Red Dawn 2010: Just A Movie? Or America’s Shame?

Red Dawn teaser poster.

If you’ve been following English-language news surrounding China (or, chinaSMACK), you’ve likely already heard of Red Dawn and it’s upcoming remake. The original 1984 American movie featured the evil Soviets suddenly parachuting into the continental United States. Given that the Soviet Union has since collapsed, the 2010 remake is updated to align with the times. That means, this time, its the Chinese who are invading1.

Ironically, the Chinese were on America’s side in the original2.

As you can imagine, there are many people (myself included) who are a bit concerned about how this movie squarely frames the Chinese as a threat, an enemy, and possibly an invader of the United States. We may know this is an extremely unlikely scenario, but try telling that to a not-unsubstantial amount of Americans who swear the Chinese are already waging covert biological warfare against them through poisonous pet food, toys with lead paint, and stinky sulfuric drywall…or think China is at least seriously pursuing “empire”3.

With so many Americans already holding plenty of misconceptions and misgivings toward the Chinese, the new Red Dawn will inevitably ratchet up these negative sentiments amongst the ignorant and impressionable. We know this is going to happen. We just don’t know how concerned or annoyed we really should be.

Research analyst Aimee Barnes posted on her personal blog a good overview of what’s objectionable and worrisome about the new Red Dawn movie, titled: “Heroes, Commies and the American Face“. Seeing that it went up two days ago, but upset that it has gotten zero comments thus far, I’m linking to it again hoping to spur some conversation. An excerpt:

As you might imagine, I was a bit upset after learning about China’s leading role in “Red Dawn 2010.” But it’s just a movie, right? Not really. With our economy in the tank, our jobs being shipped overseas, and a barrage of news reports on Chinese tainted drywall, starving tigers and cyber-spies, you can bet that a significant number of Americans are not keen on China these days. However, America’s ties to China bear no resemblance to the Russian-US relationship during the Cold War era. China is creditor to American debt and Walmart’s biggest trading partner. China holds both US treasury securities and American dreams (because if you can’t get a job in America, why not try China?) And, in an age of globalization and unparalleled interdependency, can we even afford to use the word “enemy” when referring to nations? According to the writers and producers of “Red Dawn 2010,” we can.

Aimee continues:

In my opinion, “Red Dawn 2010” is not just a movie. It is reckless propaganda, outdated and uninformed, which serves to undermine the already fragile US-China relationship and positive diplomatic efforts made over the past few years. It shouts, “to heck with moving forward. Screw the future. Let’s resurrect the past instead.” It’s not art, it’s xenophobia. Most of all, it is one more piece in an assemblage of the modern American “face,”- the face we show to the rest of the world. It’s shameful.

Oof, strong words.

To be honest, I’m torn.

On one hand, I agree with what Aimee says about what the movie can represent.

Red Daw 2010 remake Chinese propaganda posters.

On the other, I also think “it is just a movie.”

Let’s be honest, seriously dumb entertainment that play off people’s dumb knee-jerk xenophobia get made in a lot of countries, not least of all China. The only problem may be that, in America, some really dumb entertainment come out of really big productions that have really big marketing budgets. It is that Hollywood apparatus that magnifies the impact and consequences of dumb ideas. Fair or not, America’s pop culture does influence much of the world. It’s one of the benefits, by-products, and burdens of being top of the heap. People will interpret everything that comes out of your ass and interpret you with it.

But no, I don’t think the movie will bring America to the brink of war with China. Not even remotely close. There are, believe it or not, thankfully enough reasonable people in key positions in America. There are enough people who can separate fantasy from reality.

Omega Red Daw by Ryan Rouse.

For comic geeks.

But maybe that’s where the social criticism and discussion begins. This movie’s narrative is at least someone’s fantasy and for the roughly two hours audiences are watching it with any suspension of disbelief, it’s their’s too. Does this, one person compelling others to think something, alone warrant any head-shaking if the head-shaker disagrees with the ideas being planted, even in the name of “entertainment”?

If the Chinese made a similar movie, but with the roles reversed, would those who say Red Dawn “is just a movie” offer the same reaction, as gracious to others as they are to themselves? Or would it be “yet more Chinese propaganda” that deserves more concern because Chinese audiences are more more gullible and brainwashed, that the Chinese government is escalating nationalism in preparation for a showdown with the United States?

What struck me most was Aimee’s characterization here: “[T]o heck with moving forward. Screw the future. Let’s resurrect the past instead.”

It struck me because I regularly hear and read Americans (amongst others) criticizing the Chinese for incessantly resurrecting their past, clutching to their to historical resentments, against the Japanese, against Western imperialists, whining and whining and whining. “Get over it already”, they’d say.

All true…and yet…

Image credit: “Omega Red Dawn” art by Ryan Rouse.


  1. Apparently the Russians are invading as well — the bastards — but the Chinese replace the Soviets as the main villains this time. []
  2. And were nuked for it. A synopsis and map of the Soviet invasion in the original 1984 Red Dawn movie. []
  3. It’s a link, Stuart! Currency of the intarwebs!!! []



196 Comments

Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.

  • Some HTML can be used to format your comment.
  • Add a picture to your comments with Gravatar.
  • Please be civil. Comments may be moderated.
  1. hm

    -+-2

    First off, if China made a movie like Red Dawn with reversed roles, Americans would be screaming “propaganda! That move’s just the product of government’s attempt to brainwash their Chinese citizens!”

    A movie is never just a movie. Yes, movies are meant to allow people to live in a different world but they are also the most influential, even if they intend to influence.

    Next thing you know, Americans will start finding ways to bring back internment camps, segregation and laws to stop Chinese people from immigrating or touring. A bit exaggerated but… I think the movie will have a large negative effect on how people view China and Chinese people.

    • -++1

      “Americans would be screaming “propaganda! That move’s just the product of government’s attempt to brainwash their Chinese citizens!””

      In the absence of an independent and unfettered film industry, they’d be right.

      • friendo

        -+

        Independent and unfettered? Yeah right, more like overbearing and with international reach. Spending hundreds of billions to demonize a race of people, like Americans do to Chinese, is different from a government displaying its private views to its own citizenry.

      • Hugo

        -++3

        Funny to see americans criticizing ‘brainwashing’ in others societies. Post a survey among american people about some political concepts and it´ll clearly display their brainwashed answers.
        About the existence of an american independent movie industry – do not make me laugh – as we know that in capitalist system you need to make money to survive and in the entertainment industry so well represented by Hollywood, it doesn´t mean necessarily to care about telling the truth. So moron films like Rambo or Braddock flourished (and they still will go on for a long time) by the hundreds.

      • Juchechosunm

        -++3

        Once again stuart is saying, the west can away with anything the others wouldn’t because it is democratic,free and “moral”.

        • -+

          Your capacity to misrepresent my words is without parallel, Juche.

          Nice try, though.

        • Jones

          -++3

          Juche,
          Stuart was speaking of the fact that there isn’t really any ministry in the US (I forgot the name of the one in China) that decides if a film is ok to make or not. There’s age-ratings, but not really any government censors for this sort of thing. I think it was actually very obvious.

          Hugo,
          “About the existence of an american independent movie industry – do not make me laugh – as we know that in capitalist system you need to make money to survive”
          Yeah, the last part is true. However, that doesn’t keep anyone from making whatever film they want to make. He’s talking about a lack of government censoring of films and other media, you’re talking about the truthfulness of movies and entertaining an audience. The director could choose to remake Red Dawn (a movie that a lot of people enjoyed in the past) and fuck up everything that has to do with an accurate display of China but put in a lot of fun explosions, or he could make a film that’s a boring documentary on Chinese culture that’d otherwise be shown on nothing other than CCTV9, that no one will enjoy. He won’t make money with the second one, but he has every right to make either of those films. Whereas, in China, you’ll have to present the idea to censors to get a green light on making it, based on the broad category of social harmony. Again, pretty obvious.

          • friendo

            -+-2

            Once China spends 99% of the world’s media budget, tries to bust into the American market, and 100% of those involving your people and nation are derogatory, racially charged propaganda and inherently offensive, perhaps America will think about instating some of these ministries.

          • Matt

            -+

            “the fact that there isn’t really any ministry in the US (I forgot the name of the one in China) that decides if a film is ok to make or not”

            The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences could, conceivably, be characterized in this way.

          • Jones

            -++1

            Friendo, you’re in fantasy world again. You can’t just make assumptions that China will one day own 100% of American media and constantly spit out 100% anti-American rhetoric. First of all, it wouldn’t work. No one would watch that shit. People would make their own media anyway. There is actually quite a bit of “anti-American”, however you want to describe it (because anyone can have any opinion on what it is to be “American”), media here in the US. But, damn, they aren’t censoring it, are they? Gee golly whiz

          • Jones

            -+

            Yeah, but they don’t stop you from making it. If you make the film on your own accord, as in an independent film, that’s fine. It’ll be rated and broadcasters can decide if they want to show it or not, but no one is going to toss you in jail for making it.

    • JoE

      -+

      The Chinese “Red Dawn” would actually be so horrible as it would inadvertently mock China itself. It would make watching Michael Moore and his turd films some what palatable.

  2. Jay (a different one)

    -++2

    The difference is that in the Chinese re-make of the movie (blue dawn), the USA invades (i.e. tries to liberate/recapture/return the China that apparently the donkeys ‘lost’ after ww2??) and tries to underwhelm the population into harmless zombies with incredibly articulate speeches supported by a veritable void of actionable policy…. It’s a movie. And yes, millions of bleepheads will think it is real, boycot sushi for a whole week, press their congressmen or senator for action, etc. And then another movie comes out wherein France is invaded by the Swiss Navy and everybody will be upset about that instead, boycotting buritos and maple sirup….

  3. Jones

    -+

    A lot of non-Americans, especially people in really large East Asian countries, are giving the director/writers too much credit.

    There is no more Soviet Union. The remake of the movie has to have something fresh. Make it fun. It doesn’t look like they tried very hard on the whole “China” thing. This blog’s title should read: “Red Dawn 2010: Just a Movie? Or Conspiracy Theorists’ Wet Dream?”

    You guys are making a big deal out of a movie that is essentially, if they were serious about suggesting the threat of Chinese invasion, is about the same as some loon spouting out conspiracy theories on ChinaSmack.

    If you really think this is propaganda, then who’s propaganda is it? The US governments? That’s all that’d matter, really. If so, then I’d require just a little bit of proof of their funding, writing, or anything else to do with this movie. Anyone could write this stuff.

    • Jones

      -+

      And let me make it clear, the “you guys” and “you” references should have been reworded to point out the fact that I was talking to people who are just certain that it’s propaganda or has some ulterior motive, rather than just a remake of a classic and cheesy greatness of a fun film.

  4. -+

    China regularly makes movies with roles reserved — but they are set in the 1930s and 1940s, and feature a major American ally (Japan) instead of the US itself.

    War fantasies — especially liberation fantasies — tap into something universal. Whether it is a propaganda movie like Children of Huang Shi, or a popcorn movie like Red Dawn, people enjoy supporting the little hero against the big bully. The only difference is that, in Red Dawn, we’re not supposed to take it seriously.

    • Jay (a different one)

      -+

      Are you aware that in the 1930′s and especially 1940′s Japan was NOT an American ally? Various events transpired in the Asia/Pacific region that may continue to be explored though cinematographic and other works, much akin to what drives Europe and the US to continue making movies set in the 1930′s and 1940′s featuring another “American ally”, again with roles reversed. Is not quite the same as ‘Red Dawn’, I would think…

      • -+

        “Are you aware that in the 1930’s and especially 1940’s Japan was NOT an American ally? Various events transpired in the Asia/Pacific region that may continue to be explored though cinematographic and other works, much akin to what drives Europe and the US to continue making movies set in the 1930’s and 1940’s featuring another “American ally”, again with roles reversed. Is not quite the same as ‘Red Dawn’, I would think…”

        Yes, but the China in ‘Red Dawn’ is not a friend, either.

        Both movies are set in universes different from ours, but with remarkably familiar national symbols.

        Both are liberation fantasies. The difference is that the Chinese government actively encourages xenophobia through these films.

  5. -++1

    The possibility of war between China and America is hardly and unprecedented notion. In martial sports like boxing you want to see the two top contenders go at it because its good entertainment. Nobody wants to see a war such as this play out in real life, but if we can watch it simulated on screen then its just good entertainment.

  6. xian

    -++2

    From what I gather it’s seen as a quirky mishap by Chinese netizens, no one really takes offense.

    The real tragedy is how bad the movie looks. The communist era stereotypes really show how little the American public understands about modern China.

    • Jones

      -+

      I think they were probably going for the same “keep it as cheesy” remake method like they did with the newest Rambo. New film quality, same old cheesiness of the 1980s.

