government still claims that the Republic of China still exists and that it is the legitimate state in all of China including Tibet, Inner Mongolia, and Xinjiang. This position is accepted by very few countries.
The fact that they are able to act in many respects as though they are the government of a sovereign country whose territory consists of the island of Taiwan is what makes them a de facto country.
As of today, the governments in Beijing and Taipei agree that there is only one China and that Taiwan is part of it. That's the "One China" principle.
Taiwan does not assert that there is a sovereign country whose territory consists of the island of Taiwan. Taiwan's government still claims that the Republic of China still exists and that it is the legitimate state in all of China including Tibet, Inner Mongolia, and Xinjiang. This position is accepted by very few countries.
The fact that they are able to act in many respects as though they are the government of a sovereign country whose territory consists of the island of Taiwan is what makes them a de facto country.
> As of today ...
... the Taiwan independence movement claims only the island of Taiwan for the Taiwanese nation, and is a core aspect of the Pan Green Coalition, which has 56% of the legislative and the president.
... the Taiwan independence movement claims only the island of Taiwan for the Taiwanese nation, and is a core aspect of the Pan Green Coalition, which has 56% of the legislative and the president.
It's true that Taiwan's official position no longer reflects either reality or the desires of its people.
I think it would be ideal of Taiwan could be come de jure independent and sovereign, but that would essentially require some deal between China and the USA which is certainly not forthcoming.
I think it would be ideal of Taiwan could be come de jure independent and sovereign, but that would essentially require some deal between China and the USA which is certainly not forthcoming.
The moment Taiwan officially drops their claims and declares Taiwanese Independence, China will attack.
Right. China's position is that a declaration of independence from Taiwan constitutes an act of war against China by what is essentially a US/NATO proxy. So the US/NATO would have to trade something to China for Taiwan and it's not clear to me that they have anything to offer that matters to China.
> China's position is that a declaration of independence from Taiwan constitutes an act of war against China by what is essentially a US/NATO proxy
Right, and one could also say that America's position is that China isn't allowed to invade Taiwan, so I guess if China wanted to do that, it would need to trade something of value to America to let it happen, and I'm not sure China has anything to trade that matters to America. This is the US-Sino agreement -- China isn't allowed to invade, the US isn't allowed to recognize independence. The situation can only be settled with diplomacy. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-China_policy for more information about this agreement -- which both the US and China signed.
So you see, China can't really prevent the US from recognizing an Independent Taiwan, but neither can the US prevent China from attacking Taiwan. Both of these balance. China can sabre rattle, sort go up to but not actually invade, just as the US can go up to but not actually recognize Taiwanese independence. For example China can violate Taiwanese airspace but then leave without shooting at anyone. And the US can open an "office" in Taiwan that isn't quite an embassy but does some consular work. And perhaps an American official might visit that office and shake a few hands.
It's a weird tit-for-tat.
This is the game that is being played. The US is betting that it has time on its side. With each year that passes, the Taiwanese consider themselves more independent in their own consciousness. China is betting on rapidly becoming so rich and such a pleasant place to live that the Taiwanese will want to reunify in order to enjoy the Blessings of Beijing. Everything else is either play-acting or dangerous stupidity. Because I think Xi is a smart guy, I think he is play-acting and for a domestic audience. Whenever there is some problem like electricity blackouts, or some corruption scandal, Xi does some provocation against Taiwan and people fall behind him ready to avenge Chinese honor. But I know there is a non-zero chance that I could be wrong, and perhaps Xi really means it. That would be disastrous for all sides.
So international disputes are not really settled by one side having a position only, there are multiple sides, each needing to compromise on their position. Being rigid often ends up backfiring, particularly for a nation locked into the dollar system and one that isn't food or energy independent.
Right, and one could also say that America's position is that China isn't allowed to invade Taiwan, so I guess if China wanted to do that, it would need to trade something of value to America to let it happen, and I'm not sure China has anything to trade that matters to America. This is the US-Sino agreement -- China isn't allowed to invade, the US isn't allowed to recognize independence. The situation can only be settled with diplomacy. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-China_policy for more information about this agreement -- which both the US and China signed.
So you see, China can't really prevent the US from recognizing an Independent Taiwan, but neither can the US prevent China from attacking Taiwan. Both of these balance. China can sabre rattle, sort go up to but not actually invade, just as the US can go up to but not actually recognize Taiwanese independence. For example China can violate Taiwanese airspace but then leave without shooting at anyone. And the US can open an "office" in Taiwan that isn't quite an embassy but does some consular work. And perhaps an American official might visit that office and shake a few hands.
It's a weird tit-for-tat.
This is the game that is being played. The US is betting that it has time on its side. With each year that passes, the Taiwanese consider themselves more independent in their own consciousness. China is betting on rapidly becoming so rich and such a pleasant place to live that the Taiwanese will want to reunify in order to enjoy the Blessings of Beijing. Everything else is either play-acting or dangerous stupidity. Because I think Xi is a smart guy, I think he is play-acting and for a domestic audience. Whenever there is some problem like electricity blackouts, or some corruption scandal, Xi does some provocation against Taiwan and people fall behind him ready to avenge Chinese honor. But I know there is a non-zero chance that I could be wrong, and perhaps Xi really means it. That would be disastrous for all sides.
So international disputes are not really settled by one side having a position only, there are multiple sides, each needing to compromise on their position. Being rigid often ends up backfiring, particularly for a nation locked into the dollar system and one that isn't food or energy independent.
The ROC (i.e. what people mean when they say "Taiwan") and the PRC are most certainly two separate countries. The fact that they have largely overlapping land claims doesn't change that. The fact that they both historically claim to be the legitimate government of some no longer existent greater China doesn't change that. They are two separate countries. That is the current status quo.
Would you call the Army Council of the Continuity IRA the government of a country? They claim to be the government of the Irish Republic declared in 1916 and claim the entire island of Ireland as the territory of that state. Claims are very cheap.
> Would you call the Army Council of the Continuity IRA the government of a country?
Unlike both the ROC and the PRC, they don't actually govern anything in practice, irrespective of whether it is coextensive with their claims. Upthread post claimed the ROC and PRC are both governments of real and separate countries in practice, independent of their overlapping theoretical claims. Doesn't seem a related thing at all to your question.
Unlike both the ROC and the PRC, they don't actually govern anything in practice, irrespective of whether it is coextensive with their claims. Upthread post claimed the ROC and PRC are both governments of real and separate countries in practice, independent of their overlapping theoretical claims. Doesn't seem a related thing at all to your question.
Right, Taiwan is a de facto but not de jure country. That fact is what the person upthread was objecting to in the first place.
The ROC is de jure* a country.
*Well as much as a such a claim can be made without specifying what legal system is being referred to.
*Well as much as a such a claim can be made without specifying what legal system is being referred to.
The ROC is de jure a country, and the PRC is de jure a country, but mostly not in the same legal systems, and with essentially coextensive de jure territory.
De facto mainland China and Taiwan are separate countries, with distinct territories, governed respectively by the PRC and ROC.
That is the basis (or perhaps just expansion) of the upthread description that Taiwan is, de facto, a distinct country from China.
De facto mainland China and Taiwan are separate countries, with distinct territories, governed respectively by the PRC and ROC.
That is the basis (or perhaps just expansion) of the upthread description that Taiwan is, de facto, a distinct country from China.
So the ROC and PRC are de jure countries, and de facto countries, and well countries.
I still don't understand the point of the qualifier. I don't hear people refer to China as a de facto country so why use the qualifier for Taiwan?
I still don't understand the point of the qualifier. I don't hear people refer to China as a de facto country so why use the qualifier for Taiwan?
> Would you call the Army Council of the Continuity IRA the government of a country? They claim to be the government of the Irish Republic declared in 1916 and claim the entire island of Ireland as the territory of that state. Claims are very cheap.
Exactly claims are cheap. Hence why the PRC's claim that Taiwan is its territory is so worthless given that it has _never_ controlled it. Also why the ROC's claims to the mainland and Mongolia are so worthless given that they haven't controlled any of that for more than 70 years.
The claims are cheap and meaningless. The reality is that China and Taiwan are two separate countries.
Exactly claims are cheap. Hence why the PRC's claim that Taiwan is its territory is so worthless given that it has _never_ controlled it. Also why the ROC's claims to the mainland and Mongolia are so worthless given that they haven't controlled any of that for more than 70 years.
The claims are cheap and meaningless. The reality is that China and Taiwan are two separate countries.
downvoted for lack of evidence/examples.
Nazis: https://www.wired.com/story/one-womans-mission-to-rewrite-na...
Then there's this:
> Most of Scottish Wikipedia Written By American in Mangled English
https://www.vice.com/en/article/wxqy8x/most-of-scottish-wiki...
Some examples of the writing here: https://twitter.com/NeerajKA/status/1298579510581960705
And finally, I remember some translated wikipedia language was mostly written by like 10 people and went kind of nuts, but I can't find a link.
This stuff is like @tptacek bait -- I heard of these by reading his twitter.
Then there's this:
> Most of Scottish Wikipedia Written By American in Mangled English
https://www.vice.com/en/article/wxqy8x/most-of-scottish-wiki...
Some examples of the writing here: https://twitter.com/NeerajKA/status/1298579510581960705
And finally, I remember some translated wikipedia language was mostly written by like 10 people and went kind of nuts, but I can't find a link.
This stuff is like @tptacek bait -- I heard of these by reading his twitter.
Those two are examples of lone individuals spreading misinformation, but not a concerted effort of Wikimedia itself or one of its chapters
And the first example isn’t even that - it’s an editor who is trying to reduce the usage of sources that stem from Nazi propaganda and to limit flowery unsourced language around the Nazis.
Other editors get in her way, but that’s still in good faith. Not exactly a situation that backs up that commenter’s point, for sure.
Other editors get in her way, but that’s still in good faith. Not exactly a situation that backs up that commenter’s point, for sure.
Using wikipedia.
Wikipedia can't disclaim the information on wikipedia.org if they want to be a credible organization.
Wikipedia can't disclaim the information on wikipedia.org if they want to be a credible organization.
The first is not an example of misinformation at all.
The second isn't politically motivated, but simple vandalism.
The second isn't politically motivated, but simple vandalism.
Removing valorization of the Nazi cause implies that there was, well, valorization of the Nazi cause. Which is exactly
> actual disinformation in a concerted effort especially on politically charged topics
> actual disinformation in a concerted effort especially on politically charged topics
well pick any American politician right of center and check their wikipedia page.
Every US politician that anyone would actually know is extreme right, so this is a very big group. Not a very useful classification, you may as well have said "any US politician". Then we get to the point where it is unclear what your actual problem is with their wikipedia pages.
The only thing that can be concluded is that you apparently believe the wikipedia page of every US politician is somehow anomalous. It tells us nothing.
The only thing that can be concluded is that you apparently believe the wikipedia page of every US politician is somehow anomalous. It tells us nothing.
