 |
| |
|
|
Hydro
|
|
Winfield, IL, USA
Jun 1999
time: 05:13
|
|
Apolytoners,
I believe Jasonian issued a Challenge. Does this short story meet part of it?
Hydro
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Learn to overcome…
"Honored Chairman, the Gaians have been eradicated."
Chairman Sheng-ji Yang looked up slowly from his datapad. His features were impassive, as usual, with closely cropped white hair, a wrinkle-less face, and hooded deep brown eyes. He seemed not to gaze at a person but through them.
At the moment he was gazing through his First Minister.
In response to the statement Chairman Yang simply nodded once and then looked back at his datapad. His First Minister stood at attention, fully aware that she was allowed to leave only when specifically dismissed. Discipline must be maintained.
"Were there survivors? What is the status of Lady Skye?" Yang asked in a monotone.
"There were no survivors, and Lady Skye is in custody."
Yang nodded again, paused, and then gently placed the datapad on his desk. Then he looked over at his treasured Tsu Chi lithographs, which had a place of honor on his otherwise barren office walls. Representing the forces of nature, the stark black and white prints on stretched silk at once seemed to be in opposition until taken as a whole; then they were complete. Each lithograph was placed on the wall in such a way that each balanced with the others and so that the sum of the five was greater than each was individually.
Yang gazed at each print to once again attempt to fully grasp the inner meaning of each individual print and then that of the greater whole. Individually each force had its own singular raw or muted power, symbolized by or bold and ragged slashes of ink or fine and delicate brush strokes. Taken together Yang discerned how conflict and cooperation between the Tsu Chi forces of nature offered a vision of completion, and how the unity of the system produced its own harmony.
Yang turned his piercing gaze to his guest.
"First Minister, consider the fate of the Gaians. Why did they not attain their goal?" he asked in a soft voice.
The First Minister started. Yang rarely asked an opinion of anyone. He was contemplative, but not communicative, and kept his own council. To be asked such a question was a great honor, but it held a great deal of responsibility. And risk.
"Honored Chairman," she began, bowing low, "the Gaians failed because they were weak and undisciplined, and failed to make the proper preparation for the Trials of Planet." The First Minister knew she could expand more upon this well accepted thesis, but understood that Yang would take and assess the truth of the statement. If he found it lacking he would say so, and then demand proofs.
"First Minister," Yang said after a moment of silence, "have you ever witnessed a Gaian mindworm attack? Or seen their great, organic cities that seem to be one with their Planet? Do you still maintain that they were weak, when they could harness a portion of Planet itself for sustenance, attack or defense, or that they were unprepared when they understood and melded their society with Planet better than we?"
The First Minister was nonplussed. To these challenges she had no answer; Yang's statements were self-evident. She bowed to acknowledge the refutation.
Yang turned toward his Tsu Chi prints again. The First Minister could see Yang's profile clearly, and from this angle he looked almost gaunt.
"First Minister, why did the Gaians fail?" Yang asked again in his soft voice.
"Honored Chairman, all I know is that their cities were overrun and that in the end their knowledge of Planet did not prevent their destruction. Accepted wisdom is incomplete."
Yang nodded to acknowledge this statement as truth.
"First Minister, consider these Tsu Chi. What do you see?"
The First Minister turned to examine the prints. Her first impression was of the simplicity and power in each of the five lithographs. Each brush stroke had meaning, whether it ended raggedly or bluntly. Each looked like they were in conflict, and all were opposed to the other.
"Chairman, I see the forces of nature at war with each other, striving to destroy and overwhelm the others."
Yang nodded briefly. "That is one interpretation." He paused to further consider the Tsu Chi. "It is, however, an incorrect interpretation."
Silence fell as both gazed at the Tsu Chi.
Finally Yang spoke. "The forces in the Tsu Chi represent balance. One force does not war against the other, but is part of a larger integrated system. Destruction compliments creation, and even demands it. Each element is part of the whole. Take any one element away and the balance is destroyed, the symmetry is gone and the Center lost."
Yang turned to face his First Minister.
"That is why the Gaians failed. They are like the Tsu Chi with only one of the forces of nature. Such a Tsu Chi is powerful, but it is not balanced and has no Center. It has no greater whole, for it is an individual. It was merely the sum of its elements, and nothing more."
