Daily Review: As the media circus surrounding the recent Urumqi riots winds down, inevitably distracted by whatever the next big story is, we’re seeing a few stragglers coming in whining and guilt tripping everyone for, well, winding down and getting distracted from the Urumqi riots (or more specifically, the poor Uighurs). This is understandable, and the reflection upon the stages of attention the media and the general population gives any particular subject helps us better understand who we are and what we truly care about.
From The Huffington Post comes a good piece by Alexander Davenport that we’ve reprinted in full below (interrupted by my comments) for the benefit of our Chinese readers behind the GFW for which The Huffington Post website is blocked:
Fair and Balanced: Urumqi Vs. Lhasa
When violence rocked Lhasa in April 2008, the Western media had a field day. For weeks, American news outlets reported on the violence and the subsequent Chinese response. Despite the rather low death toll (19 people), political leaders across the Western political spectrum called for sanctions, an Olympic boycott, and more. Protests that followed the path of the Olympic torch were given added vigor and scrupulous press coverage.
After the recent deaths of hundreds of Hans and Uighurs in Urumqi however, many media outlets covered the case and then quickly moved on. Even articles from the predictably sino-phobic New York Times have dwindled just two weeks after the riots and have lacked the anti-China vitriol that pervaded the Tibet reporting last year. And just days after the violence, the rioting in Xinjiang was moved out of the spotlight on CNN.com, NYtimes.com, Washingtonpost.com and Reuters.
This is puzzling. From a purely superficial view, the two instances are intriguingly similar: both involve disgruntled ethnic minorities attacking Han migrants and instigating widespread rioting. Moreover, American press was predisposed to run away with the story as the Xinjiang riots fit perfectly into the predictable, tired narrative that of the PRC as a ruthless, bloody oppressor. To be sure, the circumstances and context of the protests were different and the PRC has been a less than benevolent ruler of its border regions. This, however, does not wholly explain the differing press coverage. Why does rioting in Lhasa generate more interest than rioting in Urumqi?
I think he answers at least part of his own question with his first introductory paragraph: The Olympics. One key difference between the 2008 Lhasa riots and the 2009 Urumqi riots was that 2008 was China’s big Olympic year, whereas 2009 is not. While China was doing everything it could to prove something (or show off) to the world, it is human nature for others to resist it. This includes going so far as tempering and humbling China’s “moment”, bringing it down a notch to remind the Chinese, others, and themselves of China’s flaws, weaknesses, and dirt. Lhasa got more press coverage and spawned more reactions than Urumqi partly because many parties had an interest in making statements about China while everyone cared to watch China. Not surprising, is it?
While it is certain that China has become much more sophisticated in its engagement of the press since Lhasa, this does not explain away the American media’s reaction to the Xinjiang riots. It is possible that the press is predisposed to report about the Tibetans and predisposed against reporting about the Uighurs given the underlying cultural attitudes towards both people in America.
For starters, Tibet is romanticized in American popular culture. Certainly, the Tibetan cause is worthy of attention and concern. But let’s be completely frank here: there are millions of oppressed minorities across the globe. Few of them have Green Day play benefit concerts, Richard Gere as a spokesman, and near universal notoriety and support across college campuses. Simply put, Americans are besotted with the vision of Tibet as an idyllic land of monks and nirvana.
The Uighurs on the other hand, do not have a charismatic Nobel laureate leader, a Hollywood following, nor a political support network. Moreover, the Uighurs are — dare I say it — Muslim. And as a restive Muslim minority with a streak of violent separatist attacks, Uighurs are unlikely to engender much political goodwill on Capitol Hill or from the Washington Post editorial page in a post-9/11 world. A random sampling of American reader comments on Xinjiang articles recently shows an antipathy towards the Uighur cause as a result of its conflation with anti-American terrorist organizations. Whether America’s less than balanced press coverage stems from this sentiment (or perhaps vice versa) is unclear. What is clear, however, is that American media has deemed rioting Tibetans a more worthy topic of sustained coverage than rioting Uighurs.
Right, the ascetic Tibetan Buddhists are more cuddly than terrorist Muslims dichotomy. To Davenport’s credit, this was much better presented than the Glen Greenwald of Salon’s frightening geopolitical lamentation that the Uighur’s “Muslimness” got in the way of “the opportunity they present to undermine the Chinese government.”
The secular pseudo-Christian Western world is indeed less sympathetic to the Muslims. It is also indeed far too starry-eyed about Tibet. For Americans, for both, perhaps more so.
