Aloha Vijay

When you say "commies" isn't that degrading to the Chinese? Living in Hawaii i have never heard the Chinese referred to as commies. Politics means being civil.. I think that is from Krishnamurti or could be Deepak Chopra:) And I understand you point about holding the Chinese accountable, but that can be done from afar. We live in the era of the sport of quantum physics. Adversity leads to Spirituality. love patty

The last I heard Commies is still the most commonly used phrase in US circles to refer to communists in China, where thousands of people are killed every year, there is no freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to even have a second child.

The communist in West Bengal and Kerala, India are communists and those in China are commies, atleast thats what the US says.

The last I heard Commies is still the most commonly used phrase in US circles to refer to communists in China, where thousands of people are killed every year, there is no freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to even have a second child.

The communist in West Bengal and Kerala, India are communists and those in China are commies, atleast thats what the US says.

Hooray for freedom of speech!!!

See: http/kissmyass.commies

Aloha Vijay

The last time I checked Hawaii is part of the United States. I think the expression I am that I am works for everyone when practicing Ho'oponpono, love patty

Patty,

In US there is freedom of speech, so I guess everyone has the right to a view, unfortunately that is not the case in China.

you should feel free to refer to China as communists and I guess there are other Americans who like to call them as commies.

"[Chinese= Commies] ...atleast thats what the US says." Vijay Sappani

By US...you mean the Bush administration? AFAIK, the usage doesn't appear in any administrative memos or documents.

Don't generalize the usage of the term to all Americans.

"Commies" is a pejorative term for communists.

..like "nigger" is a pejorative term to refer to Blacks/African Americans.

"Commies" is also used by partisan republicans in the US for fear mongering/smearing purposes to refer to liberals/libruls.

"The last time I checked Hawaii is part of the United States. I think the expression I am that I am works for everyone when practicing Ho'oponpono, love patty"

Seriously, you have to be a special kind of moron to think that Hawaii doesn't represent US values. Of course, the state is only 25% non-Hispanic white, so perhaps that's what Sappani was thinking?

John,

You must be a moron to assume that I dont think Hawaii doesnt represent US values. Did I ever say anything to that effect, so stop being a 'special kind of moron' to tell that to me.

Commies is usually reffered to offensive Communists and I think that what the Chinese government is. They are oppressive, manipulative, destructive, promote war in Sudan, burma, Sri Lanka, supply N- tech to Pakistan and N.Korea, Oppress human rights and ethnically cleanse Tibet, kill thousands of prisoners for organ harvesting, restrict freedom to practice religion, restrict families to one child, but those who can bribe can get their way out, displace millions of people without compensation
and the list can go on and on,... is that all civil?

Vanessa, it is right that the term is more used by Republicans, military and beuracratic circles especially when they are not happy with China.

the term is more referred to the government and not the people and it can not be compared to other racist terms as you have suggested.

Surely you jest "Harper should visit China before the end of his term and talk to Chinese president Hu on the human rights issue in private like Bush and Sarkozy will be doing this weekend in China."

I think it's more likely that Bush is there to eat pretzels. If anyone is there to talk policy I'm guessing there's little human rights talk. After all, we brought the world Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. Oh yeah, and "FISA". Who's going to listen to the US on human rights?

Furthermore, that crowd wouldn't bring it up. They'll spend their time dealing with economic issues, like "how much more can we borrow so we can continue our wars?"

PS: Now, you assume that I'm really comparing Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib to the human rights violations of the Chinese government?

This is where people like you lose me.

You know John, where people like you lose me, when you assume you know the world like you say here again : "PS: Now, you assume that I'm really comparing Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib to the human rights violations of the Chinese government? "

why dont you say what you want and leave what I want to say to me and stop taking the trouble of assuming what I think, unless you claim to be some kind of tarrot reader.

The point is that John, Bush might be there to eat pretzels and talk trade, but china is willing only to listen to people who are doing that, not those who show their backs to them. You can not threathen them to change, one needs to engage them to change. Bush did have strong words to say and did visit a church in China to raise the issue of religious freedom again.

I 'm no fan of Bush or Harper by any extent,but I'm no fan of using partisan politics to put spin to perspectives that might actually work.

Ha ha ha...Sappani...

Times of India:

"NEW DELHI: Eighty heads of state and government will grace the Beijing Olympics in August but PM Manmohan Singh will not be among them.

Not because he is too busy, but because he was not invited. In fact, neither India's head of state nor government have been invited, with the invitation going to its most important politician, Sonia Gandhi."

