Hypocrisy and danger

hrhPublished on Monday, April 14, 2008 by CommonDreams.org The Hypocrisy and Danger of Anti-China Demonstrations by Floyd Rudmin We hear that Tibetans suffer “demographic aggression” and “cultural genocide”. But we do not hear those terms applied to Spanish and French policies toward the Basque minority. We do not hear those terms applied to the US annexation of the Kingdom of Hawaii in 1898. And Diego Garcia? In 1973, not so long ago, the UK forcibly deported the entire native Chagossian population from the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia. People were allowed one suitcase of clothing. Nothing else. Family pets were gassed, then cremated. Complete ethnic cleansing. Complete cultural destruction. Why? In order to build a big US air base. It has been used to bomb Afghanistan and Iraq, and soon maybe to bomb Iran and Pakistan. Diego Garcia, with nobody there but Brits and Americans, is also a perfect place for rendition, torture and other illegal actions. When the Olympics come to London in 2012, the Dalai Lama and Desmond Tutu will certainly lead the demonstrators protesting the “demographic aggression” and “cultural genocide” in Diego Garcia. The UN Secretary General, the President of France, the Chancellor of Germany, the new US President and the entire US Congress will certainly boycott the opening ceremonies. The height of hypocrisy is this moral posturing about 100 dead in race riots in Lhasa, while the USA, UK and more than 40 nations in the Coalition of the Willing wage a war of aggression against Iraq. This is not “demographic aggression” but raw shock-and-awe aggression. A war crime. A war on civilians, including the intentional destruction of the water and sewage systems, and the electrical grid. More than one million Iraqis are now dead; five million made into refugees. The Western invaders may not be doing “cultural genocide” but they are doing cultural destruction on an immense scale, in the very cradle of Western Civilization. Why is the news filled with demonstrators about Tibet but not about Iraq? And as everyone knows but few dare say, “demographic aggression” and “cultural genocide” can be applied most accurately to Israel’s settlement policies and systematic destruction of Palestinian communities. On this, the Dalai Lama seems silent. Demonstrators don’t wave flags for bulldozed homes, destroyed orchards, or dead Palestinian children. The Chinese Context The Chinese government is responsible for the well-being and security of one-fourth of humanity. Race riots and rebellion cannot be tolerated, not even when done by Buddhist monks. Chinese Civilization was already old when the Egyptians began building pyramids. But the last 200 years have not gone well, what with two Opium Wars forcing China to import drugs, and Europeans seizing coastal ports as a step to complete colonial control, then the Boxer Rebellion, the collapse of the Manchu Dynasty, civil war, a brutal invasion and occupation by Japan, more civil war, then Communist consolidation and transformation of society, then Mao’s Cultural Revolution. Such events caused tens of millions of people to die. Thus, China’s recent history has good reasons why social order is a higher priority than individual rights. Race riots and rebellion cannot be tolerated. Considering this context, China’s treatment of its minorities has been exemplary compared to what the Western world has done to its minorities. After thousands of years of Chinese dominance, there still are more than 50 minorities in China. After a few hundred years of European dominance in North and South America, the original minority cultures have been exterminated, damaged, or diminished. Chinese currency carries five languages: Chinese, Mongolian, Tibetan, Uigur, and Zhuang. In comparison, Canadian currency carries English and French, but no Cree or Inuktitut. If the USA were as considerate of ethnic minorities as is China, then the greenback would be written in English, Spanish, Cherokee and Hawaiian. In China, ethnic minorities begin their primary schooling in their own language, in a school administered by one of their own community. Chinese language instruction is not introduced until age 10 or later. This is in sharp contrast to a history of coerced linguistic assimilation in most Western nations. The Australian government recently apologized to the Aboriginal minority for taking children from their families, forcing them to speak English, beating them if they spoke their mother tongue. China has no need to make such apology to Tibetans or to other minorities. China’s one-child-policy seems oppressive to Westerners, but it has