I mean, most of Republicans on wikipedia are vilified as "far-right conspiracy theorists" and all shades of evil, with links to fake news as source of information (Washington Post for example)
one can argue, that if MSM spreads disinfo what can you expect from wikipedians, but the problem is their "power editors" and admins are a small clique with very particular political bias, it's just another echo chamber
one can argue, that if MSM spreads disinfo what can you expect from wikipedians, but the problem is their "power editors" and admins are a small clique with very particular political bias, it's just another echo chamber
> vilified
When it is just the truth, you don't need to spin it to have a certain kind of impact. The impact exists even when you view things impassively, without much care one way or the other.
When it is just the truth, you don't need to spin it to have a certain kind of impact. The impact exists even when you view things impassively, without much care one way or the other.
Wikipedia absolutely has a conservative bent, I wouldn't call the editing body "liberal" for using a newspaper owned by a union-busting multibillionaire as a source
You didn't really respond to the assertion that all American politicians are right-wing, but it's true. We have a "blood and soil" far right party and a "diverse corporate oligopoly" center-right party.
You didn't really respond to the assertion that all American politicians are right-wing, but it's true. We have a "blood and soil" far right party and a "diverse corporate oligopoly" center-right party.
> You didn't really respond to the assertion that all American politicians are right-wing, but it's true.
"Two people repeating it on HN comments" != "it's true".
It really boils down to: What's your standard of reference? You seem to want to use Europe (I assume) as the standard for defining left and right in US politics. Why do you consider that a reasonable thing to do?
And even if you consider it a reasonable thing, why Europe? Why not Asia? Or the Middle East? Or Africa? Or the world as a whole?
Or why not, you know, use the US as the standard for judging what left and right are in US politics?
"Two people repeating it on HN comments" != "it's true".
It really boils down to: What's your standard of reference? You seem to want to use Europe (I assume) as the standard for defining left and right in US politics. Why do you consider that a reasonable thing to do?
And even if you consider it a reasonable thing, why Europe? Why not Asia? Or the Middle East? Or Africa? Or the world as a whole?
Or why not, you know, use the US as the standard for judging what left and right are in US politics?
I have noticed this thing where people get really offended if you were to say "America is a Western European nation", constantly pointing out that America is sampled from the whole world, and a rapidly shrinking subset of that world is Western Europe. In fact if one were to say that today, they might even be accused of Eurocentrism, racism or other bad things.
Right up until politics, crime rates, infrastructure, public policy, or really any matter of consequence is discussed, at which point we transform back into a Western European nation.
There must be a word to describe this type of dualist rhetoric but I can't quite put my finger on it. Also, those people complaining about the Democrat or Republican party being too right wing tend to be Americans who know nothing about right wing political parties in Europe. Yes, left wing parties in a multi-party system are much more radical in Europe, but so are right wing parties. What these people want is the stability and institutional weight of a party in the two-party system but the radicalism of a European left-wing party.
Right up until politics, crime rates, infrastructure, public policy, or really any matter of consequence is discussed, at which point we transform back into a Western European nation.
There must be a word to describe this type of dualist rhetoric but I can't quite put my finger on it. Also, those people complaining about the Democrat or Republican party being too right wing tend to be Americans who know nothing about right wing political parties in Europe. Yes, left wing parties in a multi-party system are much more radical in Europe, but so are right wing parties. What these people want is the stability and institutional weight of a party in the two-party system but the radicalism of a European left-wing party.
Are you under the impression that if the hypothetical scope were moved off of Europe (why even assume it is on there?), US political parties would seem less unilaterally right-wing? I don't think you could make a coherent (and truthful) case for that, but I might be interested to read it.
Well, if you put the focus on the Middle East, I'm pretty sure every US party would be extremely left-wing.
Now, I agree that the Middle East is not where the standard of reference should be, but it's the area that I'm pretty sure of how we compare. Others are more tricky.
Central and South America? There are countries there that we are clearly to the right of, but also some that we align somewhat with. I don't recall whether there are currently any right-wing dictatorships there.
Asia? We could be to the left of some countries there. I don't have a good idea of how to describe where China is right now - are they right or left? They kind of have elements of both. At least some parties in India are to the right of the US. I don't have a good feel for Africa, though I'd bet that in at least some countries, some parties are to the right of the US.
So... it's complicated. I think I can make a... a "case" might be overstating it, but at least a handwaving argument that if you move the focus off of Europe, then US political parties are less clearly right-wing. But an actual case? That would take something like a worldwide ranking of political parties on a left-right axis, which is data that I freely admit that I do not have.
Now, I agree that the Middle East is not where the standard of reference should be, but it's the area that I'm pretty sure of how we compare. Others are more tricky.
Central and South America? There are countries there that we are clearly to the right of, but also some that we align somewhat with. I don't recall whether there are currently any right-wing dictatorships there.
Asia? We could be to the left of some countries there. I don't have a good idea of how to describe where China is right now - are they right or left? They kind of have elements of both. At least some parties in India are to the right of the US. I don't have a good feel for Africa, though I'd bet that in at least some countries, some parties are to the right of the US.
So... it's complicated. I think I can make a... a "case" might be overstating it, but at least a handwaving argument that if you move the focus off of Europe, then US political parties are less clearly right-wing. But an actual case? That would take something like a worldwide ranking of political parties on a left-right axis, which is data that I freely admit that I do not have.
Wikipedia is full of disinformation on topics regarding politics and history. It is a good source of knowledge about mathematics, astronomy, biology, physics etc, but if you want an unbiased opinion on any political/historical issue you have to avoid Wikipedia. It is packed with disinformation not only about China/Taiwan, but about any country whose government and/or population is not a faithful believer in the dogma that the western orwellian police states are democracies and the USA is the most democratic democracy that ever existed in the galaxy.
Yes, I am sure that the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre article [1] is full of misinformation according to China, seeing that they actively pursue people who speak up about it where they have jurisdiction and those people are "disappeared" or worse.
I'm not saying that there is no bias in the wikipedia articles, it's bound to exist seeing it's being written on by humans and bias is inherent to humans. However, the bias on peer-reviewed articles is much diminished compared to a unique party bias regarding issues they want swept under the rug.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Tiananmen_Square_protests...
I'm not saying that there is no bias in the wikipedia articles, it's bound to exist seeing it's being written on by humans and bias is inherent to humans. However, the bias on peer-reviewed articles is much diminished compared to a unique party bias regarding issues they want swept under the rug.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Tiananmen_Square_protests...
Nobody seems to notice that it should not matter at all how accurate exactly the information Wikimedia contains, because it has no relation to the role they can fulfil at WIPO.
China blocks the application, citing irrelevant info. Then other countries dismiss those irrelevant accusations as false. It seems the future of WIPO is to become irrelevant UN body.
China blocks the application, citing irrelevant info. Then other countries dismiss those irrelevant accusations as false. It seems the future of WIPO is to become irrelevant UN body.
China does this across the whole UN. You can’t bring your high school club to visit without appeasing the censors, who will check that the school and its clubs have never blogged mentioning Taiwan as anything other than a “province of China.”
China is on the security council so this will never change. The UN will implode first.
https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/china-makes-sure-everyone-w...
China is on the security council so this will never change. The UN will implode first.
https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/china-makes-sure-everyone-w...
To be fair, this is just one of the many examples of UNSC being broken by design. In a similar vein, US tends to use its veto indiscriminately to cover up for Israel, and Russia does the same for its client states and allies.
That's the entire point of the Security Council -- to allow states with the most powerful militaries and nuclear weapons to exert greater influence.
To create another system would be to risk irrelevance due to the mismatch between actual military power and UN power.
It sucks when it leads to states using that power, but the alternative is more wars and potentially nuclear weapons use.
To create another system would be to risk irrelevance due to the mismatch between actual military power and UN power.
It sucks when it leads to states using that power, but the alternative is more wars and potentially nuclear weapons use.
That's the entire point of the Security Council veto. Note that there are other, rotating members on it, which do not have the veto power. In principle, all members could be like that.
I understand that UNSC is the way it is because that's the only way to actually get the power players to participate. That doesn't make it any less broken.
I understand that UNSC is the way it is because that's the only way to actually get the power players to participate. That doesn't make it any less broken.
Everything is broken because there's no perfection?
Hey we have the same uname almost uwu
> It seems the future of WIPO is to become irrelevant UN body.
I certainly hope so!
I certainly hope so!
I can't agree more.
They will be joining a long list of irrelevant UN bodies...
Such as the United Nations.
I think people expect the U.N. to be an advocate for their visions of the world.
The U.N.'s primary purpose is simply to minimize the occurrence of war, especially nuclear war, not to spread any particular political ideology across the world such as “freedom and democracy”.
In this particular case it allows China a conduit to achieve what it wants to without firing nuclear missiles.
The U.N.'s primary purpose is simply to minimize the occurrence of war, especially nuclear war, not to spread any particular political ideology across the world such as “freedom and democracy”.
In this particular case it allows China a conduit to achieve what it wants to without firing nuclear missiles.
It is in essence the triumph of words over violence, which is never a bad thing. It sucks if your words do not win, but it is better than your family dying and then not winning anyway.
Indeed, the purpose of te U.N. is not that conflicts be resolved in whatever direction some poster on Hacker News wishes it, but that they be resolved, or not resolved at all, without resorting to violence.
[deleted]
(Disclaimer: I'm a franco-Canadian of mixed European descent.)
This article doesn't give China a great image, sure. I can think of a million criticisms to levy against China.
However, I feel like a lot of the comments aren't just criticizing China, they seem to be outright anti-China.
I wonder if, in the grand scheme of things, Americans/Westerners might be feeling threatened by the shift in power. I wonder if Americans/Westerners are capable of appreciating the things that China gets right, or does right. I wonder if Americans/Westerners are capable of acknowledging the things that their countries get wrong, or do wrong. I wonder if we here in the West are as fair and balanced as we tend to think.
This isn't merely an academic question, I think it goes to the core of the state of mind that is required to view situations objectively (regardless of whether we might be right or wrong in any specific context).
In this case, I'm totally on Wikimedia's side. But I feel like we in the West are standing right on the slippery slope of nationalism.
This article doesn't give China a great image, sure. I can think of a million criticisms to levy against China.
However, I feel like a lot of the comments aren't just criticizing China, they seem to be outright anti-China.
I wonder if, in the grand scheme of things, Americans/Westerners might be feeling threatened by the shift in power. I wonder if Americans/Westerners are capable of appreciating the things that China gets right, or does right. I wonder if Americans/Westerners are capable of acknowledging the things that their countries get wrong, or do wrong. I wonder if we here in the West are as fair and balanced as we tend to think.
This isn't merely an academic question, I think it goes to the core of the state of mind that is required to view situations objectively (regardless of whether we might be right or wrong in any specific context).
In this case, I'm totally on Wikimedia's side. But I feel like we in the West are standing right on the slippery slope of nationalism.
> I wonder if Americans/Westerners are capable of acknowledging the things that their countries get wrong, or do wrong.