  7. -++1

    I am sorry you didn’t include as a choice, “All of the above”. It is just a movie and the more we discuss it, the more it will develop a life of its own, created by the very people who abhor the movie. Yet, it is instructive to discuss what this movie says about the USA. In truth, this discuss might best be postponed until months after its release. If the movie resonates with the public then it is worthy of discuss for that very reason; if the movie fails to attract an audience, then it is fair game as to why it didn’t succeed. For me, I’ll pass and catch it on DVD if I ever find the time.

  8. -+

    “… but try telling that to a not-unsubstantial amount of Americans who … think China is at least seriously pursuing “empire”.

    There is nothing about China’s global strategising that doesn’t demonstrate an inclination towards expansionism. And nobody has any idea where that’s taking us all in the coming decades. It could be a few spats followed by a new status quo that everyone can live with, or it could be a one way ticket to the next Plutonian shore.

    Again, we don’t know how the current geopolitical tug-of-war is going to pan out; and as long as doubt remains it’s folly to ignore the warnings of history.

    Without having any intention of seeing Red Dawn myself, perhaps it’s not such a bad idea to have a ‘dragon alert’ film out there. Imagine if the big studios of the day had made a flick called Nazi Dawn in the early 1930s; it may have awoken people to the potential nightmare that the vast majority never saw coming until it was too late.

    And if we can all look back on Red Dawn in 30 year’s time and say, “wow, did people really buy into this crap?”, then so much the better. But don’t discount the possibility that the film might be part of the reason we actually make it to 2040.

    • -+

      stuart,

      I’m not convinced “expansionism” accurately characterizes China’s geo-political behavior.. Perhaps you can make an argument, ideally with less alarmist rhetoric, and I’ll see if I can counter.

      • -+

        Not hard to do – China has a long list of territories it claims but does not control, and it has regularly issued military threats against Taiwan. China therefore has an openly avowed policy of expansion.

        However, I think it is simply ridiculous to argue that Chinese investment in other 3rd world countries constitutes expansionism, not unless you believe somehow that other countries investing in China also represents expansionism. Such investment may result in expansion of influence, but not of territory.

      • -+-1

        “…ideally with less alarmist rhetoric…”

        That’s why I didn’t use “colonialism”.

        And I have stressed that I’m talking about something that is a possibility, not a certainty. And we should all be wary of that.

        • -+

          stuart, if you want to stress that you’re talking about a possibility, then I’m talking about your belief that it is a likely possibility that warrants alarmist rhetoric. I don’t believe warnings of Chinese expansionism or colonialism is warranted. That’s just our disagreement with each other.

          • -+-2

            There is no example – historical or present – of any nation with global influence that, left unchecked, would not take greater strategic control of the world’s land and resources.

            I don’t believe that you can seriously be of the belief that Beijing would not cross the Taiwan Strait tomorrow if she were not checked by American military presence, Taiwanese defensive capability, or negative world opinion. Worst of all, there is no mechanism of restraint from within China itself that would ask, “should we be doing this?”.

            The CCP are not guardians of a morality and, as they presently deport themselves, cannot be relied upon to become a benign force in the world.

            That’s why the responsible course is to raise the possibility so long as it exists.

          • -+

            stuart, I don’t know why you’d suspect me of believing “that Beijing would not cross the Taiwan Strait tomorrow if she were not checked by American military presence, Taiwanese defensive capability, or negative world opinion.” Please explain why you think I may think that. Otherwise, it sounds like you’re projecting a position onto me, which is straw man building.

            Next, do other nations not consider whether or not they are militarily checked by other nations, by the defensive capabilities of possible targets, of negative world opinion?

            Third, I disagree there is no mechanism of restraint from within China. You’re basing this suggestion on a recklessly generalized assumption about Chinese attitudes, a premise you haven’t established yet but take as granted. This is called circular reasoning.“China would expand because they have expansionist attitudes. Because of these expansionist attitudes, which are unchecked because they have expansionist attitudes, it is proper to fear Chinese expansion.”

            What’s worse is that you automatically and implicitly assume the opposite of others countries. I can’t agree with you on this.

            The CCP are not guardians of a morality and, as they presently deport themselves, cannot be relied upon to become a benign force in the world.

            Nor with this.

            That’s why the responsible course is to raise the possibility so long as it exists.

            A lot of things are possible in this world. I don’t think we have the time or energy to constantly raise the possibility of all that is possible. Lines of how possible should be drawn. Either there is a vast disagreement between what you and I think is possible or your above statement is patently absurd. I’d rather you confine your statements to differences we can acknowledge instead of making indefensibly absurd statements like the above. That would be a responsible course.

          • -+-2

            “it sounds like you’re projecting a position onto me, which is straw man building.”

            A bit clumsy of me, granted. I see from your “wow, stuart” response in the other thread that even the great succumb to this from time to time.

          • st

            -+-1

            stuart … “There is no example – historical or present – of any nation with global influence that, left unchecked, would not take greater strategic control of the world’s land and resources”

            Think Mother Britannia in the past and why English is the official language in North Americas, the Southern Hemisphere, atleast half of African countries.

            Think USA in the present, who send troops and start wars at it’s whim.

            Seems like you are happy with the state of world affairs and wants to keep the status quo … so it really cant be that bad a thing to have a nation with unchecked global influence, isn’t it ?

          • -+

            stuart,

            I see from your “wow, stuart” response in the other thread that even the great succumb to this from time to time.

            You’re mistaken. While I certainly do succumb to such mistakes at times, the example you referenced in the other post is not one of them. My response was written precisely to highlight the single-minded prejudice and atrociousness (or if you prefer, “clumsiness”) of your comment. It was like showing you a mirror.

    • friendo

      -+-1

      There is nothing about anyone’s global strategizing that doesn’t demonstrate an inclination towards expansionism. You could say the same thing about Kuwait or Djibouti. The only global power who is clearly militaristic and expansionist right now is the United States, what with their trillion dollar military budget and hundreds of military bases all over the world.

      From this we can probably assume that China, whose military budget is about that of France’s, is simply gearing itself up to deter the United States from doing anything irrational, thus securing world peace.

      Imagine if the big studios of the day had made a flick called Nazi Dawn in the early 1930s

      Once again comparing China to the Nazis, when America and Britain are far more like the Nazis than any other nation.

      • Dave

        -+

        How about the fascists then?

      • Jones

        -+-1

        America and Britain are more like the Nazis than any other nation? Seriously? I wouldn’t compare China to the Nazis, but if I had to, I could list more similarities than I could with Britain and America.

        • Hugo

          -++2

          I like to refer to people races.
          As far as I know, yellow race people never crossed an ocean to rob the lands from the pre-colombians folks that already lived here as huh…another people (not chinese for sure) made in 1492. The genocide of red skins is still waiting for a term, I guess or isn´t there justice on Earth? Oh Lord! By the way, have you ever take notice of Rigoberta Menchu? Well, she is an activist from all-America indians rights and she was the 1993 Nobel Peace Prize winning-award. Maybe you still can find the speech she gave at the prize-delivery ceremony in internet. So telling!
          And later, this people, autor of this great feat against the red skins, gladly gave sequence of it repeating this time (1770) against another red skin people, the aborigine of Australia.
          Finally, ‘America’ and ‘Australia’ are names given by the invaders so whoever that worship justice should be able to tell these lands original names, don´t you think so?
          Don´t waste your time comparing yellow skin people with nazis because nazis are huh…red skin people? or green one? or blue one? or white one?

          • -+

            First of all, a civilization’s not having the inclination nor ability to cross the Bering Strait is hardly a virtue of itself. And if you think there is some sort of citation or quotation that can make your point of strengthen your own argument, post it as a link. Why do some, conservatives generally, expect other people to their research for them? Have you not heard of a search engine?

          • Jones

            -+-1

            The hell?

            Ok, so from what I can make sense of your post…it’s not that America is a Nazi country, but it depends on the race? You listed the example of the Spanish in South America, Native Americans being killed by white settlers, and Australians and the Aboriginals. But, wait a minute, didn’t those “white nazis” give Rigoberta Menchu the Nobel Prize award you spoke of? Why would they do that? That doesn’t make much sense. Hell, why would the white Nazis fight against the German-brand white Nazis? Isn’t that counter-productive?

            Nazism isn’t just about killing people. It’s about racial pride and racism (something I noticed a lot of from your post), political policies, nationalism, education system, etc.

            Tee hee…You’re funny.

        • friendo

          -+-2

          America is actually just like Nazi Germany, if they had won.

        • friendo

          -+

          Nazism isn’t just about killing people. It’s about racial pride and racism (something I noticed a lot of from your post), political policies, nationalism, education system, etc.

          Racial pride- lynchings, housing discrimination, wage discrimination, killing millions of Iraqis, hating Muslims and Chinese, check

          Education system – removing evolution from text books, anti-Communist propaganda, whitewashing of crimes against American Indians, check.

          Nazism is not remembered for its economic policy. They are simply remembered for their abhorrent violence. America is very much like a aged and more sophisticated Nazi Germany that has mellowed out after murdering all the Slavs and Jews and taking their land/assets.

          • Jones

            -+-1

            Lynchings, housing discrimination, wage discrimination, etc aren’t government policies. “Millions” of Iraqis have no died in the current conflict. Hating Muslims and Chinese is not a political policy in the US. Besides, seriously, who here hates the Chinese that much? Besides Stuart.

            Education haha…here we go: I learned about evolution all throughout school. We learned about McCarthyism and it’s evils, which was exactly the anti-Communist type of person you’re talking about. Whitewashing crimes against Indians…hmmm…yeah, you’re right, I had no idea we ever killed any Indians or did anything bad to them at all. That’s sarcasm, by the way.

            Doesn’t matter what they’re “remembered” for. If you’re going to compare someone to something, the compare accurately. Don’t just make shit up, or loosely tie some crime perpetrated by an individual or group (especially ones that most people are against) to the government as if it’s policy.

            Before you start talking about “taking land”…remember that most countries are guilty of this thing. There’s absolutely no country that has been formed without taking land from someone, usually violently. Since we’re on the topic of China and America…well…come on, dude, it’s really freaking obvious.

            You talk about “hating Muslims and Chinese” and there’s all this talk of “fear of Chinese”…getting the feeling there may be a “Fear of Americans” here. You’ve got some wild, scary ideas about what life is like here haha.

            There’s a David Bowie song that is just perfect for you…

      • -+-1

        “Once again comparing China to the Nazis…”

        Like some more straw with your chips (-on-shoulder)?

        • friendo

          -+

          I’m not the one with the chip on the shoulder. It seems like you are- if that’s what they’re calling paranoia and schizophrenia these days.

    • KrSund70

      -++6

      Typical. Everytime I hear folks of stuart’s ilk speak of China’s expansionist policies, I wonder what they’re smoking and where I can get some. The film might be part of the reason we actually make it to 2040? Oh yeah, it’s gonna galvanize Americans to the true threat of the yellow horde. stuart … God forbid if the time comes, just remember, we’re not afraid of taking casualties. Wanna play chicken?

      Ok ok, snarkiness aside. Truly astounding. First of all, you don’t need a dragon alert film, anti-China feeling in the U.S. these days is the one thing that’s pretty much non-partisan. Republicans and Democrats both agree (egads!) that China is a thorny issue, albeit for different reasons.

      We’re talking about a country that’d rather limit reproduction out of recognition of the limitations of resources as compared to mouths to feed, than go out and conquer. We’re talking about a country that could have discovered (and some say did discover) the Americas before Columbus, but decided to burn the fleet. We’re talking about warring kingdoms that fought each other for hundreds of years before figuring out … hey, maybe it might be nice to fight invaders instead of each other (frankly Mao and Chiang were still better at duking it out with each other than joining forces against the Japanese during WWII and that was only 60 some years ago). And on the basis of the politically charged issues of Tibet and Taiwan alone, China’s all of the sudden expansionist?

      Have you ever heard of a Chinese colony? If the U.S. made Puerto Rico the 51st State, would that be viewed as being expansionist? How many places in the world, if you think about it, really have no business having English, or Spanish, or French as their national language, but for colonialism? What other country, then, but for China, has Chinese as the official language? And yet, poor Americans, obviously certain to be invaded by an expansionist Chinese horde … thank God someone’s making a “dragon alert” film? Again, what are you smoking, and where can I get some?

      Similar to the point I made on Mr. Abram’s post about Chinese military spending … this is a typical thing. Of course, stuart would naturally believe that it’s a matter of course that U.S. carrier groups patrol the Pacific, and that U.S. military bases exist in various countries ringing the world. We have enough nukes in our SSGNs to blow the world to smithereens many times over … and … oh no! The Chinese have built a new sub pen at Hainan??!!! Those expansionist commies! Clearly an indicator of their will to invade and destroy us! Let’s make a movie about it to warn everybody!