not applied to minorities, only to the Han Chinese. Tibetans can have as many children as they choose. If Han people have more than one child, they are punished. There is a similar preference given to minorities when it comes to admission to universities. For example, Tibetan students enter China’s elite Peking University with lower exam scores than Han Chinese students. China is not a perfect nation, but on matters of minority rights, it has been better than most Western nations. And China achieved this in the historical context of restoring itself and recovering from 200 years of continual crisis and foreign invasion. Historical Claims National boundaries are not natural. They all arise from history, and all history is disputable. Arguments and evidence can always be found to challenge a boundary. China has long claimed Tibet as part of its territory, though that has been hard to enforce during the past 200 years. The Dalai Lama does not dispute China’s claim to Tibet. The recent race riots in Tibet and the anti-Olympics demonstrations will not cause China to shrink itself and abandon part of its territory. Rioters and demonstrators know that. Foreign governments promoting Tibet separatism and demonstrators demanding Tibet independence should look closer to home. Canadians can campaign for Qu├ębec libre. Americans can support separatists in Puerto Rico, Vermont, Texas, California, Hawaii, Guam, and Alaska. Brits can work for a free Wales, and Scotland for the Scots. French can help free Tahitians, New Caledonians, Corsicans, and the Basques. Spaniards can also back the Basques, or the Catalonians. Italians can help Sicilian separatists or the Northern League. Danes can free the Faeroe Islands. Poles can back Cashubians. Japanese can help Okinawan separatists, and Filipinos can help the Moros. Thai can promote Patanni independence; Indonesians can promote Acehnese independence. New Zealanders can leave the islands to the Maori; Australians can vacate Papua. Sri Lankans can help Tamil separatists; Indians can help Sikh separatists. Nearly every nation has a separatist movement of some kind. There is no need to go to Tibet, to the top of the world, to promote ethnic separatism. China is not promoting separatism in other nations and does not appreciate other nations promoting separatism in China. The people most oppressed, most needing a nation of their own, are the Palestinians. There is a worthy project to promote and to demonstrate about. Danger of Demonstrations These demonstrations do not serve Tibetans, but rather use Tibetans for ulterior motives. Many Tibetans, therefore, oppose these demonstrations. Many Chinese remember their history and see the riots in Lhasa and subsequent demonstrations as another attempt by foreign powers to dismember and weaken China. There is grave danger that Chinese might come to fear Tibetans as traitors, resulting in wide spread anti-Tibetan feelings in China. Fear that an ethnic minority serves foreign forces caused Canada, during World War 1, to imprison its Ukranian minority in concentration camps. For similar reasons, the Ottomans deported their Armenian minority and killed more than a million in death marches. The German Nazis saw the Jewish minority as traitors who caused defeat in World War 1; hence deportations in the 1930s and death camps in the 1940s. During World War 2, both Canada and the USA feared that their Japanese immigrant minorities were traitorous and deported them to concentration camps. Indonesians fearing their Chinese minority, deported 100,000 in 1959 and killed thousands more in 1965. Israel similarly fears its Arab minority, resulting in deportations and oppression. Hopefully, the Chinese government and the Chinese people will see Tibetans as victims of foreign powers rather than agents of foreign powers. However, if China reacts like other nations have in history and starts systematic severe repression of Tibetans, then today’s demonstrators should remember their role in causing that to happen. Conclusion The demonstrators now disparaging China serve only to distract themselves and others from seeing and correcting the current failings of their own governments. If the demonstrators will take a moment to listen, they will hear the silence of their own hypocrisy. The consequences of these demonstrations are 1) China will stiffen its resolve to find foreign influences inciting Tibetans to riot, and 2) the governments of the USA, UK, France and other Western nations will have less domestic criticism for a few weeks. That is all. These demonstrations can come to no good end. Floyd Rudmin can be contacted by email at Floyd.Rudmin@psyk.uit.no