" But even if you are really charitable, it can't be denied that it's yet another Chinese snub of pretty large proportions, and no amount of earnest protestations from government functionaries about the wonderful state of Sino-Indian relations will change that. "

"In 2008, the Beijing Olympics acquiring a distinct political hue with the Tibetan protests. Consequently, India-China ties took on a strained look, made worse by China's repeated incursions in Arunachal Pradesh and Sikkim."

"However, seen in almost any light, the Chinese decision is little short of a snub to the PM personally and his office. "

Sour grapes?

Wasn't Toronto the runner up for the 2008 Games? Countries need to lobby the IOC to ensure that political calculations are included in the calculus for choosing a location. If they don't do that, they are merely punishing the athletes. Bush visiting the U.S. athletes has been great for the athletes. It's unfortunate that Canadian athletes are not getting that support.

PS: A head of the state attending Olympics has little to with bilateral relationships in the larger picture. I am with John here.

Bush speaking against China is standard rhetoric that only plays to the domestic audience. Harper is perhaps playing it to his domestic audience too. And China understands that.

Who do you think is ruling India now, Manmohan Singh or Sonia Gandhi :) and do you think Sonia Gandhi would have gone, if this was considered a snub. politics is about that, esp in murky Indian politics.

Harper is only interested in killing people, not saving them from atrocities. Thus his determination to stay in Afghanistan until the last Canadian is dead and his rabid support for Bush's warmongering. He's from the Calgary School of foreign policy, which is akin to Hitler's.

Thanks for the informative post Vijay.

Love,
Char

Well .... read all the replies. Oppression is a horrible crime against Spirit.

Love,
Char

Aloha Vijay

I am sorry it has taken me so long to get back to you. I had to go to work.

Vanessa seems to have clarified the how the right in the US, uses the word communist to in still fear. The new fear I am afraid:) is to be Americanized.

One of my Chinese friends asked me awhile ago, if I knew that it was against the law to call out fire in a movie house when there was no fire. So much for the word freedom... don't under estimate the Canadians or the Chinese everyone is constantly plotting out their next meal and for us on the bottom of the food chain, as my Chinese friend says, we must be delicious. love patty

Vijay Sapanni wrote:

"Bush did have strong words to say and did visit a church in China to raise the issue of religious freedom again." (#11)

I'm just curious to know if Vijay Sappani noticed this exchange from the Costas interview of Bush during the Olympics on Sunday night:

"Costas: If these Olympics are as successful as they are shaping up to be, most people believe this only further legitimizes the ruling party in the minds of most Chinese citizens. And even absent true liberty as we understand it, the lives of hundreds of millions of Chinese people are much better than they once were. Therefore, what's the party's incentive to reform?

Bush: Well first of all, if you are a religious person you understand that once religion takes hold in a society it can't be stopped. And secondly I think the Olympics are gonna serve as a chance for people to come and see china the way it is..."

www.prnewschannel.com/absolutenm/templates/?a=749&z=4

Why does Bush answer in this way? The question had nothing to do with religion. Though Bush had referred to religious freedom as an American value in the previous question.

and later, when Costas is driving the interview in the context of Darfur:

"Costas: As you attempt to press these points with them, do you find Hu Jintao not just warm to you personally, but is he receptive? Do you sense any movement?

Bush: Yeah, it's hard to tell. I mean, all I can tell you is that it is best to be in a position where a leader will listen to you. I went to church here. And I'm sure the cynics say 'Well, you know, it was just a state sponsored church.' On the other hand, and that's true, it gave me a chance to say to the Chinese people, religion won't hurt you, you ought to welcome religious people. And it gave me a chance to say to the Chinese government, 'Why don't you register the underground churches and give them a chance to flourish?' And he listened politely. I can't read his mind, but I do know that every time I met with him, I pressed the point."

I'm just glad to know what our President's agenda is when he goes abroad. Psychologists? Anyone?

Just for starters. . .

* There IS religion in China, and historically the "three religions" (sanjiao) of Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism shaped the culture before Christianity ever arrived. * The underground churches are not registered because they don't want to be registered. There are government sanctioned churches that have done so. But that's why the ones he is talking about are UNDERGROUND.

* The Party sees religion as threatening to their authority (see, e.g., Falungong). Is Bush so deluded he thinks a word from him will change that? Hu Jintao is not going to say: "Oh yes, Bush said that religion was good, so let's just reverse policy."

* As you point out in your post, the question was about rights. Bush doesn't really care about civil liberties, except for religion, and so he answered it about religion.

Incredible.

I suspect that any Chinese people who may have been leaning towards becoming more religious took note of who was supporting this move . . . and are now running screaming in the opposite direction.

