China censors to pull Avatar from screens

[AllanF]

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.

Not a problem normally i would have let it slide without comment but was in a bad mood yesterday. Water under the bridge.

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.

I never stated it as anything other than an opinion and you're opinon that this is not the case is also exactly that, your opinion! Furhtermore to say "that it's the politburo's purpose to keep public harmony" is firstly simply spin on the same opinion. Indeed we can ask the question why would they be worried/concerned about loosing public harmony if they were in fact not afraid of the people? The example of the UC Prof saying the Chinese people are afraid, is redundant in this case as i was referring to the politburo not the people en mass.

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.

My "opinion" (not disagreeing with you but as this is the internet that is all anyone will give, yourself included )was based on comments made on various articles on the BBC website related to this very issue,eg. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8314534.stm.
As you can see there is a fair cross section of opinion from African nations and people. As ever nothing is simply black or white, mostly grey.

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.

You are merely reiterating things i have already said. What is more i never refuted this point, rather IMO it is a short term benefit. Again not saying the current western approach is good.

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?

You are quite right China and most developed countries have had a naval presence in the gulf of Aden. However this is not a unilateral move, it is part of an international policing policy. Where they are not stationed in one place but escorting ships to and from a danger zone. There lies the difference. That said China was/is sensitive to the fact that if they docked too soon it may well have been perseved as the first step towards Imperial colonialism. And therefore the ships were ordered to stay at sea for as long as was possible. They eventually docked (in which country escapes me right now) and were well received.

With such a large and growing presence in Africa it is clear that the leaders of China have these thoughts on their minds (whether they are trying to avoid the trap of imperialism or they have ambitions for it, is pure speculation at this time.) In my experience the average person in the street does see China as being the world power and i have had many people tell me that China will control the world. We can argue about what exactly they mean by that but if the desire is there in the street you can bet your bottom dollar it is there with the leaders.

However this is not addressing the query you put forth, firstly my point was in regard to colonialism, as Steve James has pointed out refers to making a colony. So what is a colony? Dictionary definition via dictionary.com: a group of people who leave their native country to form in a new land a settlement subject to, or connected with, the parent nation.
It is clear that with Chinese state owned companies employing a huge work force in Africa we can call this colonialism. These companies though officially ( i assume) subject to the rule of law in the host country, most definitely answer first and foremost to the parent.
Imperialism on the other hand is the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies. None of these countries involved in the naval policing of the Gulf of Aden are extending their own county's rule or authority over foreign countries. So we can not say this is imperialism.

Economically, the US is still the biggest drain (exporter) of African resources. People accuse the USA of continued imperialism, so what is the difference between what the USA has done/is doing and what China is doing now? Military presence? Definately, and this bring me back to the initial point. With sporadic reports of incidents against Chinese nationals in Africa/Veitnam etc. Will the governmant sit back and do nothing to secure its interests? At present yes as there is not need to take action, if one man falls there are 100 to take his place. Will it always be this way? As a point it is not, up to now, interested in getting involved with international affairs unless they directly effect China, will there be a point when they desire to have more control of their foreign interests? This is why i said time will tell.

Steve James has raised a pertinent point, "I think the immediate question is whether it is good for the particular African country involved at this time." Indeed we can expand on that, good in the short term or good in the long term? Which is more pressing or important? What is the pay off? Again is this any different to the USA...not in my opinion But why do we criticize the USA so much, then are asked to pipe down when the same criticism is leveled at China for the same reasons? seems a little hypocritical to be accused or hypocrisy when in fact the i have not denied that the USA/UK (we still have the Falkland Islands) have in the past and indeed now are doing the same thing.

[AllanF]

Just a quick add on to my post, Re China never being an imperialist power. The issue of Tibet the argument that Tibet was alway part of China since the Yuan dynasty is a fallacy as the Yuan dynasty was a Mongol invasion of China therefore by that logic India can claim Burma as both were invaded by the British. But that is irrelevant to this topic. IMO imperialism is driven by economics. As Omar has said there is a strain on resources in China, that was never there before. As it was never there before there was no need to invade. Things are changing in China now.

P.S. Re local opinion, my students said "What it's getting pulled? I'd better see it tonight!" They had no idea!
P.P.S. RE: the movie Avatar i got this from Danwei.org

http://www.danwei.org/film/sarft_respon ... _rumor.php

[chimerical tortoise]

Hi Allan,

When it comes to issues regarding China I don't tend to read the BBC. I find their (general) slant very much one of kneejerk fearmongering, i.e. James something's blog, that I'm all too familiar with here in North America. The comments are interesting, and as you say are fairly gray.

Regarding colonialism I have to disagree with your definition.

As Steve James said,

a group of people who leave their native country to form in a new land a settlement subject to, or connected with, the parent nation.

There's a big difference between colony, and colonialism:

1. the control or governing influence of a nation over a dependent country, territory, or people.
2. the system or policy by which a nation maintains or advocates such control or influence.

