BJC Redux: The PRC’s “Human Rights Record Of The United States,” Explained

Human Rights Record of the United States

Ed’s note:

On April 19, the US Department of State published its annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, which included a section on China. It was typical, mundane, and features nothing you don’t already know, including restriction of Uighur and Tibetan movement, harassment of journalists and dissidents, prison labor, discrimination, extrajudicial killings, etc.

On April 21, the State Council Information Office of the People’s Republic of China published its annual Human Rights Record of the United States, which was typical, mundane, and features nothing you don’t already know, including school shootings, low voter turnout, politically authorized eavesdropping, a widening income gap, discrimination, extrajudicial detention of foreigners, etc. 

Because we’re on the same damn carousel that goes round and round, a year has passed but the sights haven’t much changed. Below, our previous post on this subject, with analysis from TAR Nation.

Originally posted May 31, 2012:

Tao: The State Council Information Office of the People’s Republic of China claims its report on the US’s human rights record is “to reveal the true human rights situation of the United States to people across the world and urge the United States to face up to its own doings.” Did it succeed in doing so?

TAR: No. The Chinese government has difficulty in differentiating between human rights, civil rights, civil liberties and simple controversy, which is easy to understand as there is very little of any of these in China. Gun ownership, for example, is a controversy, not a human rights violation. It was less a report on human rights in America and more of a statement that shit happens in the USA. I was reminded of the “There are no cats in America” song from An American Tail. There bloody well are cats and they will fucking stab you.

Another detractor was the fact that the Communist Party spends half its propaganda power hating on the Western media every single day but relied on it almost exclusively for this report. The New York Times, the BBC, Reuters, the Washington Post and Bloomberg were their main sources. Proving that the Chinese government correctly understands irony, if one follows the statistics they quote in the report, many of them lead straight back to the State Department. Oh, except for the part on press freedoms. They had to get some of those from Russia and China.

Of course the US has problems with human rights right now and in the past, problems that some are trying to fix and others are trying to make worse, but the concept of human rights is not the enemy. As with any difficulty, the problem is bastards.

What part of the report was most eye-opening and potentially informative to you?

By far the most hilarious part was the civil and political rights part. It was like watching a bloodstained psychopath ripping a kitten limb-from-limb doing a PETA advertisement. Where was the first place they went? Occupy Wall Street, a vague and thus ultimately doomed protest movement. I never realized exactly how much the propaganda masters had blown it out of proportion. They seem to think that there is a massive government conspiracy to silence the protests. There isn’t. The government of the United States is currently to the left, and so are the protestors. There would be no point. It would be like the Communist party going after the wu mao dang. The Occupy protesters aren’t arrested for their ideas or beliefs. They’re arrested because they’re blocking traffic. The Communist Party seems to not understand that the POINT of civil disobedience is to get arrested, a way to nonviolently shame your opponents and remind your government of their responsibilities. If you don’t get arrested, then you’re doing it wrong. There is a massive difference in civil disobedience and non-violent protest, and I find both rather noble. The difference was expressed beautifully in Martin Luther King Jr.’s But If Not speech.

Is there a part that you think could have been done better?

I think that if I covered my penis and balls in ink and flung myself at a wall, I could have written a better report.

Do you agree with China’s claim that the US has not “faced up to its own doings”? If that’s the case, what should the punishment for the US be?

Yes, and they should be imprisoned without trial for years, beaten, tortured, given a trial without proper legal representation, and then sentenced to arbitrarily long jail terms, reeducation through forced labor, extrajudicial imprisonment by hundreds of guards, intimidation of their family and then finally be brutally executed.

Quoting: “A report published by the U.S. Department of Justice on September 15, 2011, revealed that in 2010 the U.S. residents aged 12 and above experienced 3.8 million violent victimizations, 1.4 million serious violent victimizations, 14.8 million property victimizations and 138,000 personal thefts.” Can you put that into perspective for us?

“He victimized my property. Ouch! My human rights!” I find it disturbing to personify lawns. It just makes cutting the grass tragic. Also, I was in America for 2010, and I am at least responsible for nine of the above figures, so, I will not throw stones… because, apparently, that’s a human rights violation and a victimization.

It seems like homicides are becoming an epidemic that threatens to touch every household in America. For example, according to the report, “Just four weeks into 2011, San Francisco saw eight homicides — compared with five during the same time of the previous year.”

Well, it’s hardly every household. As a matter of fact, assuming that every person who was murdered had at least three people who loved them (which is more than I have and a stretch considering most people who get murdered tend to be dicks), then the amount of people touched by murder in a single year would be approximately 0.00015%. If no one loved them, then it would be 0.00005%. Hardly an epidemic. I’m not defending murder, though. After reading a week of editorials in the Global Times, I can see the merit in it.