Silence fell again, and the First Minister tried desperately to understand what Chairman Yang described in the Tsu Chi. The meaning was elusive, and would take time. Portions made sense, but the whole? Could she truly grasp such a synthesis? Such a challenge!
"It is time for us both to attend to our duties. Consider this lesson well First Minister. You are dismissed."
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Barshy
|
|
I think you did a good job... Much like the old Firaxis stories, where they depicted each faction leader has multi-dimensional.
It's a pity the game plasters the leaders into one-dimensional molds. Nevertheless, you can't expect a game to do everything...
If you are up to it, a further challenge would be to do the same thing, but incorporating the different tortures and punishments that characterizes Hive society while maintaining the reader's empathy with Yang that you did so well in this story.
Also-- do you think the citizens in Hive society regard Yang with fear and submission, or anger for oppressing them?
Barshy
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jasonian
|
 |
Ruins of Jasonia Palace
Sep 1999
time: 00:13
|
|
Hmm... this is interesting.
I didn't really pity Yang in any way, probably because he wasn't in trouble. On the outside, this story has a "My enemies are dead, and this is why" kind of plot to it. But pretty much any reader could figure out that Yang wasn't exactly thrilled.
The comments Yang makes on their mindworm assaults and their harnessing of Planet for their own purposes suggests that Yang has (had?) some respect for the Gaians and their way of doing things. He doesn't really pity them, but he understands them. One usually doesn't connect empathy with Yang, but in this story, it not only works, but it makes sense.
Yang really has a bad reputation. If you have a scale, with one side being "Confort" and the other side being "Survival", then Yang would be way tot he "survival" side. His Hive would have the best chance of surviving any blight humanity could run into. Of course, he sacrifices pretty much every creature confort available for this. So, making Yang look "good" is almost impossible. But Hydro's story shows that Yang isn't so entrenched in his own ideals that he can't understand other faction's. That in itself is more then one could say about pretty much any of the other leaders.
Anyway, to sum up, this is about as excellent of a story, told from the point of Yang, as I could expect someone to present and give realism to. Nice work Hydro. You easily beat the challenge, but it stays open for anyone else. Now that we have SMACX, we have some new factions to work with.
- Jasonian.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
i think that some people make the mistake of yang being rude, crude and socially unacceptable. just some dumb neaderthal (althought in truth most neanderthals coud outwit in survival anyone on the planet) with "the button." if anyone's ever taken a martial arts course, the have a hint at what kind of discipline yang grew up with. he was also reared with a sense of respect for everyone and everything, so it's nice to hear hime speaking with dignity about someone whom he respects.
i also think that yang is worried that deep down that he has upset the balance himself, but feels he us split between his ideals and his goals. the gaians were an important individual in the whole scheme of planet, of which the hive was also an individual itself. they are it for humanity. and maybe i'm reading too much into it, with that but perhaps yang feels that he has just made a big hippocrite out of himself and this was his way of passing this knowledge and wisdom to others.
kudos, hydro
------------------
"edgecrusher" Spartan Probe Team 'angelis'
|
|
| |
|
|
|
President Jakjon
|
|
Metro Area of NYC, New York, United States
Jan 2000
time: 05:13
|
|
I don't think that Yang would really disrespect anyone, emotionally speaking. That would be ignoring their power. That could be why he keeps his subjects under control-because he keeps himself under control. The EA story touches on this. Whenever he his in a bad mood, it has repercussions down to the lowest drone. The Hive is an extension of Yang's being. Yang is into "oneness." Truly, his society is one with him, he is one with his society, and so is everyone else. I don't think he gets any sort of sadistic thrill out of inflicting pain or destruction. However, the problem that I hope we have with him, and why he is one of the "bad guys" of SMAC, is that he also feels no guilt whatsoever from inflicting pain or destruction.
------------------
--President Jakjon
--Datalinks
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Raging Mouse
|
 |
Finland
Oct 1999
time: 07:13
|
|
This is fun! As I spent a lot of time badmouthing Yang in the X-fire Tales, I think I'll have to try and amend myself.
