Learn to overcome...

[President Jakjon]

My Mother read me some of Asimov's works, but I cannot recall Hari Seldon. I love how this thread has actually become a political discussion. I'm not being sarcastic- I love this sort of thing. I want to be a Representative (D-NY?) at some point in my life.

My version of Yang would definently prefer "Thought Control." Eudemonia is all maximizing each individual's potential as an {individual} human being. Yang is into control, not individualism! A body does look after the collective welfare of the cells, but does not care one bit about individual cells. However, a body does demand total obedience from all cells. And all of the cells (besides cancer cells) give it willingly. In thought control, the government expects total obedience- and gets it from the whole population, which is more than happy to do it. (Of course, this is only because of the flouride in the drinking water, as it were...)

As to Covelia's Post:
The average citizen of Red China was not allowed to become aware of the massacre. The "American" (if you can stomach calling it that) media is controlled by corporations; but the Red Chinese media is controlled by the state. Those that are aware either got it from foreign media satillites or from dissident word-of-mouth.
The current government is still a police state. Incidents similar to Tianamen Square happened monthly in the Soviet Union, yet we never became aware of them. An entire branch of the KGB, called the VV, was devoted to violently suppressing protests. It was as large as an Army Corps. (Several divisions.) While, as I said before, CHICOM were less physical and more mental in their suppressive tactics, they were also willing to commit massacres. There were many slaughters before Tianemen Square, and there were many after. Foreign media are still told exactly where to go when- meaning that the 1,000 Chinese could have been shot to death yesterday, and we would never, ever know.
The rest of your arguments can best be described as, "The Chinese Government did what it felt was right." So? The SS felt that it was a good idea to kill as many jews as possible. If you applied your argument to that situation, their actions are acceptable. After all, according to the Nazis, the jews DID provoke them by intentionally controlling newspapers and theaters...
As to the United States of America's actions:
One cannot reasonably compare the Ruby Ridge and Waco incidents to Tianamen Square. The suppressions in the United States came only after Federal agents WERE ATTACKED WITH LETHAL FORCE. The Davidians and (well, what was that guy's name...) were stockpiling firearms. What were the pro-democracy protesters armed with? I believe that you said they threw inkwells, truly fearsome projectiles...
As to the American viewpoint:
The actions of the Chinese Government towards its own people are even more oppressive and hideous than those of the British Imperialists of the eighteenth century. What do you expect?

------------------
--President Jakjon
--Datalinks
[This message has been edited by President Jakjon (edited February 27, 2000).]

[Captain Kirk]

As kind of a counter-volley to Alinestra Covelia's post on the truths of Tiananmen I've done a little research on this and have decided to bring it forth. The CULTURAL REVOLUTION. That's right the great time of Chinese upheavel.

It started in the 60s when Mao Tse-tung the leader of China and Chairman of the Communist Party decided he didn't like things. His great economic project called The Great Leap Forward was a disaster. The Chinese economy was in shambles and factional strife had appeared in the Communist Party. So Mao made up his mind to shake things up.

He would rid schools, the Party, the beauracracy, the army, and the intellectual community of all who opposed him. People called "revisionists". People who were suspected of wishing to lead China back toward middle-class capitalism and free enterprise. People were organized into groups dubbed the Red Guards who went on three year rampages. Anyone who's views differed from Mao's was persecuted. Many were tortured and killed. All the while the economy was messed up.

Government officers were dismissed and Mao was out to destroy the culture of pre-Communist China. Even Confucius was attacked, called a "hypocritical supporter of the bourgeoisie". A new kind of religion-culture appeared. One centering around Mao. This is a children's jumprope song from the CR,

-Beat Beat Beat, Beat down Liu Shaochi, Defend Defend Defend, Defend protect Chairman Mao, Liu Shaochi, Opposes Chairman Mao, Wang Guang Mei, [Liu Shaochi's wife] You love fetid beauty-


And I have as I'm sure other people have read about horror stories of those who opposed Mao. How they were dragged away and forced to work in squalor because they had different views. Sound like the Hive? People wore pins sporting Mao's image. They carried his Little Red Book in parades. They joined the Red Guard. Doesn't that sound like Thought Control?

So while I could say it's the Chinese government responsible I won't. I will say it's part of Red China's history though. Although it was more of a power hungry dictator on a rampage.


------------------
Damnit, Jim I'm a doctor not an animal psychologist

[Alinestra Covelia]

Yes to both of you. I'm not trying to deny that Mao's rule was fraught with difficulties or to assert that it was in any way ideal. It wasn't. I know that many Red Chinese still believe him to be the godfather of godfathers, just as many western eyes view him as being on a par with Stalin, Hitler, and possibly Satan.

What I'm trying to get at is the idea that however you view something, it's going to be tainted by a viewpoint. I'm not saying that people are wrong or right because that's placing a subject into the matter, which doesn't help. I would like more than anything else to be able to question what I hear and what people tell me.

I understand fully that the Communist party does influence the news it gives to its people, and I also understand that to western eyes, this is unacceptable. I understand that the Communist party is willing to use force to suppress harms to itself and harms to its people, and I also understand that to western eyes, this is unacceptable.

What I'm asking is "why?". I believe, as President Jakjon mentioned above, that although Tiananmen was a regrettable move, the western press took a scandalous and rather sensationalist view of the matter. They don't consider the whole implication. What I am trying to say is: put things into perspective.