      If anything, my understanding is that the UN, for example, wants China to take a more active role in internal peacekeeping. This may surprise you stuart, but China’s had a historical reluctance, which exists to this day, to send troops to fight on foreign soil. It’s simply not been done! But, at the same time, China will vehemently defend herself from others with expansionist intentions, in light of experience of course, a certain group of 8 little friends who wanted to carve up China like so many slices of dragon-meat pie. We’ve been there, done that, and the military exists to make sure that crap don’t ever happen again. Push up the Korean peninsula with MacArthur chomping at the bit to cross the Yalu? We WILL fight you. This isn’t about politics. This is about China. And there is many a Chinese saying, translated, which is to the effect of: do no wrong toward others, yet suffer no wrong done upon you. Experience has taught the Chinese that there’s plenty of flag-plantin’ pale skin folks out there who like to make things theirs, so if a vigorous opposition to any such incursions is an “expansionist” intent — then guilty as charged!

      Kai — I’m ok with rhetoric. Cause I like fighting fire with fire. Probably makes you wiser than me, but I like making my point, I like picking the wrench, cause eff that. Short of allegations that Tibet and Taiwan are not under legitimate Chinese claim such that China could be referenced as “invading” Tibet or Taiwan, what indicator of Chinese expansionist intent is there??? But heck, at least Tibet and Taiwan are next to China! There is, at the very worst, an arguable claim! But what reason for Brits in India? Americans in the Middle East? French in Africa? Clearly, as a simple matter of geography, those incursions are more “expansionist” than fighting over places which are adjacent to you, to which you assert a claim?

      Because your politics are better? Because you need the oil? Because Blackwater can get all the defense contracts? For those reasons, it’s somehow ok and not “expansionist” to fight and roll tanks into far away places? And China’s the expansionist one? No No, if there’s any nation that *should* be expansionist, i.e., well you got more people, you may need more land … it’s China. But of course, it’s the folks with their own massive reserves in Alaska that fight wars over oil in the Middle East. I shall name no parties …

      To call this a situation of the pot calling the kettle black would be the understatement of the year. I’m done.

      • Jones

        -+

        I swear…John Stewart says the word “ilk” once on TV and all of a sudden, people are using it in debate all over the internet.

      • -+

        “Have you ever heard of a Chinese colony?”

        Yes.

        • friendo

          -+

          Vietnam was taking over essentially by a Sinicized rogue prince who essentially hailed from the same nexus of tribes.

          Tibet was slowly taken over by the Manchu and relied on imperial support for centuries.

          Korea was attacked primarily in a punitive expedition for moving closer to the Gokturks.

          Xinjiang was inhabited by the Han before the Uighur.

          Wuyue, Chu etc acculturated and then were incorporated through a series of mutual wars.

          Other than that everything else was absorbed by the Mongols.

        • -+

          FOARP, yeah, I have too. It’s just that KrSund70′s point against stuart still stands strong.

          • friendo

            -+

            Jones
            “I love those Euro mummies in Xinjiang”

            lol, another Nordicist. THE ARYANS DID IT! No, those so-called Euro mummies turn out to be half “Asian”- on the maternal side that is.

            This has happened before somewhere else… oh yes, South America.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tocharians

            It’s typical of whites to assume everything belongs to them. Arrogant and short-sighted- Xinjiang hasn’t been properly dug up, but linguistic, genetic, archaeological and geographic evidence points at a Hun/Tibetan population in Xinjiang over 2-3 thousand years before the “Euro mummies” arrived.

          • friendo

            -+

            To note, furthermore, on your ignorance Jones- the “Uighur” and the Tocharians are not related. In fact, the Tocharians despised the Uighur and fought against them alongside the various Chinese dynasties.

      • -+-1

        “Everytime I hear folks of stuart’s ilk…”

        Interesting.

        That was quite some rant, KrSund70 (not your usual moniker?), and just reward for Kai for linking to my little piece of poetic indulgence.

        So much material, but let’s take this one:

        “but China’s had a historical reluctance, which exists to this day, to send troops to fight on foreign soil.”

        Yuan dynasty westward rampage; early sixties Indian safari; late seventies excursion to Hanoi ?

        Even if you shoot those examples down, your comment has no bearing on the present leadership’s intentions, drunk with power as they are increasingly behaving.

        Besides, China has a cultural and historical tendency to wage war when odds are overwhelmingly in her favour. Thankfully, we’re not there yet.

        For the umpteenth time, we don’t know how China will behave when she is strong enough to take what she covets without resistance. But I could take an educated guess in the case of Taiwan and surrounding waters.

        • KrSund70

          -+

          I’m always under this name “stuart” — find me anytime you think you’re up to it.

          For “so much material,” you get to cherry-pick what you choose to respond to? Oh how convenient for you!

          Funny how all the examples you list are ADJACENT to China! Please refer above to the point that such border battles are less “expansionist” than moving tanks/troops by air/water, before deploying to crush locals in place more distant. Note the language examples. Note “dragon-meat pie.”

          Of course, present leadership, drunk with this or that. Blatant fear-mongering. You purport to know more about Beijing intentions because you watch FOX news and subscribe to Free Tibet’s RSS feed? Oh boy, you’re a regular Bob Costas.

          HELLO, everyone has a tendency to wage war when the odds are in their favor. Having a tendency to wage war when the odds are against you is called suicide. And if you want to talk about historical tendencies, I recall a time where other people with the same tendencies liked to fight guns to bows/arrows/swords/blow guns/spears/etc. How do you like them odds stuart — I assure you, you ancestors LOVED them.

          Here’s your point:

          Westerners raped the world when “the odds were in their favor.” Now the West’s power is waning and the East’s power is waxing. You’re doing the math in your head, attributing your historical tendencies in what your people would have a “tendency” to do when the odds were in fact in your favor, and then mapping that onto the Chinese, whom you then presume to be “drunken with power.”

          YOU Don’t know what China will do. YOU, like every fear-mongering white person “drunk” on the Western-media, fear the Yellow unknown, which you think can only be horde-like in number and ill-willed in intent. There’s no talking to people like you. In fact, I’d rather be snarky and let you bite your fingernails to the bone with anxiety. Makes me happy.

          There’s people who know about Chinese history and tendencies much better than you. There’s historical facts which reflect historical tendencies and facts more accurately than your guess as to what’s in Hu and Wen’s liquor cabinet. And history shows that colonization of people over whom you have NO business over is FAR more a Western notion than a Chinese one. And frankly, the more the West weighs in on issues such as Tibet and Taiwan, the more those issues become analogous to the past history of Western colonization attempts. (Guess who’s going to have a military base right next to Taipei or Lhasa should either gain independence?)

          YOU would agree with those other fear-mongers than talk about Chinese asymmetrical warfare via economics and hacking. Vice versa, the Chinese view Western support of Tibet and Taiwan as asymmetrical warfare with the end goal of fragmentizing the Chinese nation … happened to the USSR, and we’re next on the list. So the more the West gets involved, the stronger the Chinese grip on those places, and that’s a FACT you can take to the bank.

          Your facile response overs about 5% of the issues I raise. Try again.

          • Jones

            -+

            Just curious…conflicts that happen adjacent to your country, caused by your own expansion or aggression isn’t expansionism? I mean, a lot of it happened after the US became a sovereign country. So they were our neighbors. In fact, there wasn’t even a small strait between us. So…the whole “killing the Native Americans” thing…that’s totally cool now? Sweet.

            And just one more example, what about the Japanese? China was their neighbor. Was that not expansionism? Again, just curious.

          • Jones

            -+

            “Guess who’s going to have a military base right next to Taipei or Lhasa should either gain independence?”

            That’s the same presumptuous, “fear of the _____ people” behavior that you’re railing on Stuart about.

          • KrSund70

            -+

            Miss the point Jones. My point was, by simple geography, conflicts with adjacents are likely to be less “expansionist” than asserting your global military projection, well, globally. The West does the latter, while both parties, everybody really, does the former.

            I fight the Tibetans and Taiwanese. You fought, let’s see the Canadians to the north (War of 1812), Mexicans to the south (Mexican War circa 1850′s), oh and bows and arrows v. guns in the interior (no time cite needed). Oh but on those of that, there’s all that other global stuff (again, no time cite needed).

            I think I can safely say, you can probably teach me a thing or 2 about expansionism and that it’s more your forte than mine.

          • KrSund70

            -+

            Come on Jones, support for Tibet/Taiwan has always had serious geo-political motives. And We like to make military bases in other countries the same way the Chinese like to make Chinatowns in the U.S. Difference is, in Chinatown they serve pork fried rice; the bases serve airstrikes and missiles.

            You honestly, honestly, like look me in the eye honestly, believe that if Tibet were to separate with U.S. assistance, there would not be a base there orientated toward Beijing as part of that quid pro quo? I mean seriously???

          • Jones

            -++1

            I don’t see it as needing a certain distance to be considered “expansionism”. The definition of the word doesn’t demand that it be “global”, which I assume you mean to be “far away from the aggressor nation”. I also do not feel like the closer a nation is to you, the less importance it has as far as historical evidence of aggressive behavior. If the US went out and took over Portugal, it’d be just as aggressive if China were to go out and take over Mongolia. It’s one nation attacking another, imposing their will and ideals on another, etc etc. Whether or not they’re getting a shit-ton of frequent flyer miles in the process is beside the point.

            Now, I’m not saying that China would or wouldn’t be into expansionism if it had a fighting chance (no pun intended), or saying that China has more of a history of it than the US does. I’m just saying that it’d be wrong to dismiss actual expansionism in a nation’s history based on the fact that the countries were just next door rather than on the other side of town. Besides, not every incident of expansionism involves violence or threats. It can be in the form of diplomacy, “export of culture” and business deals/relationships.

          • Jones

            -+

            “You honestly, honestly, like look me in the eye honestly, believe that if Tibet were to separate with U.S. assistance, there would not be a base there orientated toward Beijing as part of that quid pro quo? I mean seriously???”

            What I assume would happen doesn’t matter. The reason I called that out was because it’s kind of along the same lines as Stuart assuming China would invade the US (or whoever) if they had more power in the world. Apparently he really believes that they would, just like you believe that there would definitely be a US base in Tibet or Taiwan should they get independence with our help. It’s an assumption regardless of how much historical evidence we have to fall back on.

          • KrSund70

            -+

            Well these points dove-tail nicely.

            I can say, with some degree of conviction, that the West has been historically more expansionist than China.

            And the reason my “assumption” is less of an “assumption” than his “assumption” is because I have that historical evidence of Western expansionism in practice, and he does not (i.e., of Chinese expansionism at work).

            And what I mean by that is, if one was to weigh the sum total of all that historical evidence on either side, historical evidence of Western expansionism would be substantially (or at least materially) heavier/more voluminous.

            I think the global spread of language (English, French, Spanish) is another indicia also, many more place that have no real business speaking one of those 3 languages, has one of those 3 languages as the official language, whereas I don’t know of very many places at all, if any, that has no business speaking Chinese, but has adopted Chinese as the official language. Again, also an indicia of expansionist behavior.

            At the end of the day, it’s like that white comedian joked about on one of the previous posts … the West has had its day in the sun and now that there’s serious thoughts of that sun perhaps beginning to think about setting, there is fear of retribution, because we all know what has been done while the sun was shining. That is fear of the future. Whereas, the recent past has shown clearly that Americas make military bases in other countries, esp. those they assist in “liberating.” There, to me, is a much closer nexus.

          • xian

            -+

            Now, hold on. This finger-pointing is serious naive.

            Every nation has ambitious goals, expansionism is the dream of every civilization. Whether “adjacent” or “overseas” is really not the matter. If you can do it, then you should do it. Han civilization began along the central plains, and expanded to many times its size with influence all over East Asia. Maybe it was war, or intermarriage, or immigration. But it doesn’t matter, expansionism isn’t something to be ashamed of, ours or anyone else’s.

            If there was a terra nova today, wouldn’t everyone try to claim a piece, even if there were primitive people living on it? It is OUR fault for not colonizing the Americas first, OUR fault for letting someone else outrun us.

            Be it China’s current economic acquisitions in Africa/South America, former western colonialism or modern soft power waged by all powerful nations. All just signs of good competitive strategies.

            So yes, of course the West will try to contain/fragment a rival, and of course China will try to eat away at American dominance while projecting influence and control as much as possible. It is pointless to call each other hypocrites (hypocrisy is the strategist’s best friend) or assume the moral high ground, it is the competitive edge that matters most. Forgive me for being an overzealous social Darwinist, but has this not been the trend for all of human history?

          • -+

            “Funny how all the examples you list are ADJACENT to China! ”

            That’s how expansionism starts, old sport. Plus, it’s not so funny for China’s neighbours.

            “You purport to know more about Beijing intentions because you watch FOX news and subscribe to Free Tibet’s RSS feed?”

            Take a handful of straw and shred into a bowl
            Sprinkle in some pure fantasy (logical fallacy a workable alternative)
            Add a hint of ad hominem
            Stir in another heaped tablespoon of straw
            Simmer (do try not to boil over) for 15 mins

            And … voila! KrSund70 has replied.

