Daoist Rap

Tibet, well balanced

Use this link to read a fair and balanced op-ed thast focuses on the Tibet issue. I think that it is fantastic

China and Demonisation

This article by Daniel Bell has recently come to my attention. For those of you who can't be bothered to read it, I'll give a quick summary here. Bell criticises the tendency of the Western press to demonise China. He admits that it is important to cover such issues as the Tibet riots because the Chinese press isn't able to, but that there is a dearth of coverage of the positive developments. He lists improvements such as increases in personal freedom, increased acceptance of homosexuality, and economic improvement as cases in point.

Bell also mentions negative news coverage of China, such as its involvement in the Darfur is reported whereas Japanese and Russian involvement is ignored by Western news outlets. Furthermore, comparisons to the Nazi Olympics are useless hyperbole; China is not out to start a world war and has no genocide policy.

Bell calls for some self-reflection, lest we create overly-antagonistic relations with the Chinese. China is not some sort of 'Evil Empire' out to swallow the world. At the risk of being labeled an apologist for the regime, I ask why it is that musicians (such as those who appeared at last week's V-festival), journalists, and semi-educated protesters single out China for attention that is deserved of many other nations of the world. It would seem to me that we are still dominated by xenophobia and a style of issue-populism. Is it any wonder the producers of the videos that I posted earlier this month feel set upon by the Western media?

A couple of years ago I was part of an Australian university student delegation to China. We were traveling with Hon. Greg Hunt MP (yes, that is his real name) who expected us to be a bunch of China-bashers. Consequently, his welcome speech in the forum of the Beijing Hotel urged to stand up for our beliefs and be proud of Australia as a nation. In a return address, from one of the students present, we did just that. Laurie intimated that we were proud Australians and we stand up for our beliefs, but we weren't anti-China.

Yes, China needs to improve aspects of its social policy. But to demonise China is a mistake that serves neither China nor the rest of the world any clear purpose. Anyway, I must go, so I apologise for the weak conclusion.

Mao Zedong

A good film about China's Cultural Revolution is Morning Sun. It is quite amazing to see and hear the story of China during that bloody period of history through the ears and eyes of Red Guards, Black Liners, heroes and bastards because it shows how not one person was left unscathed.


Considering how the Cultural Revolution panned out, it is quite easy to think of Mao Zedong as a crazy old bastard, bent on ruling China with an iron fist. In fact, it is ridiculously easy, considering the disaster that was the Great Leap Forward, and the various anti-rightist campaigns that dated from the Yenan period right through to the end of his life.

However, there is a recent book that seeks to reevaluate this position on China. Rather uselessly, I have forgotten the title of the book and rather lazily I can't be bothered looking for it. Nonetheless, I've been doing a bit of thinking about Mao myself. It is quite possible that Mao was a man who truly believed in socialist theory as a means of keeping China safe from foreign incursion and making it great once more. This ties quite closely into the "Century of Humiliation" and his insistence at the founding of the People's Republic in 1949 that China has 'stood up.' Despite the failures of that theory in agricultural and industrial sectors on their application, it was always going to be very difficult for him to relinquish what was his life's work and ideology.

One might find parallels with John Howard, who was unable to accept that his increasingly right-wing and conservative policies were no longer relevant to Australia, or indeed wanted. However because we have the ability as a democratic nation-state to remove outdated policy-makers at a convenient juncture, the balance can be restored. There was, and is, no such balance in China- remember Liu Shaoqi.

Tibet's Sovereignty

As I was going through some old notes this afternoon, I came across this article which I had copied down last year as an example of how non-officialised information is transmitted throughout China via P2P and blogs.

Professor Ge Jianxiong from Fudan:

"If "China" means the land of the Tang Dynasty, the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau, which was ruled by Tubo/Tufan (吐蕃), does not count. Tubo/Tufan was a sovereignty independent of the Tang Dynasty. At least it was not administered by the Tang Dynasty. Otherwise, there would have been no need for Tang Taizong to marry Princess Wencheng to the Tibetan king; there would have been no need to erect the Tang-Tubo/Tufan alliance tablet. It would be a defiance of history if we claim that since the Tang Dynasty Tibet has always been a part of China - the fact that the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau subsequently became a part of the Chinese dynasties does not substantiate such a claim ... " (From Letters from China blog)

Letters from China also has links to the Chinese article. I've not been able to access the China Review article, but it is still possible to read articles on Netease and QQ. Follow the links if you can read Chinese.

