NEWS: Spielberg Says "Yes" to Oppression and Genocide

CULTURE: Spielberg Says "Yes" to Oppression and Genocide

When I worked, recently, as a docent at the Museum of Tolerance in Los Angeles, I always made a point of comparing Nazi Germany’s treatment of Jewish people (and other minorities throughout Europe) to China’s current (and historical) treatment of religious and spiritual groups, political activists, and of course, Tibetans. Religious rights and freedom of expression are just two issues on the long list of Chinese human rights abuses, and the heartbreaking Tibetan occupation and genocide that has been occurring for over four decades continues to haunt the world community.

Steven Spielberg, whose films include Schindler's List and Munich, and who, incidentally, created the Shoah Foundation, should know better than to support an authoritarian state like China, but support he does (however inadvertently). It was announced today that the globally revered director has joined the team that will design the 2008 Beijing Olympics.

The hypocrisy and irresponsibility in this action is blatant. We live in a world that still grapples with the Holocaust; indeed—a world in which Holocaust survivors remain (albeit in dwindling numbers) to share their testimonies. We have seen the kind of suffering that victims of the Holocaust endured repeated again and again in the sixty years since—in Cambodia, East Timor, Guatemala, Rwanda, and Sudan. You'd think we would have learned a long time ago from the global mistake of the Armenian Genocide, which kicked off the bloody 20th Century and set the world stage for what was to come. Instead, as evidenced by Spielberg's decision to creatively support Olympic games in a country that doesn't deserve to host them, we seem to have learned only to value money over humanity.

There is no question that it's difficult to live a life based on principle. Benjamin Franklin, one of America's best-loved Founding Fathers and a genius by anyone's standards, made a well-documented point of trying. He conceived a list of virtues by which to (attempt to) live his life. The list read:

Upon reviewing the list, a Quaker friend of Franklin's remarked that he had forgotten one very important virtue: Humility. Franklin, always interested in self-improvement, amended his list with:

Steven Spielberg could use a Quaker friend, right about now. As far as I'm concerned, he can insert his pacifist, humanitarian, philosopher-poet of choice. Imitate Gandhi, imitate Martin Luther King, Jr., imitate Mother Teresa, for all I care. But live a life of principle, Mr. Spielberg. Find the courage and the humility to say, on behalf of the Shoah Survivors whose testimonies you collected, on behalf of the children of Darfur, and on behalf of every Tibetan refugee: "No. It doesn't matter how much money or notoriety you offer. I cannot and will not do business with a nation that makes a habit of discrimination, oppression and genocide."

Do that, Mr. Spielberg, and maybe your legions of fans will imitate you, and the cruel world we live in will start to change, ever so slightly, for the better.

is this a rant or a story?

Unfortunately, the Quakers were notoriously bad at numbering items in lists.

So your argument is that because Spielberg is helping with the ceremonies of the 2008 Olympics, he's a proponent of oppression and genocide?

I didn't expect much from an article that Godwinned itself in the first sentence, but wow.

Rant.

She's not saying that he's a proponent of oppression, she's saying that he is not taking a stand against it. She's saying that someone who claims to oppose oppression should also oppose something like the Olympic Games being held in a place that is very oppressive.

So by all right I should refuse to use Google, Yahoo and countless other companies that do business in China as well?

I'm not exactly sure, but she gets a triple word score for including Nazis, Benjamin Franklin, Darfur, and Quakers in a story about Spielberg's role in the next Olympics.

Well, yes and no. If you feel strongly that the oppression carried out by the Chinese government needs to be stopped, then yes, by all means. If you don't feel that way, then I would say no, you don't have to refuse any company that deals with them. I WOULD like to say that there is a considerable difference between dealing with a business that is trying to sell it's wares in another country and having a group of nations choose to hold an event like the Olympics in an authoritarian country.

Seriously. That's class right there.

Also, don't buy anything from a store...ever, all that shit is made in China.

So then do you plan to stop buying and using products made in China as well? Which is pretty much most things.

Should we also boycott every item that is imported or exported by China, and every other person, company, country or organization that deals with them? So, basically, everybody and everything?

Wouldn't a more prudent course of action be to try to befriend oppressors and through diplomatic relations work with them to improve the quality of life of their citizens? What does stonewalling get you? Where has it gotten us with Cuba in 50 years?

[Edited on Apr 17, 2006 by AceTracer]

rant

Franklin, a very wise, humble, pios man, who just so happend to have died from syphilis.
I know ad hominem arguments don't count, but all things are "do as I say..."

Look, I didn't like War of the Worlds either, but this is taking it a little too far don't you think?

Or, if we find that diplomatic relations prove difficult, perhaps we could interact in a lighthearted, friendly atmosphere, such as, ummmm, idunno, maybe sports?

Bingo. The Olympics is the perfect thing for this situation.

The point has been made already, but the practical question is: do we know that not dealing with China when it comes to things like the Olympics will make this oppression stop?

The lines quoted above suggest that it's axiomatic that our boycotts would effect change in the appropriate direction, while our engagement with China makes us Oppression Enablers.

Not sure I know the answer/s, but it seems like an important question.

Western Liberalism is history. The future is China. All the histrionics you can muster won't change that. We are the last men before them.

Learn Cantonese.

Damn, I hedged my bets on Mandarin.

Oops. Wrong box.

[Edited on Apr 17, 2006 7:58PM]

Whatever we decide to learn, our horrendous accents will handily mark us out as a slave class. To limber up for language classes I've been licking boots.

Summary of article:
I'm cool cause I had this job that proves that I'm more liberal than you. Plus, I can quote Benjamin Franklin and apply Godwin's law to almost anything with relevence with only subtle irrationalism.

If Speilberg was against the Chinese oppression then I would understand this flamingly pretentious article. But since he isn't, then I gotta say "Get your 'Free Tibet' bullshit outta here."

I've gotten really chummy with the folks at Panda Express.

I'm going for "house slave".