            “In fact, I’d rather be snarky and let you bite your fingernails to the bone with anxiety. Makes me happy.”

            FFS!

            Then you will be ecstatic to learn that my fingernails are a picture of health and I sleep fine.

            “…fragmentizing the Chinese nation … happened to the USSR, and we’re next on the list.”

            And you think I’m ‘fear-mongering’.

            I suggest an infusion of camomile to induce calm before posting in future. Respectfully.

          • KrSund70

            -+

            Your people would know all about how expansionism starts, continues, and finishes “old sport.” Legitimate border disputes and making sure that “the sun never sets on the British Empire” are two VERY different things.

            Characterize me however you wish, you’ve still not established your basis for any of your conclusions that China means to expand. A less enlightened group of leader may well say to your kind, you’ve raped the world while you were in power, now’s your time to bend over and take it like a proper English chap. But lucky for you, regardless of your fears, thereby attempting to justify or rationalize some sort of pre-emptive Bush-esque strike I’m sure, the Chinese leadership actually shows some restraint and decency. Grassroots nationalism has a tendency to see Japan vilified even today and Carre-Fours looted in the wake of the atrocious acts in Paris during the torch relay. The government actually, gasp no doubt this surprises you, wants restraint and condemns such activities.

            Bottom line — Western involvement in Tibet/Taiwan is seen as a geo-political issue which uses human rights as a cover. Given your people’s shameful track record, such a view of things is not surprising, and indeed, quite expected. Your baseless hatred of the Chinese government blinds you to the fact that it’s actually the people these days who tend to be more nationalistic and wants Beijing to take a harder line against foreign insults than Beijing is actually willing to take. That the fragmentizing of the USSR, regardless of whether for the better or worse, has direct relationship to the present perceptions of Sino-West relations is undeniable.

            The more it suits you and your kind to have a “free” Tibet and Taiwan, the more it ain’t going to happen, or you’d have to pry them from China’s perverbial cold, dead fingers. Oh, and I’ll mention again, we’re not afraid to take casualties … wanna play chicken? :)

            I’m less forgiving and diplomatic than Beijing. And if you insist on seeing me as “expansionist,” I’ll make it a point to oblige you. We’re very considerate and accommodating that way … you know, model minority and all that. Good day.

          • -+-1

            “…your kind”

            If you meant ‘you’re kind’, I’ll buy it. If not, FFS!

            “…you’ve raped the world while you were in power…”

            I really didn’t.

            “…the Chinese leadership actually shows some restraint and decency.”

            Yes, clearly. Upstanding gentlefolk, one and all.

            As for the rest, I respectfully refer you to the reply I gave some moments ago. And camomile; don’t forget the camomile.

          • KrSund70

            -+

            Sorry, don’t care for camomile.

            And no, didn’t mean “you’re kind.” You can go find another Chinaman to make a language/grammar crack at.

            And this whole, oh it wasn’t me, it was a long time ago, we’re much more enlightened now such that we shouldn’t be on the hook for the sins of our forefathers? Sorry, ain’t gonna fly. Your ancestors accumulated a MASSIVE good-will debit vis-a-vis the Chinese. That you have no intent on making even a good-faith attempt to at least recognize that debit, and your flippant and simple assertion “it wasn’t me, it was past history, let bygones be byones” is insulting to the Chinese people. That you should then believe you’re (see, there, contraction, you are) in a position to dictate to China your conclusions as to right/wrong and may draw a line which Beijing must toe … well, you’ll have to pardon me when I tell you to go take a flying leap … in the kindest possible way of course.

            Leverage … we’ve learned from the West quite well, accumulate it, and never leave home and engage in the international sphere without it. Isn’t it nice to realize you’ve begun to lose at your own game? Oh yes, be afraid, be very afraid … :-)

          • -+

            “Sorry, don’t care for camomile.”

            Not bitter enough?

            “Your ancestors accumulated a MASSIVE good-will debit vis-a-vis the Chinese…”

            No, they really didn’t.

            Working class background, old sport. We got nothing.

            But I don’t bear a grudge towards the great, great, great, great grandchildren of those who did gain from the spoils of empire.

            A little introspection at this point about who actually paid for your overseas education (or the fact itself) would be appropriate, I feel.

          • KrSund70

            -+

            No, just don’t care for it.

            Sure they did, and the fact you refuse to acknowledge it is a fundamental basis for disagreement. Then you purport to be in a position to dictate to China what she should or should not do, well we’ve been over that before.

            You’re obviously one fellow who’s unaware of white privilege. Newsflash, it’s here, it exists, it benefits you and has benefited you, even if you are the lowest debtor of your sort (I suppose I can believe that), and like Chris Rock said, you probably wouldn’t even want to trade places with him … gonna ride this white thing out, see where it takes you.

            Of course you don’t bear a grudge, it directly helps you. You’re English. There’s a privilege to simply being English, and that stems directly from what the English used to be able to do. You can make all the little dismissive condescending quips you English like to make, doesn’t change a thing. The English were in power during a very formative time in the world, and the indellible mark of your people’s control over the world cannot now be overlooked. That, old sport, is privilege.

            Can’t get a girl back home? Go to China and simply be white … you’re like Man U. playing in League Two … go to any bar in Shanghai and you see proof of that. But before you drink your own Kool-Aid (you obviously already have), even Chinese girls like that will love China before they’ll love you, don’t say I didn’t warn ya.

            And if you think they give out free educations in the U.S., then you’re really off your rocker. Here’s one thing I’ve learned being an immigrant in your world. No one does anyone any effing favors around here. You buy down with your own blood sweat and tears, and if you ain’t one of them, they’ll roll rocks in your way and still call it fair.

            But, I’ll let you know if I ever start feeling like I should kow-tow at your feet in thanks for my education during the course of my introspection.

          • -++2

            Okay, no need to go off-topic and start talking about each other’s potential with the ladies. Remember, in the big picture, the real enemy isn’t each other, it’s the wimmin’.

            Stick to the points, be civil.

          • KrSund70

            -+

            My bad Kai, I’m sure stuart here is a regular Tom Cruise.

            Point was, white privilege as a result of centuries of English domination of the world during world’s formative years, and the legacy left behind today — and one small manner in which this legacy manifests itself today, being a white dude who wouldn’t get a second look in the Western world, in a Shanghai bar. You know it’s true man, we’ve all done the double-takes.

            As an Asian-American with a Caucasian wife, I, too, get double-takes on the street here in the U.S., albeit for a slightly different reason. Oh and stuart, we’re going to have lots of mixed-race children and we’re going to teach them all Chinese … it’s all part of my “expansionist” intent (CPC gives you a pass from the 1-child policy if you’re having kids in connection with the master genetic expansion plan). :)

          • -+

            “Sure they did, and the fact you refuse to acknowledge it is a fundamental basis for disagreement.”

            Nope. And the fact that you refuse to accept it is what’s holding you back in this discussion.

            “Then you purport to be in a position to dictate to China what she should or should not do”

            Never have; never will

            “You’re obviously one fellow who’s unaware of white privilege.”

            Playing the colour/race card speaks with nearly as much volume as the chip on your shoulder. Deal with. And it shows I was correct when I suggested you introspect on your own ‘privileges’.

            “The English were in power during a very formative time in the world…”

            And your point is?

            “…the indellible mark of your people’s control over the world cannot now be overlooked.”

            Boy, the size of that chip.

            “Chinese girls like that will love China before they’ll love you”

            Sorry to hear that, old chap. How many times did you get rejected?

            “And if you think they give out free educations in the U.S….”

            But someone paid for it, didn’t they?

            “…being an immigrant in your world. … and if you ain’t one of them…”

            *roll eyes*

            “If I ever start feeling like I should kow-tow at your feet…”

            Here’s the thing: I would never expect/allow anyone to do any such thing, any more than I’m about to prostrate myself before any would-be emperor.

          • KrSund70

            -+

            Nope, without that recognition, there is no discussion. You have no standing. You’ve not earned it, and clearly you’ve no intention of ever earning it. And the thing is, it’s pretty easy to earn a little credibility in front of the Chinese. You’re just incapable of it apparently, that much is abundantly clear.

            And FYI, I paid for my own education and I intend to be good for my debts,

            [Snip: Again, please feel free to take issue with each other's positions, even attitudes, but leave out the irrelevant speculation about each other's pasts.], and so you’ve come to embrace the opportunities that exist in China today, except you salivate at every attempt to bite the hand that’s made it so, for without the good stewardship of Beijing in the past 20 years, there would be no China today, a land of great opportunities for Chinese and foreigners. Of course I wouldn’t expect you to have any capacity for introspection, you’re too busy talking crap about how you condemn this or that perched on your high and mighty white man’s perspective of the world.

            It’s absolutely amazing how white people like you think that “playing the race card” is some sort of heinous crime. Race is an issue because white people have always made it an issue. But now that you can no longer make slaves of or colonize people simply because they are not white, the “card” should simply be stricken from the deck? Not likely. It exists, you simply don’t hold it anymore, that’s something you need to deal with.

            The English epitomized the word “expansion.” The Americans likewise have taken up your banner in modern times. You making the accusations you do is beyond farcical. It’s people like you and attitudes like yours that turn Chinese moderates into chinese nationalists. Thanks for being the problem.

          • -+

            “You have no … You’ve not …” etc., etc.

            My credibility with the hundreds of Chinese people I’ve befriended around the globe is both well-deserved and a testament to my core human values. And that has nothing to do with whether or not people agree with me.

            This information might disturb you. It shouldn’t.

            “And FYI, I paid for my own education and I intend to be good for my debts”

            FYI, with the exception of the enduring gratitude and respect I have for a few individuals that have crossed my path and changed my life, I have no debts (moral, historical, or financial).

            “…and so you’ve come to embrace the opportunities that exist in China today”

            I’ve lived and worked in many places, China included.

            Australia right now, old sport.

            “…for without the good stewardship of Beijing in the past 20 years, there would be no China today”

            *Ahem* more tea, anyone?

            “…mighty white man’s perspective of the world.”

            I have no idea what that view looks like. I do recognise a chip when I see one, though.

            “But now that you can no longer make slaves of or colonize people simply because they are not white”

            There were black African slaves in southern China 600 years before the Europeans started. Yellow man’s burden?

            “the [race] “card” should simply be stricken from the deck?”

            Of course it should. Ask Mandela next time you see him. I don’t carry the card; I have never carried the card; and I will always reject any attempt to play the card. MLK would have done the same.

            The Americans likewise have taken up your banner in modern times.

            My what? Wait a minute – you are an American. No?

          • KrSund70

            -+

            Your core human values? Vain much? Your values are your own, derived from your own slanted view of the world. And you point fingers when others don’t agree with you. That’s just too bloody bad.

            Only against your kind do I take great personal pleasure in making sure to show as large of a chip as possible. This is another simple matter of fact you fail to grasp. Amongst ourselves, we can objective sit around, shell seeds, and discuss the pros and cons of China’s recent development under the CPC. But the moment you open your mouth, the CPC may as well become the Almighty himself, because YOU don’t have any right to dictate anything to the Chinese.

            There are those Westerners who are capable of frank objective discussions without imposing their “core human values” on everyone else. You’re not one of them. You think yourself so fine and righteous that you couldn’t possibly learn anything from anyone else, because you have all the values already, and others haven’t. Humility obviously is not your strong suit.

            We can only shake our heads in your general direction, and walk away feeling pity and distain, and resolve to be more openminded and humble ourselves, less judgmental, and have better taste in tea. YOu do a great job at making Chinese patriots though, keep up the good work!

          • KrSund70

            -++1

            And FYI, affirmative action is the “card” at play in the U.S. and you’d have to be incredibly naive (or racist) to believe that it’s no longer needed. We’ve gone from “separate but equal” to “together (huh, just in different neighborhoods with different property values) but very unequal.”

            This is typical of a consequence from past wrongs which still have lasting impact. The white man’s historical debit to Africa and the Africans is heavy indeed. You would wish there was no continuing fall-out from those past wrongs, but you’d be very wrong.

            Even today with affirmative action, a black man doesn’t get a fair shake in the U.S. He is disadvantaged from the very beginning, the entire organization of society and life around him is against him. But if he works hard and needs a little affirmative action to get into a decent college, I doubt very much MLK would have been against that.

            Removing the race card means allowing the white man (hey, that’s you) to have a headstart that his people’s past wrongs have won for him. We only seek to remedy past wrongs to the extent we can, that’s the entire purpose. Of course you wouldn’t want to even try to do that would you?

            Luckily, there are enough white people, who unlike yourself, do have the “core human values” which allows them to recognize the states of things today and the manner in which we’ve arrived at them, and realize that certain race-driven assistance is necessary to remedy past wrongs. The fact you remain oblivious is manifest.