To be sure, the discrepancy in the reporting on both incidents is not in and of itself a cause for concern. After all, American media attempts to provide what the American public demands — no matter how warped the beliefs that fuel these demands are. It does, however, bear examining precisely why we feel the way we do towards one minority group but not the other — perhaps equally as important but slightly less photogenic — group. We should be sure that given the finger wagging approach commonly used by Americans towards China in regards to minority human rights, we have founded these beliefs on accurate and balanced information, not ingrained cultural stereotypes nor media misrepresentations. Whether our fourth estate is up to the task remains to be seen.
Wait, did he just suggest that Uighurs are “slightly less photogenic” than Tibetans? LoL…what the…why? Are we talking about the people themselves or the settings (you know, mosques vs. temples)?
Subjective declarations of photographic attractiveness aside, Davenport’s big point is worth highlighting:
- Are Americans and the West being hypocrites?
- Are Americans and the West biased, selective in what they believe, support, and fight for?
- Has the press, as the fourth estate, done its job in presenting “accurate and balanced information”?
- Or has it merely fed and reinforced the “ingrained cultural stereotypes” and “media misrepresentations”?
Davenport’s piece isn’t unique, as similar articles with similar sentiments have been written by others both in the traditional media and on the web. However, the best way to appreciate it is to compare it to another piece also recently published on The Huffington Post, this time written by a certain Alison Kilkenny. The subject is again about the Urumqi riots and, like Mr. Davenport’s post above, it argues that the Western media didn’t pay enough attention to the Urumqi riots. The reason it offers, however, is slightly different: The West cares but, you know, they just didn’t hear enough of the Uighurs’ side of things. If only they knew…
If Only the Uighurs had Twitter
More than 4,000 Uyghurs have been arrested by the Chinese government since July 5. Almost 200 have been killed. Thousands have been injured. This violence follows the pattern of arbitrary detention, imprisonment, torture and execution that has enraged Westerners when it has occurred in places like Iran. Yet there is little attention being paid to the suppression of the Uyghurs, a Muslim minority, in the Western media.
It strikes me as either suspicious or intellectually dishonest that Alison rattles off these numbers as fact with nary a single citation or link to where she got these numbers. It isn’t as if she’s an old media writer who doesn’t know what hyperlinks are, she just selectively picks and chooses which statements she feels obligated to substantiate while leaving the others as indisputable assertions of fact (see below). Apparently she felt fine implying in context that only Uighurs were arrested, killed, and injured in her opening paragraph, when reports clearly indicate otherwise (even better Urumqi riot coverage here, here, and here).
Despite the vomit gargling in my throat, I’ll go ahead and reprint the rest of Alison’s article in its entirety for consistency and, again, for the benefit (in this case, perhaps intelligence-deflating detriment) of our GFW-blocked readers in China. Emphases are all mine, and again interspersed with my comments:
The Uyghur Human Rights Project (UHRP) is now concerned that mass executions of Uyghurs will soon be carried out, as promised by Chinese officials.
You mean like how public prosecutors seek the death penalty against criminals who do really, really horrible things?
“We believe that the Chinese government’s spin has influenced the reaction of the world community … causing Uyghur repression to receive less attention than events such as the suppression of the Iranian people,” wrote Amy Reger, a researcher at UHRP, during our email correspondence. The Chinese government has also been successful in cutting access to cell phones and the Internet, including Twitter. The government did this “in order to prevent a spread of citizen journalism such as that which occurred in Iran. We believe that, had this not occurred, news of the mass killing of Uyghurs by Chinese security forces may have been able to reach the outside world more effectively,” Reger added.
Others like Davenport suggest the reaction of the world community had something to do with the Uighurs being Muslim, but Amy Reger of the “Uyghur Human Rights Project” believes the world community bought all that Chinese government “spin.” Last I checked, pretty much no one except mainland Chinese people bought the Chinese government’s statements. And even amongst the Chinese, they’re generally pretty skeptical (though like most, pretty willing to buy into whatever fits into their biases).
I do think there’s a point about cell phones, internet, and Twitter being cut. The thing is, if we use last year’s Lhasa riots as a guide, there’s a good chance the citizen journalism that would’ve come out would more corroborate Uighur violence on Hans (and apparently themselves too) than the other way around, just as citizen journalists and actual journalists in Tibet last year came out tempering the Western media and community’s imbalanced presentation of Tibetan violence in Lhasa.
UHRP is also concerned that there have been no reported arrests of Han Chinese who have reportedly beaten and killed Uyghurs in two days of violence in Urumchi. In early July, Han Chinese residents of Urumchi took to the streets with clubs, sticks and other weapons to seek revenge on Uyghurs who had injured and killed Chinese people on the previous day. “We condemn the killings and injuries of Han Chinese people. However, we also believe that large numbers of Uyghurs were killed and injured on July 6 and 7, and their deaths have not been reported,” says Reger.
