China censors to pull Avatar from screens

[klonk]

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article6992685.ece

From Times Online
January 18, 2010

The state-run China Film Group has instructed cinemas nationwide to stop showing the ordinary version of Avatar from January 23

Jane Macartney in Beijing

China plans to pull Avatar from most cinemas, despite the long queues for tickets, to make way for a more patriotic film the censors deem more appropriate – a life of Confucius.

The move comes amid government anxiety that many Chinese are making a link between the plight of the film's Na’vi, who face being displaced from their homeland, and that of those in China who are subject to often brutal evictions by property developers.

Hong Kong’s Apple Daily said the state-run China Film Group had instructed cinemas nationwide to stop showing the ordinary version of Avatar from January 23 on orders from Beijing’s propaganda czars.

The newspaper said: “Reportedly, the authorities have two reasons for this check on Avatar: first, it has taken in too much money and has seized market share from domestic films, and second, it may lead audiences to think about forced removal, and may possibly incite violence.”

China’s favourite blogger, 20-something writer and race-car driver Han Han, was among those who quickly caught onto the resemblance of the plot to real life in China. He wrote: “For audiences in other countries, such brutal eviction is something outside their imagining. It could only take place on another planet or in China.” [...]

[Michael]

Same thing happened with DaVinci code, but it took a little longer. Considering the existence of bootleg DVDs, the Internet downloads, etc., if they're actually worried about the political ramifications of this milquetoast movie, they have serious problems.

[Darth Rock&Roll]

It is sad that the mentality of Chinas leadership is still living in a 19th century fantasy world. lol

It's nice to see such stupendous idiocy coming from any country though.

I wonder how long before China sees another "glorious" revolution.

[Kato]

Tenant eviction by developers. That’s funny. I’m surprised they aren’t afraid of drawing some other sort of correlation with the film.


China faces charges of colonialism in Africa - Asia - Pacific - International Herald Tribune

BEIJING — Twice in the past three years, President Hu Jintao of China has been greeted warmly in Africa as the leader of a growing economic and political power. But on his new trip, Hu faces bumpier going, with skepticism growing about China's role in Africa.

The itinerary for the eight-nation, 12- day tour to begin Tuesday demonstrates both the scope and the pitfalls of Chinese influence. Included are stalwart allies like South Africa and Zambia, although both are places where protests and criticisms about Chinese motives have arisen recently, and new friends like Liberia, where China is hunting for oil and supplying peacekeepers.

And no stop illustrates the challenges as starkly as Sudan. In recent weeks, Hu has come under pressure from the United States and Ban Ki Moon, the new secretary general of the United Nations, to use Chinese leverage as a major consumer of Sudanese oil to get Khartoum to resolve the crisis in the Darfur region, where civil strife has killed more than 200,000 people and displaced 2.5 million people, according to UN estimates.

Beijing has raised expectations that it is heeding the message, calling on Sudan to cooperate with the United Nations to find a solution.

Chinese leaders are "going to have to make a decision about this," said Lawrence Rossin, a coordinator of the Save Darfur Coalition, based in the United States. He said that China should be able to see whether its quiet diplomacy was working or if its policy was being foiled by President Omar al- Bashir of Sudan. "And I don't think a country like China should take 'no' for an answer," he said.

The expectations raised around Hu's trip further punctuate China's arrival as a force in Africa, rivaling the European colonial powers that once held sway.

Trade between China and Africa has soared fourfold this decade, to $40 billion in 2005. Beijing has become a major supplier of aid, last year announcing $10 billion in assistance from 2006 to 2009.

Hu's trip — which also includes visits to Cameroon, Namibia, Mozambique and Seychelles — will focus on further strengthening trade and following through on the promises of aid, including debt relief and poverty alleviation measures.

His itinerary is a "mixed bag of countries, small, medium and large," seemingly designed to de-emphasize China's thirst for oil and play up its wider interests, said Sanusha Naidu, a researcher in Chinese studies at South Africa's University of Stellenbosch.

Yet Chinese support does come with conditions, including a ban on formal ties with rival Taiwan and expectations that recipients vote with China at the United Nations. This month, South Africa joined Beijing in voting against a resolution to censure Myanmar for human rights abuses, arousing criticism that South Africa had forgotten the United Nation's role in abolishing apartheid.

In South Africa, where trade unions have complained that Chinese textile imports have been devastating domestic industry, President Thabo Mbeki pointedly told a student audience last month that Africa needed to guard against allowing relations with China to develop into a "colonial relationship."

[Darth Rock&Roll]

China gonna buy yo ass! yo. fo real.

