I think it is as stupid as those videos posted by those anti China scaremongers.
Miscellaneous News
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
Hmmm, you could be right but then again I do believe something bad is going to happen during the election. Though you don't need that video to tell you that I guess. But then anything can happen
Mr T
Senior Member
I suppose this is an example of why opinions of China have dropped in some countries. This sort of thing is just not understandable to most people in Europe, the Americas, etc. Like, fine, if you want to forceably integrate ethnic Mongols living in China into modern society - whatever. But why the need to portray Genghis Khan as "Chinese" as opposed to the external Mongol invader that he was in exhibits outside of China? Just because he took on Chinese robes to try to legitimise his rule doesn't change the fact he most definitely wasn't Chinese (he was seen as an invader at the time, after all).
Is it some issue of face, that China/the CCP doesn't like to be reminded it was ever conquered and ruled by an external party? Or that there's a fear that letting the historical reality of Khan remain will encourage Mongolians to see themselves as being distinct from Han people?
It's like the recent nonsense over Chinese netizens and the Global Times throwing a tantrum over that K-pop group noting the sacrifice of Koreans and Americans in the Korean War. Why did that even trigger them?
Anyone hear a fly pass by ?
The fly get upset over This, but was ok when certain country got the comfort women statute removed in Germany. Figures.
Well the CCP could still get a little smarter in managing things like this. Sometimes they are cringeworthy. Maybe I'm just not seeing it from their perspective. Some little things are simply not worth making a fuss about. It can reflect poorly on you and allowing this to happen can occasionally be unwise. Just like how Americans can sometimes be overly idealistic and choose ideology over pragmatism, so too can the CCP sometimes fail to choose which battles to fight and draw attention. There are a lot of tasteless old men running things everywhere in the world. A lot of those people aren't always well educated or socially intelligent in the western sense. There's also the group think effect when it comes to things I believe the CCP just let slip through the gaps of their usually well informed and well planned moves.
This doesn't bold well for black people in America. The N-word alone is not a racial slur!
I'm Speechless.
From Washington press:
Amy Coney Barrett’s decision about racial slurs in the workplace comes under intense scrutiny
Trump's nominee to replace RBG doesn't think that being called the n-word creates a hostile work environment.
As the second day of the Senate Judiciary Committee meeting to consider the nomination of Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett is unfolding today, the record of decisions handed down by the Donald Trump (and Federalist Society) pick to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is being closely examined by the Democrats on the committee.
That record isn’t particularly extensive, given that Barrett has only been a federal judge for two years — another reason that many Democrats question her qualifications for a lifetime seat on the nation’s highest court — but at least one opinion that Barrett authored during her brief tenure so far has raised some serious questions about her judgment.
The case in point was a workplace discrimination lawsuit by Terry Smith, a Black employee of the Illinois Department of Transportation who sued the agency after he was fired. Among the discriminatory actions that Smith alleges the IDOT allowed in what he considered a hostile workplace were being addressed by the “n-word” by his supervisor, Lloyd Colbert.
“The n-word is an egregious racial epithet,” Barrett wrote in the case of Smith v. Illinois Department of Transportation. “That said, Smith can’t win simply by proving that the word was uttered. He must also demonstrate that Colbert’s use of this word altered the conditions of his employment and created a hostile or abusive working environment.” “[Smith] introduced no evidence that Colbert’s use of the n-word changed his subjective experience of the workplace. To be sure, Smith testified that his time at the Department caused him psychological distress. But that was for reasons that predated his run-in with Colbert and had nothing to do with his race. His tenure at the Department was rocky from the outset because of his poor track record,” the judge continued.
Rest if the article:
I'm Speechless.
From Washington press:
Amy Coney Barrett’s decision about racial slurs in the workplace comes under intense scrutiny
Trump's nominee to replace RBG doesn't think that being called the n-word creates a hostile work environment.
