Today, I took a trip down to the Embarcadero in San Francisco to take part in the Team Tibet protest of the Chinese Olympic torch. I do not normally involve myself in political causes. Yes, I did attend the University of California at Berkeley, where protest is an art form. However, I attended at what, for Berkeley, was an odd time: the early 1990's. The Cold War was over, the tech boom was beginning to start, life was looking good, and there just didn't seem to be anything worth protesting. That didn't stop the local radicals, however. They would find any and every reason to launch an aggressive, if not violent, protest. One time, there was a large protest over the changing of the hours in the main undergraduate library. The radicals stormed the library, and I watched several protestors get beaten by police in the lobby. Another time, there were large street protests, complete with looting, over the fact that the University had built a volleyball court in People's Park.
The problem is, however, that throwing your all into these massive protests seemed to dilute their credibility. When you are ready to take to the streets over a change in the library's hours, it is difficult for you to make an impression when truly pressing issues arise.
Which brings us to now. The world is far more polarized, far more dangerous, and far more ideological than it was fifteen years ago. The issues are bigger. For example, genocide. As far as I am concerned, the leadership of the People's Republic of China lost all legitimacy with the 1989 Tianamen Square massacre, and has done nothing to try and reclaim it. In fact, they have gone the other direction, taking the cue that "all's well in the world" as long as they can tell people to mind their own business. But the last few years have shown us that their reach is exceeding their moral grasp. That is why I went to the Embarcadero.
Upon arriving at the scene, I was met by a sea of red flags. The China apologists were out in force, and they were clearly well organized, well funded, and well trained. They had plenty of large flags, matching outfits, and they all had their songs and propaganda phrases memorized. I found a small knot of other pro-Tibet activitst and clung to them in the sea of red. The Chinese apologists were on the offensive, being very aggressive in confronting those who did not agree with them. Here are some actual comments I received, and my responses:
Tibet is, always had been, and always will be part of China. If this is true, then why do the ethnic Tibetians not want the Chinese government meddling in their affairs? Why are the Tibetians clearly a separate ethnic group, with its own customs, mannerisms, apearance, and culture (that China is trying to extinguish)? And here's the big one: what do your claims of posession have to do with the moral issues of it? I could claim that I have always, do now, and will always have a right to abuse my wife or molest children, but that does not make it acceptible.
You are not Chinese, you don't know anything about the situation. I am a student of the world. I am educated and hold advanced degrees from top-tier universities. And, like anyone over the age of ten, I have a fairly wel-developed sense of right and wrong. There are some moralisms that could reasonably be argued to be culturally realtive, but genocide, cultural destruction, suppression of dissent, and tyranny are not among them. There was a time I would agree with this argument. But time and experience have shown that universal moral issues are at stake.
How much are they paying you to stand there and carry that sign? No one is paying me a penny. In fact, I am using some of my precious vacation time from my job to be able to come out here and voice my opinions.
You are an American (meaning white), you have nothing to say about China. This is how things work in America: I have an opinion, and I am free to state it. If you decide to be on the side of loathsome tyrrany and oppression, then you are free to voice your opinions as well. Please remember that in China, we would not have these freedoms.
You should go back to Europe, before you tell the Chinese to leave Tibet. This one I find particularly offensive. First off, my family has been in America for ten generations now. Second, I have no relatives in Europe. Third, where would I go? I can trace various branches of my ancestry to Ireland, England, the Netherlands, and various parts of Germany. And lastly, how does this have any bearing on China's conduct towards Tibet? Please note that if I were to turn the tables on you and tell you to go back to China, I would be (quite correctly) be branded a racist. So what makes you think that you not being racist?
We treat them fine in Tibet, look at how we invest in them. Allow me to refer you to a dark period in American history: the Reconstruction following the Civil War. "Carpetbaggers" headed to the South to invest in rebuilding the region, and succeeded only in creating a legacy of resentment that we are still dealing with today.
They should be thankful to have us there helping them out. Then why are they willing to risk imprisonment and death to speak out against Chinese rule?
