Big Think in the censorship business: Big Brother and 'Orwellian Rules of Writings'

NEW YORK - BIG THINK censors censorship article, suppresses unpleasant research: http://www.east-west-dichotomy.com/big-think-censorship-censors-orwellian-rules-of-writing-at-the-new-york-times/ #bigthink #nytimes #orwell #china

Article on US media censorship (style guides still advise: avoid foreign words) taken down by Big Think. Account closed. Profile deleted. Twitter blogged. More like Big Brother:

Critique of the NY Times's practice of Orwellian Rules of Writing and institutionalized suppression of foreign terms apparently isn't tolerated in New York media circles. New York Big Think, the knowledge platform, engaged in revisionism, took down the article, closed the long-time contributor's account, and terminated his profile. Censorship is wrong!

Philosopher Bazon Brock on the Hypocrisy in Western Media (MUST WATCH)

"The disgrace of 1989, 1991 (the fall of the Soviet Union), is that we thought we could do away with reality: Anything goes. We'll do what we want. The world is ours. They can do shit. We are doing the globalization. We are forcing anyone to submit to our point of view. And don't they ever dare to..." --Bazon Brock, philosopher

[GO TO QUOTE I]

Happy times with Xu Guangqi and the MPG-CAS Scientists at PICB in Shanghai 2007

SHANGHAI - 今年是徐光启和意大利人利玛窦合作翻译的《几何原本》中文版出版400周年，为纪念这一重要历史事件，中国科学院、上海市徐汇区人民政府、中国科学院上海生命科学研究院联合发起纪念徐光启的活动，于10月14日至19日由我所承办“徐光启《几何原本》中文译本出版400周年纪念会暨《计算生物学中的异同》国际学术研讨会”。来自德国、法国、英国、意大利、日本、韩国、美国、中国等国家，涵盖数学、天文、农业、社会学等研究领域的近30位科学家共聚上海，与上海地区的学生们一起，纪念徐光启的科学贡献，探讨现代前沿科学。这是国内首次举办国际性的徐光启纪念活动。[...]

作者：Susan Xu    新闻时间：2007-10-17
Source: http://www.picb.ac.cn/picb-dynamic/Desktop/news/news.jsp?ID=110&ntype=institute

Why is the US media so afraid of Chinese words?

Daniel A Bell, the China professor at Tsinghua University, had a golden opportunity, I claim, to break through the wall of ignorance about China and to inform the US public, which still believes that learning a foreign language is a character flaw, or even a job killer, about the most important Chinese key terminologies in political theory. You know. The names the Chinese gave to their political ideas, movements, and brands.

But no! This is The New York Times. In here we use clean and pure English, the only language that matters in the world.

If you disagree, well, you won't get published. Not in journals, not in magazines, and certainly not in The New York Times which practices Orwellian Rules of Writing -meaning that its writers will avoid foreign words and find English replacement for them.

Remember the stories from the old days in America when colored people were not supposed to sit in a public bus together with whites because it looked so unpleasant to the white man's eyes?  Well, same with words: if they are foreign, that means they also look unpleasant to the white man's eyes. No differences. Same prejudices.

I love it when stupid Americans tell me that New York is so multicultural, when in fact it is full of Americans. America may have fought for racial equality, but they are intolerant toward those foreign terms. Avoid foreign words. Write English.

Imagine an op-ed article in The Times sprinkled with Hexie Shehui, Si Ge Quan Mian, or Zhongguo Meng. Those editors would feel insulted. Do you expect us to look this shit up in a dictionary? Yes, because it is Chinese. But I don't know Chinese. Exactly. So keep that in mind when writing a piece on a people who don't quite yet understand. Otherwise, if he simple used English words for Chinese ideas, the piece would read like the usual NY Times report: talking down on them as if a viceroy explaing

Isn't the world insulting to Americans? All those crazy languages. And we forbid them in our classrooms, papers, publishers, and academia. No big deal. If you have a great idea, I will find an appropriate English name for it. This will make it easier for me to define your idea for our audiences. Yes, I stole your idea, basically. But, hey, there's no such things as intellectual property theft in China, right? Anyway, we Westerners do this for the last 350 years: translating Chinese words into what we already know.
No wonder that nobody in American wants to study a foreign language any more. It's like a handicap in the professional world. Yes, you can talk to Chinese in the streets, but not use Chinese words in your writing career. It's worse than racism.

