Ragtime, April 16 2008: In Which China Infiltrates the Ivy Dailies
- Brown: Child pornographer / Brown hockey player sentenced to slap on the wrist.
- Cornell: I heart Huckabee.
- Columbia: "Columbia Students for a Free Tibet address each other as "freedom fighters." The insurgents in Iraq also share this revered name." A batshit column by another Chinese propagandist. Have you no sense of decency, ma'am? At long last, have you no sense of decency?
- Harvard: Don't worry, kids. Primal Scream won't be affected by that pesky 1784 lewdness law that's still on the books.
- Dartmouth: So they're arresting kids for marijuana again.
- Penn: Doesn't Barack Obama know the DP isn't worth his time?
- Princeton: "An Yi '10, a Chinese student, said she thinks the protests against China are based on misinformation spread by a biased Western media." Have these Chinese shills infiltrated all of our campuses?
- Yale: Gaylies having a tough time of it.
13 Comments | 
| 
Print This Post
Read more: Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, Harvard, Penn, Princeton, RagTime, Yale
Email – 
Search
About
Follow us on Twitter
Report a bug
Archives
RSS Feed
April 16th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Yes, how dare these yellow heathens sink their vicious, math-adept claws into our daily periodicals and call for a reasoned consideration of the Tibetan freedom movement’s aims. I mean, we should obviously assume the Chinese are in the wrong because they’re communist and the enemy of our enemy should always be our friend. And it’s not as if the Tibetans are calling for ‘freedom’ because they want to forcefully remove ethnic Chinese citizens and businesses from within their already autonomous borders or anything like that, right? Oh wait…
April 16th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Jacob, do you honestly think the Tibet issue is black and white? Do you truly feel that the Tibetans are 100% angelic and the rest of China is the epitome of evil? It’s not that simple. Yet nothing reported in Western media would lead you to think otherwise. So why not hear another side of the issue? Even though this unpopular side only seems to be espoused by Chinese, the purpose of their viewpoints being allowed to appear in print is for the protection of unpopular speech.
Yet you accuse them of being propagandists and shills just because you don’t agree with them? Coward.
April 16th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
right: thirty years of colonization by ethnic Chinese to change the ethnic make-up of Tibet and fifty years of persecuting Tibetans for their religious beliefs – who despite it all, have remained largely peaceful – is a “two-sided” issue. why don’t you comment about how the janjaweed in Darfur are just “misunderstood”? i mean, why don’t we ever get THEIR side of the story?
you make me sick.
April 16th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Though I won’t sit here and defend Chinese policies in Tibet, I do think it’s worth looking into the situation a bit more critically. The recent Tibetan protests that resulted in deaths were essentially riots against the Chinese government–and not peaceful ones for that matter. This doesn’t absolve the Chinese soldiers of their wrongs in shooting the protesters, but it does perhaps cast a more realistic view of the conflict. What’s more, we in the West have a tendency to view the Tibetan freedom movement as some kind of harbinger of peaceful Bhuddist utopia–this is a misunderstanding of the situation. Tibet fully intends to forcefully remove and economically sanction the ethnic Chinese within their borers if they can wrest political control. Again, I’m not choosing sides here, just elucidating the complex situation that you so (in)eloquently reduced to one that’s analogous to the crisis in Darfur. My question for you, Jacob, is why not just go all the way with your ignorance and call the Chinese Nazis, you ignorant, stupid twat?
April 16th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Why would you think I thought the janjaweed are “misunderstood”? I never said they were and I don’t think they are. But if the janjaweed think they are misunderstood, what the hell is wrong with them getting a chance to say it? Why are white supremacists still allowed to protest? I’m sure as hell not going to argue for the janjaweed or white supremacists, but if they want to argue it, then why not? My point is that the Chinese side of the issue is not understood, period. If pro-China advocates think they can better your understanding, shouldn’t they get the chance to argue it?
And what is “indecent” (as you accuse Christina Liu of being) about having an unpopular viewpoint? I think some of what she wrote is plain false, but is the rest of what she wrote is worth considering. No need to rail on her. It’s not like she’s stormed the US embassy or anything…I can understand why you attack China, but why do attack the university students here? Are they responsible for human rights violations in Tibet?
Isn’t self-determination vs. territorial integrity a two-sided issue? Can’t both sides be argued?
April 16th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Anyone who thinks anything as complex as Tibet is black and white is an idiot. Additionally, in this particular instance, the Chinese commentators aren’t entirely wrong. The recent events in Tibet HAVE made it clear that many Western media outlets are, at best, interested in selling the “China kills innocent monks” story, whether it is true or not. And the comparison to Iraqi terrorists is not quite as insane as you make it, either. Tibetans in Lhasa were beating and murdering ethnic Chinese and also Muslims, some by lighting them on fire while they were still alive. That seems like, you know, terrorism…
Also, ask yourself: do you REALLY want “freedom” for Tibet? Do you really want self-determination, or are you pushing for the re-installation of the Dalai Lama so that Tibet can go back to being the undeveloped, “spiritual” playground for disaffected rich Westerners to “find themselves” that it once was?
April 16th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Just to let you know, the girl the hockey player filmed was 17. And the BDH article was incredibly biased. The kid is a dumbass, but unlike some people you’ve written about he doesn’t deserve to have his life ruined.
