Those familiar with the minutiae of the British far left will know that the team behind Spiked are all former members of the quite loony (and I'm a commie myself) Revolutionary Communist Party. They were professional controversialists even back then and tried to stake out a place in the crowded Judean People's Front market of the Leninist left by provocative stances, though this blew up in their face when their party rag libelled some ITN journalists concerning an expose of the death camps in Srbenica and they lost the subsequent trial. Since then they've reinvented themselves as this and a completely nutbar think-tank that helps deny global warming amongst other jolly japes in bed with capital.
Anyway, odd people, and if I find myself agreeing with them on anything I am sure to have a careful re-think of my position. Grubby opportunists.

Jim:

the political affiliations &/or motivations of a speaker--illuminating in many ways--shouldn't distract the conscientious reader from the substance of the speech.

i browsed the opinion pieces linked to by Jeremy above and found most if not all of them to be both credible (that is, rooted in reasonable suppositions) and well-argued.

of course, the mere fact that Beijing's olympics have devolved into a burlesque of China-bashing does not by any means either (a) validate China's staging of the pre-games thus far; or (b) invalidate international criticism thereof.

nonetheless, it's always nice to see proof, however modest, of the twin premises that Western media, though "biased," provides fertile ground for expressions of "all" beliefs both popular and otherwise, and that media control is best placed in the mind's of readers and writers than it is in the hands of government consors--as perhaps was Jeremy's intention.

Noble and right (also bleeding obvious and not a little condescending :p) as your sentiments are, you might perhaps say otherwise after lengthier exposure to the balls-aching and ultimately debilitating sophistry and dishonesty of the RCP and their later incarnations.

Nuke China! Their nuclear deterrent is made in China and would certainly not work, so if you'd encourage your local lawmaker to murder Jeremy Goldkorn and the staff of Danwei, you'll get off scot-free!

Interestingly, only pieces that have something to do with criticizing China draw folks like b. and Jim.

Why would people be obsessed in something that they find revolting? I for one only care about stuff that I like. :-)

Pffefer: Careful with how you toss those generalizations around - you're liable to smear someone.

Besides, if everyone only cared about stuff they liked, where would anyone find a satisfying argument online?

Pffefer, it may come as a surprise to your narrow mind that one can love a language and culture without having to slavishly defend every aspect and action of an authoritarian state that lacks any broad popular mandate from the people it rules. China is a large multi-ethnic nation, its history is long and storied. Is it some ignorance on your part that seeks to equate Chineseness with the fleeting presence on the stage of history of a deracinated Leninist regime? What do you think is being criticised? Does China, all her history and people, her science, art and thought, entirely correspond with whatever blether last emerged from Zhongnanhai. For shame, ye of little mind.
In any case, the hobby horse I am riding here, as would seem obvious to all but the hard-of-thinking like yourself, is some left sectarian bashing of the British RCP. They may talk a lot of shite, but credit where it's due, can hold their corner in a rational debate.

Smearing? This is not Bill O'Reilly's program, is it? hehe, Joel, you know internet blogs and forums are not for those who have a fainted heart. I have, and I am sure you have seen things that are far worse than what I have just said above. Generalizations? Since the inception of internet, people have been tossing generalizations around, what's new? Case in point is the hoopla over Tibet. The evil Chinese government. The brainwashed Chinese people. The biased western media. These are all generalizations.

But seriously, don't you see it? Most of Danwai's posts generated ZERO comment and the ones that have generated a lot of comments, especially from these folks, invovle "criticizing" China one way or another. Don't you find that intriguing?

"especially from these folks": Aw, man, Pffefer, now I'm going to have to go through the comment archives to shoot you down.

Yes, we are fully aware of what sorts of posts generate the comments here at Danwei (and most other online forums, I'd expect). There's no lack of commenters you could have named, but picking b. and Jim just shows your own lack of awareness of the full extent of what our fine site has to offer - the both of them are long-established regulars who comment on all sorts of topics.

On the other hand, all but one of your own comments have been on posts "'criticizing' China one way or another" (and the single outlier (from your current id, at least) was about the Foreign Minister's joke about Chinese language learning). But it's stuff you like, so I can't really argue with that.

Jim, you are right, my "narrow" and "little" mind can not distinguish China and its government (in your rendition), nor does it understand your intelligence.