Not to mention school bullying. Have you seen the pernicious effects of school bullying, and, more to the point, can you comment on this jackknife powerbomb?

Does the Chinese government think there is anyone on the other side of this issue? Is there a pro-wedgie lobby I don’t know about? The world is full of bullies, and the presence of anti-bullying campaigns in America is at least proof of trying to put a stop to it. Frankly, if the US would have just not published figures on this, it would have never appeared in the report. Trying to fix something amounts to human rights violations, apparently. Of course, we would all like to live in a world without bullying, but without bullying, we would be living in a country called the People’s Republic of Candy, and it would actually be a republic. Sadly, this is not the case.

With regard to the powerbomb: poorly executed. The trick with powerbombs is to change momentum while the powerbombee is at a moment of weightlessness or to rest them on your shoulders for maximum downward velocity.

What are your thoughts on the fact that Americans own guns?

I think, as you can see from the prison population in America, that there are a lot of assholes in the USA. But you can’t give guns to the nice people and take the guns away from the assholes because that’s profiling. Honestly, gun ownership in America is stupid. But, hey, that’s how Americans like to do things, and I say this meaning “Americans,” not some vague “America.” Americans like guns. They’re dumb, but they like them. Thus, the American government can’t pry them from their cold dead hands, which are cold and dead because they have been shot. Also, Americans are really fat. It’s just too difficult to stab someone with pudgy arms. But — and I know this to be a fact — you can level a rifle on your belly, and, if you don’t breathe, you can hit a raccoon in the eye from 100 yards.

Let’s play a little word association. Occupy Wall Street.

Naked hippie women.

Law enforcement.

Naked woman in a hat.

Incarceration.

Naked women in communal showers.

Unemployment.

Depressed naked women.

Immigration.

Exotic naked women.

Rich-poor gap.

Naked communist women.

This is an election year in the US. What effect do you think China’s human rights report will have on President Obama’s chances of getting reelected?

None. The only people stupid enough to put stock in the report are people who think it is a genuine report from China think tanks rather than a propaganda response to the State Department’s Human Rights Report. On that side, you’ve basically got people who believe in aromatherapy and/or ghosts. These people either don’t vote, or vote for tree people and/or racists.

The report’s authors are correct that the US has problems of its own. But I’m surprised that China would resort to such snark to prove a point, and a point that, I should say, is reached through questionable methodology, against a State Department report that is specifically for policymaking and information. Do you think China’s report serves not to enhance its position but weaken it vis-a-vis its own human rights record?

Really? Surprised are you? Look, China’s media is the laughing stock of the world. They’re petty, cruel, predictable and oddly pathetic, second only to North Korea. They’ve been doing this report since 2003, you know, the year Bad Boys II was released. This has nothing to do with enhancing China’s position. China’s relationship with human rights seems to get more complicated every year. They used to just lie about it and say everything was great. Then they seemed convinced that they had a different version of human rights. When the media finally started reporting human rights abuses, it was related to how great China was at fixing it. It seems increasingly clear that China is simply at war with the concept human rights. I know that sounds ridiculous, but they block human rights websites. Why? What could you possibly gain from that? Why, of all the Japanese girls peeing on each other and racist Swedes on the Internet, is the enemy human rights? More to your point, how is anyone else supposed to view that? There is no way the Chinese government can defend decisions to limit information on human rights? So, no, this does not accomplish their goal of discrediting the most important concept of compassion ever devised. I wish I could say that it would all end in failure, but the human race is stupid and will grab at any chance it can to be a bastard.

Finally… is there anything else you would like to add?

Naked women.

Done.

TAR Nation wrote the BJC column To Serve People.

8 Responses to “BJC Redux: The PRC’s “Human Rights Record Of The United States,” Explained”

  1. Jonathan Alpart

    I know that TAR was going for Funny Writer Guy, but you have to choose between being funny or actually making real statements, because otherwise when people actually call you on your bullshit you can just hide behind the “humor.”

    Here is probably the one thing TAR said in the entire interview that I think he could stand behind:

    “It seems increasingly clear that China is simply at war with the concept human rights. I know that sounds ridiculous, but they block human rights websites. Why? What could you possibly gain from that? Why, of all the Japanese girls peeing on each other and racist Swedes on the Internet, is the enemy human rights?”