No reported arrests of Han Chinese? Either we’re not reading the same reports or there’s a lot of selective reading going on. The reports I’ve read from the mainstream media (again, great collection of reports here, here, and here) seem to all include Uighur death tolls and arrests that implicitly include Han Chinese though largely Uighur. Is it really that surprising that those suspected of starting the violence get arrested?
Reger and UHRP accuse the Chinese government of engaging in spin by providing only images of violence instigated by Uyghurs against Han Chinese, in an effort to “fan the flames of nationalism and divert attention from the serious, underlying grievances that drove Uyghurs to protest, at first peacefully.” Reger cautions Western journalists to critically analyze any information given to them by the Chinese government and media as it is likely state propaganda.
State propaganda? From the Chinese government? No way! Okay, while I doubt any Western journalist needs to be reminded to “critically analyze” the information the Chinese government and media feeds it, I’ll accept this as good general advice…er, caution.
But here’s the thing: I’m not entirely sure Amy Reger of “Uighur Human Rights Project” is some neutral party with a monopoly on the truth either. We know the Chinese government in full tilt information management mode is shameless. We’ve come to expect it. It is so shameless, and blatantly so, that we want to be on the “other” side of it.
It’s just disappointing to see that other side be just as shameless.
The two trends of Uyghur coverage in the media are exclusion and suppression. In addition to the deaths of Uyghur activists being almost completely whitewashed from the news,…
Completely whitewashed? Are you serious? One of the big surprises of the entire Urumqi riot news event was just how quickly the Chinese government came out and reported Uighur deaths both domestically and abroad. It was so unexpected, skeptics the world over instantly wondered if it was just an excuse to also report how many Han deaths there were in comparison, you know, to “fan the flames of nationalism.”
…the Chinese government is publicly calling for the censorship and suppression of Uyghur activists. Most recently, Chinese Vice Foreign Minister He Yafei has called for the U.S. government to “restrict the activities” of Uyghur activist Rebiya Kadeer. The Chinese government blames Kadeer for instigating the violence in one of its most volatile regions, Xinjiang. Kadeer is a human rights activist who spent five years in jail in China and now lives near Washington, and has accused the Chinese government of repressing Uyghurs, destroying their culture and curbing their religious freedom.
The political pressure from Beijing isn’t limited to heads of states. Richard Moore, head of the Melbourne International Film Festival, said two Chinese directors have boycotted Australia’s biggest film festival over the screening of a documentary about Kadeer. The directors pulled their films after Moore ignored political pressure from Beijing. “It makes me feel angry, annoyed and irritated all at the same time, that they would try to interfere with our programme for blatantly political ends,” Moore told the AFP news agency.
Reger stresses that subdued media coverage stifles the possibility of western solidarity movements. It’s not that Americans don’t care about Uyghurs. They just don’t hear about the systematic slaughter of the Uyghur people by the Chinese government.
Ugh, “solidarity movements.” I’m having horrifying flashbacks of Berkeley already…
And “systematic slaughter” of Uighurs? Must be like the picture above, right? Geez…do I really need to say something about this or can I trust that anyone with two brain cells to rub together will scoff with me?
“We ask the Chinese government to allow journalists access to East Turkestan and Uyghurs without any conditions to investigate the unrest in Urumchi and its aftermath.
Somehow I don’t think this request of the Chinese government is going to get approved when you refer to Xinjiang as East Turkestan. But then again, Reger and the UHRP isn’t really “asking” the Chinese government as much as they’re just putting out their platform and — dare I say it — “spin“.
This access to East Turkestan will be critical in the coming days as looming executions of Uyghurs on political charges come ever nearer.” (Urumchi Party Secretary Li Zhi said at a press conference on July 8 that authorities would use the death penalty for crimes connected to events on July 5. “To those who have committed crimes with cruel means, we will execute them.”)
Arguments over capital punishment aside, I can’t say I find a country willing to use the death penalty on “those who have committed crimes with cruel means” to be that unimaginable. The key phrase here would be “with cruel means.” I think malevolently running around throwing people to the ground and then bashing their heads open sounds pretty cruel, what about you?
Reger adds, “We fear that a number of Uyghurs are going to be executed unnoticed by the world. In order to prevent such state-sanctioned killing we require the eyes of the world’s media and the world’s governments to remain on East Turkestan and to speak out against a further abuse of the Uyghur people’s human rights.”
The United States government could aid human rights activists by flexing its diplomatic muscle and exerting pressure on the Chinese government to opens its borders to foreign journalists. Only with the presence of a free and open press can a proper western solidarity movement form for the repressed Uyghur people.
Fin.
