Do you support Spielberg's protest?

[RSS News]

Steven Spielberg withdraws as an artistic adviser to the Olympics over China's role in Darfur. Is he right to do so?

(Feed provided by BBC News | Have your Say (http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/2/hi/talking_point/default.stm))

[Cold]

I do not know the details of he's reasoning behind this decision, but there are many human rights issues that need to be addressed in China. If he has done so for these reasons in regards to human rights, then yes I would support that protest.

[Edelweiss]

Spielberg rightfully is criticising China's imperialist ambitions in Dafur, although he certainly wouldn't use the term "imperialism".

See http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=5584

[Wanted Man]

Spielberg filmed the Indy movies in Egypt and Sri Lanka, neither of which are regimes that care much about human rights. But I guess he's just being a good American. Or a fighter against Chinese imperialism, if you will! :laugh:

[Comrade_Scott]

sure... just so long as he also denounces the US for its many crimes and sponsored coups, the IMF which puts in place immposible regulations (again US backed) Australia, Japan etc, if he denounces these people as well then hell yea ill support him

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Or a fighter against Chinese imperialism, if you will! http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies2/lol.gifI know, right?

What a sad joke.

Leave it to liberals to line up alongside their imperialists in the name of "human rights."

The U.S. has caused untold deaths around the world. It's currently carrying out all sorts of atrocities. Maybe he'll decide not to film in the U.S. any more? :lol:

[Edelweiss]

I never said Spielberg is not a total hypocrite. Nevertheless I think he is totally right pointing out and criticising China's involvement in the Dafur civil war. It's quiet sad that a bourgeois liberal is doing this before some self-proclaimed "anti-imperialists".

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

What about the role of the U.S. in the situation in Darfur? Why are liberals so willing to condemn China, while the reality of U.S. involvement in the area goes unspoken.

China is not imperialist. Even if it were, Spielberg should criticize "his own" imperialists first. Of course, liberals don't do that sort of thing..

[jake williams]

Darfur is a horrible place right now and China's got a lot of guilt. It's extremely important to carefully and consciously bring attention to it and possible solutions, it's an emergency, though sending in the Marines, of course, ain't exactly going to save the day.

If he has personal moral conviction he can't really get over, then I can hardly criticize him for it, you know? If he's not okay with working with China because of this, that's his own thing. And it's not like he's going all "Darfur!" for money at this point - though it's certainly the Issue of the Day, which is extremely disturbing, because the whole American Liberal deal is that you pick something every couple years and that's the Important Issue that you get all excited about and every so often one of 'em'll cheer "We should save them because we're really good!" and their buddies'll be all "Yeah!".

I hate everyone.

[Geronimo Pratt]

The U.S. has a role in funding the Sudan People's Liberation Army (the SPLA) through Uganda and other African proxies. Basically to destabilize an Islamic government in the region and install a U.S. protectorate.

U.S. Terrorism in the Sudan (http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq16.html#_ednref48)

[SouthernBelle82]

I agree. I would probably do the same thing if I was in his situation.


I do not know the details of he's reasoning behind this decision, but there are many human rights issues that need to be addressed in China. If he has done so for these reasons in regards to human rights, then yes I would support that protest.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The truth is this: if you're in the U.S. and you're out there criticizing China for "human rights" violations, you're lining up with your own imperialists, who would love to see nothing short of the destruction of a growing-China.

If you consider yourself any sort of working class partisan, you're responsibility lies in opposing your "own" imperialists with all of your might. Regime change begins at home.

[Bilan]

The truth is this: if you're in the U.S. and you're out there criticizing China for "human rights" violations, you're lining up with your own imperialists, who would love to see nothing short of the destruction of a growing-China.

If you consider yourself any sort of working class partisan, you're responsibility lies in opposing your "own" imperialists with all of your might. Regime change begins at home.

...?
That seems more like making excuses to not criticize Chinas human rights violations.
We should stand with neither the US imperialists, or the Chinese government, both of which are oppressive regimes.

[Hiero]

I don't support Spielberg, it is a moronic move. Really rich movie famous people shouldn't get into politics unless they bave a firm grasp of what they are doing. All this is done is draw attention away from US imperialism, people will actually think they are doing something by opposing China.