    Great point, however…

    Everything else was the ultimate in “Do-As-We-Say-Not-As-We-Do.” The whole thing was simply a tirade of ad hominem attacks against China, and jokey excuses for the US’s own violations. The Chinese report does seem petty and pathetic, yes, but only because it is coming from the same mouth that says all the other loads of bullshit that we know the Chinese media is apt to do. In actuality though, it makes some fair points, and it’s silly to dodge all of its attacks while turning around and throwing the same type of mud.

    “He victimized my property. Ouch! My human rights!” I find it disturbing to personify lawns.”

    Where’s the joke about the aforementioned 3.8 million violent victimizations and 1.4 million serious violent victimizations?

    “I think, as you can see from the prison population in America, that there are a lot of assholes in the USA. ”

    Really? That’s why we have the largest prison population in the world – both by sheer number and per capita – because we have so many assholes? Tell that to the millions who have been convinced for harmless drug possession charges. That they’re “assholes.”

    You see the logic? All people jailed in China are heroes. All people jailed in America are assholes!

    “…which is more than I have and a stretch considering most people who get murdered tend to be dicks”

    Wow. I’m pretty sure Mao Zedong himself said something to that degree in ’67.

    By far, the most offensive part was the take on Occupy Wall Street:

    “Occupy Wall Street, a vague and thus ultimately doomed protest movement…The government of the United States is currently to the left, and so are the protestors. There would be no point. It would be like the Communist party going after the wu mao dang.”

    TAR, are you out of your goddamned mind?? Please tell me you were drunk when you wrote this. It doesn’t even make any sense.

    If it’s to be taken seriously, it was an extremely biased and irresponsible post. But hey! – he’s just joking around. No wonder TAR was so popular here.

    Reply
  2. laowai88

    Irony is that the report relied on the New York Times and Bloomberg for information….two websites that are both currently blocked in China.

    Reply
  3. Seahorse

    On subject of law enforcement, I always wondered since the incarceration rate in the States is higher than China’s, I always wondered are there just more assholes in the States or cops in the States actually do their goddamn jobs?

    Reply
    • Jonathan Alpart

      It is indeed the jobs of cops to arrest criminals, however, the problem in the States is that there are too many laws.

      In recent decades the US has experienced a surge in its prison population, quadrupling since 1980, partially as a result of mandatory sentencing that came about during the War on Drugs. Violent crime and property crime subsequently have declined since the early 1990s.

      Nearly one percent of the entire US population are behind bars.

      I think your question begs a third option.

      Reply
  4. TAR Nation

    Right, I normally don’t visit this bottom half of the internet, as I find commenting pointless and the people who comment exhausting. Thus, I promise I will not use this space to argue politics with your ilk, just insult you personally. John, I listened to your attempt to “explain” American politics to your European coworkers at CRI during the recent American election with the wit and brilliance of a one-armed cat vigorously masturbating into a coffee can beneath an overpass. So when I saw correct figures–and decent syntax–in your above comment, I became suspicious and Googled it. You literally, literally, copied this from Wikipedia word for word:

    In recent decades the US has experienced a surge in its prison population, quadrupling since 1980, partially as a result of mandatory sentencing that came about during the War on Drugs. Violent crime and property crime subsequently have declined since the early 1990s.

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

    I blame the Internet itself, a tool to better assist fools at sounding informed. Far be it for me to question your expertise on the subject and it is my policy to never feed trolls, but, then again, I don’t have any nuanced political solutions, such as “there are too many laws”.

    Also, if you had bothered to look at the rest of the Wikipedia article you plagiarized, you may have noticed that it quotes the US stats of incarcerated individuals at around 730 per 100,000, not one percent. Sure, it’s close to one percent, but only in the same way that it’s nearly close to five percent. But, then again, I used Western math to solve that problem, so it’s probably… Bradley Manning, blah, Ron Paul, blah, biased, blah, McDonalds, blah, impolite joke at your expense, blah.

    To sum up, I shall paraphrase the famous quote from Evelyn Beatrice Hall (often attributed to Voltaire, which annoys me): I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the mild inconvenience your right to fart it our your cock holster.

    Reply
    • Jonathan Alpart

      I knew you wouldn’t stand me up!

      OK, sorry. 0.73%. Cite: Wikipedia.

      “Bradley Manning, blah, Ron Paul, blah, biased, blah, McDonalds, blah, impolite joke at your expense, blah.”

      Again, a jokey dismissal of real, valid problems – in America. Why the double standard?

      Reply
  5. WTO

    I liked the post. The basic message is pretty clear: no shit that America has its problems but its also pretty clear that China’s report was never meant to constructively contribute to the dialogue about them. It’s a petty publication that no one in their right mind should take seriously.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

  • (will not be published)

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>


two + 6 =