[AllanF]

There can be no question of China economic colonialism, will imperial colonialism follow? Time will tell.
Re the movie, just shows how afraid the politburo is of it own people! And i had better rush out to watch it this weekend or i'll miss the chance.

[Craig]

People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.

[chimerical tortoise]

AllanF: No question of Chinese economic imperialism? China's policy in FDI is far more effective in combating poverty and underdevelopment all over Africa than U2 and all the aid it raises, which in fact often stifles local economic development. In her book, Dead Aid, Dambisa Moyo devotes an entire chapter to discussing China's current situation there. Excerpts include:

"...many Africans scoff at the notion that Westerners should be outraged by Chinese implicit support for Africa's corrupt and rogue leaders. It is, after all, under the auspices of Western aid, goodwill and transparency that Africa's most notorious plunderers and despots have risen and thrived - Zaire's president Mobutu, Uganda's president Idi Amin and the CAR's 'Emperor' Bokassa, to name three."

"Noone can deny that China is at least in Africa for the oil, the gold, the copper and whatever else lies in the ground. But to say that the average African is not benefiting at all is a falsehood."

It's sad how some people seem to have their heads stuck in the 19th century and London's Crystal Palace. China itself is the product of economic imperialism to satisfy, among others, the North Atlantic bloc. A blind eye is turned to existing patterns of economic imperialism (i.e. Suharto's Indonesia and logging/agriculture by MNC's, Guatemala's cash crops) that are perpetuated by the North Atlantic. Meanwhile, any significant economic movement outside of this is considered "imperialism" as if the world is expected to learn from North Atlantic historical mistakes. Considering that the North Atlantic hasn't exactly learned from itself yet, methinks the pot is calling the kettle black.

[meeks]

I think they pulled it because it represents rising up to fight the oppressors.

there - I pointed out the elephant in the room everyone was ignoring...

[AllanF]

AllanF: No question of Chinese economic imperialism? China's policy in FDI is far more effective in combating poverty and underdevelopment all over Africa than U2 and all the aid it raises, which in fact often stifles local economic development. In her book, Dead Aid, Dambisa Moyo devotes an entire chapter to discussing China's current situation there. Excerpts include:

"...many Africans scoff at the notion that Westerners should be outraged by Chinese implicit support for Africa's corrupt and rogue leaders. It is, after all, under the auspices of Western aid, goodwill and transparency that Africa's most notorious plunderers and despots have risen and thrived - Zaire's president Mobutu, Uganda's president Idi Amin and the CAR's 'Emperor' Bokassa, to name three."

"Noone can deny that China is at least in Africa for the oil, the gold, the copper and whatever else lies in the ground. But to say that the average African is not benefiting at all is a falsehood."

It's sad how some people seem to have their heads stuck in the 19th century and London's Crystal Palace. China itself is the product of economic imperialism to satisfy, among others, the North Atlantic bloc. A blind eye is turned to existing patterns of economic imperialism (i.e. Suharto's Indonesia and logging/agriculture by MNC's, Guatemala's cash crops) that are perpetuated by the North Atlantic. Meanwhile, any significant economic movement outside of this is considered "imperialism" as if the world is expected to learn from North Atlantic historical mistakes. Considering that the North Atlantic hasn't exactly learned from itself yet, methinks the pot is calling the kettle black.

Re-read what i typed i did not say economic imperialism as you state but colonialism...not the same thing! Furthermore i differentiated between economic and imperial colonialism.
Yes African nations are benefiting...in the short term. Did i deny that the western nations failed African?...er...no!

Incidentally do you think i am wrong? You seem to resort to pot/kettle argument without addressing the point i posed!!!!!
Many people from African are expressing concern that although China is building infrastructure etc they are not passing the skills on to the host nation and indeed instead of hiring local labour are bringing there own workforce with them...not just in Africa but pretty much anywhere they go. Not only that but they are flooding the market with cheap but low quality product with a very short shelf life. Not my opinion but those of many African people.
Is it better to give a man a fish so he can eat for a day or teach a man to fish so he can eat for a lifetime?

Will there come a time when China thinks that it needs to protect the security of its people and its interests by sending troops? This is the point!!!! This is when economic colonialism become imperial!!!!

Just to reiterate before you go putting words in my mouth at NO TIME did i say the west was doing/has done a fantastic job in Africa but just pointing out the obvious. Hardly got my head stuck in Crystal Palace quite to the contrary i am able to see warts and all.

[Darth Rock&Roll]

I think governments have a hard time fearing a horde of 65% obese apathetic tv addicts who also hang out on the internet and masturbate a lot.

Not much to fear there when most of the population is asleep.