What was interesting at the time I first read these was the appearance of the articles themselves in China where the official line is quite clear about the status of Tibet as a Chinese territory. Now, with recent events in mind, I am more interested in whether Professor Ge has made a reappearance in the news, whether of his own volition or through the general public outing him.

Tibet and the Media

The recent Tibet uprisings have been quite horrible. But it is the ensuing debate across the international media and posting of individual commentators that has been most revealing. Sloppy reporting by the Western press and Chinese government propaganda have ensured that it is unlikely that the question over Tibet's sovereignty will ever be resolved satisfactorily.

On one hand. Western media has been very sloppy in its reporting of the uprisings.



This has led to the Chinese feeling that they are being persecuted by the Western media in a deliberate campaign against Chinese. This is not an uncommon feeling to Chinese friends of mine, who have discussed issues as wide -reaching as separatist movements and CD piracy with me in terms of the United States "attacking us." The reason that they feel that this is a deliberate campaign is most likely due to a familiarity with campaigns from government-controlled Chinese media and perhaps perceptions of the Western media as being a professional and perhaps infallible source of information.

The official line that China is part of Tibet is perhaps best summed up by this video.



The producers of this video present some facts of Tibetan/Chinese history whilst conveniently forgetting other parts. For instance, Tibet was an independent state from the late 600s through to the early 1200s. As there are with the Turkic nomads to the North and West of Han China, there are noted instances of marriages between the imperial/royal dynasties of China and Tibet. This indicates that even if Tibet was not treated as an equal by the Chinese of the time, it was at least accorded the respect of being an independent state and, perhaps, a threat. Furthermore, it was not until the Yuan dynasty that Tibet was brought into the Chinese Empire. The Yuan, of course, were Mongols. So I would ask the purveyors of the second video shown above whether they would perhaps like to return Tibet, or even greater China over to the control of Ulan Bator.
Of course, such an argument is a facetious one, akin to having Texas and California granted independence or returned to Mexico, or perhaps even returning Normandy to Norway or Acquitaine to the British throne. It is not my purpose to provide a solution to this problem, but rather to show the foolishness of relying on such historical arguments in a situation such as such.

In any debate, there are opinions that differ from that which might otherwise be expected. To illustrate, I leave you with this interesting article from China Digital Times. Read it, it does appear to be a voice of reason amongst a cacophony of posturing.

Future Music Festival is Crap

People have been saying that the Australian festival scene is dead. But I think that it is merely moving on. Festivals are being changed by the music that is showcased and the people that attend. Of course, I can only speak as far as Melbourne is concerned so perhaps it is more accurate to say that the Melbourne festival scene is changing.

Take for instance the Big Day Out. BDO has had a bit of a hard time in Melbourne lately, being shifted around from venue to venue in the wake of the refurbishment of the show grounds. Last year's, at Princess Park, was a success. The bands were great, the crowd good, and the venue comfortable. This year, at the Flemington Racecourse, the bands were still great but the sound suffered at times. The crowd was worse than last year, with more people so far gone that one wonders why they bothered to show up at all. And the venue was a disgrace. Dusty, filthy, and with very little natural shelter. I suppose that's what happens when you stage a music festival in what is essentially a gravel car park. But overall, it was still a Big Day Out and lots of fun.

Future Music festival was shit. The big draw card for me were The Chemical Brothers, but it was their set that epitomised all that was wrong with it as a whole. Their set lacked energy, lacked passion, and lacked the spark that the Chems have become famous for. And it is little wonder, considering the crowd that gathered on the hill of the Sidney Myer Music Bowl to watch. Who were they? For the most part they were pissed bogans, dressed in their finest fluoro, munching pills and getting pissed on vodka and lemonade. Rather than being a feature of the day, the high point and climax, The Chemical Brothers were reduced to being background muzak to the inane conversations of rednecks more interested in getting fuck-eyed and belting out a horrid rendition of 'Jesse's Girl' than being sucked in to a mind-bending set. Is it any wonder that The Chemical Brothers didn't even finish their allotted time and scarped as soon as they were given the chance to get off stage.

I suppose that festivals are somewhat like nightspots. A bar with gains a reputation for a good atmosphere, good music, etc. and people begin to go there more often. Then, as word spreads, more people come, including those who ruin the atmosphere for others. This has happened with the company Future Music. Future Music in Australia have encouraged the fluoro singlet and shirtless muzza brigade so as to extract the most amount of cash without a thought to the music. They have become the worst type of greedy corporation, one without morals or guidance to allow the continued survival of their industry.

So I'm on the lookout for new festivals and places to go without Melbourne's most unsavoury elements. Or perhaps I should find a new hobby, such as picking my toenails and flicking the jam at people.