April 17th, 2008 at 2:12 am
God damn it, why do people have to be so biased? People who assume the Chinese are automatically evil are just as bad as the China fanatics. Oh, rail on how China has oppressed Tibet and how it’s swamping the region with Chinese people. Let’s ignore the fact that China ended a state that forced 95% of its populace into slavery and serfdom(yes, Tibet was a craphole before the Chinese came in, not just after). Oh, listen to the Tibetan exiles rant all you want, but remember, most of the Tibetan exiles belong to the families that were doing the repressing long before Marx was gone. After all most of the exiles fled after the insurrection of 1959… and guess what? Only the former rich landlords and monastic elite who lost their repressing privileges rebelled. Actual civilian participation in the insurrection was minimal and localized. Why? because the Tibetans hated the guts of their slavemaster more than they did the Chinese.
Also ignore the fact that China brought public education and public service to a region formerly populated by slaves and right-less serfs, modern medicine and communications to a static, backwards society. Oh, don’t give me that “Tibet was wonderful and peaceful and content before industrialization” bullcrap, there’s absolutely no evidence to indicate that Tibet was any more enlightened and peaceful or any less corrupt and violent than the typical 12th century feudal fiefdom. Oh sure China has been a bitch and should be rightfully criticized, but viewing China as purely a negative influence is incredibly biased, and makes me laugh at the journalistic abilities of editors on this site. If China hadn’t invaded, you people probably would be railing against the slave-state of Tibet right now; at least with China the repression brought along the eradication of famine, modern technology and medicine, not to mention the total lack of taxes (that’s right, Tibetans don’t have to pay taxes to the central government, at all). So please, before you complain about China, think about what Tibet would be like without Chinese intervention. Things are clearly not black and white.
April 17th, 2008 at 9:17 am
Did any of you actually read Chrstina Liu’s column? I’m fine with debating Tibetan freedom, but what she wrote was libelous and insulting. “One Dalai Lama has admitted to having sex with a hundred men and women, knowing all the while that he had AIDS. His predecessor was abusive, forcing his students to perform acts against their will” I mean, come on! Also, when she wrote “Many monks participated in the dismemberment of female bodies.” These comments alone make me disregard the entire article. Condemn the article, and then move on with your debate. She fails to bring anything to the table except embarrassment to my school.
April 17th, 2008 at 9:25 am
Did any of you actually read Chrstina Liu’s column? I’m fine with debating Tibetan freedom, but what she wrote was libelous and insulting. “One Dalai Lama has admitted to having sex with a hundred men and women, knowing all the while that he had AIDS. His predecessor was abusive, forcing his students to perform acts against their will” I mean, come on! Also, when she wrote “Many monks participated in the dismemberment of female bodies.” These comments alone make me disregard the entire article. Condemn the article, and then move on with your debate. She fails to bring anything to the table except embarrassment to my school.
April 17th, 2008 at 10:38 am
I can’t speak to the veracity of Liu’s claims, but I think what everyone is taking such umbrage at is Jacob Savage’s crude, simplified, and borderline racist view of the Chinese. It’s one thing to debate the merits of a columnist’s evidence, it’s another to go on an extended rant against China and the Chinese by calling them shills, batshit propagandists, and then likening anyone who dares to call for open discussion of the columnists’ views to supporters of a disanalogous genocide. Just because you, “like, totally took bong rips with this sweet dude who went hiking in Tibet last year and he told me about how harsh those commies are on the monks, man,” doesn’t give you carte blanche to spew your jingoistic hate at a nation of people in regards to a situation of which you are dreadfully uninformed, the validity of two isolated columnists’ views notwithstanding.
April 17th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Regarding Christina Liu, it’s true that her piece is full of holes and problems, but at least they’re partly based in truth. For example, it is true that monks participated in the dismemberment of bodies, except it was mainly observed in records of INDIAN temples, and seems to be limited to the Mahayana school of Buddhism, and I haven’t seen sources attribute such actions to recent Tibetan temples. And the thing about Dalai Lama spreading AIDS leaves me scratching my head, considering the only Dala Lama who lived in the era of AIDS is the current, and he certainly does not have much of a womanizing reputation. However, it’s true that there were many case of sexual exploitation in Tibetan temples (for example, read the autobiography of Tashì-Tsering, who is a former Tibetan slave turned monk turned communist turned prisoner of the Cultural Revolution). And in regards to the corrupt Dalai Lamas, it’s hard to determine which she referred to since she didn’t name them, but some were pretty corrupt. Look at Yonten Gyatso, who from what I’ve read was so unbecoming of a living Buddha that he was eventually murdered by other monks.
She seems to have researched her cases very, very poorly. But I wouldn’t disregard it completely. Research the validity of her statement, and you’ll probably find the truth somewhere in-between.
April 19th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
it seems possible that christina liu confused the term ‘dalai lama’, of which there is only one, with the generic term ‘lama’, of which there are thousands. there is a famous case years back specifically of a Tibetan lama named Osel Tenzin (an American) who died of AIDS — but not before infecting many of his students with HIV.
http://www.rickross.com/reference/general/general739.html