[Vanguard1917]

The truth is this: if you're in the U.S. and you're out there criticizing China for "human rights" violations, you're lining up with your own imperialists, who would love to see nothing short of the destruction of a growing-China.

Well pointed out.

A key responsibilty of progressives in the West should be to oppose their governments' attempts to intervene in the affairs of non-Western countries. The bulk of today's "progressives" and "radicals" are doing the direct opposite of this, calling on the West (and China!) to "do more" abroad. Western liberals are among the most enthsiastic supporters of imperialism today.



We should stand with neither the US imperialists, or the Chinese government, both of which are oppressive regimes.


I'm no friend of the Chinese government, but i stand 100% with China's right to self-determination. The same goes for Sudan and any other non-Western state. I consider this to be the most basic principle of a genuine anti-imperialist stance.

Westerners going on about China's human rights violations might seem "radical" to the politically naive. In reality, though, as CdL pointed out, they merely provide Western states with greater encouragement to flex their muscles abroad.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Besides, opposing your own imperialists (who would love to destroy a growing China, as I said) is not the same thing as supporting the Chinese government.

Of course this isn't only dangerous for people in the U.S... a key part of Australia's imperialist drive has been drumming up anti-Chinese feelings among Australians.

[jake williams]

We do need to be extremely conscious and concerned about the growing propaganda offensive against China, it's really almost verging on racism. This whole scam about "They're trying to poison our kids with lead!" is utter nonsense, and I think this is something we can't just ignore.


The reason that nothing's been done isn't a lack of attention, it's a lack of interest. Idealists love to imagine that if "only people knew", the genocides and atrocities would be stopped. The reality, however, is much uglier. We know what's going on, we just can't be bothered to do anything about it. And so it will remain as long as our society is predicated on the ideal of "benevolent" self-interest.
This is partly true. But partly Darfur is just hella complex, and like most, maybe every bad situation in the world, the old fallback "Throw some Marines at it!" obviously doesn't work. Part of the problem with Darfur is that no one's sure exactly what to do (there are some possible ideas and I'd like to hear if you've got any), but even were there will, which there isn't enough of, it's hard to know what to do with it.

[SouthernBelle82]

The fact still remains however that there is poisoned goods (not just toys!) coming from China. It has nothing to do with racism. It's about competence and responsibility. And they do have a bad human rights record. You can't just blindly ignore things.


We do need to be extremely conscious and concerned about the growing propaganda offensive against China, it's really almost verging on racism. This whole scam about "They're trying to poison our kids with lead!" is utter nonsense, and I think this is something we can't just ignore.

[SouthernBelle82]

Oh and all of y'all saying crap about Spielberg and China and imperialism need to look at the original post again. Spielberg is boycotting because of their ties to Darfur and what's going on there. So before you start talking about Spielberg being ignorant look at yourself first. Doy. This is about putting pressure on China to help stop the genocide in Darfur which IS STILL GOING ON! This is about people dying. Not about poisoned goods or imperialism.

[PRC-UTE]

The truth is this: if you're in the U.S. and you're out there criticizing China for "human rights" violations, you're lining up with your own imperialists, who would love to see nothing short of the destruction of a growing-China.

If you consider yourself any sort of working class partisan, you're responsibility lies in opposing your "own" imperialists with all of your might. Regime change begins at home.

Right- if not based in China but an imperialist country, and you try to put pressure against China, that objectively results in strengthening your own ruling class. That's a fact, no matter what your subjective intentions are.

[PRC-UTE]

...?
That seems more like making excuses to not criticize Chinas human rights violations.
We should stand with neither the US imperialists, or the Chinese government, both of which are oppressive regimes.

Don't think he is saying to stand with the Chinese state, though. I'm certainly not, just pointing out that logically the liberal "human rights" protest argument results in the imperialist camp.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Oh and all of y'all saying crap about Spielberg and China and imperialism need to look at the original post again. Spielberg is boycotting because of their ties to Darfur and what's going on there. So before you start talking about Spielberg being ignorant look at yourself first. Doy. This is about putting pressure on China to help stop the genocide in Darfur which IS STILL GOING ON! This is about people dying. Not about poisoned goods or imperialism.