What's the point if you learn Chinese but will never be given the opportunity to use it, as all major Western schools, media, publishers, and universities practice Orwellian Rules of Writings in order to keep their China reports "Chinese-free" - pure, clean, and unpolluted?

The New York Times, a US corporation dressed as global public service, is perhaps the most notorious offender to the world's languages, cultures, and foreign people. All its writers and editors, letting alone outside contributors, are forced to "avoid foreign words" whenever they can in order to keep the sovereignty over the definition of thought. It's like saying to Russian, Iranian, German, Indian writers and thinkers: you may express your ideas but it must be in OUR VOCABULARIES, thereby effectively committing cultural intellectual property theft. It's the old imperial codex of "It's knowledge only if we know it" -meaning in practice that unless a Westerner said it and named it, as far as our media and the academia are concerned, foreigners have no ideas, concepts, and categories. Certainly no ideas, concepts, and categories that are worth reporting by their correct names.

Here's another gem of violent 'language imperialism' by a 'China professor', Daniel A. Bell, who in order to get published in The New York Times prostrates himself not only to Western values but also to the NY Times racial language policy to omitting the correct Chinese terms and names, thus keeping his China report purposely "Chinese-free".

If I was a student of Dr Bell at Tsinghua University, I would ask myself "what's the point of studying Chinese when the heights in my future career as a China Expert will be directly proportioned to me not having to write Chinese words at all. As a commentator on Nazi propaganda during the Third Reich once observed: People, if it looks like propaganda, that's because it is propaganda. It's one thing to forbid yellow people riding a public bus, and a similar thing to forbid them their words, names, and brands.

I am all for inclusion of foreign cultures -their originality, ideas, and inventions- into World History.

The New York Times, which conspired in most US wars during its long history, and which promotes US Empire and Americanization throughout the world (of which brutal Anglophone language policies are an essential part) thinks that white Western men and their white vocabulary policies and Orwellian rules of writing should dictate what US citizens read and hear about foreign lands.

Daniel A. Bell had a golden opportunity, I claim, to break through the walls of media racism and ignorance and inform the US public and those Anglophone wankers in Asia who refuse to learn the local languages because their media implies them not to, about certain Chinese key terminologies that are essential to understand China and to honor and respect its ideas, its culture, and its thought. But no, Dr Bell bowed down to Empire. Think about this for a moment: A China Expert on China writes a China piece without using a single Chinese term! 

I felt like watching tortured Peeta Mellark in the Hunger Games confessing on the nation's First propaganda channel that all resistance to Empire was futile and that the revolution must stop. No Chinese words when you explain Chinese ideas to us! We are the masters. It is the Chinese who have to learn English. Hundreds of his students must feel betrayed and let down by this Dr Bell: "Fuck you China. Fuck you Tsinghua University. In the end, the West will rule here anyway, so you better forget your culture and language and do it like I professor do: write Chinese-free China op-eds for the NY Times!" 

No wonder that American students don't want to study foreign languages any more. They won't be allowed to use foreign words anyway later in their professional careers in the media and writing business. America may say all it wants about how it battled slavery and racism - violent culturism is still in full swing.

During the last 350 years of Western China Studies, most 'China Experts' agreed that China has no originality, no intellect, and no reason. That is because they never allowed or permitted Chinese ideas, brands, and thought to exists in Western media, papers, and textbooks. There was always some lazy and convenient Western translation. Incorrect? Sure. Misleading? Always. But it helped the West to expand its control over Eastern thought, with the result that even today Asians will have to study their own Asian cultures in Western universities. The other side of the coin is that white Western masters in Asia can live as gods -as long as they play their part and assimilate and adjust as little as possible to China and the Chinese language. They day Westerners use Chinese terminologies in their China reports, is the day Westerners will have to come to China, the original place and the owner of the intellectual property so to speak. And that day all those Western 'China Experts' will lose prestige and status. 

We can know what they think by applying our own Western categories and concepts to it. It's the same easy-peasy formula that helped the Western powers dominate Asia during the ages of colonialism. In fact, the NY Times has not evolved a bit since then in its treatment of foreign words: out and away with foreign pollution.