Eh, I have nothing against human rights and repressed Uighur people. But I do have something against using the same shameless propaganda and spin one hypocritically accuses the Chinese government for. At the very least, don’t be so blatantly obvious about it.
What do you think? Was Western media coverage of Urumqi less than Lhasa? Was it because Uighurs are Muslim? Was it because the evil Chinese government successfully prevented the rest of the world from finding out about all its “systematic slaughter”? Was it because the West actually just doesn’t care as much?
Images: Courtesy of ESWN and wherever Soong got them from.
-
Seeing both sides of the ethnic violence and resentment between Uighurs & Han Chinese that led to the Urumqi riots, and finding what’s missing in the narrative.
-
“The only thing that can convince rioters to take to the streets and act violently is…Old People. Usually from abroad.” Josh from Cup of Cha jokes...
-
Of well-known Beijing-based British journalists, bloggers, good journalism, buying books on the street, mango-passionfruit slushies, interracial relationships, and Urumqi riot coverage.
Urumqi Riots, Western & Chinese Narratives, & Truths In The Middle 
Quote: Josh on Why Urumqi Uighurs Rioted 
Tania Branigan: China Correspondent For The Guardian 
In fairness, if you refer to Alexander Davenport after first reference as “Davenport,” you shouldn’t refer to Alison Kilkenny after first reference as “Alison.” Unless you happen to be on first-name basis with her…
Yes, that would be the rule but no, I’m not on a first-name basis with her. There must be another reason why I opted to treat the two differently.
She didnt substantiate her name as that. I recommend just AK. or Killison ;)
Thanks Kai for such a through and entertaining analysis of news coverage of the U-incident. I really appreciate the time and effort you put together for this post.
For those of us who believe that the truth should be at a higher regard than our emontional ties to China, we want to take in as many information from many sides as possible before reaching a conclusion on what is being reported. But it then becomes such a overwhleming task the moment we want to cross from being “merely interested” to “let’s find out what really happened”. Therefore I’m very glad you have included many links as well as including the article from A.K.
Also, the way you inserted your comment immediately following the section of the article you are commenting is a great appraoch. We can read the original article and decided to go “Yeh” to “Nah” with your analysis w/o having to scoll up and down.
To answer the questions you have posted to your readers: I think it’s not any one factor but rather a combination of factors that you have listed that contributes to the different approach of reporting -the PRC are getting PR savvy, the relative low death toll, the word “muslim” has an (unfairly) negative resonnace post 9/11, the Olympic is done, and the current state of economy all carried weight in diminishing the amount of spotlight Urumqi carried.
On a personal note, I’m glad PRC is active setting the tone and doing the “spin” rather than its usual heavy-handed foot stumping of an embarassement of itself. They are emulating the West in PR engagments-and as we have seen many times in the past, when the Chinese wants to emulate something, we usually outdo the original ;)
Was it because the West actually just doesn’t care as much?
Personally, I’m leaning toward that and I agree with the before mentioned reasons (Muslims, sexy Tibet etc.)
However, I am also inclined to believe that the often aggressive Chinese reactions toward Western media interpretations are becoming the standard regarding domestic incidents. Those reactions often create their own story resulting in prolonged media coverage. The stuff in Tibet occurred 7 years after the Hainan Island incident and I think the West had forgotten China’s reactionary spirit. Anti-CNN went online. Olympics. Torches. The Western media was curious. Reporting increased. Fenqing entered the English vocabulary. It was a good story
It’s 2009 and I suppose one could argue that this story is ‘getting old’. It was debated and reported to death last year. The geography, culture and semantics are different this year, but the spin-off story is essentially the same. China is angry at Western media bias. Nothing new here, what’s next? The media has the attention span of a small puppy…but that is it’s nature.
Bryan, great comment. I think the “the West is now used to the Chinese reaction” angle is definitely worth considering in why there may be less attention/fascination this year than last. Thanks for sharing!
Thanks for the compliments, babygrand. I agree the PRC government is slowly but surely improving on the PR-front but, that said, they still have a long way to go. Old habits die hard and I think we have constant reminders of that. Also, I’m personally not too confident with suggesting that the Chinese usually “outdo the original”. Not at this time.
Kai Pan. You seem so well informed. It must be the consumption of Xinhua that has you gargling in your throat or are you not telling us something? How do YOU know what happened in EAST TURKESTAN? Human rights groups do have an agenda – that is to challenge the crap coming out of government proxies such as Xinhua. Face it, the Chinese security forces lost control in Urumchi and hit the panic button. Why don’t you go and find out for yourself what happened in Urumchi before you write such holier-than-thou doggerel. Perhaps you’d like to stay in comfy Shanghai sipping your latte rather than face some hard truths about the government which acts in your name?