          • -+

            “Only against your kind…”

            That’s what they used to say to MLK.

            “… do I take great personal pleasure in making sure to show as large of a chip as possible.”

            Is this why many Africans complain of the neo-colonialist attitude of their Chinese bosses?

            Fewer chips make for a happier, more harmonious world.

            “… because YOU don’t have any right to dictate anything to the Chinese.”

            Huh? I think you’ll find that the dictators are all lodged at Zhongnanhai.

            “There are those Westerners who are capable of frank objective discussions…”

            And long may I continue to do so.

            “You think yourself so fine and righteous…”

            A common mantra levelled at any suggestion from beyond the middle kingdom that the Chinese government could, and must, do better. Oh yes; and it’s nonsense.

            “Humility obviously is not your strong suit.”

            Further evidence of your erroneous character assessment.

            “We’ve gone from “separate but equal” to “together but very unequal.””

            We?

            “You would wish there was no continuing fall-out from those past wrongs…”

            And you would seek to confer a counterfeit guilt in perpetuity to your own advantage. Nice.

            “We only seek to remedy past wrongs to the extent we can, that’s the entire purpose. Of course you wouldn’t want to even try to do that would you?”

            We?

            I have no ‘past wrongs’ to remedy. Seriously, you’re going to have to get to grips with this idea.

          • KrSund70

            -+

            Hilarious! I think we’re past done here. There’s no room for discussion with you, and God forbid I should seek to foist upon thee, oh righteous one, any “counterfeit perpetual guilt.”

          • -+

            I’ve voted that last comment up because it seems we’re on the same page at last.

          • KrSund70

            -+

            Hardly. But keep thinking that way.

          • friendo

            -+

            “That’s the same presumptuous, “fear of the _____ people” behavior that you’re railing on Stuart about.”

            UHHHHHHHHH except America has a track record of doing this all over the world.

            http://antiisgood.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/usbases200103.jpg

            “I don’t see it as needing a certain distance to be considered “expansionism”. ”

            The obvious point was it takes more of an expansionist impulse to attack nations overseas as well as those sharing borders.

            “It’s an assumption regardless of how much historical evidence we have to fall back on.”

            So assumptions based in fact are equal to assumptions based in fantasy. Bravo.

          • friendo

            -+

            xian
            “Now, hold on. This finger-pointing is serious naive.”

            So if the West engages in intellectual dishonesty they can drag honest assessments into the realm of “finger-pointing”. Clever game.

            Rather, it’s the West pointing their greasy, grubby, bloody finger at China with 0 facts while the Chinese defend themselves with facts.

            “expansionism is the dream of every civilization.”

            Some are more obsessed with this dream than others- specifically the West.

            “Maybe it was war, or intermarriage, or immigration.”

            Maybe if was business, or marriage, or rape!

            “It is OUR fault for not colonizing the Americas first, OUR fault for letting someone else outrun us.”

            Why wipe out a race of people on another continent when you don’t even have the desire to wipe out the hundreds of militarily weak tribes surrounding you in every direction? Why wipe out the Native Americans when you can send hundreds of thousands of troops to East Africa? This should be obvious- the West is simply more prone to commit genocide for many reasons.

            stuart
            “That’s how expansionism starts, old sport. Plus, it’s not so funny for China’s neighbours.”

            All of these nations have attacked China first. Even though China has had overwhelming military superiority to almost all of its neighbors for thousands of years, it made no real attempt to subject them to colonization.

            Meanwhile the history of Europe is one bloody genocide after another, starting with the Neanderthals.

            “I really didn’t.”

            Your proto-Nazi grandpa did.

            “Playing the colour/race card speaks with nearly as much volume as the chip on your shoulder”

            That’s rich, considering you’re the biggest race card puller. Always whining about how the “yellow man” is keeping you down.

            “There were black African slaves in southern China 600 years before the Europeans started. Yellow man’s burden?”

            Nope. Complete nonsense- they were Malays, traded only to specific cities in Guangzhou by the Arabs. Get a clue.

            Europeans have had widespread slavery since time immemorial; the best example being Classical Greece.

            That’s what they used to say to MLK.

            Don’t compare yourself to MLK. That’s an insult to humans.

            Is this why many Africans complain of the neo-colonialist attitude of their Chinese bosses?

            So you speak for all Africans now? Please. Watching Fox News doesn’t make you an expert.

            KrSund
            “now’s your time to bend over and take it like a proper English chap.”

            England is already getting it from their former colonial subjects.

      • Jones

        -+

        There’s one Kenn Choi playing someone named “Smith” in the film. On http://www.reddawn2010.com, they have him listed as “Smith (Marine)”. There’s two other Asian actors playing what’s listed as “clerk”, which could be Chinese-American clerks of some store? I guess we’ll see. Anyway, point is, looks like there are Chinese-American (or, at least, Asian-American…but given the subject of the movie, what do you bet you they’re Chinese-American?) roles in the film.

        As for Hispanic roles, it’s hard to tell without seeing it.

        • Jones

          -+

          Sorry, that was supposed to go up there at KrSund70′s March 21, 2010 at 3:32 am post.

          • KrSund70

            -+

            Yeah, it’s cool.

            Guess we’ll see about the film. Again, like I said, “They’re here to help?” I’d be more comfortable with this as a satire flick if it was a straight up invasion. The fact that there purports to be deception involved, seems to me at least, that they’re trying to send a message … i.e., don’t be fooled (by cheap goods, tasty pork, diminuative stature, goofy accents, cool calligraphy, etc.).

          • Jones

            -+

            I’m on the fence on whether I think it’ll be satirical or just dumb, cheesy action made just for shits ‘n giggles. The question isn’t so much if they have a “diverse” set of heroes. The question is how cliche and stereotypical those roles will be. I’m guessing they’re going to cause a lot of eye rolling.

          • KrSund70

            -+

            Agreed.

            My point is, when you make the tagline “they’re here to help,” that already clues me in on the fact that it’s trying to draw from stereotypes … i.e., the Chinese are sneaky.

          • xian

            -+

            Nothing wrong with being sneaky though.
            Propaganda/influence/intermarriage is the best way to win any conflict. Violent warfare is for wasteful scrubs.

  9. Teacher in C

    -+

    No offense intended to any of you, but all this is completely pointless wankery right now, as none of us has seen the movie.

    • Jones

      -+

      That is true. The movie might turn out to be a huge satire on the same “American fears” or whatever that people are claiming caused the movie (but obviously inspired in a different way). If it is, I certainly will come back to this thread.

    • -+

      Of course, but then we could say we’re commenting about the commentary surrounding the as-unseen movie, and exploring what that commentary says about the commenters. How do you like that, HUH?!? ;)

  10. KrSund70

    -+

    Avatar was more removed from reality and look at the debate (conservative criticism) which arose from that. In that vein, difficult to see how a movie with real people, countries that exist which also happen to not be on the best of terms in reality, on earth could be deemed “just a movie.” Clearly, if some people believe that Avatar wasn’t just a movie, then I would assume that more people would believe that this new Red Dawn isn’t just a movie. Right?

    I’d be curious to know though … are there any black or hispanic kids in with the Wolverines? Or, more interesting yet, what about all the Chinese-Americans? What happens to them when the Chinese invade? Korematsu re-deux? Or is this just some Caucasian fantasy about All-American quarterbacks and cheerleaders shooting up a yellow commie horde?

    And what’s up with the tag-line? “They are here to help?” This is suspect because, frankly, I would accept things better if this was just a movie about a Chinese invasion. Ah, but no! Clearly the implication is that this is about deception, of course, typical of stuff that sneaky Chinese people would do, right? Should I venture to guess that there’s a scene where some Chinese surrenders, is granted quarter, and then shoots his good-willed captor in the back? Stuff of old WWII movies to be sure.

    Maybe Beijing shouldn’t do those military parades anymore, scaring too many people. I kind of like them actually, riding down in a black Buick, standing up through the sunroof to the mic: “tong zhi men hao!” It’s kinda nice. :-) But I guess you kinda have to appreciate it.

    Folks are right though, difficult to say right now without having seen it, whether it truly tries to make a rediculous point, or is truly in of itself rediculous, in which case it cannot make any credible point.

    • Jones

      -+

      Yeah I think there’s a black guy cast as one of the wolverines. Replaces one of the white ones from the old movie.

      • -+

        Political correctness FTMFW! But only kinda.

        • Jones

          -++1

          I bet he’s probably an outstanding person. Not gang-related, all his friends are white, not into drugs, intelligent, morally just, doesn’t touch the white women, going to be a doctor one day, and a left-handed, side-armed pitcher. In fact, I bet he pushes the gun out of the face of Private Wang right before the lead guy executes him, teaching us all a lesson in “forgive thine enemy, for he shall remember and repay thee in kindness”. Later, he sacrifices himself to save the others, and the aforementioned lead white guy gives him a nod of approval, signaling that he respected him all this time, even though they had a different sort of opinion on shooting unarmed, surrendered/wounded Chinese soldiers.

          Watch and see if that isn’t in there.

    • King Tubby

      -+

      *Atrocious acts during the relay*.

      The French have an illustrious and very muscular history of street warfare beginning in 1789, 1848, the Paris commume (1871), the big one in 1968. Health workers battled police in the streets over cuts in the health budget and reduced work conditions a few years ago. Even school children took to the streets recently about class sizes and related issues.
      They take their domestic and external politics pretty seriously.
      Paticipatory democracy at its best.

  11. King Tubby

    -+

    John Milius’ original Red Dawn did pretty well at the box office, notably because of his NRA Charleston Heston gun owner message and high level violence. It however did not cause WW111: Cuba is still hanging in there, and I don’t know how we would characterise Russia today. Basically it was a frat flic with a bit of cute dialogue, now collecting dust in trash/cult dvd outlets. (He also made Big Wednesday the greatest surf flic ever: thus my avator.)

    It all depends on the script writer and the number of anziety buttons he (it will be a bloke) hits, and you have to admit they are there for the exloitation at the mo. A recently unemployed six pack joe unable to meet his mortgage payment (dry wall sub plot) aint gonna do it. Nor will the nativist Know Nothing lets pull up the draw bridge a la Pat Buchanan and not engage with the world type-plot will do the trick… lets resuscitate/CPR the past.

    This will be a Tom Clancy techno number with cyber spies, industrial espionage and traitorous Wall Street captains of industry, all connected to that institution of implacable pure evil (thanks Kai), the DC Chinese embassy. Can’t wait to see who is cast as the sexy Chinese female cyborg hit woman and her controller.
    Will there be any serious (underlined) reflection on the US’s diminished global role: don’t hang by the neck.

    Just theorising and I wish people would leave wolverines alone. They have their own issues to deal with.

    • King Tubby

      -+

      Sorry, forgot a key element. Hollywood covering all bases, one of the really good guys in this forthcoming state of the nation will be an American born Chinese character, probably providing Tonto computer geek support to the central protagonist. However, I suspect he will come to a crap end in the last reel.

  12. Henry

    -++2

    I don’t think this movie is going to create anti-China paranoia where it doesn’t already exist. If anything, this silly movie unintentionally satirizes American ignorance and jingoism. It’s like a skit from The Colbert Report. Political pundits can use the movie to explain how the U.S. and China aren’t actually heading towards any war in the forseeable future. Social pundits can use the film as an example of American prejudice. Dumb Americans will be entertained but won’t take the movie too seriously and many of them will laugh at how they enjoy watching an obvious rednecksploitation film. China-watchers like you and I will watch the film and chuckle knowingly at the film’s many idiocies. So everyone wins.

    • hm

      -++2

      IF people get the satire. I don’t think a lot of people do. I knew someone who thought everything on ‘The Onion” was real.

    • -+

      Heh, sorta. But what I think Aimee was getting at was how this film would reflect upon Americans in general in the eyes of foreigners, such as — but not limited to — the Chinese.

      • King Tubby

        -+

        Great though this site is Kai, it sort of revolves around a China – US axis. This movie wont cause a ripple in Europe. The French always enjoy any American fall from grace, while the rest will be more concerned with the soccer results.

        Countries in Oceania will look at it as just more flash Hollywood product. It won’t change pre-existing attitudes to either countries. The US looks totally tarnished in all respects and China looks arrogant and unwilling to deal with a host of problems in its own backyard.

        • -+

          King Tubby, the US is definitely disproportionately represented here but we both know how that’s somewhat expected and unavoidable. Not sure it won’t cause a ripple, since as you say, the French will enjoy any American fall from grace. ;) That’s a ripple! Definitely agree that this, like a lot of race-relations issues, are a bigger hangup for Americans than elsewhere.

          • King Tubby

            -+

            I ‘fess up. Coming from a small but quite nice kind of multicultural country, I’m a schadenfreude type of poster vis a vis big powers. This is the real theory and practice of middle harmony.
            You are really amping it up with your next post. Well, I was in the ROK during 9/11 and we all abandoned work to watch the bosses tv. Rounds of applause and some soju….tres cold morning. The Canadians and NZ’ers redefined the German s……. word. My response. Where was the much vaunted US air defence over the Pentagon’s fly restricted zone.