Why would you wonder that? This forum is chock full of criticism of the American government by Americans. I’ve personally levied a huge amount of it myself on this very website. In fact, I genuinely cannot imagine how you could possibly ask such a question in good faith.
Why would you wonder that? This forum is chock full of criticism of the American government by Americans. I’ve personally levied a huge amount of it myself on this very website. In fact, I genuinely cannot imagine how you could possibly ask such a question in good faith.
Yeahbut(TM) the lions share of the criticism of American government that takes place on sites like this one is not people looking at and evaluating the things that happen in America but simply people repeating tropes to indicate membership of one tribe or another. You gotta go like five layers of comments deep before people making comments that are the result of substantive thought outnumber the people firing off tropes for virtue points.
It’s a valid question, given that US perpetrators never meet justice and the society isn’t even trying to do anything about it.
Assuming that every American is incapable of questioning their government because entrenched systems protect the powerful is exactly the kind of thing OP was accusing others here of doing: crossing the line between criticizing the government and being anti the people.
There's a difference between being anti-CCP and anti-China.
Whether we like it or not, the CCP is an integral part of today's China, both the good and the bad.
So? Bolsonaro is an integral part of today's Brazil. Does that mean being anti-Bolsonaro equates to being anti-Brazil?
It's completely disingenuous to suggest that recognizing the horrors of an oppressive nation-state equates to some sort of bigotry against the country itself.
It's completely disingenuous to suggest that recognizing the horrors of an oppressive nation-state equates to some sort of bigotry against the country itself.
You will note that I suggest no such thing!
Chinese culture is older and broader than CCP's China†. E.g. here in San Francisco our Chinatown is older than the state of California‡.
† https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_Chinese
‡ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinatown,_San_Francisco
† https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_Chinese
‡ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinatown,_San_Francisco
Assuredly! I was careful to use the phrasing "is an integral part of", in acknowledgment that "China" is vaster/broader/older/etc.
Not in Taiwan!
If you are completely, militantly and with your entire being opposed to it, it is in fact still a part of you.
Is Taiwan China though? (mostly non-rhetorical, honest question)
No, it is not.
The people of Taiwan don't want any part of CCP China, and in spite of a lot of noise about "One China Policy" the only people arguing right now for reunification are Xi and the cadres.
The people of Taiwan don't want any part of CCP China, and in spite of a lot of noise about "One China Policy" the only people arguing right now for reunification are Xi and the cadres.
Uh, the government of Taiwan considers itself a successor of the Republic of China and claims the mainland, just as the PROC/CCP claim Taiwan.
No difference really. Domestic approval ratings for the CCP are through the roof.
https://www.npr.org/2020/09/23/913650298/as-u-s-views-of-chi...
https://www.npr.org/2020/09/23/913650298/as-u-s-views-of-chi...
While I wouldn't rule out that this is true, it's difficult to trust numbers like that in China since people are so afraid to voice their true opinion. When I lived in China I learned that it was a basic rule of society that you do not express opinions about the government with anyone except for your closest friends, and even then it is extremely rare. It's no surprise that this is the case given historical events such as the hundred flowers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Flowers_Campaign
more likely, you were treated as foreigner that no one really wanted to talk about government when you were present.
My experience is that they don't really think about it that hard because they don't have to. They've also seen their lives improve dramatically over the past 1.5 generations.
Does that include Tibet, Xinjiang and Taiwan? They're 'Domestic' according to the CCP right?
The total population of those 3 regions amounts to 50 million, less than 4% of China.
And yet Xinjiang makes up for 20 % of arrests in the entire country.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/4/19/chinas-treatment-of...
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/4/19/chinas-treatment-of...
Conflation? There is a very distinct difference.
1. China, as a nation consists of ALL the citizens of said nation.
2. CPP, only consists of ruling party.
The people's opinions don't matter as to their grouping. I can still be for one group and against another.
1. China, as a nation consists of ALL the citizens of said nation.
2. CPP, only consists of ruling party.
The people's opinions don't matter as to their grouping. I can still be for one group and against another.
Yeah I don't know how we could possibly validate that. It's similar to, but not the same as, measuring this in North Korea.
Fricken(3)
You know what? Replace "Americans/Westerners" with "Hong Kongers", and you get the exact same phrases that were thrown at us, again and again, for over 20 years, until our entire way of life is gone.
Ignore our warnings at your peril.
Ignore our warnings at your peril.
If you’re on Wikimedia’s side there is negative value in throwing chaffe into the conversation about imperial saber rattling.
Focus on the ball please.
Focus on the ball please.
> I feel like a lot of the comments aren't just criticizing China, they seem to be outright anti-China.
Which ones? I don't see it myself.
Which ones? I don't see it myself.
Does it really matter if they get anything right when they committing genocide against the Uighurs, ignoring their treaty obligations, and trying to make the whole world follow their lead in censorship and undermining any aspirations to an impartiality before and equality under the law? It's plain "whataboutism" not any different than folks being impressed with Nazi Germany before WWII. Which isn't to say that the "west" is perfect or good, or not stooping in the same direction as China. Obviously nationalism in the west is a problem, too, but I don't see that as a reason to give one of the most bellicose and thin-skinned nations on earth a pass.
Yes, it matters. Goods and wrongs don't cancel out, but they both matter.
It's funny you mention whataboutism, because that's what I was about to mention too.
This really goes to my main point: it's important to be able to levy criticism and to NOT give anyone a free pass, but many of the comments in here seem to be implicitly (and arguably, erroneously) splitting world actors into "good" and "evil". Hence the "us vs them" mentality and the mounting nationalism.
It's funny you mention whataboutism, because that's what I was about to mention too.
This really goes to my main point: it's important to be able to levy criticism and to NOT give anyone a free pass, but many of the comments in here seem to be implicitly (and arguably, erroneously) splitting world actors into "good" and "evil". Hence the "us vs them" mentality and the mounting nationalism.
Unfortunately there are things that are beyond permissible in this world - the holocaust was supposed to be never again.
Trying to say "oh, but the west has problems too" when there aren't any comparable attempts at large-scale genocide ongoing is crazy. Not because the west doesn't have problems. Or because the west is somehow angelic. But because it's like comparing a nuke to a house fire. And some things really are evil in a whole different way.
Trying to say "oh, but the west has problems too" when there aren't any comparable attempts at large-scale genocide ongoing is crazy. Not because the west doesn't have problems. Or because the west is somehow angelic. But because it's like comparing a nuke to a house fire. And some things really are evil in a whole different way.
> Trying to say "oh, but the west has problems too" when there aren't any comparable attempts at large-scale genocide ongoing is crazy.
Again, this is not what I was trying to say, and if it came across that way then I was misunderstood or I did not express myself correctly.
I can see how what I wrote could have been interpreted that way, but I would really encourage you to apply the "charitable interpretation" principle.
I would also note that the topic of genocide is different from the original topic of conversation. While my comment was of a more general scope than the wiki drama, I think it's a bit unfair to suggest that I'm trying to change the topic or deflect attention by way of whataboutism.
---
Edit: reconsidering this thread, I think I would like to clarify that what my comment was trying to get at was that a lot of the criticism being levied against China suffered from the "genetic fallacy" [1]: regardless of whether the criticism was right or wrong, some of it didn't address the matter at hand (the wiki drama) and instead resorted to criticizing the world actor based on other baggage. It's not that the conclusion of the critiques is wrong per se, it's more that it might be right only by accident. I hope this helps clarify.
[1] https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy
Again, this is not what I was trying to say, and if it came across that way then I was misunderstood or I did not express myself correctly.
I can see how what I wrote could have been interpreted that way, but I would really encourage you to apply the "charitable interpretation" principle.
I would also note that the topic of genocide is different from the original topic of conversation. While my comment was of a more general scope than the wiki drama, I think it's a bit unfair to suggest that I'm trying to change the topic or deflect attention by way of whataboutism.
---
Edit: reconsidering this thread, I think I would like to clarify that what my comment was trying to get at was that a lot of the criticism being levied against China suffered from the "genetic fallacy" [1]: regardless of whether the criticism was right or wrong, some of it didn't address the matter at hand (the wiki drama) and instead resorted to criticizing the world actor based on other baggage. It's not that the conclusion of the critiques is wrong per se, it's more that it might be right only by accident. I hope this helps clarify.
[1] https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy
I think everything is very intertwined when it comes to China.
It's true that on some level blocking Wikimedia from a global organization isn't directly about genocide - it's about Wikimedia not being a centralized entity kissing the ring the way the China wants it to. But on another level that is really about the fact that articles like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_genocide exist, and that they're guided by an aspiration to encyclopedic documentation and not Xi Jinping Thought (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xi_Jinping_Thought). Because China would like Xi Jinping Thought exported globally.
It's true that on some level blocking Wikimedia from a global organization isn't directly about genocide - it's about Wikimedia not being a centralized entity kissing the ring the way the China wants it to. But on another level that is really about the fact that articles like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_genocide exist, and that they're guided by an aspiration to encyclopedic documentation and not Xi Jinping Thought (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xi_Jinping_Thought). Because China would like Xi Jinping Thought exported globally.
I would agree with that, but I maintain that the criticisms in the comments section were of varying degrees of quality. IMO, the best and most useful ones are those that are carefully scoped and precisely defined. Some comments have these attributes, but not all.
> I wonder if Americans/Westerners are capable of acknowledging the things that their countries get wrong
I feel like this is practically a sport in America. We love to criticize the government and everything it does wrong. That's part of democracy: the fact that Trump was voted out was very much a collective "we fucked up/this is wrong" where we decided to go a different path. In China, on the other hand, that is not allowed. We certainly do have issues in the US, but a lack to self-criticism does not count among them
I feel like this is practically a sport in America. We love to criticize the government and everything it does wrong. That's part of democracy: the fact that Trump was voted out was very much a collective "we fucked up/this is wrong" where we decided to go a different path. In China, on the other hand, that is not allowed. We certainly do have issues in the US, but a lack to self-criticism does not count among them
I wonder if Americans/Westerners are capable of acknowledging the things that their countries get wrong
You're shifting the goalposts...Has America or any western country blocked the wikimedia foundation from entering WIPO?
You're shifting the goalposts...Has America or any western country blocked the wikimedia foundation from entering WIPO?
> However, I feel like a lot of the comments aren't just criticizing China, they seem to be outright anti-China.
> I wonder if, in the grand scheme of things, Americans/Westerners might be feeling threatened by the shift in power.
> I wonder if we here in the West are as fair and balanced as we tend to think.
All of that is unquestionably true. But what does it have to do with criticizing China's actions here? The criticism could be coming from anti-China bigots, yet still be entirely legitimate.
> I wonder if, in the grand scheme of things, Americans/Westerners might be feeling threatened by the shift in power.
> I wonder if we here in the West are as fair and balanced as we tend to think.
All of that is unquestionably true. But what does it have to do with criticizing China's actions here? The criticism could be coming from anti-China bigots, yet still be entirely legitimate.
[deleted]
Does the CCP get much right?