America has plenty of examples of suppressing ethnic minorities. You getting involved, telling us how to treat our ethnic minorities, is hypocritical. It is true that America has a poor track record of dealing with ethnic minorities. But does that mean you can turn a blind eye to history? Trust us... in about a century, you will find yourselves dealing with an ethnic minority population that has grown up with a victim mentality, with an expectation of entitlement, that will be a drain on your social services.
And as for getting involved in other countries' affairs, allow me to point to a more recent example: Nazi Germany. We looked the other way, and millions died. It gave proof to the famous quote of Edmund Burke: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." It was true then, and is true now. It is not too incredible to speculate that some day, the Chinese government decides that some segment of its population is just not fitting in with the current Five Year Plan. Perhaps the developmentally disabled, or the homosexuals. And since Shina has no concept of basic civil rights, the government will have no compunction against exterminating them in the most efficient manner possible.
And so, I went to the Embaracdero.
The China apologists had clearly been carefully coached. Their comments and criticisms were so homogenous and so carefully recited, I knew that somewhere there was a person who had carefully typed up a list of talking points.
Eventually, we met up with the rest of the Tibet supporters, and proceeded to occupy the Embarcadero in a non-violent, but noisy, demonstration.
Now, we all know what the result was. Tricky Mayor Gavin hid the torch in a bus and drove it halfway across the city to have a stealth torch relay. But we all knew this would happen. There was no way they could run a torch up the Embarcadero, with the pro- and anti-Tibet demonstrators there. And there was no way we were going to catch them; we knew that as well. A small, well-organized group of individuals can always keep ahead of a large, disorganized mob. (I learned that in college.) so we headed back to Justin Herman plaza. Hopefully, if the city officials were foolish enough to try to hold the closing ceremony in a publicly-accessible space, we could be loud enough that the news clips would have us audible in the background. We were able to get into the closing ceremony arena, right up to the VIP podium in fact. There was a large stage with decorations, a grandstand, a podium, two bands, and a twenty-foot-high television screen showing pleasant videos of athletes. This was clearly the spot they had planned for the closing ceremony.
And then, they canceled the closing ceremony, instead having an impromptu event in the airport lobby before rushing the torch onto the plane.
Many sources seem to indicate that the "city won," that they "deftly avoided" the protestors and "headed off" a major incident. But let's look at how it went down:
The Olympic organizers were on the run. The protestors had the initiative all day. The City was forced to react to the people; they were on the defensive. They were denied their opportunity for a PR coup with the closing ceremony. That most certainly counts as a major incident, in anyone's book. Gavin Newsom was visibly nervous at the press conference at the end of the day; as well he should be after adroitly disenfranchising ten thousand people. He lost any shred of credibilty he might have had today; I hope it was worth it to him.
Of course China will report that everything was nice and harmonious and went off without a hitch. But we all know that the Chinese government lies; to have to point that out is like saying the sky is blue, or the Bush administration can't balance a budget. Anyone who cares to look at the facts will realize that the people of San Francisco are not pleased with China's policies; I am expecting the people of Buenos Aires and Sydney to realize what is going on, and act on it.
For example: the IOC chairman says that he was relieved that there were no major incidents and no arrests in relation to the torch relay. However, there is this video, which I shot behind Justin Herman Plaza shortly after the closing ceremony was canceled:
So you see, it is not that hard to find the truth in the Internet Age.
Some people seem to think that the fact that there was no violence in the San Francisco torch relay protests indicates the protests were somehow weaker, or less effective. On the contrary, avoiding violence drives the point home that we are legitimate issue-holders, not hooligans. For example, there is the heroic story of Jin. Shame on the protestor for attacking a handicapped woman. But double-shame on China for using the poor woman for propaganda purposes.
If the San Francisco street protests had degenerated into a running melee with police, it might have made slightly better headlines but would have lost all legitimacy. The Chinese press would have had a field day painting us as brutal, uncivilized malcontents. By remaining nonviolent, we managed to make our point by disrupting the ceremony while retaining our moral superiority. The focus was on non-violent protest, and this goal was achieved; a goal that the Dalai Lama would approve of.