Matilah_Singapura said...

This writer is an idiot, who uses irrelevant facts to make his/her case.

I'm certainly not going to argue with the cases of "injustices" by various states on specifically targeted groups of people.

This writer makes the same logical error as redbean, the owner of this blog by introducing relativism into judgments of MORALITY which are absolute. I'll state it again: Moral judgments are ABSOLUTE.

The relativism arguments of Rudmin and redbean go like this: "The US did such and such to this small country", or in one of redbean's example "the cowboys killed the indians". Then according to Rudmin—you are a hypocrite if you condemn the Chinese and not condemn the US? Huh?!?

And you have to watch writers like Rudmin who'll use nonsequitars then make a claim:

> Considering this context, China’s treatment of its minorities has been exemplary compared to what the Western world has done to its minorities. <

Here we have it: relativism at its best. This is like saying Hitler wasn't that bad compared to Mao, because Hitler ONLY killed 6+ million people, and Mao killed tens of millions. Therefore Hitler is a "saint" compared to Mao.

redbean said...

what i have been saying, and what rudmin is saying, is simply this, 'stop all the hypocrisies.'

christ said it best,'let the one who have not sinned be the first to thrown the stone.'

i am just looking with cynicism at the hoards of idiots around the world trying to support an uprising on the ground of righteousness.

what righteousness in politics?

Anonymous said...

Wah, beanie, you also into selective reporting....so disappointing.

Anonymous said...

i use to find what matilah writes amusing. but as he expresses more of himself in this forum, he come across as something like queer in the head. now i think hes saying a lot of shit, really.

Anonymous said...

He's a libertarian extremist. Wearing an idealogical straitjacket and all that jazz, you know.

Anonymous said...

If Tanjung Pagar wanted independence he'd support that too

redbean said...

haha, selective reporting.

seriously, everything talks selectively, for everyone of us have certain values and interests. some are more impt to us and some are not.

that is why it is impt to be discerning and know the background of the where the info comes from and from who.

we are objective some times. but often objectively bias.

Matilah_Singapura said...

Good lord. I write one post (not one of my best, I'll admit) and the stone-throwers on the sidelines can't wait to pummel me with their labels and self-righteousness.

May Allah judge you accordingly! Praise be unto him!

redbean said...

as long as the exchanges are respectful and reasonable, everyone is entitle to his views.

don't take it so badly mate.

Matilah_Singapura said...

Badly? Fuck off, mate.

I'm enjoying the attention!

Anonymous said...

csg enjoys a lot of attention from his weird stratagem. if its attention that you want you'll get no less through your chauvinism.

Matilah_Singapura said...

to anon 1211

I appreciate your kind attention.

Please enjoy my alleged chauvinism as a free gift from me, to you—yours to keep, without any obligation.

redbean said...


i must agree that you are the star here and you have many followers. it is good that we have diversity in views.

enjoy yourself mate.

Anonymous said...

stars are so common and there are so many kinds. there are heavenly stars - except for the moonstruct normal folks will not look at them, but there are already 4 "heavenly stars" in the music industry - they provide entertainment; there are shooting stars - suka suka they anyhow shoot and wow people then they fade away to nothingness; film stars and football stars are a dime a dosen; an asterisk is also a star - you just poke the key with your finger and it'll show up; funnily, in between b and d also got a star; the us flag has plenty of them.

redbean said...

i hope we will all get to know each other better as bloggers as we exchange our views. as for this foul mouth star, hopefully he is less generous with his vulgarity and we can engage in healthy discussion while holding opposing views.

having different views will generate more heat, i mean ideas, like thesis and anti thesis.

cheers everyone.

Matilah_Singapura said...

anon 1049: you ought to look at receiving remedial instruction in English. There are many words in the English language that have more than one meaning.

redbean, it is not my intention to be a star, but your compliment is graciously appreciated. I write here, as you do, in my own self-interest. For the most part, I have the time to do this, because my daily routine as a beach-bum in land-locked Bangkok allows it.

What others consider to be "profanity", I consider to be just words of the English language. I intend to use the language to the fullest to express myself.

"What about the feelings of others?", some might ask.

My response, just as so there's no misunderstanding: "My freedom is more important that anyone else's (especially strangers) feelings". The point is, I have NO CONTROL on the feelings of others. If I say "fuck" and you get offended, that is YOUR problem, not mine. I didn't make your emotion—you did.