A China without Chinese. That's what Washington wants to hear. That's what Western corporations and think tanks what to hear. That's what Western universities want to hear. China is supposed to completely 'Westernize'. The less we have to deal with Chinese elements in our lives the better. Certainly, if we can censor all Chinese words in US publications, that will help a great deal in keeping those non-Western people and their ideas out of our heads.

Is the omission of Chinese words and concepts "correct scholarship"? No. Is it the "correct names"? No. What is it? It is bullshit. It is patronizing educated US readers who, I claim, wouldn't mind to look up a foreign term they didn't know, or even to study a foreign concept just a little more. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the problem is with the self-absorbed, political motivated, and agenda-driving NY Times journalists, editors, and owners who feel shamed and intimidated by people telling them about foreign cultures, things that they had no way of knowing about before. This would greatly offend their egos, and rob them of all their pretensions as intellectual giants (the arrogance and self-importance of NY Times people is legendary). They must write their reports on foreign lands from a position of the highest authority, like galactic overseers and masters of the universe. Chinese (or any other foreign terms) would make them look tiny and little and non-experts on things that are clearly not their territory. Therefore, writing from that position of the highest authority would make them look what? Stupid and preposterous. They just can't have that. They must never give away their privileges of censoring and omitting inconvenient foreign words. A cheap English translation will do the trick all the time.

I know for sure that one day, after this current Cult of China Experts is long gone, and a new generation of tolerant, broad-minded, and honest scholars and journalists is emerging that will be able to put an end to the constant NY Times's misreporting on Chinese policies. This new generation of scholars and journalists will fight and hopeful limit or destroy the unfair use of bogus English translations just to get published. The will fight the inequality of words and vocabularies like we fought the inequalities of the races and genders. But, most importantly, the new generation of China scholars and journalists will enlightening the world community about the US media's unfair treatment of China (and most non-Western nations really) that poisoned the wells and crept the rats out of pan-America.

Down with English translations of Chinese key terminologies!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffT_eaVhqUA

@NYtimes BUSTED Daniel A Bell #censored #westernvalues

Thorsten J. Pattberg‏@TJPattberg

@NYtimes BUSTED #racism #China hi @comradewong @chubailiang https://youtu.be/ffT_eaVhqUA  via @YouTube @NYTFriedman

Racism and Anti-China Policies at The New York Times

“Your students, Professor Bell, are all secretly reading Dr. Pattberg‘s essays on the liberalization of Chinese terminologies.” 

Daniel A. Bell, a professor of “political theory” (which really is the theory of power relations) at China’s Tsinghua University, is NOT helping correct scholarship, I claim, by prostrating himself before The New York Times‘s ‘Orwellian Rules of Writing’, and by (repeatedly)submitting China op-eds that are virtually, I mean linguistically and culturally, “Chinese-free”. {GO TO VIDEO}

Pattberg: O culto aos 'especialistas em China' (Pravda.RU)

PEQUIM - Há alguns anos, encontrei um alemão, em Harvard, que se vangloriava do próprio 'engajamento' na luta política, de uma palestra que daria em New York City, de como trabalhava duro a favor da liberdade para o Tibete e sanções contra a China. Que não havia direitos humanos na China - ensinou-me ele. Fiquei impressionadíssimo. Alertei-o para que não fizesse nada daquilo contra o nosso governo alemão, porque poderia ser condenado por traição. O homem balançou a cabeça com ar de profundo desprezo pela minha falta de fé democrática. 

Não é o único. Há um culto a intelectuais evangelizadores anti-China, no Ocidente, aqueles arrogantes cruzados determinados a construir golpes nas mais diferentes nações não ocidentais e usurpar quaisquer governos democráticos. 

Sobre a China, agem e falam como se estivessem acima da lei. Isso, porque entendem que o governo chinês seria corrupto, não eleito e comunista, vale dizer, ilegítimo. Assim sendo, por que alguém teria de respeitar o que a China faz, defende ou propõe? Além do mais, esses intelectuais evangelizadores pró-ocidente acham que ocidentais podem fazer o que bem entendam contra a China, porque os EUA comandam todo o aparelho de comunicação-propaganda 'midiática', o que sempre os salvará de qualquer dificuldade, caso haja. 