He also stated America has no problems

so...

basically just dismiss every word that passes between his lips.

According to Bush Taoism, Buddhism and Confucianism don't qualify as religions. (They don;t have a concept of a creator god you see.) Apparently, a country only has "freedom of religion" when his particular brand of "Left Behind" Christianity is practiced.

The arrogance of our chief idiot who only understands "religion" in the context of a 20 year old U.S. political movement that he used to gain power, lecturing a ten-thousand year old culture on the importance of religion.

China has a lot of faults. But apparently the bizarre dichotomy of holding stone age superstitious beliefs along side ideas of modern science and technology like we do, doesn't seem to be among them. [Of course I am talking about The good old U S of A. Just come to my neck of the woods and visit the Creation Museum! ]

....Perhaps he's just laying the groundwork for McCain to invade.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, if you're a religious person, you understand that once religion takes hold in a society it can't be stopped. And secondly, I think the Olympics are going to serve as a chance for people to come and see China the way it is, and let the Chinese see the world and interface and have the opportunity to converse with people from around the world. This is a very positive development, in my view, for peace. [Ref. 19: http://www.prnewschannel.com/absolutenm/templates/?a=749&z=4]

I happen to agree with the last sentence, but that first one scares the crap out of me.

Once religion takes hold in a society... as if there is no religion in China?

Insulated indeed. Insulated, naive, belligerent and stupid.

I love how he says this:

"And leverage is -- I don't think you should look at the relationship as one of leverage. I think you ought to look at the relationship of one of constructive engagement where you can find common areas, like North Korea and Iran, but also be in a position where they respect you enough to listen to your views on religious freedom and political liberty."

Not a year ago that would have been appeasement! and aiding our enemy! OMG! Now Bush is talking constructive engagement with Iran and North Korea — thank you, Barack Obama — but unlike Obama he still doesn't get that you need leverage when you sit down at the table.

How he thinks the Chinese "respect him enough to listen to [his] views on religious freedom and political liberty," well... that statement is simply delusional. There are too many ways in which it fails to engage reality.

"...he still doesn't get that you need leverage when you sit down at the table."

I don't think he can process. My immediate impression is that each question simply flicks a switch into a list of paragraphs in Shrub's brain and he says what lights up. The word "leverage" doesn't flick a switch, but he's stored a paragraph about Iran and North Korea so he speaks it.

As for China, I believe that he has sentences stored that say

...religion (= Christianity) is a good influence.

and

...all nations want to be like America when they grow up. When America and the countries who imitate us pour into China, the Chinese see us and fall in love. They will want to be like us.

And so... the switch flicks, his mouth opens, and the stored words come out.

China remains as religious as ever. The coming of Communism in 1948 brought with it a ritualistic condemnation of faith, but in fact (though many temples were burned in the Cultural revolution), there was no wholesale attack on faith in China. People by and large went on being Confucian and Daoist/Taoist as always, with little or no interference. And since these are primarily ethical religions, with no supernatural deity or promise of an afterlife; heaven and hell, the traditional Marxist arguments were far less germane. And since the Chinese faiths don't require weekly congregating in order to worship, there was little to attack. Indeed, the majority of Mao's thought is profoundly Confucian, as befits someone trained for the literati.

I suspect most Daoist and Confucian scholars would join the party in discouraging western missionaries and importing Western religions through religious conversions on the grounds of the comparatively primitive and superstitious nature of Western faith.

On the other hand, even in (democratic)India many state governments in the past few years have placed restrictions on (or even banned) religious conversions.

For example:

BBC NEWS
July 2006

Conversions harder in India state

"The state legislature in the central Indian state of Madhya Pradesh has approved a law aimed at making religious conversions harder there.

The law says a person wishing to convert and the priest conducting the ceremony will have to inform the authorities in advance.

...In May, the Pope condemned attempts to ban religious conversions in India.

The new law provides for a year in prison and cash fines to the person who converts and the priest who conducts the ceremony without informing the authorities. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5215696.stm

Once you take the missionary position there is no going back.

For one thing, Bush is first and foremost a fundamentalist kook.

Let's get that out of the way. That will never change. He will always see things through the lens of a religious zealot proving that Jesus is speaking to him by rolling his eyes in the back of his head and uttering jibberish.

Secondly ... Bush still has an enormous debt to the christian right to pay. It's a debt that Karl Rove racked up by getting him elected on the back of christian sociopaths who believed that Bush would deliver for them a Roe Vs. Wade overturn.

So they're still pretty pissy about that.