How 'bout this?
Yang sits with his back towards the opening door, facing the monitors cycling randomly through the myriad surveillance-cameras sprinkled throughout The Hive. He, of course, notices his new security minister entering the room, but he lets the man wait until he has sorted out the thoughts in his head. When he does swivel his chair to face the man, he doesn't have to wait. The minister immediately presents his business.
"Chairman, there has been a riot near Nutrition-Center 4. Approximately two hundred citizens were demonstrating against the food-shortages. They attacked the officers sent to scatter them."
"Mmmhmm."
The minister smiles slightly.
"I took care of it. A hundred and fifty were sentenced then and there. Another fifty are being questioned.."
He shuts up when he notices the fire rising in Yang's eyes. After a short silence, the Chairman takes a deep breath.
"Who gave the order to execute the rioters?"
"I did, sir. It is, after all, the standard procedure with riots, and I thought.."
"You thought you'd gain prestige by giving orders that I alone am authorized to give. Minister, have you ever heard of any food-riots before?"
"Uh, no, sir. We haven't been attacked with fungal missiles before. Food has always been plentiful."
"So what on planet gives you the impression that I usually murder rioters that only want food?"
The minister is visibly shaking by now. He gulps, and starts to whisper.
"In.. In '27 you gave a general statement declaring that, from then on, all rioting would be punishable by death. You have always done so. Always.."
"NOT BEFORE '27 I DIDN'T!" The minister stumbles and falls backwards, as if Yang's words have physical force. As the minister feebly tries to get up, Yang rises from his chair and walks over to him.
"I hate to repeat myself, but you need a lesson in politics, young fool. This society reflects the idea that it is pointless to limit the concept of living entities to single bodies. When our society works perfectly, all our citizens act as one, focused on one goal; the survival of the whole, and each man and woman knows how he or she will make this happen. The ultimate superorganism, I call it. But currently this society is far from perfect. We do not know our true goal yet; our knowledge of the universe is incomplete. Also, we do not know ourselves enough yet, so we cannot fit in each person into our society so that he or she will reach full potential."
He takes a breath. The minister has stopped trying to rise, and Yang holds his gaze like a vise.
"Worse, there enemies, within and without, trying to disrupt our society. Those outside use force of arms, to take our land, our people and our resources. Those within refuse to see themselves as part of society, but try to reform it so that it serves their egoistical plans; thieves, muggers, murderers, black-market dealers. Misfits. Also, there are spies. Probes. Sent by the Data-Angels to steal our knowledge; get the benefit without making the effort. Or sent by that wormtongue Lal, to cause anarchy and riots -you spoke of '27- so that he can claim that my people are suffering and would prefer his 'rule'."
"All of this cannot exist if we are to finally live in a world where everyone is happy, and no-one will hurt fellow humans. So all of them, from the thief to the spy, must go. And then there is the rioter..."
His eyes glaze over and focus on distant thoughts. He continues in a fast and calm voice.
"Let me put it like this; Here I am, building a super-organism; a communal sentience whose cells would consist of humans. I am, you could say, the central neuron in it's vast brain. I govern everything, out of necessity. And as in your body and mine, cells -humans- are dying and being born all the time. However, they are all supposed to die of old age. If you need to kill someone then something has gone wrong. Every 'sentenced' person means that, ultimately, a decision I made was wrong. Eventually things like theft and riots, all social diseases, will be cured. But until that time we need temporary solutions like recreation domes. To continue on the organism-metaphor; if the superorganism catches a cold we won't amputate it's head."
"Then there is the rioter. The lithmus-paper of our society. Back in '27, I discovered that most major riots were in fact caused by probe activity. Naturally, no amount of rec-domes will help that. So what's left? The surgeon's knife and the butcher's axe. I made that blasted declaration ,number two-nine-nine-seven, had many executed and nerve-stapled the rest. But they were rioting because they were selfish, or paid to. Not because they were starving, like these rioters today."
"These rioters were doing the right thing, minister, and for that you kill them? It is my short-sightedness that is the main cause of this food-shortage, and so it is my fault that these people are starving. This rioting is society's rumbling belly! To put it in another way, it's a sign that this society is still alive and that there is hope it will eventually become the harmonious and balanced utopia I have dreamed about."