As the second day of the Senate Judiciary Committee meeting to consider the nomination of Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett is unfolding today, the record of decisions handed down by the Donald Trump (and Federalist Society) pick to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is being closely examined by the Democrats on the committee.
That record isn’t particularly extensive, given that Barrett has only been a federal judge for two years — another reason that many Democrats question her qualifications for a lifetime seat on the nation’s highest court — but at least one opinion that Barrett authored during her brief tenure so far has raised some serious questions about her judgment.
The case in point was a workplace discrimination lawsuit by Terry Smith, a Black employee of the Illinois Department of Transportation who sued the agency after he was fired. Among the discriminatory actions that Smith alleges the IDOT allowed in what he considered a hostile workplace were being addressed by the “n-word” by his supervisor, Lloyd Colbert.
“The n-word is an egregious racial epithet,” Barrett wrote in the case of Smith v. Illinois Department of Transportation. “That said, Smith can’t win simply by proving that the word was uttered. He must also demonstrate that Colbert’s use of this word altered the conditions of his employment and created a hostile or abusive working environment.” “[Smith] introduced no evidence that Colbert’s use of the n-word changed his subjective experience of the workplace. To be sure, Smith testified that his time at the Department caused him psychological distress. But that was for reasons that predated his run-in with Colbert and had nothing to do with his race. His tenure at the Department was rocky from the outset because of his poor track record,” the judge continued.
Rest if the article:
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
I highly doubt the truthfulness of the piece, after all, from the Hong Kong fiasco, we already know how biased and unreliable Western reporting is. That Genghis Khan was a Mongol who amassed a massive empire is not refuted in China. Chinese people are taught that the man's name is Genghis Khan, he was a northern Mongol race and he conquered many territories creating a massive Eurasian empire. It makes no sense what this article is saying; you cannot discuss Genghis Khan without the words Genghis Khan, Mongol, and Empire. What are they supposed to call him, Super Horse Man? If they were doing an exhibit on the history of China and the Chinese side said they would not participate if the Tiananmen Massacre was discussed, I could believe it but this isn't even believable. This sounds like there were some disagreements between the French and Chinese historians and the French decided to just do a slander piece as they slam the door behind themselves because they cannot have it their way, and they knew that all naïve Westerners will believe their story hook line and sinker without even a logic check. I haven't heard anything from the Chinese side telling what really happened.
Last edited:
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
Russia and China win spots on U.N. human-rights council, but Saudi Arabia fails to make cut
Associated Press
Tue, October 13, 2020, 3:33 PM EDT
UNITED NATIONS (AP) — China, Russia and Cuba won seats on the U.N.’s premiere human-rights body Tuesday despite opposition from activist groups over their abysmal human-rights records, but another target, Saudi Arabia, lost.
Russia and Cuba were running unopposed, but China and Saudi Arabia were in a five-way race in the only contested race for seats on the Human Rights Council.
Associated Press
Tue, October 13, 2020, 3:33 PM EDT
UNITED NATIONS (AP) — China, Russia and Cuba won seats on the U.N.’s premiere human-rights body Tuesday despite opposition from activist groups over their abysmal human-rights records, but another target, Saudi Arabia, lost.
Russia and Cuba were running unopposed, but China and Saudi Arabia were in a five-way race in the only contested race for seats on the Human Rights Council.
Yuan was a legitimate Chinese dynasty, period. Even Ming's founding emperor, after kicking the Yuan out of Beijing, put Kublai's name in the shrine for China's greatest emperors. I fully stand behind the Chinese government's refusal to provide material for promulgating the Western narrative. If people in the West are so wrapped up in their story about other people that native perspectives become 'not understandable' to them, it's their loss.
BTW, in China today it's the Han supremacists who insist on denying Yuan's Chineseness. In fact, the Han supremacists' take on Chinese history bears striking similarity to the Western narrative, which isn't surprising considering the West was the birthplace of Nazism.