Setting aside political beliefs/leanings, it would be very difficult to argue that they don't get a lot of things right.
This type of rhetorical question or quip is a pretty good example of the mentality I was drawing attention to in my comment: it's entirely possible to think that something is generally bad (eg.: you might think the CCP is, on balance, not great or even terrible) while also recognizing that there are positive aspects to it.
Recognizing the pros of a thing doesn't mean you have to forget about the cons. Being able to hold both in one's head at the same time also helps formulate better criticism of the bad things, as such criticism often becomes more precise.
The heuristic of "CCP/China = bad" may very well be correct in a particular situation, but such heuristics are a very dangerous mode of thinking.
This type of rhetorical question or quip is a pretty good example of the mentality I was drawing attention to in my comment: it's entirely possible to think that something is generally bad (eg.: you might think the CCP is, on balance, not great or even terrible) while also recognizing that there are positive aspects to it.
Recognizing the pros of a thing doesn't mean you have to forget about the cons. Being able to hold both in one's head at the same time also helps formulate better criticism of the bad things, as such criticism often becomes more precise.
The heuristic of "CCP/China = bad" may very well be correct in a particular situation, but such heuristics are a very dangerous mode of thinking.
Gosh all your comments are just a roundabout fluff-fest dude. The CCP is committing some of the most tragic modern atrocities. The iron grip of the CCP and their "one china" brain-washing is ruining China for what it could be and the blood will be on your collective paws for generations.
It is a complicated question. If you look at the results, China is now the ascending/aspiring world power. And they got here in how much time? From that perspective, they got a lot right. Worse, US planners got a lot wrong.
>I wonder if, in the grand scheme of things, Americans/Westerners might be feeling threatened by the shift in power
Of course, but in many ways it's the threat of the same shift in power between the allies and the axis in WWII. China is not a nice country. Openly imprisoning and "re-educating" uyghurs there, Tibet, Taiwan, openly hunting down and organ harvesting the falun-gong. The West does plenty of bad stuff too but nothing on the same level, and definitely not as openly as if saying "what're you going to do about it".
Same as Russia assassinating people recently, it's a "what're you going to do about it?" scenario. Now that nuclear weapons exists the world is going to go to shit because nobody can do anything about it anymore.
Of course, but in many ways it's the threat of the same shift in power between the allies and the axis in WWII. China is not a nice country. Openly imprisoning and "re-educating" uyghurs there, Tibet, Taiwan, openly hunting down and organ harvesting the falun-gong. The West does plenty of bad stuff too but nothing on the same level, and definitely not as openly as if saying "what're you going to do about it".
Same as Russia assassinating people recently, it's a "what're you going to do about it?" scenario. Now that nuclear weapons exists the world is going to go to shit because nobody can do anything about it anymore.
I think it will be hard to applaud China for anything until they stop systematically oppressing their Uighur population and quit terrorizing places like Taiwan for no reason. Maybe then it will be possible to reconcile our petty differences, but human rights abuses come first.
> I think it will be hard to applaud The United States for anything until they stop systematically oppressing their african-american population and quit terrorizing places like The Middle East for no reason.
I'm certainly not trying to advocate an anti-US or anti-China stance here, but your comment can easily be turned around by the CCP for the same reasons when it comes to criticism of their internal affairs.
I'm certainly not trying to advocate an anti-US or anti-China stance here, but your comment can easily be turned around by the CCP for the same reasons when it comes to criticism of their internal affairs.
I don't think China has grudge against Wikimedia specifically, the official policy of theirs has always been that if you recognize Taiwan, you are no friend of them. I don't think the Chinese delegate there cares about free knowledge, further it's their job literally to say no to Taiwan recongition anywhere on earth.
So why should we be surprised that China does this when the United States federal government don't call their Taiwan ambassador ambassador, but rather director of the American Institute in Taiwan, out of respect of the same policy.
So why should we be surprised that China does this when the United States federal government don't call their Taiwan ambassador ambassador, but rather director of the American Institute in Taiwan, out of respect of the same policy.
First of all, no private organisation can "recognize" a state. That is a privilege for states. Private organisations can only boycott (non-)states by not doing any business with said (non-)citizens. Why in the world Wikimedia do that, and how?
Second, this policy by china is the problem. Not the lack of obedience by the rest of the world.
Second, this policy by china is the problem. Not the lack of obedience by the rest of the world.
I have 0 clue why in the 1970s we didn't make it a de jure situation, like with Korea, like with Vietnam.
China wanted the UN seat, right? Would they really turn that down because the US insisted on saying some shit about Taiwan? When they were kinda broke and caught between us and Soviets? Did the KMT really not want to give up "Republic of China", even if it meant being relegated to non-country status? Does it even matter what they think, being a subordinate dictatorship at that point?
This seems like entirely a problem of the US's creation.
China wanted the UN seat, right? Would they really turn that down because the US insisted on saying some shit about Taiwan? When they were kinda broke and caught between us and Soviets? Did the KMT really not want to give up "Republic of China", even if it meant being relegated to non-country status? Does it even matter what they think, being a subordinate dictatorship at that point?
This seems like entirely a problem of the US's creation.
The vote to replace Taiwan with PRC in UN was in the General Assembly. US did not have enough votes there to force PRC to do anything, nor did it have the power to veto.
US did attempt to block it by claiming that it is an "important question" under Article 18 of the UN Charter - specifically, that it counted as expulsion of a member. This was rejected on the basis that no member was actually expelled: China was a member before the vote, and it remained a member after the vote, the only difference being which government's delegation represented it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembl...
US did attempt to block it by claiming that it is an "important question" under Article 18 of the UN Charter - specifically, that it counted as expulsion of a member. This was rejected on the basis that no member was actually expelled: China was a member before the vote, and it remained a member after the vote, the only difference being which government's delegation represented it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembl...
Thanks, this helps clarify what happened. I thought it be a institution where the security console had special powers.
Back in the 70s, the KMT definitely supported the One China Principle. They were still firmly dreaming about retaking the mainland. Back then the mainland and Taiwan even regularly fired shells at each other, not to actually attack, but as a statement by both sides to foreigners that the China-Taiwan issue is an internal China matter (namely a civil war), and not one of Taiwan being an independent state.
And it was personal for the KMT! These were people who had been middle-aged, established bureaucrats and generals in China in 1949.
I really made a mistake making my first sentence "did the KMT really?..." Yes, they did, I know that. KMT have always mostly been shitheads.
The more important point is I don't see KMT having any leverage over the US in the 1970s, so it doesn't matter what they think.
The more important point is I don't see KMT having any leverage over the US in the 1970s, so it doesn't matter what they think.
So then the U.N. and China both have an empty seat for Taiwan.
We have North and South Korea when the communist revolution succeeded in the north but not the South. In the U.S., West Virginia split off from Virginia when most of Virginia joined the confederacy but a part didn't.
Civil Wars, partial rebellions, partial revolutions, are one the mechanisms of state formation.
Civil Wars, partial rebellions, partial revolutions, are one the mechanisms of state formation.
We have North and South Korea because of a US invasion, the massacre of tens of thousands of people in the South with any sort of left/social-liberal sympathies, and a fully fascist government propped up by the US that lasted until the 80s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilminism
It's nothing to respect. The US is something to respect, because it's got a lot more economic and military power than poor backwards NK. Through the US, South Korea became a country. That's the mechanism of state formation.
China doesn't bow to the US, so it's an entirely different dynamic. I say entirely different but the creation of Taiwan was a forceful takeover of an inhabited island by a retreating army who ruled with an iron fist. It was under martial law for 40 years. The nicest thing I hear people say about Taiwan is that it's 1) not China, and 2) not that oppressive anymore.
The idea that China would suddenly respect that is weird. Plenty of people in Taiwan support unification.
It also isn't like people who also wish to deal with China don't deal with Taiwan as if it were a country, they just don't call it one. It's like when they tried to call gay marriage "civil unions" in order to maintain the letter of homophobic policies while abandoning the substance.
It's nothing to respect. The US is something to respect, because it's got a lot more economic and military power than poor backwards NK. Through the US, South Korea became a country. That's the mechanism of state formation.
China doesn't bow to the US, so it's an entirely different dynamic. I say entirely different but the creation of Taiwan was a forceful takeover of an inhabited island by a retreating army who ruled with an iron fist. It was under martial law for 40 years. The nicest thing I hear people say about Taiwan is that it's 1) not China, and 2) not that oppressive anymore.
The idea that China would suddenly respect that is weird. Plenty of people in Taiwan support unification.
It also isn't like people who also wish to deal with China don't deal with Taiwan as if it were a country, they just don't call it one. It's like when they tried to call gay marriage "civil unions" in order to maintain the letter of homophobic policies while abandoning the substance.
> We have North and South Korea because of a US invasion
No, this is demonstrably false. Korea was annexed by Japan in 1910. After the war, Korea was partitioned -- much like Europe -- with North Korea occupied by the Soviet Union and South Korea occupied by the US along the 38th parallel in 1945. Except the nature of the respective military presence was very different. The Soviet Union and China brought in large quanties of military equipment and troops, while actively supporting communist guerrillas in the South (but there were never more than ~5000 such guerillas). North Korea invaded the South on June 25, 1950 with ~200K troops and 75K PLA troops of Korean ethnicity, whereas the US had 2-300 troops in all of South Korea. The North attacked with 280 tanks furnished by the Soviet Union, whereas South Korea had no tanks, as the US refused to provide them with any prior to 1950. The North had 110 attack bombers, and 150 Yak fighter planes provided by the USSR. The US did not give any aircraft to the South, and there were only 22 aircraft in the South. The US had basically a token military presence in South Korea as it was not interested in either invading the North or building military bases in the South. You can read more at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War#Prelude_to_war_(195...
To call this a "US invasion" is absurd. Moreover, somehow trying to make this about the boogeyman of "fighting fascism" or even "civil unions" is bizarre -- what is the state of civil unions in North Korea or China? What is the state of freedom of expression? Or freedom of religion? If you are going to be using words like "fascist", then they are much better applied to North Korea or China than to South Korea or Taiwan.
Please don't spread this type of disinfo on public forums.
No, this is demonstrably false. Korea was annexed by Japan in 1910. After the war, Korea was partitioned -- much like Europe -- with North Korea occupied by the Soviet Union and South Korea occupied by the US along the 38th parallel in 1945. Except the nature of the respective military presence was very different. The Soviet Union and China brought in large quanties of military equipment and troops, while actively supporting communist guerrillas in the South (but there were never more than ~5000 such guerillas). North Korea invaded the South on June 25, 1950 with ~200K troops and 75K PLA troops of Korean ethnicity, whereas the US had 2-300 troops in all of South Korea. The North attacked with 280 tanks furnished by the Soviet Union, whereas South Korea had no tanks, as the US refused to provide them with any prior to 1950. The North had 110 attack bombers, and 150 Yak fighter planes provided by the USSR. The US did not give any aircraft to the South, and there were only 22 aircraft in the South. The US had basically a token military presence in South Korea as it was not interested in either invading the North or building military bases in the South. You can read more at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War#Prelude_to_war_(195...