Respectfully... I think that to a large extent, time has told already. Europe (not as knowledgable about America here) has shat on Africa and has not stopped. Franz Fanon was quite right in his diatribe, and it's still just as relevant today. Following the colonial scramble for Africa came (post-WWII) the second scramble for Africa by NGO's even as state borders were drawn; politics around safari parks, for instance. Pre-colonial East Africa, as an example, was based on a cattle economy that got smashed up by the Brits (and the Germans maybe) through the introduction of high-mortality cattle disease such as Rinderpest. Prior to that, pastoralism was pushing megafauna to extinction, similar to what had happened in Europe and North America. Following the end of colonial governance, NGO's snatched up most of Kenya's arable land for conservation purposes. The hiring of PMC's to patrol these parks, as well as the execution of 'poachers' attempting to hunt on their ancestral territories, is usually pushed under the carpet. As is the mineral extraction involved as well.

If you look at Zambia or Tanzania, you see socialist countries that were dirt poor but had strong governments. In Tanzania for example, Julius Neyere is still known as mwalimu wa taifa (teacher of the country) for his efforts in unifing the various kabilas and promotion of Kiswahili language. Mr. Neyere, afaik, had a keen correspondence with Mao, and I was quite surprised to find that many Tanzanians had read Mao's works; far more than I would expect to find in any society in the West proclaiming freedom of information.

With the introduction of neoliberal economics (IMF and World Bank structural adjustment programs), while consumer goods were made available, poverty gap skyrocketed. Similarly, heavy damage has been done to healthcare and other basic infrastructure due to western 'aid' and investment. In one of his books, James Pfieffer describes the "velvet glove of privatisation" in Mozambique where incentives offered by NGO's destroy the public healthcare system, which cannot compete with foreign aid, yet medical NGO's do not seem to have a positive impact at all. Rather when you look at construction of permanent infrastructure like roads, railways, seaports - China is not the only nation doing FDI projects like these, but it certainly does the lion's share. These are far more advantageous and empowering to local economies than nebulous top-down distribution of investment money.

It's late and I don't want to broach on Tibet or China being the looming menace on the horizon. I really don't mean to sound like a huge asshole, but hopefully I've addressed some of your points without pissing you off. In my opinion both China and Africa are heavily misrepresented in the West, and on this count I find BBC to be no better than CNN at all. The amount of sheer Orientalism that I encounter when reading that site sometimes has me quite disconcerted. Did you know that China is 'ruled' by the Communist Party? Hell, I'd like to see them say that the US is 'ruled' by a Senate or a President.


PS. Do you think your students can't just buy Avatar on DVD? Or watch the whole thing on Youku?

[Steve James]

Well, I think you're pointing out that there are different forms of colonialism. In any form, however, it always involes the presence of a social or political or economic or military or religious element that controls the colonized. Colonialism also has a history going back to the ancient empires; but it changes with the European colonialization of the Americas, changing from the 15th to 16th to 18th to the scramble for Africa by the empires that emerged. Some would argue that neo-colonialism is worse; others would say it's the same thing in a new form. To me, exploitation is exploitation.

[Michael]

But if we don't exploit the savages, someone else will do so and become powerful enough to threaten us. Besides, we're doing the heathens a favor. Love that Heart of Darkness. In the end, it's always "exterminate the brutes", but leave enough to till the fields.

[AllanF]

Hi Chimerical Tortoise: (Don't worry about sounding like an asshole, i am not taking any of it that way, it is merely debate...though frankly you do have a brass neck disagreeing with ME! [joking of course])

First up perhaps i should have used the word colonization and not colonialism to make things clearer.
Would you disagree that this is in fact what is happening in Africa once again through China?

As Steve has so succinctly put it "exploitation is exploitation" (Sorry for quoting you so much in one thread Steve! )

I take what you state about European powers and their actions in Africa, but of course i never disputed that fact, quite to the contrary i acknowledged it from the off.
Regarding the BBC, all media has a slant and i do agree with your view of their news to the extent that i have moaned about them (especially James what'shisface, i actually prefer to read The Guardian it is more balanced as far as any media goes East or West) for some time but in any case it was not the article that i was referring to but the comments posted thereafter.

Regarding: "Do you think your students can't just buy Avatar on DVD? Or watch the whole thing on Youku?" I have lived here for nearly 5 years now, my wife is also Chinese (in fact the only family i have is Chinese) so i have a reasonable idea of what people can and can not watch and how quickly they can get it!

Ok got to dash, have classes.
Allan

[Steve James]

Maybe what we're rightfully worried about is imperialism. That is always more clearly identified as exploitative. You can tell when one nation (culture) enters another nation (culture) and the latter nation is forced (for various reasons) to adopt the politics, economics, religion, etc of the former nation. As Michael pointed out (sarcastically), the reason ... er, excuse, usually given is that it will improve the condition in that nation. If it were biology, we'd call it a parasitic relationship. King Leopold II of Belgium was a good example. First missionaries, then engineers for a railroad to the coast, then the need for workers, their refusal, and the order to cut the hands off the ones who refused. Then the Congo was put under Belgian "protection", and the inhabitants were required to pay taxes; and the only way to pay was to get jobs --working on the railroad.

I know the Chinese need Africa's resources. So do lots of countries. I don't know if I'm more worried about the Chinese, Europeans or Americans. They're all doing it, afaik, for their own benefit, except when there are human or natural disasters. but, the proof is in the pudding; and it's just a matter of taking an honest look at the results.