He looks away from the now sobbing minister.
"Of course, it is also my fault that you selfishly tried to please me by performing my own errands badly. That is, I think, also a sign of my own bad judgement. Therefore, I am ashamed."
He hangs his head.
"I will not have you executed for your foolishness; it was my own fault for making you my minister of security. But you will be that no longer. As your final act, scrap declaration 2-9-9-7. Then you will report to the ministry of agriculture, where you will learn how to deal with a hungry population. Know that if there is ever another food-riot while you are working there, I will make emergency rations out of you!"
The ex-minister scrambles up from the floor and flees out of the room. Yang walks slowly back to his chair, and swivels once again to the wall of monitors.
"Show me Nutrition-Center 4. Outside cameras."
The images change, and Yang is shown rows upon rows of body-bags, being tended to by a swarm of guards and policemen. He covers his eyes.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
President Jakjon
|
|
Metro Area of NYC, New York, United States
Jan 2000
time: 05:13
|
|
Two great stories are on this thread, thanks to you. Though the final sentence disagrees with my conception of Yang, everything else is agreeable. You seem to have remembered that Yang is 100% CHICOM. He follows Mao thought.
Therefore, we must apply the history of Red China under Mao to our understanding of Yang. Indeed, the Red Chinese were not, and still are not, into executions. Instead, they used "self-criticism." It amounted to public brainwashing. Someone accused of "Incorrect Thought" would be put before those who knew him. They would then criticize the facets of the individual's behavior that were not concurrent with Chinese Communist ideology. The individual would then agree with the criticism, and add more details and points to it. Then, he would be accepted back into society. Reportedly, it was rather effective.
Therefore, your portrayal of Yang as willing to admit his own faults is perfect.
However, with our new understanding of Yang, we must also remember that many elements of our previous concept of the dictator are still correct. Yang is not a brute, but he is quite capable of brutality when he believes that it is the most effective method of solving a problem. The story where he quite literally brainwashes the Peacekeeper Talent is equally accurate as the one above.
------------------
--President Jakjon
--Datalinks
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Captain Kirk
|
|
Red Chinas is also responsible for the Tianamen Massacre. Correct me if I'm wrong but did they than admit their own fault. That it was them that caused the demonstraters to demonstrate. No! At least not to my knowledge.
------------------
Damnit, Jim I'm a doctor not an animal psychologist
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hydro
|
|
Winfield, IL, USA
Jun 1999
time: 05:13
|
|
Raging Mouse,
You should post your story under its own thread, with a suitable title! Your Yang seems compassionate, in his own way, and protective of his 'organism'. The superorganism idea is a good one, but look further into it: in such an organism the cells (humans) are individually totally irrelevant. Thousands or millions die and are born every day. The health of such an organism is dependent on reducing or eliminating the cancer (deviants or those with 'incorrect through') and maximizing correct reproduction along planned lines (otherwise growth is akin to cancer). Very interesting!
My vision of Yang's personality is a little different, though. I view him as a controlled and soft-spoken man of very few words. When he does speak he uses this, and the piercing clarity of his thoughts and words, to impress the minds of others. In the original story by Firaxis Yang had the ability to seemingly hypnotize or beguile those around him, particularly if they were weak of mind. The solder Santiago had guard Yang when he was captured from his cryochamber was told not to talk to him, and for good reason. She paid the price. So, I don't see Yang give speeches, even to educate an errant Minister, although I agree that he wouldn't waste such a resource via execution unless necessary for the body of the Hive.
The other story that President Jakjon refers to is The Interview, which presents a different side to Yang that is entirely in keeping with this thoughtful Yang. The cruelty that many of us would attribute to the Hive is simply his efforts to excise the cancerous elements that would disrupt or destroy the body of his society. Viewed from the totality of the whole his actions are completely justified, even if they are horrific to the affected individual or portion of society.
Edgecrusher - I hadn't thought of that angle, that Yang might mourn Deirdre's fall because then he is responsible for upsetting the balance on Planet! You are correct that taking this element of his philosophy to an extreme would make Yang a hypocrite. That would be an interesting reason for his uncharacteristic outburst (well - it was an outburst for Yang, at least).