To call this a "US invasion" is absurd. Moreover, somehow trying to make this about the boogeyman of "fighting fascism" or even "civil unions" is bizarre -- what is the state of civil unions in North Korea or China? What is the state of freedom of expression? Or freedom of religion? If you are going to be using words like "fascist", then they are much better applied to North Korea or China than to South Korea or Taiwan.
Please don't spread this type of disinfo on public forums.
[deleted]
>To call this a "US invasion" is absurd
A US invasion to prop up the Rhee government that massacred leftists is the only reason there isn't a unified Korea under North Korean rule. You can argue that's a good thing, but trying to claim the US did not invade is absurd.
And on the fascist bogeyman parts, any improvement in those areas happened in South Korea and Taiwan rather recently, in the past thirty years or so.
A US invasion to prop up the Rhee government that massacred leftists is the only reason there isn't a unified Korea under North Korean rule. You can argue that's a good thing, but trying to claim the US did not invade is absurd.
And on the fascist bogeyman parts, any improvement in those areas happened in South Korea and Taiwan rather recently, in the past thirty years or so.
The treatment of communist guerillas by the South Korean government was substantially more humane (and far less bloody) than the treatment of civil society by the military junta ruling North Korea up to and including the leadership of Kim Tu-bong, who was himself dissapeared by Kim Il Sung in 1949. The problem here is that the hard-left stalinist policies that were widespread in the 30s-50s (and imitated by Mao) required a whole-scale attack on civil society:
* forced collectivization of agriculture
* attacks on schools, press, and bringing all instutions under the control of the party functionaries
* execution of monks, priests and missionaries and destruction of all religious organizations
* seizure of all private property.
Enforcing something like that requires a very bloody attack on the entire civil society:
"Concentration camps came into being in North Korea in the wake of the country's liberation from Japanese colonial rule at the end of World War II. Those persons considered "adversary class forces", such as landholders, Japanese collaborators, religious devotees and the families of people who migrated to the South, were rounded up and detained in large facilities. Additional camps were later established in the late 1950s and 60s in order to incarcerate the political victims of power struggles along with their families as well as overseas Koreans who migrated to the North. Later, the number of camps saw a marked increase with the cementing of the Kim Il Sung dictatorship and the Kim Jong-il succession."
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_concentration_and_inte...
You can argue that Stalinist dictorships destroying civil society are a good thing, but trying to claim that the US "invaded" South Korea with 300 troops is absurd.
> any improvement in those areas happened in South Korea and Taiwan rather recently, in the past thirty years or so.
There was no period of time in which North Korea was more free or respectful of human nature than the South, as evidenced by people continuing to flee to the South from the North, which is why the North had to build walls to keep people in.
It is because the government of the South did not launch a wholescale attack on human nature and provided more freedom than the North that it could evolve in directions that promoted greater individual liberty over time, whereas the North remained mired with famines, collectivization insanity, and repression.
* forced collectivization of agriculture
* attacks on schools, press, and bringing all instutions under the control of the party functionaries
* execution of monks, priests and missionaries and destruction of all religious organizations
* seizure of all private property.
Enforcing something like that requires a very bloody attack on the entire civil society:
"Concentration camps came into being in North Korea in the wake of the country's liberation from Japanese colonial rule at the end of World War II. Those persons considered "adversary class forces", such as landholders, Japanese collaborators, religious devotees and the families of people who migrated to the South, were rounded up and detained in large facilities. Additional camps were later established in the late 1950s and 60s in order to incarcerate the political victims of power struggles along with their families as well as overseas Koreans who migrated to the North. Later, the number of camps saw a marked increase with the cementing of the Kim Il Sung dictatorship and the Kim Jong-il succession."
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_concentration_and_inte...
You can argue that Stalinist dictorships destroying civil society are a good thing, but trying to claim that the US "invaded" South Korea with 300 troops is absurd.
> any improvement in those areas happened in South Korea and Taiwan rather recently, in the past thirty years or so.
There was no period of time in which North Korea was more free or respectful of human nature than the South, as evidenced by people continuing to flee to the South from the North, which is why the North had to build walls to keep people in.
It is because the government of the South did not launch a wholescale attack on human nature and provided more freedom than the North that it could evolve in directions that promoted greater individual liberty over time, whereas the North remained mired with famines, collectivization insanity, and repression.
I've never heard of pre Korean war North Korea massacring tens of thousands of civilians like South Korea in the Jeju uprising, though obviously after the war human rights was often terrible. It's certainly possible it happened, but it doesn't change that the US assisted Rhee in killing leftists and then propped up his government for decades.
>who was himself dissapeared by Kim Il Sung in 1949.
1957, supposedly for being part of a China and Soviet backed coup attempt.
>but trying to claim that the US "invaded" South Korea with 300 troops is absurd.
I'm not making that claim, the US had over 400,000 troops invade North Korea. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War#UN_forces_invade_No...
>who was himself dissapeared by Kim Il Sung in 1949.
1957, supposedly for being part of a China and Soviet backed coup attempt.
>but trying to claim that the US "invaded" South Korea with 300 troops is absurd.
I'm not making that claim, the US had over 400,000 troops invade North Korea. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War#UN_forces_invade_No...
> I've never heard of pre Korean war North Korea massacring tens of thousands of civilians like South Korea in the Jeju uprising
I recommend learning about the history of North Korea. Those concentration camps existed before the war. Do you really think the forced collectivization policies and murder of "class enemies", monks, priests, landlords, university professors, members of the press, etc., that killed 30 million in Russia and 55 million in China were miraculously bloodless in North Korea? It was the same set of Stalinist policies in all these places, with similar networks of gulags, summary executions, etc.
> 1957, supposedly for being part of a China and Soviet backed coup attempt.
He was dissapeared in 1949. No one knows what happened to him, but there are some rumors that he was killed in 57.
I recommend learning about the history of North Korea. Those concentration camps existed before the war. Do you really think the forced collectivization policies and murder of "class enemies", monks, priests, landlords, university professors, members of the press, etc., that killed 30 million in Russia and 55 million in China were miraculously bloodless in North Korea? It was the same set of Stalinist policies in all these places, with similar networks of gulags, summary executions, etc.
> 1957, supposedly for being part of a China and Soviet backed coup attempt.
He was dissapeared in 1949. No one knows what happened to him, but there are some rumors that he was killed in 57.
>He was dissapeared in 1949. No one knows what happened to him, but there are some rumors that he was killed in 57.
Third from the left in 1955. He was Chairman of the Supreme Assembly until 57.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Tu-bong#/media/File:%E5%BA...
Beyond that, "I recommend learning about the history, then you can guess that terrible things were happening" isn't really changing anything I said, which is primarily about how the US backed it's own military dictatorship in South Korea.
Third from the left in 1955. He was Chairman of the Supreme Assembly until 57.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Tu-bong#/media/File:%E5%BA...
Beyond that, "I recommend learning about the history, then you can guess that terrible things were happening" isn't really changing anything I said, which is primarily about how the US backed it's own military dictatorship in South Korea.
Korean War was a military operation authorized by UN. Calling it a "US invasion" is rather a stretch, especially considering that it was the North's invasion of the South that triggered the war.
It was a US invasion. It was only authorized by the UN because Russia boycotted the UN due to it's refusal to accept China's new government.
The war was started by North Korea, but the US definitely invaded North Korea in the war and preceded to burn down every town in the entire country.
The war was started by North Korea, but the US definitely invaded North Korea in the war and preceded to burn down every town in the entire country.
> It was under martial law for 40 years. The nicest thing I hear people say about Taiwan is that it's
The nicest thing I can say about Taiwan an White Terror is that it gave us this horror game called Detention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detention_(video_game)
Now it's even made it into a movie https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/detention-movie-review-20...
The nicest thing I can say about Taiwan an White Terror is that it gave us this horror game called Detention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detention_(video_game)
Now it's even made it into a movie https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/detention-movie-review-20...
The KMT absolutely did not want to give up its title of "Republic of China". It had been only 30 years since the civil war. KMT leadership was still people who had personally fled the mainland in middle age. The president at the time, Jiang Jingguo, was on the young end (he was the son and heir of Jiang Jieshi) - and even he had only arrived in Taiwan at age 39.
None of those people had strong local ties, either personal ones with the non-Mainlander population or political ones with homegrown political movements. Taiwan, for them, was at best a consolation prize, not a home.
From the US perspective, why would they go out of their way to call Taiwan its own country when neither government, on either side of the Strait, was interested in that?
None of those people had strong local ties, either personal ones with the non-Mainlander population or political ones with homegrown political movements. Taiwan, for them, was at best a consolation prize, not a home.
From the US perspective, why would they go out of their way to call Taiwan its own country when neither government, on either side of the Strait, was interested in that?
> From the US perspective, why would they go out of their way to call Taiwan its own country when neither government, on either side of the Strait, was interested in that?
:) I feel like this the same sort of thinking as tech debt. Names? Who cares! Everyone knows what the situation is on the ground.
In my view, norms have to be actively upheld, even especially if you are on "Team 'rule of law'". If the thing is a state, call it a state dammit! I like this argument because it doesn't rely on "well, you gotta foresee China becoming strong and stuff". No, you don't, just have a principle that de jure and de facto should deviate as little as possible.
I stand by my original analysis that doesn't matter what the KMT thinks, because RoC effectively a client state of the US at the time, with no TSMC to get more leverage, and also that the PRC should be happy enough to get its UN seat. If we wanted to, we could have made this happen, but we are sloppy and we didn't try.
:) I feel like this the same sort of thinking as tech debt. Names? Who cares! Everyone knows what the situation is on the ground.
In my view, norms have to be actively upheld, even especially if you are on "Team 'rule of law'". If the thing is a state, call it a state dammit! I like this argument because it doesn't rely on "well, you gotta foresee China becoming strong and stuff". No, you don't, just have a principle that de jure and de facto should deviate as little as possible.
I stand by my original analysis that doesn't matter what the KMT thinks, because RoC effectively a client state of the US at the time, with no TSMC to get more leverage, and also that the PRC should be happy enough to get its UN seat. If we wanted to, we could have made this happen, but we are sloppy and we didn't try.
Taiwan is actually an state, but China don't recognize it the way we didn't recognize the IS. Of course, Taiwan is in much better situation than the IS, but the underlying logic is the same. A state government don't recognize other states just because they are a state.
The PRC is shrewed in its policy of non-acknowledgement, and we were careless in ours. It is better to acknowledge your allies with names that piss them off, than not acknowledge them with names they like.
> In my view, norms have to be actively upheld, even especially if you are on "Team 'rule of law'".
What norm or law makes Taiwan a state other than that it claims itself to be? If you're team "rule of law" I think you have to insist that the KMT still run China.
What norm or law makes Taiwan a state other than that it claims itself to be? If you're team "rule of law" I think you have to insist that the KMT still run China.