          • Jones

            -+

            If the planes had just merely destroyed some buildings or made a giant middle-finger smoke pattern in the sky, writing out “fuck the US”, then that’d be cool. But seeing as how it was the death of thousands of people (not all of whom were American. I’d bet that one of two from your own nice kind of multicultural country died in it, even), I hardly find any reason to cheer. “Haha America got shown up at the expense of a lot of innocent peoples’ lives, along with the sadness and heartbreak of countless families and friends. Cheers!”

  13. -+

    Kai,
    Thanks much for the post mention; enjoying the discussion and poll results. I’m waiting for the day when Hollywood decides to drop the Suzie Wong/kung fu master/red enemy/dragon lady China stereotypes. Will that ever happen?

    My bet is that, come November, China’s message boards will be on fire with Red Dawn outcries. Simultaneous to that, Americans will be pouring out of the theaters complaining about “the (insert expletive here) Chinese.” I hope I’m wrong and the film goes straight to video.

    • -+

      I’ll be sure to be lurking on chinaSMACK in November. It should be fun.

    • -+

      Americans will be pouring out of the theaters complaining about “the (insert expletive here) Chinese.”

      I doubt it. If such an expression typifies the target audience, then they’ll be celebrating the greatness of America with a second bucket of popcorn.

  14. Vinegar Joe

    -+-2

    I spent too many years of my life becoming fluent in Chinese and trying to build solid relationships in China. Ultimately, Chinese people aspire to be recognized as superior to all others. China’s nationalism and ethnocentric perspective are the greatest threats to freedom in the world, and Western nations need to take a more assertive stance toward China before it’s too late.

    • -+-3

      The superior attitude of many in China is problematic in the context of this discussion. This comes from the top down, of course. A more open and honest education system is the answer, but the CCP are not in the habit of endorsing such a curriculum.

    • Henry

      -+

      It doesn’t surprise me that you would come to that conclusion. After spending so much time studying Chinese culture, you probably thought that Chinese would see you as a fellow Chinese rather than a talking monkey. But the fact is, the main reason Chinese are so protective of “Chineseness” is because they still feel an inferiority complex with Westerners in other ways. When they see a Westerner who speaks fluent Chinese, they think “Westerners already have everything, and now they want to take our identity too?” So they will defensively say things like, “A foreigner could never understand Chinese culture.” But it’s really not arrogance, just more of the same old 自卑感. In fact, Chinese are quite impressed by a foreigner who can speak fluent Chinese, probably much more than an Englishman would be by an Asian who speaks English fluently.

  15. AndyR

    -+

    Can’t we all just agree that the real crime here is Hollywood’s refusal to be original and not ruin classics by re-making them? The first sequence in the 1980s Red Dawn is awesome, paratroopers floating down around a high school (such an important military target) and wantonly gunning down students…it’s hilarious! I’ll definitely see the new one, but you can’t re-create the 80s cheese that was the original!

    (Kai you really have a knack for finding the most meaningless, yet oddly provocative topics to write on…congrats on attracting such vehement disagreement over a lame movie re-make. Yes, in my opinion it is JUST a movie…just like all those Chinese TV dramas that continue to make villains of the Japanese with Hitler staches and big black round specs are just television shows…)

    • AndyR

      -+

      Also, why does a movie written and created by a FEW Americans have to reflect the US as a whole? And if Ms. Barnes is worried about that now, then how about citing a precedent for the fallout from the first time this movie was made? Was there are huge drop in the status of the US when the first movie came out? What about Rocky IV, was our image super damaged by that film’s characterization of the Russians? How about Red Heat? Yes,the world was worse off from having to sit through a Jim Belushi/Schwarnzeneggar film and America should be ashamed of producing Jim Belushi, but did our “international” reputation take a nose dive because of Arnold’s interpretation of a Russian cop?

      Personally, I feel that people who are offended by stuff like this are most likely offended by pretty much everything (or they are looking for a nice controversial topic to stir up…after all, if we didn’t have all these people pointing out that “it ISN’T just a movie” would there really be a problem here?)

      I think the suggestion that Ms. Barnes makes above that this film is some kind of “hour of hate” that will stir up the average Joe’s ire against China is actually offensive. She obviously thinks Americans are a bunch of idiots who cannot separate fantasy from reality. I’m sure Ms. Barnes would gladly defend the Chinese against condemnations that they are “brain-washed”, so why are we now applying the same sort of false characterization to the American people? As much as all the op-ed writers of the world would like to ignore it, people aren’t as dumb as they give them credit for…

  16. Jones

    -+

    This movie will portray things a little more accurately:

    http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/77caf038b8/naked-dawn?rel=player

    Discuss.

    • friendo

      -+

      hmm.. I’d pick “die”.

      • Jones

        -+

        But do you think the Russians or whoever they were should take that movie offensively? Do you think nudists are terrified of a foreign country coming in and invading their homes, killing them? Or is the movie just for fun?

        • friendo

          -+

          They probably wouldn’t- given that it’s a low budget parody. What we have here is something shown to international audiences, though the plot of course is not known yet.

  17. yangrouchuan

    -+-2

    Coincidentally, as the panda lickers, fen qing and “old hand-jobs” chide about how unreaslistic the new Red Dawn is (without seeing it) and how China has no ill intent towards the US, this headline comes out:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/world/asia/21grid.html

    • friendo

      -++2

      A Chinese student… wrote an academic paper

      Not big on free speech, are you?

      Oh no what ever will we do, a student wrote a paper. America makes itself look more pathetic every day. Don’t worry, Obama will find a way to spend the problem away.

      • xian

        -++2

        Did you even read the article?

        • friendo

          -+

          It turns out nanhe didn’t either, lol. It’s all about American stupidity and paranoia being crushed by critics and academics from all over the world.

          • Teacher in C

            -+

            Stupid paranoia? C’mon! Who are you going to believe here, a military strategist who clearly knows everything about everything, or some “expert” who “studied” the matter “in depth” and came up with “logical” “conclusions”.

    • KrSund70

      -+-1

      Em, if any real intent exists, why in the world would they ever publish it in a paper? You wish the Chinese were that moronic …

    • lolz

      -+

      “Coincidentally, as the panda lickers, fen qing and “old hand-jobs” chide about how unreaslistic the new Red Dawn is ..”

      Hmm, panda lickers, that’s a pretty creative term. I gotta remember that. What the heck is an “old hand-job”? How is that different from the term “wanker”?

  18. yangrouchuan

    -++1

    Yep, the shills are denouncing everything. And yet few if any posters on this board have any credible background in science, engineering, int’l politics or military affairs.

    Oh, I forgot, 5-10 years at an expat bar stool in Guangzhou makes one an expert in everything.

    • -+

      LoL, there is something inherently amusing about you, yangrouchuan.

      Edit: But seriously, if your comments consistently contain more name-calling (shills, panda-lickers, etc.) than actual argued points, you’re going to be moderated.

    • King Tubby

      -+

      Read the link well before you posted it and didn’t didnt get too exercised by the content. Most nation states with the capability are into a bit of cyber penetration. There is a big divide between ambition and realisation. Remember Y2K even though it was a bit different. Will China be able to shutdown the power supply in Possum Creek US. Don’t think so.

      You are on the arrogant side. Beginning to view this site as the clash of civilisations played out in the sphere of pop culture/vox populi. I will try and gain some credibility for ex expats…7 yrs China, visited a bar once.

      Looking at the US side of the equation in all this Red Dawn Babel.

      Characterising whats taking place in the US at present.

      Well, I would call it the Great Fear #3

      Great Fear # 1 This took place in the 1920s and it was a reaction against progressive politics and organised labor/unions. Populist rural small farm prairie politics mixed with dingbat evangelical christianity: Anti banks/big business, anti-semite (read banks), anti-black (read KKK), talking in tongues, rattle snakes. Most of all anti-immigration and pro isolationism. I,ve already mentioned nativism and the Know Nothings in another post, but nobody noticed.

      Great Fear # 2 Post WW11 McCarthyism. Anti-communism and the HUAC. Ironically, American liberalism got blamed for the loss of influence over China due to the Mao takeover….the Lattimore case.

      There was a triumphalist period with Reagon.

      Great Fear # 3 2010. The anziety buttons. China took our jobs. No, Wall Street and large US Large corporations asset stripped and outsourced jobs for high short-term shareholder returns. Chinese visitors pilfer trade and industrial blueprints when the opportunity arises. Of course they do, but US taxpayers pony up with billions each year to fund the CIA and NSA, institutions supposedly protecting the national interest. For all their funding, neither could predict a sunrise. Unsafe Chinese imports. Run an effective customs service. China employs a mercantilist economic model hoarding foreign currencies. True, because all this multi-lateral WTO stuff gave China SOE’s the opening they needed to duck and weave. Bilateral trade agreements and greater regulation of its US corporations would have have been more beneficial to the country as a whole. But Washington DC has more lobbyists than lamp posts.

      In my view, the US polity has never been able to silence christian nutters like Robertson, Ralph Reed etc or effectively regulate its corporations. In the 1920s, these characters used a bullhorn and stood on the back of a truck. Today they have a multi-media platform to ramp up their China fears and anzieties, and they will do so with a vengeance. Broad brush strokes stuff I know, but minus google or reference books. Over to you yangrouchuan.

      • Jones

        -+

        I think most of the Christian nutters are focused on the current government and the black man in office rather than China. At least from my experience, they are. Also, I think the “China” reference, when they do talk about jobs, isn’t so much a fear of China but anger over jobs being outsourced to any country. If all the jobs were going to England, they’d be saying “All our jobs are going to England”.

        • King Tubby

          -+

          Thanks Jones. Your part of the woods was one crazy place in the 20′s as Im sure are well aware. All I was trying to do was provide a bit of an historical context….thumbnail history if you like. My views on the failure of the US govt stands. A wealthy nation which cannot even provide universal health care. Nonetheless, given Americas great gift to the world MUSIC, I would rather be a lampost in the US than the major of any first tier Chinese city. But all the ordinance in the States scares the daylights out of me. This is tongue in check, but Im sure all members of the NRA would welcome a real Red Dawn invasion.

          • Jones

            -+

            Well, imagine how much less ordinance we’d have to scare you with if we used it all on the Red Dawn invaders? It’s not like production for standard civilian-class arms (high caliber hunting rifles and shotgun shells) would just continue unimpaired if all their employees are out in the hills, sniping Chinese grunts.

          • friendo

            -+

            It’d be funny watching the NRA going apeshit with their pea shooters

  19. -+

    Kai, I like the way you do those subindexes with footnote, I think I will copy them.

    Are you using some WP plugin or just writing them directly on HTML?

  20. -+

    BTW, regarding the point in discussion, I am torn like you. It is just a stupid movie, and anyway it is not like the US can censor Hollywood for political purposes. Freedom of speech is what it is, for the good and for the bad, those of us that have been speaking for it in China (and I believe I can count A.Barnes inside)cannot go now and tell film makers what they should and should not do.

    In fact, I don’t even think Hollywood is the main responsible for this, they are only producing what the US public wants to see. The problem is with the American media that are persistently giving an image of China as a menace to the US, which is just absurd. It is not China who is bombing countries, and it is not China who has frigging battle ships and army bases surrounding the US. No, it is exactly the opposite.

    I agree with Aimee that the movie is shameful, but what can we do. Damn it, let’s all watch it on pirated DVDs to avoid giving money to those lunatics. That’s all I got to say.

    • Jones

      -+

      I think it’s mixed into different groups. One is the Red Dawn fans would certainly love to see a remake. Second is action movie fans wanting to see some shootouts. Third are the LMOEs and rednecks wanting to see their “this is what I’d do if we were invaded” fantasies put on the big screen. The fact that it’s China invading is because it’s still a Communist country, and the only large Communist country. If they made it any other country, it wouldn’t have the same “Red Dawn” effect. What are they going to do instead? Have Holland invade and call it “Orange Dawn”?

      Seriously, guys, I live in vast desert of redneck Republican Christian conservatives. I have never heard anyone, ever, mention a fear of Chinese invasion or really that much fear of a conflict with China. It’s all about terrorists still. The only problem with Chinese that these people have is the job thing, and like I said before, that’s not so much about China and Chinese but about the jobs. They bring up “China” because that’s where a lot of it is outsourced to. If they were outsourcing most of it to Romania, would we be talking about the fear of vampires in the US? The only talk of conflict, which is still actually not common, is “fighting over Taiwan”.

      If you get your cues on the day-to-day state of mind of the average American from politicians or editorials on Faux, CNN, MSNBC, etc, then you’re kidding yourself.