Hydro
|
|
| |
|
|
|
President Jakjon
|
|
Metro Area of NYC, New York, United States
Jan 2000
time: 05:13
|
|
I was referring to Maoist Red China, a period which ended with his death in 1976. Modern Red China, under Deng Xiaoping, is a bizarre mixture between Communism and Capitalism. If this was to be extrapolated to social engineering settings, they would be: Police State-Free Market-Wealth-(Mind Control?
Yang is a throwback to the time before now-otherwise he would look more like Morgan. Tianamen Square would never have happened under Yang. The control runs too deep for anti-establishment protestors to get that organized. Even if it did, the Hive wouldn't let foreign media into the country.
Something worth remembering- if the press hadn't happened to have been there for a trade conference (I think...) there would have been none of this multimedia horror show that we got. And no one would care.
It's scary... the media has such amazing power. Who controls it? Corporations. And the corporations are controlled by the rich. The rich control what we see.
But enough of this paranoid rambling... I can't imagine Yang actually mourning. He set out to eliminate the Gaians, and he achieved that goal. He would mourn if the Hive failed. But not if it succeeded.
------------------
--President Jakjon
--Datalinks
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Alinestra Covelia
|
 |
I sense the dodgy presence of Bing - a presence I've not felt since...
Feb 2000
time: 00:13
|
|
Sorry - I thought something up there needed to be addressed.
There is a lot that has been said about the Tiananmen Massacre, and a lot of footage and debate to imply that there is some great moral lesson to be learned about the actions of the Chinese government. The incident, the headlines would have you believe, showed the true fallibility of the communist rule and how right and proper the democratic way of doing things is.
However, I believe there is also a neglected flip side of the coin. Namely, that which the average Chinese person himself (or herself) may feel of the situation and events there. It is perhaps notable that the country as a whole has continued to prosper over the decade that followed, and far from a sudden miraculous conversion to democratic rule, the present government seems well-placed and well-settled.
Firstly, the students who chose to demonstrate did so at a politically volatile time. 1989 was the summer of Mikhail Gorbachev's visit to Beijing, and staging a demonstration at that time was bound to incite some reaction from the government. Whilst this may be acceptable and even tactical in a country where the government is expected to passively stand by and wait, this evidently was not the case in China.
Secondly, the students were not entirely as blameless and honorable in their actions as the western press would like to make them out to be. During the demonstration, acts of extreme insubordination and direct insults to the Chinese government were given by the students, and not all of it was necessary or even overly pithy. Inkwells were thrown at the portrait of Mao - and when Li Peng agreed to meet with a prominent protester, the student met up with the diplomat dressed in his pyjamas in an act orchestrated to insult the official. Whilst these may seem to be minor acts of disregard and disrespect to western eyes, to the Chinese government it may have understandably seemed a mere slap in the face from the students - an action that was carried out with maximum insult and a minimum of tact.
It is important to bear in mind that the present government is the latest line of governments that are based on authoritarian rule: as I have mentioned in a different thread on this forum, China has never known democratic rule, and therefore the perceptions of the role of the government is vastly different from what the West may hold as fundamental truths.
So, on this occasion, the government felt it had failed in its diplomatic attempts, and for whatever reason, sent out troops to answer in force. This dispersed the demonstration, as the government had intended. It showed the force the government was prepared to use, as has always been held to be the case. Admittedly, it did transgress what the westerners viewed as being acceptable acts by a democratic government, but of course the government in question was and is neither western, nor democratic!
Similar (and justified, evidently) actions have been taken in America, I believe, with groups of religious cults or fanatics being dispersed by federal or even army force. In these cases as with Tiananmen, the government stood a show of force against the smaller body of troublemakers. The bare facts are the same: it is only the handling of these facts that alters the opinions of people.
This is my main point about world opinions: the major language of the world is English. The major player in politics are the West. The major player in the West is America. The American viewpoint tends to enjoy a wider dissemination and distribution than any other in the world. And, in this case, the American viewpoint was firmly against the Chinese actions.
