Comments on: Internet attitudes in China http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2006/12/01/internet-attitudes-in-china/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=internet-attitudes-in-china USC professor and author of The Wikipedia Revolution Mon, 30 Jan 2012 17:18:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Keith http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2006/12/01/internet-attitudes-in-china/comment-page-1/#comment-6435 Keith Sun, 10 Dec 2006 15:20:22 +0000 http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2006/12/01/internet-attitudes-in-china/#comment-6435 Dan. I Think one of the main points being made is that sure in the U.S. you *can* discuss all these things, but most of us still *dont* discuss these things. Dan. I Think one of the main points being made is that sure in the U.S. you *can* discuss all these things, but most of us still *dont* discuss these things.

]]> By: Andjam http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2006/12/01/internet-attitudes-in-china/comment-page-1/#comment-6240 Andjam Fri, 08 Dec 2006 12:42:41 +0000 http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2006/12/01/internet-attitudes-in-china/#comment-6240 Assigning 3T1F as a "mote" compared to the three examples you chose is a bit obtuse. (There are more shameful moments compared to the ones chosen in this blog post, but presumably they weren't chosen because they've been more widely discussed) Assigning 3T1F as a “mote” compared to the three examples you chose is a bit obtuse.

(There are more shameful moments compared to the ones chosen in this blog post, but presumably they weren’t chosen because they’ve been more widely discussed)

]]> By: Dan http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2006/12/01/internet-attitudes-in-china/comment-page-1/#comment-5961 Dan Wed, 06 Dec 2006 00:03:41 +0000 http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2006/12/01/internet-attitudes-in-china/#comment-5961 Sure, the US has quite a few things to be ashamed of too. However, unlike in China, if we want to discuss such things, as people are doing on this page, we can do so without fear of being suppressed by the government. Sure, the US has quite a few things to be ashamed of too. However, unlike in China, if we want to discuss such things, as people are doing on this page, we can do so without fear of being suppressed by the government.

]]> By: davesgonechina http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2006/12/01/internet-attitudes-in-china/comment-page-1/#comment-5897 davesgonechina Tue, 05 Dec 2006 04:47:24 +0000 http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2006/12/01/internet-attitudes-in-china/#comment-5897 According to the joint resolution enacted by Congress and signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1993: "Whereas, from 1826 until 1893, the United States recognized the independence of the Kingdom of Hawaii, extended full and complete diplomatic recognition to the Hawaiian Government, and entered into treaties and conventions with the Hawaiian monarchs to govern commerce and navigation in 1826, 1842, 1849, 1875, and 1887; Whereas the Congregational Church (now known as the United Church of Christ), through its American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, sponsored and sent more than 100 missionaries to the Kingdom of Hawaii between 1820 and 1850; Whereas, on January 14, 1893, John L. Stevens (hereafter referred to in this Resolution as the `United States Minister'), the United States Minister assigned to the sovereign and independent Kingdom of Hawaii conspired with a small group of non-Hawaiian residents of the Kingdom of Hawaii, including citizens of the United States, to overthrow the indigenous and lawful Government of Hawaii; Whereas, in pursuance of the conspiracy to overthrow the Government of Hawaii, the United States Minister and the naval representatives of the United States caused armed naval forces of the United States to invade the sovereign Hawaiian nation on January 16, 1893, and to position themselves near the Hawaiian Government buildings and the Iolani Palace to intimidate Queen Liliuokalani and her Government; Whereas, on the afternoon of January 17, 1893, a Committee of Safety that represented the American and European sugar planters, descendents of missionaries, and financiers deposed the Hawaiian monarchy and proclaimed the establishment of a Provisional Government; Whereas the United States Minister thereupon extended diplomatic recognition to the Provisional Government that was formed by the conspirators without the consent of the Native Hawaiian people or the lawful Government of Hawaii and in violation of treaties between the two nations and of international law" http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c103:4:./temp/~c103RMnHi8:: Even if there was no international law, it was a violation of United States law and existing treaties between two mutually recognized nations. To get back to Andrew's point, how many Americans google to find this out? Sure, the Chinese government actively tries to stop people from learning such things. Obviously they don't get it: the American experience shows you can give people all the freedom to learn such things that they want - most won't do it because it hurts their sense of exceptionalism and national pride. After all, how many do the extra googling to find out that the conspirators behind the coup were the <a href="http://www.answers.com/topic/sanford-b-dole" rel="nofollow">guys who sell you pineapples</a>? I was just reading about how the U.S. exported <a href="http://abuaardvark.typepad.com/qahwa_sada/book_club/index.html" rel="nofollow">Jim Crow racism to Saudi Arabia</a> too. But let's face it, that mote in your own eye is just too damn big sometimes, ain't it? According to the joint resolution enacted by Congress and signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1993:

“Whereas, from 1826 until 1893, the United States recognized the independence of the Kingdom of Hawaii, extended full and complete diplomatic recognition to the Hawaiian Government, and entered into treaties and conventions with the Hawaiian monarchs to govern commerce and navigation in 1826, 1842, 1849, 1875, and 1887;

Whereas the Congregational Church (now known as the United Church of Christ), through its American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, sponsored and sent more than 100 missionaries to the Kingdom of Hawaii between 1820 and 1850;

Whereas, on January 14, 1893, John L. Stevens (hereafter referred to in this Resolution as the `United States Minister’), the United States Minister assigned to the sovereign and independent Kingdom of Hawaii conspired with a small group of non-Hawaiian residents of the Kingdom of Hawaii, including citizens of the United States, to overthrow the indigenous and lawful Government of Hawaii;

Whereas, in pursuance of the conspiracy to overthrow the Government of Hawaii, the United States Minister and the naval representatives of the United States caused armed naval forces of the United States to invade the sovereign Hawaiian nation on January 16, 1893, and to position themselves near the Hawaiian Government buildings and the Iolani Palace to intimidate Queen Liliuokalani and her Government;

Whereas, on the afternoon of January 17, 1893, a Committee of Safety that represented the American and European sugar planters, descendents of missionaries, and financiers deposed the Hawaiian monarchy and proclaimed the establishment of a Provisional Government;

Whereas the United States Minister thereupon extended diplomatic recognition to the Provisional Government that was formed by the conspirators without the consent of the Native Hawaiian people or the lawful Government of Hawaii and in violation of treaties between the two nations and of international law”

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c103:4:./temp/~c103RMnHi8::

Even if there was no international law, it was a violation of United States law and existing treaties between two mutually recognized nations.

To get back to Andrew’s point, how many Americans google to find this out? Sure, the Chinese government actively tries to stop people from learning such things. Obviously they don’t get it: the American experience shows you can give people all the freedom to learn such things that they want – most won’t do it because it hurts their sense of exceptionalism and national pride.

After all, how many do the extra googling to find out that the conspirators behind the coup were the guys who sell you pineapples?

I was just reading about how the U.S. exported Jim Crow racism to Saudi Arabia too. But let’s face it, that mote in your own eye is just too damn big sometimes, ain’t it?

]]> By: …My heart’s in Accra » Censorship of citizen media… or lack of interest? http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2006/12/01/internet-attitudes-in-china/comment-page-1/#comment-5853 …My heart’s in Accra » Censorship of citizen media… or lack of interest? Mon, 04 Dec 2006 19:11:15 +0000 http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2006/12/01/internet-attitudes-in-china/#comment-5853 [...] Andrew Lih’s response to Condi’s article is at least as useful. While Lih is a staunch supporter of online speech - he’s a prominent Wikipedian, and one of the key sources of information around blockage of Wikipedia in China - he takes to task individuals and NGOs in the west who approach Chinese net filtering with “jingoistic and simplistic” moral righteousness, pointing out that American internet users are hardly flocking to websites that detail the darker corners of our own national history. (Lih recommends a refresher course in American history re: Hawaii, the Northern Mariana Islands and Iran…) [...] [...] Andrew Lih’s response to Condi’s article is at least as useful. While Lih is a staunch supporter of online speech – he’s a prominent Wikipedian, and one of the key sources of information around blockage of Wikipedia in China – he takes to task individuals and NGOs in the west who approach Chinese net filtering with “jingoistic and simplistic” moral righteousness, pointing out that American internet users are hardly flocking to websites that detail the darker corners of our own national history. (Lih recommends a refresher course in American history re: Hawaii, the Northern Mariana Islands and Iran…) [...]