ET, you’d do better to share some of those “hard truths” you repeatedly allude to instead of making random assumptions about what I consume and what government acts in my name.
I think it was, at times, both implicit and explicit that I know human rights groups have an agenda, such as countering the agenda of other groups, governments, or mouthpieces. That alone doesn’t change my point that crap is crap and they often spew just as much of it as their “government proxies such as Xinhua.”
Here’s the jist of my criticism against Alison: That she didn’t “go and find out” what happened in Urumqi before she wrote “such holier-than-thou doggerel.” In arguing that, I provided links and rationale explaining why her presentation of the “facts” were dubious. You? Not so much.
We tend to make fun of Chinese hyper-nationalists who assume any criticism of China spawns forth from foreigners who are either ‘unaware of the ‘truth’” or who have “ulterior motives”. It’s funny how much you sound like them, suggesting that the only reason I don’t agree with you or Alison is because of my “consumption of Xinhua.” Very sophisticated argument there, buddy.
Try again, ideally with some real arguments next time.
Kai Pan, I did not write this article that passes for objectivity. I asked you how you know. You obviously have no answer. Funny that. Did that degree from Berkeley not teach you how to book a plane ticket? You’ll find that those legal skills will come to good use if you did go. The government of your nation routinely violates its own regional ethnic autonomy law. You are not a hyper-nationalist just an apologist.
ET, I don’t think I wrote this article to pass for objectivity. It is, very much, pretty subjective in how critical it is. Allison wrote a post that I felt was very biased, presenting dubious information as fact. I called her out on that and presented sources of information that challenge the information she presented as fact. So far, I believe this process of evaluating, cross-referencing, and then making conclusions is pretty reasonable, and more reasonable than picking and defending sides based upon ethnicity.
You seem to be upset with me pointing out how questionable her “facts” are or criticizing her for her “spin” that, in my opinion, does indeed remind me of the spin that the Chinese government often indulges in. The only argument you seem to be advancing is that I didn’t travel to Urumqi to see for myself.
1. Have you?
2. Why should I?
3. Why is basing opinions based upon news reports insufficient?
4. Has Allison?
5. If Allison hasn’t, why aren’t you getting on her case?
Allison didn’t substantiate her numbers. You haven’t either. I, however, have substantiated my skepticism. I’m waiting for you to bring something more to the table.
Hell, let’s get this out in the open: What is the government of MY nation anyway?
Gasp! I’m an apologist! Oh noes! My heart is broken!
Did you really live in Alaska?
Come on Kai Pan, just answer the question. How do YOU know this is spin?
For the third time, I judge it to be spin because it doesn’t sufficiently persuade me to disregard the evidence/information presented by other sources I accord more legitimacy to. You think my other sources are Xinhua, but I’ve linked you to Reuters, The Guardian, and a plurality of other sources, both Western and Chinese. Even if you categorically disregard the Chinese sources (which I fully understand the proclivity to do so, as I often do myself), it is still blatantly obvious that Alison is engaging in spin. She presents numbers and figures that are unsubstantiated with any sources and, more dubiously, she presents them in such a way to imply that those numbers of dead, injured, and arrested are ALL Uighurs. I’m basing my criticism of her post as “spin” because the balance of information I have reviewed does not support the implications she’s making. How about you? I’ve answered your question three times now. Care to answer mine?
I am not being fair to you – a reasonable debate is all that you are asking for. We are all working off second hand information. Your point that media cannot evidence their information is very true. It is a shame that the two narratives emerging from this incident, the Chinese government’s and the human rights community’s, are both driven by internal agendas. I believe that we all would like the truth to emerge from the unrest so that Han Chinese and Uyghur can have some reasonable dialogue about coexistence. People from both communities lost lives and that is to be lamented. You are right to say that personally witnessing an event is unnecessary, which is why we rely on the media so much. I have my own disagreements with what the media, both Chinese and western, puts on out on certain issues and we do have cut through the crap to get to what really happened. It is too bad that we have to go through this process to get to the heart of the matter. In peace.
Henryk (is that your name?), yes, we are all reasonably dependent upon second-hand sources for ANYTHING we are not party to. Even if we were party to something, we STILL depend on second-hand sources to get information about everything we ourselves don’t see (because we’re limited beings who can’t see everything). Even then, we FURTHER depend on second-hand sources because even when we see things ourselves, we often only see what we want to see, and thus we depend on others to see what we fail to notice or choose not to notice.