Bush attended Olympics? And the NBC covers him?

Seriously...why?!

Why is this asshole being covered at all? My girlfriend and I spend time to watch the athletes, not to watch that buffoon embarrass our country just by showing up in China. I guess his corporate tools at General Electric need to appease him by taking away precious broadcast time from the Olympic athletes.

Hey, Chimpy: IT'S NOT ABOUT YOU!

Moronic President Lameduck who authorized spying on his own people; Guantanamo, torture; starting a phony war that is both deadly and costly; fiddling while the American people suffered the horrors of Katrina, etc etc etc etc. Shameful...Bush is a poor excuse for a human being.

"Commies is usually reffered to offensive Communists and I think that what the Chinese government is."

Wrong my friend. No, not arguing that part about Chinese communists being offensive, or Chinese communist policy makers being referred to as aggressive communists, or plain communists referred to as commies. Its the part about the term commie "usually" being referred to aggressive communists that is wrong.

[Of course the example you give about Indian communist political parties not being aggressive is true BUT so are the extremist Maoists, Naxals, and the peoples war group who are not usually referred to as commies in the English speaking circles in India.]

You seem to be out of sync with the usage of the term in the US. (Btw, I don't disagree with your usage in your blog entry, only with your subsequent comments in this thread.)

Vanessa is right, in that it is a derogatory term. It is a term which is used to smear democratic candidates in the US who have socialist or liberal views. Patty is right, it is a term which was widely used in the US to instill fear. The term doesn't necessarily refer to aggressive communists. More often its the case. This gives a picture of the common usage of the term:

From the Urban Slang dictionary:

1) Derogatory name for a Communist.

Related words : Pinko

"In the 1950's, McCarthy wanted to destroy those that he called 'Commies'"

2) A varient of the boogie man during the Reagan administration.

3) Anybody who has ideals that are similar to that of the communists.

"Beaver: Gee wally, that Eddie sure is a commie douche-bag.

Wally: Yeah, I guess you're right Beav. "

4) Communist. All americans seem to hate them.

5) Shortening of "communist". can either refer to an actual comunist or a pussy liberal. Can also be used to insult pretty much anyone for pretty much anything.

"i hate john, he is a commie bastard"

6) One who supports the communist idiologys. Useds as a derogitive term to non-communist, because of anti-leftist propaganda from the American government.

"True communist don't mind to be labeled commies."

7) They're the two broad ways.

You have Mensheviks & Bolsheviks, who approach the revolutions differently and u have Marxists, Leninists, and Stalinists, who all have different ideas about what to do after the revolution.

"For people that try to use it as a insult means that they do not know what is what for example: does not know who wrote the communist manifesto; what the difference is between communism, socialism, and marxism and what was the mccarthy era."

8) A member of the democratic party.

"The democrats are a bunch of commies."

9) A shorter version of the word 'communist'. It is typically used to deride a Democrat or liberal.

"John Kerry is nothing short of a commie! He wants to raise taxes and form a large government!"

10) One whom believes in the political ideology of Communism. Also, one seen as the exact opposite of an American Capitalist, which in many cases is a very good thing. Also can be the nickname for any Commerce student in a Canadian University.

"Go Commie, GO!"

11) American hating, son of a bitch. Who hates freedom and goes against our common morals. This is a person of the communist party and should leave this country if he or she is in it. Fuck Che Guevara.

"The commies will one day destroy freedom."

12) A word used by conservatives to compare those intelligent enough to disagree with them to the red fascist of the Soviet Union, the Democratic (sic) Republic of Korea, and the People's Republic of China.

"OMFG! This anti-American unchristian fucktard supports same-sex marriage. He must be teh commie!!!!!!!!!!1!11!111"

13) A communist. Usually someone who follows the philosophy of Carl Marx, or Lenin (Albeit built on Marx). Lenin's book, 'Imperialism:The Highest Stage of Capitalism' is one of the most widely read communist texts. It attacks capitalism and explores ways in which social equity can occur.

Unfortunately Communism as a rule of government does not and probably never will work, as it gives the Government corrupting power. It is a pure contradiction that Russia, Cuba, China and North Korea call(ed) themselves communists, yet all were/are ruled by a dictator.

For this reason equally oppressive figures (to that of the dictators) attacked communism, such as Mcarthy. And henceforth such derogatory terms as 'sneaky commie rat' will forever be utilized by the ignorant public, such as the idiot who posted prior to me:

"SCR: welfare and donations to charity are good.
CP: shut up you sneaky commie rat!
SCR: what did I say Capitalist Pig?"