]]> By: passerby http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2006/12/01/internet-attitudes-in-china/comment-page-1/#comment-5716 passerby Sat, 02 Dec 2006 23:02:57 +0000 http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2006/12/01/internet-attitudes-in-china/#comment-5716 To Px Your points are valid, but you seem to misinterpret the writer's intention. Although he criticizes the West for their criticism of China, his intentions do not seem to be outright rebellion of Western Civilization. I am sure he is very pro-freedom, etc, etc, he is a writer after all. He is just saying that, "before you go pointing the blame at someone else for their problems, try looking at yourself first", and this is his concensus of the general attitude of the Chinese net users - that's all, and I am personally glad the US annexed Hawaii. To Px
Your points are valid, but you seem to misinterpret the writer’s intention. Although he criticizes the West for their criticism of China, his intentions do not seem to be outright rebellion of Western Civilization. I am sure he is very pro-freedom, etc, etc, he is a writer after all. He is just saying that, “before you go pointing the blame at someone else for their problems, try looking at yourself first”, and this is his concensus of the general attitude of the Chinese net users – that’s all, and I am personally glad the US annexed Hawaii.

]]> By: px http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2006/12/01/internet-attitudes-in-china/comment-page-1/#comment-5659 px Sat, 02 Dec 2006 06:19:32 +0000 http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2006/12/01/internet-attitudes-in-china/#comment-5659 <em>Consider this: American web surfers have a completely unfiltered Internet, but they’re mainly using email, Youtube, Myspace, sports, entertainment and news sites. Being free of technical censorship, however, does not necessarily make for an informed populace. Americans are oblivious to similar historical ulcers, like the illegal annexation of Hawaii and overthrow of the monarchy by rich American businessmen backed by the US military.</em> This is just obtuse. The US annexed Hawaii in 1898, before there was any international law prohibiting such. So it is beyond me how anyone could claim that is was illegal. International law is NOT ex post facto, and when there is no law prohibiting an action, it is not illegal. Sorry that China had to wait for plug-and-play technology to modernize, but that's really it's own problem. China exists in a system that is the West's creation. Deal with it. As for the Chinese cleptocracy, I think your forgetting Xinjiang and dozens of other dubious and racist territorial claims throughout Asia. Take Korguryo or Arunachal Pradesh for example. And if you want to attack America's flaws and territorial conflicts then go head. In China if you want to do so (on the wrong side of the issue, of course), they will have your head. The truth is, that as a Chinese you have very limited rights and poor legal system. You can be imprisoned for simply saying the wrong thing to the wrong person at the wrong time. Consider this: American web surfers have a completely unfiltered Internet, but they’re mainly using email, Youtube, Myspace, sports, entertainment and news sites. Being free of technical censorship, however, does not necessarily make for an informed populace.
Americans are oblivious to similar historical ulcers, like the illegal annexation of Hawaii and overthrow of the monarchy by rich American businessmen backed by the US military.

This is just obtuse. The US annexed Hawaii in 1898, before there was any international law prohibiting such. So it is beyond me how anyone could claim that is was illegal. International law is NOT ex post facto, and when there is no law prohibiting an action, it is not illegal. Sorry that China had to wait for plug-and-play technology to modernize, but that’s really it’s own problem. China exists in a system that is the West’s creation. Deal with it.

As for the Chinese cleptocracy, I think your forgetting Xinjiang and dozens of other dubious and racist territorial claims throughout Asia. Take Korguryo or Arunachal Pradesh for example. And if you want to attack America’s flaws and territorial conflicts then go head. In China if you want to do so (on the wrong side of the issue, of course), they will have your head.

The truth is, that as a Chinese you have very limited rights and poor legal system. You can be imprisoned for simply saying the wrong thing to the wrong person at the wrong time.

]]>