The core of the problems is the KMT, who have been the roadblock to resolving this the whole time. Yes, they really were not willing to give anything, and it's black comedy at this point how many of them are in the PRC's pocket under the delusion the CCP will have any use for them at all if unification ever occurs (magic 8 ball says odds not good).
> China wanted the UN seat, right? Would they really turn that down because the US insisted on saying some shit about Taiwan?
Because the security council seat was for the taking.
And ChiComs had a very good memory how the Korean war started.
Because the security council seat was for the taking.
And ChiComs had a very good memory how the Korean war started.
So if they wanted a seat, and they are weak and Mao is old, then then can deal with it being called Taiwan. They can still stay it's an illegitimate breakway or whatever.
Of course now there is no UN seat to dangle, and they are strong, and like with NK it's a fuck situation of our own procrastination, but then I think it was easy, and we just fucked up.
Of course now there is no UN seat to dangle, and they are strong, and like with NK it's a fuck situation of our own procrastination, but then I think it was easy, and we just fucked up.
> First of all, no private organisation can "recognize" a state.
That’s not how the CCP sees it. They have threatened hotel chains and airlines that referred to Taiwan as a country.
That’s not how the CCP sees it. They have threatened hotel chains and airlines that referred to Taiwan as a country.
Early in my career I got in trouble for including Taiwan on a web form country drop down list (not Amazon). Hadn't encountered that until that moment. Was a bit weird.
I've seen people in large tech companies compulsively editing all texts about their sales across the world to change "XX countries" to "XXX countries and territories", it turned into a habit for them. And there's basically just one country they care about in that instance and which is worth mentioning.
> no private organisation can "recognize" a state
Yes they can. A private organization could just treat it like a state, in the same way that it treats any other state.
The consequences of that depend on what the organization does.
Yes they can. A private organization could just treat it like a state, in the same way that it treats any other state.
The consequences of that depend on what the organization does.
Look at which airlines have “Chinese Taipei” vs plain old “Taipei”. (Malaysian airlines is not intimidated.) Corporations can and do recognise a state.
> First of all, no private organisation can "recognize" a state. That is a privilege for states. Private organisations can only boycott (non-)states by not doing any business with said (non-)citizens. Why in the world Wikimedia do that, and how?
You apparently do not recognize that a private organization can recognize a state; I do.
What powerful entitites such as states recognize and not recognize is already quite meaningless; it is certainly meaningless what you and I do or do not recognize.
“Recognition” very often is unimpactful jabber of semantics. — Many of the states hat do not recognize Taiwan have business relations with it outside of the P.R.C. regardless.
You apparently do not recognize that a private organization can recognize a state; I do.
What powerful entitites such as states recognize and not recognize is already quite meaningless; it is certainly meaningless what you and I do or do not recognize.
“Recognition” very often is unimpactful jabber of semantics. — Many of the states hat do not recognize Taiwan have business relations with it outside of the P.R.C. regardless.
well, i'm talking about recognition as the Chinese state understand it, of course no private organization can "recognize" a state in an official, diplomatic capacity, that's hardly the focal point of my statement. let me know if you have a better word for it. alright.
They should be a lot less aggressive and assertive about it, but, given the stakes nd the history I think the polite fiction is perfectly fine compared to lots of alternatives.
It's better than a lot of alternatives, but it is not "perfectly fine". It's about much more than word usage for China, and they will exploit every inch given to them on this matter until they have occupied Taiwan.
If we use HK as the model for how Taiwan will be occupied, then it seems that it will be through political process. I’m not sure if the Taiwanese system is as weak as the HK setup was, but if anybody is able to find a hole, it would be the CCP.
It is not a polite fiction.
I don't think that that makes it any better. Actually, it seems worse that the CCP would act to obstruct an organization (ostensibly) devoted to the dissemination of knowledge simply because they recognize Taiwan as a country than if they had a particular grudge against The Wikipedia Foundation in particular.
They probably don't like the Tiananmen Square articles.
dirtyid(1)
China corrupts any global organization it touches.
Yup. Supposedly free american companies are forced to bow down to authoritarian chinese government demands because they can't afford to lose that market. The wonders of globalization.
Imagine what China is gonna do to Apple now that on-device wrongthink scanning is a thing.
Imagine what China is gonna do to Apple now that on-device wrongthink scanning is a thing.
> on-device wrongthink scanning is a thing.
Yes, it's horrifying how the authoritarian Chinese government forced this.
Yes, it's horrifying how the authoritarian Chinese government forced this.
I can think of the WHO, John Cena's Twitter apology, Blizzard, the NBA, and Apple, but what else is there?
You make it sounds like that's not enough? WHO in of itself would be extremely troubling. And its not just Apple, MANY fortune 500 companies have agreed to comply with authoritarian policies to do business in China.
My apologies, I was being a little bit tongue-in-cheek (which didn't come through as clearly as I hoped) while also genuinely soliciting more items for my list.
Hollywood - the movie industry more broadly - is also mostly gone now. They're all cowards, terrified of doing or saying anything critical of China (for exactly the same reason the NBA is, fear of losing the China market). They should be at the forefront of being critical of an illiberal superpower, given their supposed ideological leanings as an industry. Instead they're hiding in the back of the room, they'll be the last to say anything.
I don’t think this should surprise anyone. Hollywood has no ideological anything beyond “make more money,” and for some franchises China is not just a market - it’s the market.
The Transformers series especially wound up being money printing machines in China.
Even overlooking the pressure China doubtlessly applies to Hollywood, the execs greenlighting scripts would have to start hating money to approve anything that jeopardizes revenue from Chinese theaters.
The Transformers series especially wound up being money printing machines in China.
Even overlooking the pressure China doubtlessly applies to Hollywood, the execs greenlighting scripts would have to start hating money to approve anything that jeopardizes revenue from Chinese theaters.
Superhero movies, and hollywood in general
Aqueducts?
> China corrupts any global organization it touches.
International inter-governmental organizations have always had members like China. That is the environment they are built for and function in, like the current, waves, and wind for a ship at sea.
The U.S.'s reputation isn't so hot, throwing it's weight around and under Trump and to a lesser degree, GW Bush, actively trying to undermine those organizations. Even the international postal organization was a target.
International inter-governmental organizations have always had members like China. That is the environment they are built for and function in, like the current, waves, and wind for a ship at sea.
The U.S.'s reputation isn't so hot, throwing it's weight around and under Trump and to a lesser degree, GW Bush, actively trying to undermine those organizations. Even the international postal organization was a target.
Global organisations are to nations what words are to individual humans, both in capability and purpose: they get used, not corrupted, by government action.
Actual corruption can still happen by individuals within organisations, but that (continuing the metaphor) is like coughing or stammering while you talk, and isn’t desired even by the user.
Actual corruption can still happen by individuals within organisations, but that (continuing the metaphor) is like coughing or stammering while you talk, and isn’t desired even by the user.
Tibet used to be the pet project of Hollywood and US mainstream media, until they were told to shut up about it.
See Google trends [1]
This is a very real influence and it's pervasive due to the fat one side speaks with one, directed voice, the other there's no coordination at all: leaders of nations, provinces, universities, corporations, NGOs, uncoordinated.
[1] https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=t...
See Google trends [1]
This is a very real influence and it's pervasive due to the fat one side speaks with one, directed voice, the other there's no coordination at all: leaders of nations, provinces, universities, corporations, NGOs, uncoordinated.
[1] https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=t...
There's a NY Times article about the head of Disney going to China to personally apologize for a Tibet movie.
Full title (before shortening to <= 80 characters): "China again blocks Wikimedia Foundation’s accreditation to World Intellectual Property Organization"
I view political articles on Wikimedia's Wikipedia similar to how i view media sources such as Radio Free Asia. There is really nothing democratic or open about the political content you will find there. There are even seemingly obsessive accounts with thousands of edits a day that may just be government or think-tank managed accounts, reinforcing content favorable to US foreign policy goals. I see Wikipedia as kind of a good jump off point to see what the US State Dept and CIA position is on some issue, and then continue my investigation from there.
If everyone googled about what is going on some part of the world, almost all would read the Wikipedia article. If the Wikipedia article differed in any major way from what the Pentagon's goals were, well... you can see how that would be a problem for the Pentagon. If you allow yourself to believe that the goals and movements of the Pentagon are not always grand, you can see how the political content there can more or less act as a weapon of war. Not really an exaggeration to say that, i really don't think...
I feel like a lot of people just aren't catching on to how tightly managed US media is when it comes to "hostile" or "aggressive" actions of others, "democracy", "brutal dictators", etc. in other parts of the world. People are really still ingesting these corporate news sources with anything other than the utmost suspicion.
If everyone googled about what is going on some part of the world, almost all would read the Wikipedia article. If the Wikipedia article differed in any major way from what the Pentagon's goals were, well... you can see how that would be a problem for the Pentagon. If you allow yourself to believe that the goals and movements of the Pentagon are not always grand, you can see how the political content there can more or less act as a weapon of war. Not really an exaggeration to say that, i really don't think...
I feel like a lot of people just aren't catching on to how tightly managed US media is when it comes to "hostile" or "aggressive" actions of others, "democracy", "brutal dictators", etc. in other parts of the world. People are really still ingesting these corporate news sources with anything other than the utmost suspicion.
They don't like the idea of free information and open discussion. I can why they blocked it.
It seems to me the whole concept of UNs with its permanent gatekeepers are hopelessly outdated, it should be threw out entirely. The rest of the world, exclude these gatekeepers should convene an alternative UN where the old imperialists can decide whether they want to join it as an equal member or not.
[deleted]
Anything China touches is automatically discredited.
Just the fact that China has a veto power in an intellectual property organization should be a red flag that this institution is corrupt to the core.
Absolutely! Unfortunately, I can't see the UN getting out of this situation with China's growing influence.
The notion of China posturing to defend / support the idea of intellectual property is patently hilarious.
Obviously, the core of this is not appeasing to Chinese / CCP censors but the headline is funny nonetheless.
Obviously, the core of this is not appeasing to Chinese / CCP censors but the headline is funny nonetheless.
[This post represents my private opinions and is unrelated to my employment.]
It seems like you're trying to be flippantly dismissive, or to just make a joke, but the intent of your 'joke' isn't clear at all. What are you trying to intimate? Chinese companies gain millions of patents each year, in China and elsewhere, so China defending IPR as a concept seems wise. They seem to use a lot of utility patents (I think the USA equivalent is the 'design patent', it covers a product rather than an invention per se).
China as a nominally formerly communist state it makes sense that IPR would be weak in Chinese law [there's a lot to be said on whether the Chinese progress with, for example, 6G phone tech has been accelerated by that approach - which might indicate that the West has things locked down too much and stifles innovation somewhat??]; just like how the full power of IPR goes to the richest companies in USA because of their strong capitalism. China is changing, and whilst they may not enforce IPR in the way many Western Capitalist countries do Chinese organisations still use patents heavily. Indeed the Chinese government have schemes to encourage acquisition of foreign patents.