The fact that you don't see how these are bound together just shows how far removed from reality you are. Getting lost in the swamp of liberal reformism will do that to a person.

Let's look at the facts:

For one there is no "genocide" going on in Darfur. "Many of those calling for intervention in Sudan describe the situation there as a “genocide” of Black Africans by Arab Muslims. As horrendous as the situation is the Sudan is, what is occurring there is not genocide. Rather, it is a civil war between groups of Black Muslim nomads backed by the government, and groups of Black Muslim farmers in the South, with both sides carrying out numerous atrocities." - No imperialist intervention in Sudan! (http://powr-prm.org/nointerventioninsudan.html)

Second, the U.S. is heavily involved in the civil war in Sudan. "And indeed, the U.S. government is already intervening to an extent in Sudan, and has been for some time. It is a documented fact that the U.S. government has funded “rebel” militias in Sudan since the late 70's, with the aim of overthrowing the Sudanese government, which supports the Palestinian people’s struggle against the Israeli occupation, and has established strong economic ties with China. These “rebel” militias have carried out numerous war crimes, and have often refused to sign any peace treaties. They are no friends of the Sudanese people." - No imperialist intervention in Sudan! (http://powr-prm.org/nointerventioninsudan.html)

Third, the U.S. is an imperialist country and China is not. Even if China was however, it would be the responsibility of communists in the U.S. to oppose "their own" imperialists, instead of attacking the "other imperialists" and lining up with their own rulers. This is a question that was settled among revolutionaries close to a hundred years ago. See: History of the Second International (http://www.marxists.org/history/international/social-democracy/index.htm) & History of the Communist International (http://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/index.htm)

There is a reason you hear so much about the situation in Sudan and nothing about the infinitely more bloody civil war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (which has left 4 million dead). The imperialists are looking to shut down the growth of their burgeoning competition in China by cutting its legs out from under it. The liberals calling for "troops in" to Sudan haven't picked their heads up long enough to notice that imperialist war mongers like George W. Bush and Tony Blair are calling for the same thing! They also haven't noticed that the main "save darfur" coalitions have been lead and funded by Zionists opposed to Sudan's pro-Palestine government.

Another thing you don't hear about is the fact that more people are currently dying from starvation and curable disease in Sudan than from bullets. That's a direct result of imperialism, which continues to ravage Africa and all of the world.

[Edelweiss]

I basically agree with you, CdL. as Rosa Luxemburg already said, "the enemy is within the own country". This is especially true for the Left in many European countries who focus too much on US imperialism.

However, China is a different issue. Among the Left there is still some illusion about China, it's still being seen as an alternative to US imperialism by many rather naive leftists, and I think it's important to point that China is in no way an alternative, but one of the most exploitive capitalist regimes of the world with one of the worst working conditions. Also, if you call it imperialism by your Lenin textbook, or not, China is certainly seeking for influence especially in Africa, and is the rising hegemonic power there. Especially in inner leftist discussions it's very important to point that out IMO.

Even if you have to focus on your own country as a western leftist, there is really nothing wrong, or reactionary about also criticising other imperialist powers. Otherwise 90% of all non-US leftists could be considered reactionary here for criticising US imperialism.

[Vanguard1917]

We do need to be extremely conscious and concerned about the growing propaganda offensive against China, it's really almost verging on racism. This whole scam about "They're trying to poison our kids with lead!" is utter nonsense, and I think this is something we can't just ignore.


There's definitely a bit of good old fashioned imperial racism going on here: those arrogant Chinese - the Yellow Peril - who will poison our children with their dodgy products and destroy the earth with their industrial growth.

[LSD]

Spielberg's an ass, and this "protest" of his has much more to do with cozzying up to his liberal buddies than it does with a genuine understanding of what's going on in China. Not that what's going on in China isn't horrendous.

But then what's going on in Egypt is pretty bad too, yet it didn't stop old Speilberg from pumping millions into the local economy when he went there to film. Seems that his interest in interest in human rights only appears when it doesn't threaten his income stream. Figures... :glare:

And, by the way, will someone please explain to me how Speilberg's participation or lack thereof with the Beijing olympics will serve to alleviate the situation in Darfur? I mean, I understand the notion of "star power", but Darfur has probably recieved more attention than any other conflict in the world, save Iraq and Israel-Palestine.