While there’s certainly the possibility that the numbers Alison presents are actually the TRUTH, they don’t appear that way when so many other sources by so many other observers contradict them. This boils down to who you truth. Do you trust the Chinese government reports? Do you trust the Western media reports? Do you trust the Uighur groups’ statements? All of us must scrutinize and weigh the information presented by all these sources we have available and reason out what we think is the most likely. What I know is that I’ve seen Allison’s numbers from Uighur groups’ statements before. I’ve also seen numbers reported by the Chinese government and by the Western media. I know I don’t like Alison presenting all those numbers as Uighur casualties only.
Again, I have nothing against human rights or Uighurs but Alison’s post wasn’t persuasive in the face of all the information elsewhere. If you disagree with me, then you need to refute the premises I’ve offered for my conclusion, and that means convincing me how all the other reports in both Chinese and Western media are less legitimate than the say so of Alison.
BTW, I appreciate you taking a step back and explaining that you haven’t been fair to me. With this last comment of your’s, I do think we agree on a lot of the same principles.
Re: Uighurs being less “photogenic”
I’m pretty sure Davenport meant that the situation as a whole, the people, their plight, is more attractive to a reader and makes for a better story; he meant nothing about how physically they, or their architecture might look in a photo.
Haha, yeah, while I’m not sure if that intent passes the technical definition of the term, I guessed as much (and hope as much!).
Kai, do be honest, you do come across as a bit of an apologist for the PRC. That post you did a while back interspersed with screen shots from a kung fu movie … what does that mean? Please don’t feel like I’m criticizing, I’m just trying to understand what your site is about.
Where did you grow up? The U.S.? Your approach just seems strange, is all I’m saying. I don’t get where you’re coming from. Maybe you’re trying to figure that out yourself.
Angel, I am being dead serious honest when I don’t consider myself an apologist for the CCP. I do, however, grant that I may “come across” that way to certain people who don’t have the familiarity and experience I have. I think a lot of us who blog about China feel that way (though amongst China watchers, I’d say we’re still a minority).
The images I used for 20 Excerpts: “The Race Toward Barbarism”the were more of an inside joke, to see who would get why I chose them. There wasn’t any serious point to them other than I felt the images were eye-catching and relevant to the article given the humorous connection in my head. Frankly, the meaning some people read into my choice of those images were completely surprising to me because they definitely weren’t chosen with any apologist agenda.
The images were from Yip Man, a movie about Bruce Lee’s kung fu master during World War 2. The reason I chose them? Because Henry C K Liu made a big deal about the honor of hand-to-hand combat versus the “barbarism” of modern warfare with guns and stuff. Other than Yip Man, being the Chinese guy who kicks ass in hand to hand combat, the Japanese could be interpreted as the modernized West (Japan did, after all, modernize earlier than China, specifically learning from the West) imperializing (yes, not a word) as they did upon China.
Now that I’ve come out and explained the simple silly reasons for the choice of those images, are you still reading some vast apologist conspiracy?
And here’s the thing that confounds me the most about why certain people think I’m an apologist: I make a lot of jokes and jabs at the CCP government throughout this website. Of course, I won’t blame people for not knowing what I keep in my head or for what I post elsewhere, but I do think my “non-apologist” stuff doesn’t register simply because it is something that is expected or agreed upon. People tend to only notice what doesn’t jive with their preconceptions, so when I write something that doesn’t match what they believe, their ears perk up and start thinking I’m an apologist.
I fashion myself as a moderate, someone who is in the middle, who sees the good and bad on both sides, supporting the good and criticizing the bad. I want to, very deeply, be on the side of what makes the most sense, what is the most substantiated, and what is the most reasonable. Like anyone, I make mistakes, but I don’t want to make the mistake of blindly picking a side.
Why is my approach “strange?” This is a serious question, I’d really like to know what you think is strange. Is it just different from what you expect, or from what “most” people in the West approach China? I think my approach stems from my experience and the information I consume about China. I read a lot from a lot of sources and a lot of people, and I base my conclusions, judgments, and opinions on them. I know for a fact that many Westerners do not regularly get their information
I am critical of Allison’s piece because it is evident that her information and stance comes entirely from the Uighur or pro-Uighur side. It is also evident that her information doesn’t jive with even the mainstream Western media reports. She’s coming out, guns ablaze misrepresenting or outright fabricating information (most damnably) as facts. She, along with Amy, polarizes the issue when what people really need to do is find the truths in the middle by evaluating all the information as critically and objectively as possible. She/They really do sound just like the CCP in propaganda mode so if I readily make fun of the CCP for that, why shouldn’t I make fun of them for likewise?
I do acknowledge that since I write for a Western audience, I do tend to spend more time ostensibly debunking common Western preconceptions. What’s wrong or strange with that?