So, yeah, not sure where you're going with that?
It seems like you're trying to be flippantly dismissive, or to just make a joke, but the intent of your 'joke' isn't clear at all. What are you trying to intimate? Chinese companies gain millions of patents each year, in China and elsewhere, so China defending IPR as a concept seems wise. They seem to use a lot of utility patents (I think the USA equivalent is the 'design patent', it covers a product rather than an invention per se).
China as a nominally formerly communist state it makes sense that IPR would be weak in Chinese law [there's a lot to be said on whether the Chinese progress with, for example, 6G phone tech has been accelerated by that approach - which might indicate that the West has things locked down too much and stifles innovation somewhat??]; just like how the full power of IPR goes to the richest companies in USA because of their strong capitalism. China is changing, and whilst they may not enforce IPR in the way many Western Capitalist countries do Chinese organisations still use patents heavily. Indeed the Chinese government have schemes to encourage acquisition of foreign patents.
So, yeah, not sure where you're going with that?
This is the most HN "diss" response I've gotten in years and I genuinely enjoyed it. You missed the point so far while trying to sound intellectual I'm absolutely floored. Thank you for the happiness this granted me today - I hope you're happy and living life to the fullest :)
[deleted]
Is it because Wikipedia has Tiananmen Square articles?
Lol who accepted China into an IP organization : D
Its okay wikipedia -- I still support you
Of course Wikimedia won't take any action to appease this totalitarian nonsense. But, most for-profit companies do exactly that. When was the last time any Hollywood movie or mainstream entertainment mentioned Taiwanese conflict? When do you last remember seeing "Free Tibet"? Or any Tibet? Chinese film censors can apply billions of dollars of pressure, simply to change a single word. Who can withstand that?
Wikimedia is just one small pebble in this river.
Soft propaganda is going to rewrite how the world perceives the sinosphere, more thoroughly and more profoundly than any Winstons rectifying Wikipedia. I don't think we have any meaningful models to understand what's going on right now -- there's not really much precedent in history or even in fiction.
Wikimedia is just one small pebble in this river.
Soft propaganda is going to rewrite how the world perceives the sinosphere, more thoroughly and more profoundly than any Winstons rectifying Wikipedia. I don't think we have any meaningful models to understand what's going on right now -- there's not really much precedent in history or even in fiction.
It's even crazier because when you are not american you realize that Hollywood is also the biggest soft propaganda agency for the USA.
When have you seen a movie about the USSR winning the WW2? Or about the Guantanamo Bay?
When have you seen a movie about the USSR winning the WW2? Or about the Guantanamo Bay?
> Or about the Guantanamo Bay?
Sure, here's one from this year:
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4761112/?ref_=kw_li_tt
And here's the list
https://www.imdb.com/search/keyword/?keywords=guantanamo-bay
Sure, here's one from this year:
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4761112/?ref_=kw_li_tt
And here's the list
https://www.imdb.com/search/keyword/?keywords=guantanamo-bay
> The easiest way to inject a propaganda idea into most people’s minds is to let it go through the medium of an entertainment picture when they do not realize that they are being propagandized.
- Elmer Davis, director of the US Office of War Information
- Elmer Davis, director of the US Office of War Information
Where is that quote from? I don't want to ironically get caught by propaganda (or misinformation) myself.
Fun one to track down. Had to hop through a couple papers and books, but this is what everything winds up referencing:
> It was an organization designed not only to disseminate information and to clarify issues but also to arouse support for particular symbols and ideas. "The easiest way to inject a propaganda idea into most people's minds," said Davis, "is to let it go in through the medium of an entertainment picture when they do not realize that they are being propagandized."
Koppes, C. and Black, G., 1977. What to Show the World: The Office of War Information and Hollywood, 1942-1945. The Journal of American History, 64(1), p.2, <https://www.jstor.org/stable/1888275>
That paper then points to this ultimate source:
> Elmer Davis to Byron Price, Jan. 27, 1943, Box 3, Records of the Office of War Information, RG 208 (Federal Records Center, Suitland, Md.)
Dead end. I emailed the Archives but the entire facility is closed because of the pandemic. I also tried tracking down the paper's authors but both are retired.
The document likely lives somewhere in this trove: https://catalog.archives.gov/search?q=%22Records%20of%20the%...
Anyway, I'm satisfied it's a real quote (both authors are reputable) though I definitely want the surrounding context now :)
> It was an organization designed not only to disseminate information and to clarify issues but also to arouse support for particular symbols and ideas. "The easiest way to inject a propaganda idea into most people's minds," said Davis, "is to let it go in through the medium of an entertainment picture when they do not realize that they are being propagandized."
Koppes, C. and Black, G., 1977. What to Show the World: The Office of War Information and Hollywood, 1942-1945. The Journal of American History, 64(1), p.2, <https://www.jstor.org/stable/1888275>
That paper then points to this ultimate source:
> Elmer Davis to Byron Price, Jan. 27, 1943, Box 3, Records of the Office of War Information, RG 208 (Federal Records Center, Suitland, Md.)
Dead end. I emailed the Archives but the entire facility is closed because of the pandemic. I also tried tracking down the paper's authors but both are retired.
The document likely lives somewhere in this trove: https://catalog.archives.gov/search?q=%22Records%20of%20the%...
Anyway, I'm satisfied it's a real quote (both authors are reputable) though I definitely want the surrounding context now :)
C'mon, you didn't break into the Archive and open the box? Typical Internet nonsense.
Seriously: very nice work; thank you. Above and beyond!
> "The easiest way to inject a propaganda idea into most people's minds," said Davis, "is to let it go in through the medium of an entertainment picture when they do not realize that they are being propagandized."
Now a nearly irrelevant second place to social media.
Seriously: very nice work; thank you. Above and beyond!
> "The easiest way to inject a propaganda idea into most people's minds," said Davis, "is to let it go in through the medium of an entertainment picture when they do not realize that they are being propagandized."
Now a nearly irrelevant second place to social media.
Here's an article that includes it.
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/how-hollywood-became-the-unof...
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/how-hollywood-became-the-unof...
i think it's from
> - Elmer Davis, director of the US Office of War Information
> - Elmer Davis, director of the US Office of War Information
I assume they wanted proper references[1].
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Office_of_War_In...
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Office_of_War_In...
> When have you seen a movie about the USSR winning the WW2?
Any Russian movies about the US winning the WW2? Naturally each country tells their own narrative. This seems like a silly point to make.
Any Russian movies about the US winning the WW2? Naturally each country tells their own narrative. This seems like a silly point to make.
Not so when you consider that Hollywood is pretty much defining the culture for good half of the planet.
It's not a silly point to make when you realize that Hollywood is not a government agency. It is a reasonable question to ask how this coordination is possible when there are no legal restraints on failing to coordinate.
Hollywood gets to borrow millions in us army equipment for free if the producer runs the script by them first. Part of the deal is that the us army always have to be the good guys and not have any internal problems related to things like sexism homophobia or anything else
That only explains it when the movie involves borrowed equipment.
And yet, these movies continue to get made.
Is the Russian film industry a Russian government agency?
The simplest explanation is that, especially historically, Hollywood has targeted domestic audiences first. What message do you think is/was more likely to play well in the US and broadly in the west?
The simplest explanation is that, especially historically, Hollywood has targeted domestic audiences first. What message do you think is/was more likely to play well in the US and broadly in the west?
The theory is probably that the characters must be relatable and therefore American. Films about British actions in the war often have random American characters thrown in too. (I’m not sure that is unrealistic though)
Perhaps another thing is that when the memory of the war was still fresh and people (at least in eg France) generally knew that the USSR had a big impact, McCarthyism was also at its height and there were strong reasons not to show communists in a good light. And then maybe later films mostly copied the trend.
Perhaps another thing is that when the memory of the war was still fresh and people (at least in eg France) generally knew that the USSR had a big impact, McCarthyism was also at its height and there were strong reasons not to show communists in a good light. And then maybe later films mostly copied the trend.
In U-571 History was entirely rewritten as to suggest that it were U.S.A. soldiers, who captured the first German Enigma, whereas in actuality it were English soldiers that did so.
Anyone who watches a Hollywood movie and assumes it accurate is a fool. Movies are made to make money not educate.
It’s like the chase scene at the end of Argo. That never happened. They just got on the plane and left but if the movie was accurate that would be a horribly boring ending so they made up a better on.
It’s like the chase scene at the end of Argo. That never happened. They just got on the plane and left but if the movie was accurate that would be a horribly boring ending so they made up a better on.
The same argument can be levied against any form of propaganda in fiction.
The change in this case was not in order to make the story more suspenseful but to simply inspire patriotism.
The change in this case was not in order to make the story more suspenseful but to simply inspire patriotism.
Wow if that’s really the case then that is pretty blatant.
The US didn't use soft power to censor Soviet cinema within the USSR. It's an absurd power.
> When have you seen a movie about the USSR winning the WW2?
...almost all of them? the USSR was one of the Allies. who won WW2. so every WW2 movie which doesn't engage in some sort of alt-history has the USSR winning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Instrument_of_Surrender
...almost all of them? the USSR was one of the Allies. who won WW2. so every WW2 movie which doesn't engage in some sort of alt-history has the USSR winning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Instrument_of_Surrender
I believe Enemy at the Gates was a major blockbuster.
Harold and Kumar Escape From Guantanamo Bay?
I'd love to see something similar from China or North Korea.
I'd love to see something similar from China or North Korea.
The intro sequence for Star Trek: Enterprise[1] was quite interesting to say the least. — It details the history of human exploration culminating in man's achievement of a method of faster than light travel, so it implies, but strangely the first man in space and the first artificial satellite are omitted, and in their stead we may behold a majestic sight of an unknown U.S.A. submarine.
Careful now, lest the audience actually learn that it were the Soviets who launched the first man into space.
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbnTZREMEJI
Careful now, lest the audience actually learn that it were the Soviets who launched the first man into space.
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbnTZREMEJI
You're right, the sequence should give more focus to the first (and only) humans on the Moon.
> When have you seen a movie about the USSR winning the WW2?
No single country won WWII.
Saying so is nationalist propaganda which devalues and demeans the sacrifices of every other country.
No single country won WWII.
Saying so is nationalist propaganda which devalues and demeans the sacrifices of every other country.
[deleted]
> When have you seen a movie about the USSR winning the WW2?
Tell that to the Finns.
Tell that to the Finns.
Enemy at the Gates is pretty good.
The GP asked for movies about winning the WWII, not winning in the WWII. Enemy at the Gates was just a sniper duel movie (a good one, though).
Is the claim here that the US has organizations that actively work to prevent a movie showing Russians winning WW2?
It is easier for me to believe that a movie specifically about the Russians winning WW2 simply would not get financed due to low probability of earning a decent ROI due to American/English audiences not wanting to pay to watch it.
I was also taught in US history AP class in high school that a significant, if not necessary, element of winning WW2 was the Russians tying up the Germans on the eastern front, and it was stressed that the Russians suffered the most casualties by far.