      • aquadraht

        -+

        I think that the original “Red Dawn Fans” were already morons at best, fanatic anticommunist rednecks usually, and Fascists at worst, under all cirumstances people without taste, culture, or education. In many countries outside the US, that movie was met with disgust.
        The remake shows the potential of narrow-mindedness in the US being alive and rampant still which is a reason to worry about for the rest of the world.
        Ok, it is “just a movie”, so was Jew Suess by Veit Harlan (which undisputedly was even a more perfect piece of film artswork as well as a more crafty and evil piece of propaganda). Coming from a country as aggressive as the US it gives reason to worry, not just for China alone.

        • Jones

          -+

          I was pretty young and didn’t know what a “Soviet Union” was. Pretty sure I wasn’t an anti-communist, either, because I didn’t know what Communism was. However, I still watched the movie and enjoyed it. Therefore, I look forward to seeing a remake of it.

          So, do you think Americans have a huge, irrational fear of alien invasions? Someone made a movie called “Independence Day”, after all. Are we to suggest that there’s some secret fear of the alien horde in the US? What about giant sea monsters? Someone made a movie called “Cloverfield”. Are we suggesting that America has a huge problem with irrational hatred and nationalism because of irrational fear of a Krakon-like beast? Were the Japanese afraid of a giant lizard smashing up Tokyo? The Final Countdown…are Americans afraid that large storms in the Pacific Ocean might make us travel back in time and be attacked by the Japanese army? I mean, it was made into a movie, so obviously we must be afraid of it, right?

          What about video games? There are several “US invaded” video games out there. Modern Warfare 2 featured a few levels where the US was invaded by Russia. Are we afraid Russia is going to invade now? Really? I thought I was just having fun with the imagination involved in shooting enemies within landmarks that I grew up knowing. I had no idea that really I was always afraid that they were going to invade.

          Do video games fall under the same “What Americans Fear” influence? Do comic books, also? All of these are created art forms for entertainment. Why is Red Dawn the only one that spells out an underlying fear amongst Americans? It sounds like it’s actually the Chinese that are afraid rather than the Americans. Guilty conscience casts irrational blame on others for what you, yourself, are guilty of.

  21. yangrouchuan

    -+

    Funny how the thread pundits are going after red necked christian radicals as “China fear mongers” but it is that same group that sees Wal Mart as literally the work of God, and of course supplied by the most nefarious, cheapest suppliers in China as Wal Mart conducts its own blitzkrieg against every mom and pop store in the US.

    Can’t have it both ways people.

    • lolz

      -+

      The China fear mongers in the US spread evenly between the redneck xtians and the elitist liberals who like to pretend to be enlightened.

      But you are right about Walmart, some don’t like to admit it but everyone shops there (or Target, which is basically the same thing).

  22. Kedafu

    -++1

    OHHHHHHH~~ OHHHH

    啊啊啊啊啊啊啊

    This is great!

    what a read,

    I started the countdown,

    intend to watch on tuduo or youku…. something Bad ass about it…

    and put a request to my DVD buddy, pre-ordered 10 copies, cause its obviously going to get banned here

    五毛党万岁!

  23. lolz

    -+

    There is no shame in admitting that Americans like dumb, patriotic movies. I mean, every country makes them. Americans should be happy that they make the best dumb, patriotic movies.

    I can’t wait for the reception of the movie in China. They better do a good translation job on the pirated version!

  24. -+

    @stuart

    Although I generally refrain from interjecting in a debate which I am not previously part of, I think that I would be doing both of us a grave injustice if I were not to respond to some of your atrocious remarks, most of which have been made without giving any evidence.

    There is nothing about China’s global strategising that doesn’t demonstrate an inclination towards expansionism.

    Yuan dynasty westward rampage; early sixties Indian safari; late seventies excursion to Hanoi?

    ….the present leadership’s intentions, drunk with power as they are increasingly behaving.

    China has a cultural and historical tendency to wage war when odds are overwhelmingly in her favour.

    I think I’m going to enjoy this:

    The near opposite of your first statement is true – There is almost nothing about China’s global strategising that demonstrates an unusual inclination towards expansionism.
    For starters, this is evident from China’s resolutions of its border disputes. (http://indiaschinablog.blogspot.com/2010/03/you-scratch-my-back-but-i-wont-scratch.html)

    China has had land border disputes with every country which it bordered. However, it has resolved 12 out of the 14 disputes quite remarkably, giving remarkable concessions in each of them.
    In its border negotiations with different countries, China has pursued compromise and offered concessions in most of these conflicts. China’s compromises have often been substantial, as it has usually offered to accept less than half of the contested territory in any final settlement. It has also not reiterated its claims on a majority of the territory which was seized from it by the so-called ‘unequal treaties’.

    For example, in its border negotiations with weak neighbouring countries like Nepal, Laos, Burma and Mongolia, China has kept only 4%, 50%, 18% and 29% of the disputed territories respectively. (For more, refer to the link to my post.)

    And here’s the killer:

    Look at the map of Afghanistan. You will notice a strip of land to the North of the country. This is the strategic Wakhan corridor, of immense importance to the country that controls it. Hence, it is completely understandable that since China is the strongest country with access to it, it would have tried to grab it. But NOooo! It gave away the WHOLE of the disputed corridor to Afghanistan in 1963, and didn’t keep ANY PART of it for itself.

    Here’s another killer:
    China has a border dispute with Bhutan, a country with which it has no diplomatic relations. Even with such a weak country, China has reportedly offered to hold only 24% of the total disputed territory of 1128 sq.km.

    Does this strike you as ‘expansionism’?

    This is not the first time that I have heard you refer to the Sino-Indian and Sino-Vietnamese wars as evidence of China’s non-reluctance or readiness to wage war, or its ‘expansionism’.

    In the 1962 Sino-Indian war, it was India who was displaying aggressive tendencies. China only attacked India to get it to negotiate, which India had previously refused to do. After attacking Indian controlled disputed territory, it declared a unilateral ceasefire and withdrew, thus letting India keep the disputed territory even after it (India) lost the war. In border talks with India, China has offered to keep only 26% of the total disputed land (which is currently controlled by China); and recognize Indian sovereignty over the remaining 74% (which India currently controls).

    In the Sino-Vietnamese war, the sole Chinese objective was to “teach Vietnam a lesson”. China’s aim was to teach the Vietnamese that Vietnam could not attack Chinese client states, in this case Cambodia, with impunity. The major objective of the Chinese attack was to seize three provincial capitals: Lao Cai, Cao Bang, and Lang Son.
    Needless to say, after doing so, the PLA withdrew to its own territory.

    In both these cases, China did not occupy even one INCH of extra territory compared to that before the wars.

    Also, China transferred the White Dragon Tail Island to (North) Vietnam in 1957 without any strings attached. In the now resolved border dispute with Vietnam – China kept only half of the total disputed territory. Beijing in 2003 also signed the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation with ASEAN, signaling its nominal acceptance of ASEAN’s security norm of peaceful settlement of disputes.

    Does this strike you as ‘expansionism’?

    Hence, your view that, “China has a cultural and historical tendency to wage war when odds are overwhelmingly in her favour” crumbles to the ground, since it was certainly NOT in her favour to wage war with either India or Vietnam. It was actually provoked to do so.

    Also, China is the largest contributor among the UNSC permanent members to UN peacekeeping operations and the 12th largest overall.

    China has in the past blocked or vetoed UN peacekeeping operations etc. to those countries which have diplomatic relations with Taiwan. But that is now changing.
    Beijing agreed in 2004 to contribute police forces to a U.N. Peacekeeping Operation in Haiti, despite Haiti’s diplomatic relations with Taiwan. Even in the recent earthquake there, China’s massive aid efforts have not been followed by a request or demand to Haiti to switch diplomatic relations.

    You said,

    there is no mechanism of restraint from within China itself that would ask, “should we be doing this”?

    How on earth do you know that?
    Are you trying to say that when China does something, it doesn’t ask itself “should we be doing this” ever, but just goes on to do it, without considering the implications?
    Unless you have access to certain classified documents or sources within the PLA, I think that this statement of yours can be attributed more to your own personal prejudice that to any available facts.

    In accordance with Deng Xiaoping’s 24 character strategy, China has never sought any leadership position in this world and has never interfered with any other countries’ internal affairs, unless and until those affairs concerned China. There is hardly any example where China has interfered in other countries’ affairs at the scale in which the US does.

    ——–
    There are in fact many such examples, but I think that these would suffice.
    On the whole, I think it would be wiser if one doesn’t let one’s own prejudice get in the way of making an informed conclusion about China’s posture and attitude.
    Hence, much as I respect your views and concerns about China’s “expansionism”, I don’t think that they are neither well-informed nor based on any available evidence, but can be attributed more to your own dislike against the CCP.

    • -+

      Correction: the last sentence should read:

      “……I think that they are neither well-informed nor based on any available evidence, but can be attributed more to your own dislike against the CCP.”

    • King Tubby

      -+

      Absolutely top quality evidence (underlined) based post. The historiography on this site is generally *weak* to put it mildly.

    • -+

      “China’s compromises have often been substantial, as it has usually offered to accept less than half of the contested territory in any final settlement.”

      Irrelevant.

      China adopts a strategy of staking outrageous, unsupported claims and then playing a waiting game, finally ‘offering’ to accept a ‘compromise’ that effectively hands them the territory they coveted in the first place.

      Now take a look at those territorial water claims and wait twenty years.

      The entire post was basically a rehash of the revisionist history taught throughout China’s education system. You need to look wider and further.

      • -+

        Stew! Hello Comrade, we havent met yet!

        “The entire post was basically a rehash of the revisionist history taught throughout China’s education system. You need to look wider and further.”

        You are absolutely correct, outstanding,

        no sarcasm intended, 说了好说了厉害!

        That will be my quote of the week!

        let me leave you with one,

        争的是党的大红旗!!!
        -铁人王进喜

        did you learn that in school?

        50c forever brother!

      • -+

        Again you are answering in cliches and not addressing the basic points.

        Irrelevant? Explain to me how exactly are China’s compromises irrelevant.

        China adopts a strategy of staking outrageous, unsupported claims and then playing a waiting game, finally ‘offering’ to accept a ‘compromise’ that effectively hands them the territory they coveted in the first place

        Outrageous? Unsupported? It is very clear that you don’t know a damn thing about the history of China’s border disputes, especially the one with India.

        The entire post was basically a rehash of the revisionist history taught throughout China’s education system. You need to look wider and further.

        Now this MIGHT have been true IF I was Chinese. But I’m not, and I have never studied under China’s ‘education system’; and hence this point, like all your other ones, literally crumbles to the ground.

        I think that YOU need to look wider and further, and do some fact finding before forming your opinions.

        • -+

          “Now this MIGHT have been true IF I was Chinese.”

          You’re attributing an assumption I never made.

          “…and hence this point, like all your other ones, literally crumbles to the ground.”

          Not really: I wasn’t educated in China either, but I have a sound understanding of the history they teach (and, more to the point, what they don’t teach).

          • -+

            You’re attributing an assumption I never made

            When I have ever assumed that you assumed that I was Chinese? What I said was that your point MIGHT have been true IF you were directing it towards a Chinese, which I’m not.

            I wasn’t educated in China either, but I have a sound understanding of the history they teach (and, more to the point, what they don’t teach).

            I’m quite sure you do, but regardless of whether you actually do or not, it is completely irrelevant. What they teach or don’t teach is not the point here.
            The facts which I have given you are from non-Chinese and neutral sources, and those sources have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the Chinese government or education system.

          • friendo

            -++1

            All of the concessions China made were carved out of the Qing map. The stinking turd of the Atlantic, i.e England, only gave up her colonies because of World War 2.

            Even then Britons clung to their colonial legacy by toppling democracy in Iran and invading Iraq. Vile.

        • -+

          “The facts which I have given you are from non-Chinese and neutral sources”

          So it was all a huge coincidence?

      • -+

        In effect, stuart, what you are saying is, when you have opinions without backing it up by facts, then it’s all right. But when someone else gives evidence to prove your opinions wrong, then he is simply “rehashing the revisionist history taught throughout China’s education system”.
        Not to mention that you for one moment didn’t even stop to a) Verify whether the person giving those facts is Chinese or not, and b) Verify the facts themselves, which are all from non-Chinese sources.

        • friendo

          -++1

          Yep, it’s a typical copout of anti-Chinese posters. They will regurgitate their CIA propaganda and then say you’re brainwashed when you refute them with facts from neutral sources… or the CIA itself, such as the 2008 declassified documents going into detail about India’s refusal to negotiate before the 1962 war.

        • -+

          “Not to mention that you for one moment didn’t even stop to a) Verify whether the person giving those facts is Chinese …”

          I hope, on reflection, you will be able to see the absurdity of – and the straw within – this remark.

          I humbly refer you to my earlier response to your misattribution.

