Reading an article just now in the Observer, I read: “His comments came after yet another leg of the Olympic torch relay was disrupted by anti-China protesters yesterday”.
So people using the occasion of the Olympics to protest against the repression of the Tibetan people are “anti-China”? I have not protested (unfortunately the torch passes through Canberra on a workday) but totally sympathise with the protestors, and I am certainly not “anti-China” … how I could I be “anti” one billion people? This is not just semantics … if we cede the terms in which political discourse to the dominant power, the agenda is already set.
Witness the way in which the majority of world opinion opposed to the Bush administration’s war crimes were painted “anti-American”. This is a blatant attempt to cut off the population of the dominant power (be it Chinese or American) from exterior critique as an attack on ethnic identity or the nation itself, and stifle criticism from within as fifth-column treachery.
Just a clumsy phrase, perhaps; but I expect better from the Observer.
Yes, I think that you have a good point. As a U.S. citizen, I do not get upset when people (non-U.S. citizens) criticize the Bush administration. That isn’t enough to make one anti-U.S. I mean, the fabulous thing about democracy is dissent! I, too, sympathize with the Tibetan dissenters, but I do not view myself as anti-Chinese. Governments are not their people, even elected governments (i.e., I certainly didn’t vote for Bush. Even though he’s “my” president, I do not identify with his party’s agenda).
Of course, a lot of this “anti-China” business in the papers is schadenfreude (sp?). Other world powers are relishing in the butt-kicking that China is taking over this. I do have to say that I’m glad to see some country other than the U.S. getting beat around a bit. We’ve been the world’s pinata for 8 years now; it’s nice that China is taking attention away from the mess in Iraq.