The reason that nothing's been done isn't a lack of attention, it's a lack of interest. Idealists love to imagine that if "only people knew", the genocides and atrocities would be stopped. The reality, however, is much uglier. We know what's going on, we just can't be bothered to do anything about it. And so it will remain as long as our society is predicated on the ideal of "benevolent" self-interest.

Spielberg stands as the embodiment of the great hypocrisy of our time: a bourgeois millionaire who's amassed a fortune by his exploitation, direct and otherwise, of labourers from every corner of the globe, outraged that somewhere in the world people are being oppressed.

Did he think his four homes built themselves? Did he think the gas for his luxury cars dug itself from the ground?

Last year there was a story that bracelets sold to raise "awareness" over world poverty were actually being manufactured in sweatshops. I think that was probably the greatest single explanation for what modern liberalism really is. Liberals want to end hunger, they just want to pay Wal-Mart prices in doing so. And Steven Spielberg wants to stop the dying in Darfur, he's just too busy at the moment filming Indiana Jones and the Low Low Prices.

[MT5678]

I couldn't say it any better than LSD.
This Spielberg fool merely wants to advance the White Man's Burden rhetoric that Bush and his Republicans are so fond of.

Hey, Spielberg, there's more dead people in the War on Iraq. Why don't you criticize that?

[BIG BROTHER]

Yep LSD basically said everything that could be said, I agree with him.

[Black Dagger]

Of course this isn't only dangerous for people in the U.S... a key part of Australia's imperialist drive has been drumming up anti-Chinese feelings among Australians.

It is? How exactly?

China is extremely important to the Australian economy - and Kevin Rudd (the PM) has made an effort to emphasise this relationship as key to the 'future' of the nation (at least in economic terms).

[SouthernBelle82]

I totally agree. As a communist I can't stand for people's human rights being trampled on. It goes against everything we're trying to work for and we should want to hold each other accountable for actions that aren't right. The Chinese government as it stands now is just as imperialist as the U.S. government.


...?
That seems more like making excuses to not criticize Chinas human rights violations.
We should stand with neither the US imperialists, or the Chinese government, both of which are oppressive regimes.

[SouthernBelle82]

How hypocritical. Spielberg is trying to support people who we're trying to help with our political beliefs. So if it was someone here on the board would you be supporting them and saluting them? So because of his status in society you think he should just shut up? He still has the right to the Constitution.


I don't support Spielberg, it is a moronic move. Really rich movie famous people shouldn't get into politics unless they bave a firm grasp of what they are doing. All this is done is draw attention away from US imperialism, people will actually think they are doing something by opposing China.

[SouthernBelle82]

What does self-determination have to do with their human rights efforts? It's not like Spielberg is telling them they have to be democrats or whatever. He's simply stating he doesn't agree with their ways of human rights and he is not going to be a part of that. It's his right to do so. I would do the same thing and wouldn't be participating in that. Spielberg probably thinks if he does the job with the Olympics it's him endorsing what is going on in China right now. I would love to see other communist's getting involved and trying to address the issue of their human rights whether it's with bodies or sweat shops or whatever it is.


Well pointed out.

A key responsibilty of progressives in the West should be to oppose their governments' attempts to intervene in the affairs of non-Western countries. The bulk of today's "progressives" and "radicals" are doing the direct opposite of this, calling on the West (and China!) to "do more" abroad. Western liberals are among the most enthsiastic supporters of imperialism today.



I'm no friend of the Chinese government, but i stand 100% with China's right to self-determination. The same goes for Sudan and any other non-Western state. I consider this to be the most basic principle of a genuine anti-imperialist stance.

Westerners going on about China's human rights violations might seem "radical" to the politically naive. In reality, though, as CdL pointed out, they merely provide Western states with greater encouragement to flex their muscles abroad.