Chinese government? Who is talking about the Chinese government here? Why is it every time somebody mentions China-bashing, there will be ten people coming out saying "it is not you, it is your government, stupid!"? Are we criticizing the Chinese government for not talking to the Dalai Lama? Or are we talking about perceived "China-bashing"? For example, what does the pathetic outcry generated by the Chinese torch guards in Britain and France have anything to do with the Chinese government? I quote:

"In truth, there is nothing mysterious about the presence of foreign security officials in the UK. There are loads of them, guarding foreign embassies and protecting visiting foreign dignitaries. Indeed, last year the London leg of the Tour de France was accompanied by 80 French police officers, actually wearing paramilitary-style police uniforms and riding motorbikes; Greek security officials followed and monitored the movement of the Olympic flame in the run-up to Athens 2004 (4). Yet no one asked ‘Who let the frogs in?’ or ‘Who are those mysterious Greeks?’"

Joel, I do enjoy going head to head with those who never hestiate to dish out "criticism" at any given opportunity, it is what I like, so what's the problem? Had I hated it I wouldn't have come here, right?

Sure I am relatively new to this site and I didn't realize how well-establish people like b. were. Sorry, I shouldn't have "smeared" them, my bad.

To b. and Jim etc., I say go ahead (who am I to say anything?), I am sure I will be enlightened and touched by your immense passion toward China. :-)

It is quite amusing to see people gettting onside with Brendan O'Neill.

The writing in the Spiked series is without question as uninformed as the majority of the China bashing material in the media. Like B, I also took a quick scan through the latest articles, although with a different conclusion. Take a look at O'Neill's article on the environment and his taking of Beijing's 'Blue Sky Days' at face value or the ridiculous lifting of the quote about jenny lou's in the plastic bags story as two of many examples of the quite ridiculous arguments being positioned.

These pieces are written by people with no understanding of China. They come from a perpective of contrary radical politics, similar to what O'Neill has been churning out for years. The objective is to be controversial (whatever the topic - see O'Neill's stand on the Soldarity movement in Poland), not to be informed or knowledgeable. As such should be taken with a handful of salt.

It is quite funny to see such a discredited journalist being featured on danwei, without any hint of irony. he is the pomfret of the revolutionary left (or is it the radical capitalistic right? the folks at Spiked have never been able to make their minds up on that one)

Pffefer, I'll repeat myself, as it seems things sink in a bit slowly with you. I first commented on this thread with a somewhat deliberately over-the-top criticism of Spiked on the grounds of the political past of it principal writers. It was then that your knee jerked and you decide to include me in some category of bad elements who only comment on "China-bashing" posts.

Hey Jeremy,

I posted about this on Shanghaiist a short while back. I linked a peice by George Monbiot giving background to the Livin marxism/Spiked founders. Check it out.

China gets Sp!ked

I see some bloody show-offs of the capabilities in writing in perhaps your native language- English. Good job on that. Not much else to comment on. 沉默是金

I actually thought the article by Brendan O'Neill defending the Chinese Olympic torch "flame attendants" was very well written.

He provided some interesting historical context and fair criticism regarding the labelling of Chinese flame attendants as "thugs"

link

(I'm not a radical activist and consider myself well-balanced; leaning neither left or right.)

I felt that article made some good points, too, Spelunker, but he just went on too damn long.

Thanks for the link, Andy Best. Looks like Spiked's propaganda is indeed showing up througout the blogosphere.

Yes, I agree that article was perhaps too long.
However more concise arguments defending the Chinese flame attendants don't seem to exist anywhere on the Internet among native English speaking writers.

Both Australia and Japan have decided to ban the Chinese flame attendants from running alongside the Olympic torch in Canberra and Nagano.

Interestingly, so far I have not seen anybody responding to O'Neill's accusation of hypocrisy about how the British media (mostly) have portrayed the Chinese torch guards. I take that you guys, including Joel who labeled it "Spiked's propaganda" all agree that the Chinese torch guards are indeed "thugs". May I ask why? What justifies it?

Or is it a breach of Danwei's policy to even ask this question?

Sorry, Pffefer, sometimes I forget that not everyone follows the links. I was echoing the final two lines of Andy Best's post on Spiked with the "propaganda" comment.

In regards to your larger question (and the issue of policy), I'd invite you to reread Spelunker's comment.

It is interesting that only so-called "loony" western writers would challenge the China-bashing. It's sad that more mainstream sources don't have the intellectual courage to do the same.

The sp!ked team are tricky. They are far-right libertarian but they label themselves 'left'. It's a very clever and calculated strategy to undermine progressive thought.

If my linked article or the comments here are not shedding much light then I suggest visiting the main hub site for this kind of writing - Harry's Place. I don't want to give them a direct link, please Google it.

Beware though, this is kind of the intellectual branch of nationaist movements in the UK.

pffeffer and tom - I think you are missing the point about spiked. I for one would not respond to O'Neill as that would justify his nasty agenda (which has nothing to do with supporting China). Intellectual courage? From the Spiked website? Now that is funny.