Look at the facts: some three hundred students were forcibly ejected and dispersed for demonstrating against an authoritarian government, a government that does not overtly emphasize the right to freedom of speech nor the supremacy of the individual over the state. Whilst you could go with the emotional humanistic view that "oh three hundred people were martyred for saying what they think...isn't it a tragedy", perhaps there is another view emerging (one to which many Chinese subscribe) and that is the somewhat more practical "they chose a bad time, they chose an unimpressed government, they chose a plainly offensive method...it's not a pretty sight, but how else could you have expected it to turn out?".
Consider the aftermath.
After the demonstration had been quelled, the government resumed its usual role and life within Beijing and the country carried on more or less as usual. In the period immediately following, foreign reporters and newscasters were refused entry as the government was reluctant to allow the event to be further televised.
This has been attacked by the Western press.
However, given the Chinese sentiments that the broadcast of the events were a) incomplete, b) sensationalistic, and c) purposefully done in a fashion to make an embarrassing situation seem downright villainous and politically satanic, who could fault them for the response?
The fact is, that a regrettable incident occurred at Tiananmen. During this incident, two to three hundred people were injured. After the incident, peace and order were restored in the country in which it occurred - life resumed again.
However, I argue that the Western press actively chose to take an unflattering viewpoint on this event. Understandably so, perhaps, because China and the USSR were the two last remaining "ugly Commie" countries on the world stage. I argue that the press chose to focus on the sides of the argument that, although true, supported only their viewpoint, and decided to ignore all the other factors that, no less true, may have brought the view into question. Two to three hundred people dead or injured is unstomachable to the west, but compared to the countless numbers of Chinese that the government must feed, clothe, and house from day to day, the actual number concerned is almost immaterial. Don't forget that China has roughly the same land area and resources as continental USA... but using this it must provide for roughly six times the population. In a country where life (and death) is to be had in such somtimes-unmanageable profusion, it is foolish to assume that the mindset will be at once compatible with the American ideals of Free Will. China, unlike America, never pressed for individualism or "freedom" with such religious fervor: the present party is accepted as an authoritarian and hopefully-egalitarian rule, but there is no need to disguise the fact that it is a rule.
I believe that the most insidious matter in this case is not so much the injury and deaths of two or three hundred people a decade ago in some faraway city square. I believe a major topic for concern or at least deep thought is what the Western press has achieved over the past few decades:
Its assertion to its own citizens that all viewpoints apart from its own are to some extent biased, even manipulated. This I find to be the ultimate form of hypocrisy, when the entire question of viewpoints is so personal a matter, that these publications (serving media moguls who must possess their own opinions on affairs, whether pro or anti, eastern or western) see fit to accuse others of propaganda and spindoctoring, whilst totally oblivious to their own influences and sways.
Next time before you point an accusing finger at another viewpoint, with unquestioning certainty, look at what your newspapers and newsreaders are telling you. Think to yourself - "Is there any reason here that I might not be getting the full picture? Might the network be trying to increase ratings/deliver a patriotic view/show a satirical opinion/mindcontrol the oppressed human scum masses of slaves?" If you can do that, even if you then decide that "yes, you can trust the information given to you by the source", at least you'll have put some thought into it, and tested its worth. This may be more than the journalists or newsreaders themselves can honestly claim.
PS This same judgement goes for my own viewpoint as well. I do not pretend to any higher claim of knowledge or authority than anyone else, and I apologize in advance to those who may take offence at what I have to say.
------------------
"In all creation, there can be no task more onerous or tedious than that of playing God." - Stephen Fry, 'The Liar'.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bearcat
|
|
Oregonia
Dec 1999
time: 05:13
|
|
Would anyone mind if I incorporated parts of the stories or ideas into SMACX Story ?
P.S. - Anyone is willing to help me out and write if they want to.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
President Jakjon
|
|
Metro Area of NYC, New York, United States
Jan 2000
time: 05:13
|
|
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
|
|
I sense the dodgy presence of Bing - a presence I've not felt since...
Feb 2000
time: 00:13
|
|
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
|
|
Metro Area of NYC, New York, United States
Jan 2000
time: 05:13
|
|
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
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:13.
Apolyton Time is 00:13. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
15-01-2000 08:59
|