[SouthernBelle82]

Spielberg isn't making this about imperialism. YOU and those who agree with you are. He isn't. I'm talking about Spielberg and what he is doing. Stick to the topic. This is about human rights and not imperialism. Y'all are making it about that. Not everything in life is about imperialism. Do you know the definition of genocide? What is happening there IS genocide by every account. Remember Rwanda? The definition of genocide from dictionary.com is: the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

So what's happening in Darfur isn't genocide? Get real! So because the U.S. is involved that means China can be now too? Why should more country's be involved in helping? If they're going to help at all it should be to stop what's going on! Don't point to the U.S. and think that means people can't criticize China. That's bullshit. So one minute you say no imperialist involved in Darfur and than you turn around and make excuses for China WHICH IS IMPERIALIST BY THE BOOK! Hypocrite!

China isn't imperalist? What a bunch of crock. China is as imperalist as the United States. Just because they claim to be a communist country doesn't mean they are and/or get a pass. As it states now China doesn't hold up to being a communist utopia. They're totally imperialist. Do you know what a hegemon is? It's what China is and has been becoming. To ignore it shows you're blind.

Or perhaps we're not hearing much about it because the media doesn't talk about it and nobody politically or other wise is trying to help there either. I don't think sending in troops to Sudan is going to help. It hasn't yet and only more people are going to get killed and make matters worse which is why I'm for putting pressure on country's like China who already have some sort of relationship with the government there. Adding more guns only makes things worse.

I do agree with your last point. However having guns and bullets there doesn't help either.

Oh and don't insult me and my intelligence. If you do I'm just going to ignore it. Just because I'm a former liberal doesn't mean you can throw that shit in my face that you're some how better than me in intelligence. Get real.


The fact that you don't see how these are bound together just shows how far removed from reality you are. Getting lost in the swamp of liberal reformism will do that to a person.

Let's look at the facts:

For one there is no "genocide" going on in Darfur. "Many of those calling for intervention in Sudan describe the situation there as a “genocide” of Black Africans by Arab Muslims. As horrendous as the situation is the Sudan is, what is occurring there is not genocide. Rather, it is a civil war between groups of Black Muslim nomads backed by the government, and groups of Black Muslim farmers in the South, with both sides carrying out numerous atrocities." - No imperialist intervention in Sudan! (http://powr-prm.org/nointerventioninsudan.html)

Second, the U.S. is heavily involved in the civil war in Sudan. "And indeed, the U.S. government is already intervening to an extent in Sudan, and has been for some time. It is a documented fact that the U.S. government has funded “rebel” militias in Sudan since the late 70's, with the aim of overthrowing the Sudanese government, which supports the Palestinian people’s struggle against the Israeli occupation, and has established strong economic ties with China. These “rebel” militias have carried out numerous war crimes, and have often refused to sign any peace treaties. They are no friends of the Sudanese people." - No imperialist intervention in Sudan! (http://powr-prm.org/nointerventioninsudan.html)

Third, the U.S. is an imperialist country and China is not. Even if China was however, it would be the responsibility of communists in the U.S. to oppose "their own" imperialists, instead of attacking the "other imperialists" and lining up with their own rulers. This is a question that was settled among revolutionaries close to a hundred years ago. See: History of the Second International (http://www.marxists.org/history/international/social-democracy/index.htm) & History of the Communist International (http://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/index.htm)

The reason you hear so much about the situation in Sudan and nothing about the infinitely more bloody civil war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (which has left 4 million dead). The imperialists are looking to shut down the growth of their burgeoning competition in China by cutting its legs out from under it. The liberals calling for "troops in" to Sudan haven't picked their heads up long enough to notice that imperialist war mongers like George W. Bush and Tony Blair are calling for the same thing! They also haven't noticed that the main "save darfur" coalitions have been lead and funded by Zionists opposed to Sudan's pro-Palestine government.

Another thing you don't hear about is the fact that more people are currently dying from starvation and curable disease in Sudan than from bullets. That's a direct result of imperialism, which continues to ravage Africa and all of the world.