Greatly appreciate your post. Thanks. You know, my encounter with the ‘Western’ kind takes a really funny curve : firstly, awe~when I first landed on Western soil, everything was so refreshingly beautiful & mesmerising:prosperous, orderly, rich-with-almost-everything, materially, culturally & spiritually;secondly, free~university days were casual, lecturer-student interactions vibrant, direct, fierce or even bordering on being rude (coming from a conformist Confucianist background), sex with the opposite sex is easy & casual, no string attached, indulgent in doing whatever one wishes to do; 3rdly,perplexed~great respect for labour as a consequent of high cost of labour, no great attachment to academic attainment as white & blue-collared jobs generally command almost identical pays; 4thly, rude awakening~begin to realise that, behind the farcade of benevolence, most troubles in this world are ‘created’ to further the West’s continued dominance regardless of the means & consequences to their victims, the West enjoy almost blanket monopoly to define universal ‘narratives’ on most events in this world; finally, great hatred towards everything Western since the Tibetan 3.14 uprising, Olympics, Xinjiang 7.05 incidence, Iranian Revolt~the West does not entitle to more voices than their 10% to 16% proportion of world population, it is the most evil civilisation of all, more so than the Islamic terrorists, swear to smash everything the West stands for, must work to kick out all the white men from their illegal possessions of Australia & New Zealand from the Asian Continent & return them to their original Asian settlers.
Glad you enjoyed the post but I’m afraid I can’t follow you to the extremes you feel against the West. To me, there’s always going to be a dominant “culture” or nation in a globalized interconnected world. The way I see it, such a phenomenon of dominance and subservience is a by-product of human nature, not of anything inherent in “Western” culture or Westerners.
I must say I understand where SE Chinese is coming from though not to the extreme. Similarly I came to the same understanding and rude awakening. The general populace of the western world are ignorant of the facts, their thought leaders (in politics, media, industry) are terribly intelligent and sophisticated. What the Chinese government does or try to do in terms of propaganda is woefully backwards compared to these western leaders.
Likewise I taken on in my own small way to educate those Chinese who are still with starry eyes idolizing the West and to point out to my Western friends on the sedious influence of their media.
Kai Pan, you get a thumbs up from me. While we have to show up the lies and half truths of the West, we must also hold and pressurize the Chinese to better media quality standards and transparency.
SWEET! A thumbs up! Righteous! LoL!
I agree that the chinese need better media quality standards and transparency. In an e-mail with stuart, a CNR commenter I love to hate and hate to love, I explained why I may come across as being more critical of the West than of China here on CNR: Because CNR is in English and I’m writing to a largely Western audience. I tend to communicate my criticisms of China in Chinese with the Chinese elsewhere. If we want to bring the two sides together with greater mutual understanding, we need to challenge what each sides’ misconceptions, mistakes, and biases…and ideally in the language that side understands best. Bitching and whining about China in English is mostly preaching to the choir (but I occasionally indulge). Doing so usually only reinforces misconceptions, mistakes, and biases.
“In an e-mail with stuart, a CNR commenter I love to hate and hate to love…”
Please note that the ‘two steps back’ policy appears to be working, as evidenced by the restraint I demonstrated after reading the comments by SE Asian Chinese above.
“must work to kick out all the white men from their illegal possessions of Australia & New Zealand from the Asian Continent & return them to their original Asian settlers”
Are you going to work to kick all the Han out of their possession of Tibet and Xinjiang and return them to their original Tibetan and Turkic settlers as well?
erh… but isn’t that what many westerners would like to do and are supporting. isn’t that is why the western media is biased for?
Yeah, I would be most willing to entertain the notion of all Han Chinese out of Xinjiang & Tibet if the US, Canada, Israel, French, Brits & all those evil ex imperial powers quit all thier stolen lands from their imperial conquests.
Also, the UN Security Council Permanent-5 should be so revised that all the major races be proportionately represented & not allowed the whites to occupy almost 75% (4 out of 5):
US, Russia, China, India, Brazil, Indonesia, EU, African Union, Arab League.
Dame the old world order & swear to want to smash this white-dominated old order when the time comes no matter what the cost!
You are funny. Why were you so ignorant about the West before going there? Why so ignorant about everything else now? I mean FUCK!!! The Maori whiped out other people right as the white people were showing up to stick it to the Maori. The Chinese took Malaca from the Malays who stole it from someone else in a fight years before, and they from someone years before. Original Asian settlers? Who dat?
Imagine what the Europeans will feel if there is an island nation of Asian settlement right in the midst of Europe acting like a sheriff of any Asian power. This is exactly what Asians feel about Australia although our main stream personalities & media will not talk about it for now due to political expediency. Tolerating the scenario does not mean accepting it forever. As history shows that there is no power which lasts forever, just wait till the tide of European supremacy subsides &, hmmmm, see what will happen ….
