NEWS: Spielberg Says "Yes" to Oppression and Genocide

It's a Helen_Jupiter story.

Oh yeah! China's government oppresses religion and freedom of speech, lets hate all Chinese people and boycot their products because obviously a communist government is the true voice of it's people.

Honestly now. How many governents in the world right now really speak for their people?
How many, even so called 'democracies' speak for their people?
They all just do their best to appeal to the highest demographic so they can do whatever the fuck the want once they're in office.

Is America a good example of democracy at work?
Think Canada's government has the best interest of all it's people in mind?
This isn't a quiz.
Stop and look at your own government and figure out if it speaks for you or anybody you know.
Then see if it's worth hating an entire country with it's inherent good and bad people just because it has a sucky government.

Nobody's talking about hating the Chinese people. It's the government, not the people, who stand to benefit from the Olympics. Also, the American government speaks for the 51% of people who voted it into power. I'm not saying that's perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than the 0% the Chinese government speaks for.

Seeing as Steven Spielberg is Jewish, there's a reason he did Schindler's List and Munich and has put money into foundations supporting rememberance of Holocaust victims. He's also worked with the government of China before - he was the first filmmaker allowed into the People's Republic back in the day to shoot Empire of The Sun. He's got a good relationship with said government, so there's no reason for him to endanger that by siding against the government and it's (very) evil treatment of Tibet. He likely doesn't like the situation personally, as most people don't; however, it's not his place to step in. He has no personal connection to the Buddhist religion, the Tibetan people, or anything else in that area.

Now, if you were to find Richard Gere, Adam Yauch, Jake Gyllenhaal or even Martin Scorsese (whose 1997 movie Kundun essentially explains his position on the China/Tibet situation and the ousting of the Dalai Llama from his home country) being involved in the planning of the 2008 Olympics, then it'd be time to be screaming hypocrite.

But Spielberg's concern is on his own people -- and even then, Munich does not do anything more than present the effects of killing human beings in the name of God and country -- it even asks the question of whether it is a good thing, no matter which faith you belong to. Remember, he got called anti-Semetic for making that movie, merely because he didn't choose a side. Here, he is expressing the same neutrality.

I'm a Buddhist, by the way. I hate the occupation of Tibet, personally, but I'm not going to hold Steven Spielberg responsible for helping end it. I'd expect those I listed above to do work towards it.

I'm not at all a proponent of the PRC, but it's also not the totalitarian state people assume it to be. Yes there's corruption in their government, human rights violations, and an undemocratic process that assures the Communist Party of China control of government. But it's not the China of years past that the original poster is trying to represent.

The people in their government now have little association with the those that massacred students 20 years ago. The CPC is now subject to the state and laws of the state, unlike in the past. And slowly but surely China is becoming more capitalist, and therefore less like the China of years past.

For all the ciriticism you can shower on China, their government is the only one that will work for them, and any sudden change will just turn it into another Soviet collapse. The alternative then is to do exactly the opposite of what the original poster is trying to preach, and instead welcome China with open arms to the free market system and deal with them whenever possible.

The more China benefits from market capitalism, the less hard line communist ideologies will reign on their government, and the more likely we'll see a free China in our lifetime.

I lost all interest right there.

feel compelled to tally up ben's own score:

1. TEMPERANCE

homey wanted to be buried in booze.

(etc)

12. CHASTITY

They didn't call him "the father of his country" for nothing.

But anyway, if you're looking for someone to stand up for China, it's isn't me. The Chinese government sucks, endlessly. Who's still buying oil from Khartoum? China. Who's still opressing Tibet, (jaded disregard for the same of some on these boards notwithstanding)? China. Who funds the most fucked up government on the planet, North Korea? China.

That said, I'm torn over the whole "disengage from China completely" approach. I think that there is certainly a moral defense for that point of view, but ther'es also a moral defense for "partial engagement, because it will never get better otherwise."

I think it's a fair bet that the people of China are smart, and will not continue to put up with the bs from the party forever. They want to participate in the modern world, not sit around reading Marx in study groups. But if the rest of the world puts the entire country into deep freeze, well... it will be in deep freeze.

It's a tough call.

One last thing, I think it claim that Spielberg "should know better," as if he weren't aware of the history of his own people, or of the complexities of China's present situation, is pretty simplistic. Call Spielberg what you want, but I don't think "shallow" is an appropriate adjective.

Spielberg is a hypocrite because he's part of an international event held in China?

Two words: Non sequitur.

Hell, the UNITED STATES bagged the Moscow Olympics because the USSR invaded Afghanistan. Why is the author of this post focused on the moviemaker? WE'RE the damn leaders of the free world, ready to overthrow oppressive governments where ever they may be!* She should be calling for a general boycott! I'm sure she would have of the 1936 Berlin Olympics, and China today, as here analogy has deftly shown, is exactly like Nazi Germany.

*Offer only valid if said government is located over rich oil fields.

This sounds like BS not news.

Christ, man. I mean, I can see saying, "You know, I think Spielberg is being hypocritical here." And then stating the reasons. I can't see saying that Spielberg supports genocide and oppression. Yeah, the occupation of Tibet is and was fucked up. Yeah, the Chinese government fucking blows. But this is way overdramatic. China is going to be a superpower regardless of whether or not Spielberg helps out with the Olympics. The Olympics are going to be spectacular regardless of whether or designs parts of them. This is not a major show of support - it's not any, really. So why the hell make such a big deal of this? I know, maybe it would be a more principled decision to try to stay out of anything China does. But it's also not very realistic, and besides, alienating a major world power isn't going to do anything other than piss them off and make them less likely to even listen to you. The more we can bridge the gap between the West and China, the more likely they are to take us seriously when we speak of the error of their ways. And vice versa.

Name me a single country that is a major player in the world stage that has not commited or attempted to commit genocide

So if I give ten bucks to Amnesty International now and then does that mean I can't buy Chinese socks?

Geez, gang...Considering some of your responses, it's pretty ironic that many of you are calling the original post "overreacting."

Is it really that hard to rap your head around the fact that Spielberg promoting the Olympics in China is a bit hypocritical? Oyaji seems to be the only person speaking some sense.

Fair enough.

Also... if Spielberg actually working for the PRC or is he working for the International Olympic Committee and just happens to be doing work in China?

read principle number 9 and 11 again. has he said anything about tolerance as well? or forgiveness?

Pretty hard to forgive someone for doing something if they're still doing it.

No, really, its not because, as you say the PRC != Nazi Germany. The horror of the Holocaust is not "human rights abuse" it is the systematic dehumanization and extermination of entire categories of people. That's why we call it the Holocaust. What the PRC is doing is simply not the same. Denying freedom of expression, or worship or even the right to a fair trial really doesn't stack up against shipping people to gas chambers in cattle cars for the crime of accident of birth. Moreover what Spielberg is doing is not championing global freedoms. He's producing a sporting event. This does not make him Leni Riefenstahl.

One might wish that he would use his influence to influence China to curb their abuses, but that he doesn't does not make him a hypocrite.

thank you.