[SouthernBelle82]

Interesting. I didn't know that about Spielberg and Egypt. I don't really follow him or anything so yea. It would be interesting for the sake of argument to see if there is another reason for him dropping out of the Olympics. There hasn't been much press with Egypt either I don't think so perhaps he's doing this because of all the press on Darfur and how lately the media has been showing the Chinese government having this cozy relationship at least that's been how it's been portrayed. Does anyone know when Spielberg agreed to do the Olympics project? If he was so concerned with the issue why did he sign on at all? I wonder how many people knew the wrist bands were being made in sweatshops and what they did about it.


Spielberg's an ass, and this "protest" of his has much more to do with cozzying up to his liberal buddies than it does with a genuine understanding of what's going on in China. Not that what's going on in China isn't horrendous.

But then what's going on in Egypt is pretty bad too, yet it didn't stop old Speilberg from pumping millions into the local economy when he went there to film. Seems that his interest in interest in human rights only appears when it doesn't threaten his income stream. Figures... :glare:

And, by the way, will someone please explain to me how Speilberg's participation or lack thereof with the Beijing olympics will serve to alleviate the situation in Darfur? I mean, I understand the notion of "star power", but Darfur has probably recieved more attention than any other conflict in the world, save Iraq and Israel-Palestine.

The reason that nothing's been done isn't a lack of attention, it's a lack of interest. Idealists love to imagine that if "only people knew", the genocides and atrocities would be stopped. The reality, however, is much uglier. We know what's going on, we just can't be bothered to do anything about it. And so it will remain as long as our society is predicated on the ideal of "benevolent" self-interest.

Spielberg stands as the embodiment of the great hypocrisy of our time: a bourgeois millionaire who's amassed a fortune by his exploitation, direct and otherwise, of labourers from every corner of the globe, outraged that somewhere in the world people are being oppressed.

Did he think his four homes built themselves? Did he think the gas for his luxury cars dug itself from the ground?

Last year there was a story that bracelets sold to raise "awareness" over world poverty were actually being manufactured in sweatshops. I think that was probably the greatest single explanation for what modern liberalism really is. Liberals want to end hunger, they just want to pay Wal-Mart prices in doing so. And Steven Spielberg wants to stop the dying in Darfur, he's just too busy at the moment filming Indiana Jones and the Low Low Prices.

[SouthernBelle82]

And how do you know it has anything to do with racism? Got anything to back up that accusation?


There's definitely a bit of good old fashioned imperial racism going on here: those arrogant Chinese - the Yellow Peril - who will poison our children with their dodgy products and destroy the earth with their industrial growth.

[A.J.]

I'm perhaps being a tad presumptuous here but assuming that Spielberg is a Zionist(being a rich american jew and all) it would be quite hypocritical for him to pretend he's genuinely concerned with alleged human rights abuses occuring in China or anywhere else for that matter.

The phrase "crocadile tears" immediately springs to mind.

[SouthernBelle82]

So because he's a rich and powerful Jew that means he's a Zionist? Huh? Do you know what Zionism is about? Apparently not from this comment of yours. Now if you had backed up proof that he let's say supported AIPAC and was very much involved with them than you would be right. So what was that earlier from someone about racism? Gee lookie here.


I'm perhaps being a tad presumptuous here but assuming that Spielberg is a Zionist(being a rich american jew and all) it would be quite hypocritical for him to pretend he's genuinely concerned with alleged human rights abuses occuring in China or anywhere else for that matter.

The phrase "crocadile tears" immediately springs to mind.

[jake williams]

There's definitely a bit of good old fashioned imperial racism going on here: those arrogant Chinese - the Yellow Peril - who will poison our children with their dodgy products and destroy the earth with their industrial growth.
That's exactly it, and it's extremely disturbing, and you can see it already.

[SouthernBelle82]

So I assume you have the proof too right? Gee funny how there's a lack of that going around with this accusation going around. If so many of y'all seem to believe that's going on let's see the proof. Either prove it or shut it.


That's exactly it, and it's extremely disturbing, and you can see it already.

[SouthernBelle82]

To jammoe I don't know about others but I'd love to hear your ideas. Maybe start a new thread about it? Unless the original author doesn't care of course. It's definitely one of those tough situations. I've off and on been thinking about what to do too and only thing I can think of is to put pressure on the government but I think it's probably too late for that step now and it's out of control. :(