          • -+

            What “absurdity” and “straw” within that remark are you talking about? If you knew that I wasn’t Chinese, or didn’t suspect that I was, then why did you say that “The entire post was basically a rehash of the revisionist history taught throughout China’s education system. You need to look wider and further.”?

            Read my response to your “attribution” remark.

            You are simply arguing on irrelevant issues and ignoring the main point.

    • friendo

      -++1

      Excellent post. You really put stuart in his place.

  25. yangrouchuan

    -++2

    China would have a hard time fighting the Afganis over that corridor and also decided it was strategically advantageous to sit at the gate of the corridor and control that.
    No generosity there.

    China invaded Vietnam because Vietnam went after the Khmer Rouge, who were backed by China and spreading like a plague across the rest of SE Asia. Vietnam’s best troops were fighting the KR at the time the PLA invaded Vietnam, the PLA still lost >10,000 troops compared to only a few thousand Vietnamese (because the PLA did its shuck and jive and ran right into a crescent shaped Vietnamese armor/artillery/trench warfare complex).

    No concessions there.

    And China still maintains military control of the entire S. China Sea, only allowing very small fishing vessels from Vietnam, Malaysia and the PI into those waters. Non PRC commercial trawlers are banned as are all non-PRC partnered oil/gas activities.

    India simply refused to move from land that was rightfully its own and China attacked. Now China masses troops near key passes into Anaruchal Pradesh, stating that it is “Southern Tibet” but in actuality China is dying from lack of clean water.

    China = Bad and China has never, ever done anything for world peace or to alleviate suffering.

    • Tom

      -+

      Restoring our country? Repairing our economy? Fighting corporate corruption?

      Where do we sign the petition?

      (What’s the deal with the PLA star being plastered all over the place anyway? Did the art director see one and decide that every star in China has got to be a PLA star?)

    • -+

      …decided it was strategically advantageous to sit at the gate of the corridor and control that.

      BREAKING NEWS: The Lt.General of the PLA called up yangrouchuan personally and told him that the PLA had “decided” that is was “strategically advantageous” to sit at the gate of the corridor and control that!

      Not to mention that the “gate” had been Chinese territory all along, and was not disputed.

      Vietnam’s best troops were fighting the KR at the time the PLA invaded Vietnam, the PLA still lost >10,000 troops compared to only a few thousand Vietnamese

      It can also be argued that China’s “best” troops were in fact along the Soviet border at that time.
      However, according to some unofficial sources, both sides suffered relatively heavy casualties, with Chinese casualties put at over 40,000 and Vietnamese casualties at over 100,000. The PLA literally came near Hanoi.
      In any case, Vietnam has NEVER released any official military casualty figures; and hence it is impossible to compare, as you did.

      No concessions there.

      Well, twenty years after the war, China kept HALF of the disputed territory in the border treaty.

      India simply refused to move from land that was rightfully its own and China attacked

      Again, it is very clear that you don’t know a thing about the Sino-Indian border dispute.

      • friendo

        -+

        He doesn’t. nanhe, like stuart, don’t know jack shit about anything but their personal racial grievances against “Asians”.

        Everything he just spewed was invented on the spot with a few glances at conservopedia/freerepublic.

  26. -+

    争的是党的大红旗!!!
    -铁人王进喜

    this means,

    “what we want is the big red flag of our country”
    – iron man, wang jin xi

    you tell me 对不对 好不好 行不行 是不是

    what the fuck are you doing??!!

    天啊哈 干什么!!!

  27. King Tubby

    -+

    Friendo.

    Colonial legacies. Well, for the French it was education. For the British, it was sanitary engineering and cricket, played by the significant number of countries around the world, including those arch enemies India and Pakistan. For the Portugese, it was miscegenation, which is not a bad really since it probably strenghtened the gene pool of both black and white races.

    How come France, Spain, Portugal and Russia get a free pass by your colonial condemnation work unit.

    To be sure Britian was slow in departing HK, but today …..2010…..HK is sort of doing okay in terms of pleasing most of its citizens most of the time. ie. having a functional government in a very crowded few square kilmetres.

    Rabbiting on about past colonial injustices aint going to resolve the many problems China confronts today, again 2010. I would put environmental concerns at the top of the list: water and desertification. When key life supports disappear, all your anger will be of little consequence. In short, displaced top soil in your pc will silence you. Now chill out, go out on your balcony and breathe deeply. I will help you get some perspective on your country’s immediate priorities.

    • friendo

      -+-1

      “which is not a bad really since it probably strenghtened the gene pool of both black and white races.”

      No, it hasn’t. You are clearly not a geneticist… not an insult, just an observation.

      “How come France, Spain, Portugal and Russia get a free pass by your colonial condemnation work unit.”

      They don’t.

      “HK is sort of doing okay”

      Only thanks to the natives, not the English parasites who tried to extort them for 100 years.

      “Rabbiting on about past colonial injustices aint going to resolve the many problems China confronts today”

      Rabbiting on about invented colonial injustices “aint” going to resolve the many problems the West confronts today.

      Stupidity, obesity, ignorance, greed should be on the top of your list. A massive coronary or aneurysm bursting in your brain will silence you. If you’re going to fat camp I will support, but only if they teach you history first.

  28. yangrouchuan

    -+-2

    Not to mention that the “gate” had been Chinese territory all along, and was not disputed.

    >> Only the Chinese might consider it to be “not disputed”, but China knew better than to invade Afganistan after the throttling the PLgay took from the USSR on the Mongolian plains.

    It can also be argued that China’s “best” troops were in fact along the Soviet border at that time.

    >> Yeah, keep grasping. Everyone KNOWS Hanoi sent its front line forces into Cambodia. That may also be why China chose to attack Vietnam (for the 13th time in 1500 years) instead of trying to push them out of Cambodia.

    However, according to some unofficial sources, both sides suffered relatively heavy casualties, with Chinese casualties put at over 40,000 and Vietnamese casualties at over 100,000.

    >> Unofficial such as Youth Daily. The USSR, US, Japan and Taiwan know better than Red history.

    The PLA literally came near Hanoi.

    >> Nearer than the original border, but never within striking distance.

    In any case, Vietnam has NEVER released any official military casualty figures; and hence it is impossible to compare, as you did.

    >> And they never did against the US, nevertheless, the PLA retreated and it was then that Zhu Rong Ji and Deng Xiao Ping started quietly charting a course for the PLgay to modernize. I wonder why if the PLgay had been so “successful”?

    No concessions there.

    Well, twenty years after the war, China kept HALF of the disputed territory in the border treaty.

    >> After 13 invasions and 13 repulsions, I would bet that Vietnam’s border claims are more accurate.

    India simply refused to move from land that was rightfully its own and China attacked

    Again, it is very clear that you don’t know a thing about the Sino-Indian border dispute.

    >> But I don’t get my history from Xinhua and Commie Baby killer history books.

    • -+

      “Only the Chinese might consider it to be “not disputed”, “

      Name one country which says that the ‘gate’ of the corridor is disputed.

      “China knew better than to invade Afganistan after the throttling the PLgay took from the USSR on the Mongolian plains.”

      The Sino-Soviet clashes took place in 1969; and the dispute over the corridor was settled in 1963.

      “Yeah, keep grasping.”

      Yes, I will keep grasping history and facts. It is a FACT that China was expecting a Soviet invasion at the time.

      “Unofficial such as Youth Daily”

      What Youth Daily? The source of that information is globalsecurity.org and wikipedia.

      I wonder why if the PLgay had been so “successful”?

      When have I EVER said that the “PLgay” had been “successful” in Vietnam?

      “Nearer than the original border, but never within striking distance.”

      A US government report says that the PLA came near Hanoi, and then withdrew.

      “After 13 invasions and 13 repulsions, I would bet that Vietnam’s border claims are more accurate.”

      Again- It is very clear that you don’t know a DAMN thing about the history of the matter.

      “But I don’t get my history from Xinhua and Commie Baby killer history books.”

      Neither do I. I get my history from neutral sources. You, on the other hand, don’t ‘get’ any history at all.

      BTW, when did I say that “India simply refused to move from land that was rightfully its own and China attacked”? YOU said it, I was simply quoting you and replying. Be clear with your tags.

      “instead of trying to push them out of Cambodia.”

      NEWSFLASH: China doesn’t border Cambodia!
      So its not only history, you don’t know geography too.

      BTW: its PLA, not PLgay. Nobody cares what you think of the Chinese army.

      CONCLUSION: You don’t know a DAMN thing about History, but simply keep arguing by bringing up false arguments.

      • friendo

        -+

        He’s not going to respond. He never does when he loses an argument.

        The Sino-Soviet clashes took place in 1969; and the dispute over the corridor was settled in 1963.

        nanhe got put in his place.

  29. FranklinC

    -+

    Right, a movie is just a movie– but the USA has about a 4% population of Asians which will have to pick up martial arts or boxing to fight with all the white people that are going to use this movie as a reason to take their white angst out on immigrants.

    Just remember the 90s when the US car companies were getting beat up by Japanese car companies– there was intense anti-Asian sentiment in the USA in the form of hate crimes and community-based conflict. This movie is going to exacerbate this tension.

    At the same time, any excuse for kids to learn how to fight — I am an advocate for.

    • yangrouchuan

      -++1

      Americans can in fact separate the wheat from the chaf, so a small number of asian kids having to fight off 200 million white people because of a movie is an idiotic, worthless comment.

      After all, how much anti-muslim and MENA violence was there after 9-11? Europe has a bigger skinhead/neo-nazi problem than the US, despite the almighty Euro-consensus model.

      • friendo

        -+-1

        “After all, how much anti-muslim and MENA violence was there after 9-11″

        plenty of people were assaulted and killed.

        • yangrouchuan

          -+

          Really? How many directly attributed to 9-11 backlash? And more importantly, how does that stack up to the 2001 US murder rate?

    • LOLZ

      -+

      Yes, it was the late 80s actually where whites were attacking Asians.

      The most famous victim of this violence was Vincent Chin. He was killed when his attackers mistook him for a Japanese (Chin was ABC, worked at a big 3 plant). Nothing ultimately happened to his killers.

      • yangrouchuan

        -+

        Ah, that could be attributed to the “Japan Auto scare”, buying of Rockfeller Plaza, etc. That was when Detroit Auto companies had segregated parking lots for “their brand”, “American brands” and foreign brands.

        Michael Keaton’s auto movie came out at that time too.

  30. unbiased

    -+

    I’ve always wondered how it felt to be German watching anti-Nazi films, or Japanese watching the Pacific war films – so this should prove interesting.

    I enjoyed watching Jet Li in the Lethal Weapon series – even though he was a dastardly villain.

    Unfortunately – I also know there will be public backlash somewhere in the USA as a result of this film as Americans are not uniform in their ignorance of people of color, other religions, etc. Americans are basically an island nation (island mentality) with a global footprint. Now…that’s terrifying.

  31. -+

    Uh-oh! Looks like they’re going to invade via the Arctic gateway. Lock up your daughters:

    http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology/China+coming+Arctic/2738221/story.html

  32. ganzhoulin

    -+

    A movie is NOT just a movie. That’s the easy excuse of a lazy brain. If a movie was just a movie and nothing more then neither the Penta-goon nor the CIA would be in bed with elements of Hollywood…

    Check it out…

  33. C.W.Crosby

    -+

    The Chinese probably will take us over,but without any violence. It will be an economic takeover due to our negligence in electing real leadership . It will be no different than what our own leadership has planned for us.

  34. That Guy

    -+-1

    It’s just a movie, nothing more. Are there some who will interpret it as an accurate portrayal of today’s China? Yes, of course. But aren’t we all entitled to our own line of thought?

    I’ve been killing Russians for the past couple of years in Call of Duty on my PS3, but does that mean I think of Russia or its people as my enemy in real life? No, of course not. You know why? Because, as this article states, there are enough peo­ple who can sep­a­rate fan­tasy from real­ity. I’m one of those people. Aimee Barnes clearly isn’t. I’ll bet she also believes in the flying spaghetti monster.

    But you’re allowed to believe whatever you want. If you think it’s gonna be some kind of anti-China propaganda piece, then my only advice to you is DON’T WATCH IT. It is YOUR choice, after all.

  35. WESTERNER

    -+

    Listen people and listen good. A movie is an idea and all ideas are designed to get you thinking. In as much they are all propaganda. Read 1984 and brave new world, two novels that amazinly if you read twice over reveal themselves as a warning against the power of manipulation. Films both manipulate and reinforce belief as do all forms of media. Ask yourself this question “whose idea is this and what will they gain from it even if nothing happens”.
    On a final note, have you ever wondered when as a child you saw the other childeren begin to be racist, nationalistic, and hateful, and ask ” how did this happen, is it the parents or the school” or was it the background noise of the media playing the same old tune”. You decide.

    • Don

      -++1

      Media manipulation is powerful, and apparently there are some links between the recently deported Russian spies and the director for the new Red Dawn movie…

Continuing the Discussion