Of course the West cares less, the Uighurs are muslims, and don’t have a Dalai Lama-esque figure. Media coverage is based on media exposure, this is no surprise. Obviously more news will be generated on things people care more about, isn’t this the same everywhere? The fact that westerners don’t sympathize with their ideological enemies is… not any different than anyone else on the planet.
As for Iran, well Iran just plain sucks at censorship. China shut down Twitter, internet access, and put heavy control on what pictures came out of Urumqi. Iran didn’t even deploy signal-jamming trucks to deal with cellphones, let alone the internet. China is much more experienced at censorship, Iran is just an amateur.
Hey Guys, Andrew is here. Great post! I’m really glad I stumbled upon this site the other day. There have been a lot of news surrounding China’s domestic policy when it comes to media transparency. Here is a post from Mashable – http://bit.ly/104H2L. I would love to hear your opinions on this post as well as its comments.
–
Andrew Wong
Blog: http://webstudio13.com/
Follow me on Twitter @webstudio13
An ordinary post leading to a very sophisticated discussion between proven China experts … -_-” Most of the comments are plain stupid. What did you expect?
If you haven’t seen it yet, check out the video report of the Urumqi riots by Tania Branigan of UK’s The Guardian.
As an added thought, I think some of the difference in reaction in the American media is a mixture of all the factors you mentioned before, but also, there’s no real central figure this issue has that a face can be attached to. Tibet has the Dalai Lama, this puppy dog Nobel peace prize winning man hounded by a CCP who consistently labels with silly comments like “a wolf in sheep’s clothing.”
That factor at least could change, now with Rebiya Kadeer gaining some name recognition. According to BBC, China’s also voicing oppposition to her visit in Tokyo, an awful lot like criticizing other countries for hosting the Dalai Lama.
But who knows. It’s only one possible reason.
The Huffington Post does not represent American values or even the American Media. Try diversifying your sources Mr. Pan, or perhaps you could make new ones up as “Alison” seems to have done…
I understand that, Mr. Allen. I’m not suggesting that the Huffington Post represents all American values or all American Media. I’m not making a statement about the Huffington Post at all actually. I just found these two posts from The Huffington Post to be interesting enough to juxtapose and comment on.
My mistake. Could you explain the subtitle of the article for those of us who have misunderstood?
“What does American media’s coverage of the 2008 Lhasa Tibetan riots vs. 2009 Urumqi Uighur riots tell us about Americans? “
Ah yes… NYT should be a rather good representation of American media than.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/28/health/28flu.html?scp=1&sq=beijing%20dragnet&st=cse
So, what does this tell us about Americans? ;)
You’re referring to the description on the index page? That’s a summary of what Davenport’s piece is about, isn’t it? Isn’t a summary of the topic he’s writing about a reasonable description for what this post is going to include? The thing is, you’re attacking me as if I’m holding up the Huffington Post as representative of American values and all American media. I didn’t do that. Davenport, however, is writing about how the media’s coverage of the Lhasa and Urumqi riots reflects American attitudes, which my description (subtitle) accurately reflects, right?
When juxtaposing the two articles credibility, you overstepped the sources of Davenports claims about media coverage, and the typical American reactions he extrapolates from “A random sampling of American reader comments on Xinjiang articles recently… “
Who said I was juxtaposing these two articles credibility? I don’t think I’ve overstepped anything. You’re free to disagree, but I just don’t see it. Sorry.
Great post Kai, we need to expose the western media lies, their hypocrisy and propaganda spin!!! We need to fight western media propaganda! Western media is most important, we should not care about Japanese, Korean and Indian media. Thank you.
The obvious answer is the right answer. After eight years of ‘war on terror’ [ie war against muslims] the American media is not going to suddenly fall over themselves to portray muslims as victims. The Urumqi killings have created a conundrum for the western media. A muslim mob in Indonesia like Jamaa Islamiya that slaughters innocent civilians is evil. A muslim mob in Xinjiang that goes on a killing spree against innocent bystanders is … err, fighting against oppression.
Actually the difference in reporting on Lhasa vs Urumqi shows that in fact the ‘west’ does not in fact seize on ‘anything bad that happens in China’ as a shameless way to attack China out of ‘jealousy over China’s progress.’
If the western media were truly a borg-force out to simply defame China, it would have reported on Urumqi just as eagerly as Lhasa.
Tibetans, not unlike the Jewish community, have in fact worked long and hard to bring their people’s persecution and diaspora to the world’s attention. In return, Tibet is bigger news because we’re more familiar with their history, however marginally.