It is easier for me to believe that a movie specifically about the Russians winning WW2 simply would not get financed due to low probability of earning a decent ROI due to American/English audiences not wanting to pay to watch it.
I was also taught in US history AP class in high school that a significant, if not necessary, element of winning WW2 was the Russians tying up the Germans on the eastern front, and it was stressed that the Russians suffered the most casualties by far.
>I was also taught in US history AP class in high school that a significant, if not necessary, element of winning WW2 was the Russians tying up the Germans on the eastern front
The Soviets along with some remaining Polish forces also won the battle of Berlin (which caused Hitler to commit suicide), having pushed back the German army all the way back from the gates of Moscow to the gates of Berlin. The Third Reich, left with no "leader" and no capital and no significant territory neither in the east nor in the west really had no option other than total capitulation or total defeat. The capitulation happened a week later. The Western Front and the Eastern Front in the end had about the same amount of German causalities and captures.
Anyway, the Soviets did a little more than "just" tying up Germans on the Eastern Front.
The Soviets along with some remaining Polish forces also won the battle of Berlin (which caused Hitler to commit suicide), having pushed back the German army all the way back from the gates of Moscow to the gates of Berlin. The Third Reich, left with no "leader" and no capital and no significant territory neither in the east nor in the west really had no option other than total capitulation or total defeat. The capitulation happened a week later. The Western Front and the Eastern Front in the end had about the same amount of German causalities and captures.
Anyway, the Soviets did a little more than "just" tying up Germans on the Eastern Front.
Thanks for expounding, I should have remembered more of the details.
Are there that many Battle of Berlin movies to begin with? From the Soviet/Russian perspective I could only find The Fall of Berlin (1950), Liberation (1970-1971), and a documentary Shturm Berlina/Штурм Берлина (2015). Battle of Berlin probably isn't very good movie material, unlike Stalingrad or other parts of the Eastern Front, which have a lot more movies.
Furthermore, I've read [2] that historiography on the Eastern Front was quite poor, even from the Soviet perspective, until Stalin's death. From [2], page 12: > Soviet military works written before 1958 were highly politicized and focused heavily on the positive role of Stalin in every aspect of war. Correspondingly, operational and tactical detail was lacking.
Though Cold War politics did play a role.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Films_about_the_Battl... [2] PDF WARNING: https://community.apan.org/cfs-file/__key/docpreview-s/00-00...
Furthermore, I've read [2] that historiography on the Eastern Front was quite poor, even from the Soviet perspective, until Stalin's death. From [2], page 12: > Soviet military works written before 1958 were highly politicized and focused heavily on the positive role of Stalin in every aspect of war. Correspondingly, operational and tactical detail was lacking.
Though Cold War politics did play a role.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Films_about_the_Battl... [2] PDF WARNING: https://community.apan.org/cfs-file/__key/docpreview-s/00-00...
> The GP asked for movies about winning the WWII, not winning in the WWII.
Russia didn't win WWII, given that they didn't fight Japan in any meaningful way.
Russia didn't win WWII, given that they didn't fight Japan in any meaningful way.
uhm, the USSR's invasion of Manchuria was arguably the biggest reason Japan surrendered when they did.
No, the two nuclear bombs did that.
Yes...Hollywood never makes movies portraying the US in a bad light. very insightful..
Idi I Smotri is worth a watch. Many references to it in more recent movies.
Fun Fact: In Action in the North Atlantic (1943), Humphrey Bogart plays a first officer aboard a Liberty Ship sending supplies to Murmansk. It has some pro-Soviet and even pro-Communist propaganda, with brave Soviet pilots escorting the ship and cheering people shouting "tovarisch!" to the crew.
They are even told "Tovarisch means 'comrade', which is a good thing!" Then all the ship's crew shout "comrade" back to the throngs of happy, well-fed, smiling Soviet citizens in WW2.
Other fun propaganda lines: "I believe in God, President Roosevelt, and the Brooklyn Dodgers!". They even feature radio recordings of Roosevelt set to patriotic music.
Despite being heavy handed and not having the best effects (you can see lines pulling the subs) it's a fun movie for Bogart fans and those interested in propaganda films. On Amazon Prime, tagged with "Cerebral, Joyous, Intense".
They are even told "Tovarisch means 'comrade', which is a good thing!" Then all the ship's crew shout "comrade" back to the throngs of happy, well-fed, smiling Soviet citizens in WW2.
Other fun propaganda lines: "I believe in God, President Roosevelt, and the Brooklyn Dodgers!". They even feature radio recordings of Roosevelt set to patriotic music.
Despite being heavy handed and not having the best effects (you can see lines pulling the subs) it's a fun movie for Bogart fans and those interested in propaganda films. On Amazon Prime, tagged with "Cerebral, Joyous, Intense".
> When have you seen a movie about the USSR winning the WW2?
The USSR didn't defeat Japan.
The Second World War was against Japan, Germany, and, to some extent, Italy. The USSR only fought Germany.
The USSR didn't defeat Japan.
The Second World War was against Japan, Germany, and, to some extent, Italy. The USSR only fought Germany.
A few days before the end of the war, yes. That's not a significant amount of fighting.
When have you seen a movie about the USSR winning the WW2?
Right now. There's a current multi-season show about the Axis winning WWII on Amazon Prime. From what I've read, it's pretty successful.
Right now. There's a current multi-season show about the Axis winning WWII on Amazon Prime. From what I've read, it's pretty successful.
The USSR was not part of the Axis. Quite the opposite. (Although they did have a non-aggression pact with Germany before the start of the war, that did not last long.)
Which just goes to show that many Americans aren't really aware of how the Soviets were crucial to winning that war.
Which just goes to show that many Americans aren't really aware of how the Soviets were crucial to winning that war.
It is true to that they joined the Allies, and the Eastern Front was very important to defeat of Nazi Germany, but let’s be honest when the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact ended: after Stalin and Hitler coordinated a joint invasion of Poland.
To act like the Soviet Union was Ireland or Switzerland at the start of the war, is disingenuous. Stalin and Hitler made a secret plan to carve out an Eastern European sphere of influence, not unlike the Japanese sphere of influence in East Asia.
The irony of course is that Stalin still got his sphere influence, albeit through the Treaty of Yalta.
To act like the Soviet Union was Ireland or Switzerland at the start of the war, is disingenuous. Stalin and Hitler made a secret plan to carve out an Eastern European sphere of influence, not unlike the Japanese sphere of influence in East Asia.
The irony of course is that Stalin still got his sphere influence, albeit through the Treaty of Yalta.
It lasted long enough to split Poland up between the two of them.
anecdotal evidence doesn't really go to show anything
It would really be fun to make a movie about overthrowing the CCP, could be uplifting.
It's pretty shocking that there isn't such a movie - or any movie with the CCP as the baddie - and I haven't heard someone propose it before.
>Soft propaganda is going to rewrite how the world perceives the sinosphere
There may be a bit of a Streisand effect going on. It's hard to avoid hearing about the Chinese communist party giving Taiwan a hard time when they are trying to censor every organisation around the world pretty much.
There may be a bit of a Streisand effect going on. It's hard to avoid hearing about the Chinese communist party giving Taiwan a hard time when they are trying to censor every organisation around the world pretty much.
[deleted](1)
Watching James Bond this weekend made me sad. No mention of China at all, as the cause of many geopolitical crisis around the world, as well as the source of atrocious acts against muslims (go check out cnn's china whistlerblower interview recently that detailed the hanging of uighurs and raping of them). If you want a super evil villain, look no further than Xi Jing ping and the CCP, who has threatened literally most democracies (nuke Australia/Japan, conquer Taiwan), sent pirate ships to plunder all sealives around the world, continue to build up coal power plants to increase global warming, and let's not forget COVID.
Also, let's not forget CCP is the reason why North Korea still exists and why Vietnam is still a communist country.
Also, let's not forget CCP is the reason why North Korea still exists and why Vietnam is still a communist country.
The West really, really wants to shut its eyes on China very tight. We need to deny the West this comfort.
That's a paradoxal reaction. It's like somebody being raped tries to cover her face to not to see her rapist.
Not seeing a rapist doesn't change the ground reality of you still being raped. The correct action is not to use hands to cover your face, but to punch back the assailant.
That's a paradoxal reaction. It's like somebody being raped tries to cover her face to not to see her rapist.
Not seeing a rapist doesn't change the ground reality of you still being raped. The correct action is not to use hands to cover your face, but to punch back the assailant.
I don't think it's fair to suggest China is "raping" the West. Hong Kong, maybe, but not the entire democratic world. At least, not yet.
baybal2(2)
Facts make a better argument than histrionics.
Actors and musicians have to play it safe not to offend the CCP.
How long will it be before the same is true of American business leaders?
Will talking bad about the CCP prevent you from raising a round and having your company be funded?
Will talking bad about the CCP get you fired, if you're an employee?
How long will it be before the same is true of American business leaders?
Will talking bad about the CCP prevent you from raising a round and having your company be funded?
Will talking bad about the CCP get you fired, if you're an employee?
The best model would be the time period from 1910 to 1950 where the US Supreme Court had ruled that motion pictures had no 1st amendment protection. This let states censor and dictate at the same level that China is doing right now.
Productions that wanted access to the entire US market bent to the most restrictive state’s demands.
Did some states occasionally pay to incentivize compliance? Don’t know about that, but the function is largely the same.
Productions that wanted access to the entire US market bent to the most restrictive state’s demands.
Did some states occasionally pay to incentivize compliance? Don’t know about that, but the function is largely the same.
Yeah the West is screwed, but let’s not pretend we didn’t see this coming.
i don't agree. i believe the west is much more resilient then doomers think.
the whole world is in a crisis right now, but things are rebounding. business is picking up again at super speed, people are optimistic again and close deals, new tech is being developed and deployed, climate change is finally being taken seriously, etc. etc.
its the nature of democracy that people discuss and fight over things and that decision making is therefore a messy process... but we are getting there.
even stuff like Polands confrontation now with the EU is part of a HEALTHY process and it speaks for the EU that all this is possible... no matter the outcome by the way, as long as indepedenent judges come to a conclusion!
so stop with your predictions of doom. I bet in the long-run, China and Russia will be the one who fail.
its the nature of democracy that people discuss and fight over things and that decision making is therefore a messy process... but we are getting there.
even stuff like Polands confrontation now with the EU is part of a HEALTHY process and it speaks for the EU that all this is possible... no matter the outcome by the way, as long as indepedenent judges come to a conclusion!
so stop with your predictions of doom. I bet in the long-run, China and Russia will be the one who fail.
twofornone(3)
cscurmudgeon(2)
[deleted]
Creative Commons comment on the most recent blocking: "As in 2020, China’s statement falsely suggested that the Wikimedia Foundation was spreading disinformation via the independent, volunteer-led Wikimedia Taiwan chapter"[0]
[0] https://creativecommons.org/2021/10/06/creative-commons-resp...