Those of you who know anything about the British news will remember the national sentiment bordering on hysteria with the "tragic" death of Princess Diana. People wept for her loudly in the streets. Talk show hosts went wild on the ratings. The press were blamed by the TV companies for causing her death, who then filed a counterblame. All because a Princess died. True, it was a regrettable occurrence, but not one to elevate into soap opera status. Yet that's what happened, and the biggest culprit I can find for this is the press and media.

Likewise, consider the figures: 200-300 dead or injured. Compare this to the recent atrocities committed in Indonesia or the African countries such as Algeria, where thousands and more go missing, die, are executed, etc. In terms of brutal human loss, Tiananmen does not rank amongst the greatest atrocities of all time. It doesn't even really come close. The big difference is, that the eyes of the world (read as: reporters) were on China at the time, and they caught a good eyeful of what occurred.

Whether or not they choose to tell you the whole picture, or even exaggerate its import, is something you will have to decide for yourself. I can't tell you one way or another, because my viewpoint is equally prone to subjectivity as yours. But I would suggest that the individual who unquestioningly accepts what a "free nation's" press tells him is one step away from becoming the creature he most pities and of whom he is most indignant, namely the individual who unquestioningly accept what a "police state's" press tells him.

As for the Chinese being more oppressive towards its own people than the British Imperialists, I would agree with that wholly. Let us not forget that the British had no need to oppress their own people in the 18th and 19th centuries...after all, they spent most of their time around the globe, oppressing other people instead. One of whom was the Chinese.

The more patriotic Reds out there might well take the view that China simply learned a damned effective lesson from the British Imperialists.

Finally, a word about thought control. Allegedly, in Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany, and today in Communist China (and I stress the word allegedly) peoples' thoughts were influenced by the state. You point the finger at the state and say "It is clear that this is happening...the people themselves are simply not aware of it."

I would ask another question: is the more successful "Mind Control" (you mentioned it first!) state one in which the citizens are totally unaware of its influence? Would you consider the more dishonest state to be one where the rulers can more subtly control thoughts and social beliefs?

As a great writer put it once, "The country that rules by the spear merely cows its people...the country that rules by the spoken word absolutely deceives them." [rough translation, mind]

And now for a final personal experience:
Following a recent soujourn in America (New York City, to be precise), I was delighted to once again be presented with that miracle of American airwaves: namely, 100+ channels. I can probably say that no country I have ever stayed in boasts so many news channels or entertainment channels as the Americans do. I can also confidently say that my reactions to the news channels were one of mild amusement: where the Chinese news channels have been accused of directly dictating what the people do and don't hear, the American news channels went for a different approach.

Namely, they forwarded a series of facts, but they were highly tilted by the way the reporter presented them; so highly, in fact, that they might as well have dispensed with the facade of neutrality. A small bomb attack became "a tragedy of terrorism". A single tactical strike with Cruise missiles became a way of "bringing the hostilities to a swift and conclusive end". A vague report talking about celebrations for China's 50th birthday does not attack the human rights record of China, but it takes great pains to underline China's new capitalistic face, and to undermine the government as best it can without seeming graceless: "a decrepit old uncle in the attic" I believe one article put it.

True or false? Or, as is most likely, shades of grey?

A final note to you all: I stress again that my views are no more valid than your own. Think on the matter, and if your end decision truly is "I am right, you are wrong", then that's perfectly fine. At least you took the time to question what the "capitalist media moguls"/"communist dictatorship" are trying to feed you without you knowing it.


*Phew!* Right, that's it! Rant over with!

------------------
"In all creation, there can be no task more onerous or tedious than that of playing God." - Stephen Fry, 'The Liar'.

[President Jakjon]

We are able to question it, indirectly. Just look at this forum. We are discussing what we have been told.

I find myself wishing that I had been older at the time, so that I could have experienced the news reports. Oh, well... You, yourself, are attaching subjective labels to the media coverage. Others might describe it as being "shocked" and "horrified."

300 casualties is a rather low estimate. The reds attacked a crowd that filled Tianamen Square to the brim with light infantry and armor. (Machine guns, assault rifles, and those really really heavy metal things.) In addition, prisoners taken count as casualties. Some of the last camera footage that was taken was presented raw, without commentary- the sound of automatic weapons in the background, students running, trying to survive, and then a Red official comes up to the cameraman and disables the camera. Apparently, the Chinese hadn't equipped their troops with "non-lethal methods" as of that time.

I mentioned above that the worldwide (not just western) mass media organs are controlled by corporate interests. 50% of the world's daily newspapers are controlled by one man. (I could badger my stepdad to tell me his name again, but only if you ask.) The corporatist view is quite evident to myself, too. For example: when President Clinton ordered the counter-attack upon infrastructure utilized by Osama Bin Laden in response to the bombing of two embassies, the news talk shows brought on hordes of guests saying that since it was just before a hearing into the Lewinsky Scandal it was a "Wag the Dog" ploy. Among the few people who were never allowed onto one of these things were the producers of "Wag the Dog." They supported the strikes. After the Pentagon briefed a congressional committee, the congressmen who had been suspicious were allowed onscreen once or twice to say that they were convinced of the neccessity of the timing of the strikes. The Newstalkshows, instead of letting the ex-skeptics back on, seemed to go out of their way to find more and more paranoid people to speak against the Federal Government.

------------------
--President Jakjon
--Datalinks