[chimerical tortoise]

AllanF,

Sorry, came across as a bit of a big asshole there, and I did misread economic colonialism as imperialism. What's more, I think that I confused your opinion with Kato's posted news article. Hence the dragging in of other stuff.

imho your opinion on the politburo's fear of its people is an opinion, no more no less. I don't agree with it entirely at all. But I've met plenty of (mainly) Americans with even more radical opinions while I was living in China, i.e. sitting next to a middle-aged UC professor in an otherwise normal airport who kept looking around and saying to his wife, "look at the people around us, they're all so afraid and it's so evident" which was not so evident to me, sitting right next to him. I could say that it's the politburo's purpose to keep public harmony and while that probably sounds more big brotherly, it's an opinion as well.


[quote=AllanF]
Not only that but they are flooding the market with cheap but low quality product with a very short shelf life. Not my opinion but those of many African people.[/quote]

Sub-Saharan Africa being one of the foci in my coursework (and having spent time there too), with the caveat that everywhere is quite different, everyone that I met/asked did not have the perspective you highlighted. So I think it is fair to say that this is your opinion.

There are others that are also unhappy about the part about importing labour (myself included), but still concede that the overall impact of Chinese investment across Africa is greatly more beneficial than the unilateral aid model, and the neoliberal economic model popularised by Europe/North America that utterly destroyed many existing governmental infrastructures.

Afaik, China already has naval units in the Gulf of Aden, they've been on duty for a few months now. To my knowledge there are a great many countries' navies there and not all of these countries are economic empires, or hold economic colonies. I'd like to hear your opinion here, does this count as economic imperialism?

Darth:
Asleep? That's the defining attribute of my age-group! The Olympics are almost here but it seems unlikely that we'll make much of a ruckus...

[Steve James]

Who stop or could stop China from invading an African country? But, which one? Anyway, to me, colonialism means the setting up of colonies. The situation in Tibet could be considered colonialism more accurately, and imperialism. Afa economic imperialism goes, that imo is a function of the overall global economic situation. It goes along with capitalism, as much as nationalism. I do think it's a good question whether China's efforts in Africa will be more beneficial for China or for Africa. I don't know. I think the immediate question is whether it is good for the particular African country involved at this time. It's like aid to Haiti. It has more NGOs than anyplace in the world, yet it was still the poorest in the hemisphere.

[bailewen]

IMO, Africa is vastly better of with the Chinese than with us Americans. China has historically simply not ever been an imperialist country. It's just not in their blood even to the point where it fucked them up in the later Qing dynasty. Apart from govt. corruption in general, one reason why the Qing got so weak was that their navy was an actual expense rather than an income stream. Rather than heading out to other territories to mine the local resources and bring them back, they generally used their Navy to spread their reputation as a "Great Nation" of wealth and power. Inland it was even worse. A typical way of dealing with border disputes was to buy off their enemies. A mongolian nation might be given massive quantities of gold, silver and silks in exchange for their recognition of the Chinese emperor as head regent of the region. Then China would pretty much leave them to do their own thing as long as they avoided raiding Han settlements.

The single largest problem facing China today is one of resources. It's a result of their population problem. They have done the math and see that they are FAR short of having enough natural gas, coal and so on to supply their own population over the next even 10 years or so. They also lack the military might, especially air force and navy, to wage any sort of long range war like the US does at the drop of a hat. That means they desperately need allies in the international arena. So they have been, for the past 20 years or so, at least for the last 10m been working extremely hard to develop soft power. On the international arena, China is better liked than America these days and for good reason.

Domestic human rights abuses is a completely different issue. I do not defend their domestic policy. I am just pointing out that however unreasonable their domestic policies are, internationally, they have been good citizens of the world. I also believe that the Nixon and then later even more so with Clinton, policy of economic engagement was the right one and will help them domestically as well because China's internal abuses tend to be inversely proportional to their degree of economic prosperity and inversely proportional to their sense of existential thread. Throughout Chinese history, the more successful and internationally powerful China has been, the more open and liberal their society has been. The more their borders have been threatened, the more they have tightened the thumbscrews on their own people.

p.s.
The local opinion on Avatar is that is was obviously pulled for no reason any more complicated than that it's box office sales were crushing "Confucious". It's not that Avatar had unfavorable political overtones. It's that "Confucious" and obvious propaganda piece, was not getting any screen time. The govt. just want's "Confucious" to get watched more.

[gosao]

I agree that China is not an imperialist country. It's not in their nature to impose their way of life to others. Chinese are a very insular people who just want to be left alone to do their thing. It will be very interesting however to see if their policies will change now that they have embraced the Western way of life and needs the energy required for sustained growth and development.

If you folks haven't seen this documentary before it's worth a watch.

China vs. the US: The Battle for Oil (7 parts)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HylCsiH-s88