Os tais ditos 'especialistas' em China são hoje uma força política que faz oposição direta ao Partido Comunista. Formam ninhos e redes, com hierarquia muito forte e rígido código de ética: todos se autoelogiam uns os outros, 'retuítam' tuítes uns dos outros, fazem propaganda dos livros uns dos outros, e castigam furiosamente todos os 'traidores', que chamam de "elogiadores da China". 

Quando Yang Rui, âncora de um noticiário na rede CCTV, condenou as atividades de estrangeiros em Pequim, foi vítima de assassinato de reputação e, na sequência, mostrado por 'especialistas em China', em todo o ocidente, como exemplo do que acontece a quem se atreva a defender a China. 

No ocidente, grupos extremistas estrangeiros, de direita ou de esquerda, são atentamente monitorados e controlados. Mas que ninguém se atreva a controlar os imperialistas ocidentais. Alemães financiam separatistas chineses em Xinjiang; norte-americanos financiam separatistas no Tibete. Empresas da imprensa norte-americana até deslocam seus 'militantes' para Hong Kong, decididas a derrubar Xi Jinping, o presidente, a mulher dele e toda sua família. [...]

[CONTINUE AT PRAVDA.RU]

Pattberg: 西媒都是垃圾

西媒都是垃圾:

Pattberg on Orwellian Rules of Writing in the Western World

OvOvOvO1:

US media are desperate because most were kicked out of the Chinese mainland market. Now they are sitting in Hong Kong, complaining all the time and spitting their poison. They have no Chinese language skills north of kindergarten. They become English teachers or reporters. In teaching and reporting, their ego explodes. In their minds and writings they act as if the masters of the universe. But we in Hong Kong just call them this: "white trash".

WATCH: WESTERN MEDIA IS FULL OF SHIT [VIDEO]

裴德思怎么看：对不起美国：中国不会崩溃

裴德思怎么看：对不起美国：中国不会崩溃

裴德思：陈定定先生，礼貌、温顺和口才根本没用。你对沈大伟的回复发人深省，让我想起1922年辜鸿铭向明恩溥解释为什么西方没有真正理解中国人的原因。接下来的事你也知道，中国被丢进了臭水沟。这是因为‘和平崛起'并不是中国能决定的。我曾经太多次和中国学者解释，西方根本不在乎你们怎么想，不管那是不是真的。学术，事实上，全球史并不是由事实组成的，而是由幸存者编造的。中国学者要么被‘西化'，要么被无视、边缘化；或者，如果他们惹麻烦的话，被放逐。事实上，中国并不是唯一的受害者。我希望这一点能给你们一点安慰。非西方国家、政府和他们的人民没有什么能做的，尽管大部分的人还在试图取悦西方国家。事实就是，这和他们的所作所为毫无关系，他们作为非西方国家的存在，是他们的政府和人民遭受歧视、强迫和攻击的最重要原因。
Source： http://www.ltaaa.com/wtfy/16026.html

裴德思怎么看中国式的圣诞节概念

北京：知道孔子的人很少，不是说不知道他是谁，而是说不知道他做了什么。这个古代的老师有很多名字，如大成至圣文宣王、大师、孔夫子等。但是和基督教圣经中的圣诞老人尼古拉斯（Nicholas）或者（Santa Claus）不同，孔子不是基督教圣人而是中国圣人，更确切地说，孔子是圣人。

儒家的圣人（有数百位之多）就像佛教的佛一样与欧洲特征格格不入的。他们培育塑造理想的人格，成为以家庭为基础的中国价值观传统中的最高成员，圣人拥有最高的道德标准，即德，他们使用仁义礼智信的原则把所有人都当作大家庭的一员。

但是，即使在中国，也只有少数学者被称为“圣人”。这是因为这个词和概念被小心翼翼地从思想史中挪走了。对17世纪和此后的西方传教士来说，孔子被错误地当成基督教的神一样崇拜，因而是就像西方的圣徒杰罗姆（Saint Jerome）或本笃（Saint Benedict）一样的真正的“圣徒”。

1688年，蓝登尔·泰勒（Randal Taylor）写到“中国的起源并不是在大洪水之后不久，虽然如此，我们依然得出中国第一代居民很可能真正了解上帝和创世说的结论。”这是将中国完全基督教化的开始。时至今日，北京依然生活在2012年（西方人的耶稣基督纪年），中国人仍然庆祝圣诞节。与此相反，欧洲人中有谁知道今年是孔子诞辰2563年周年呢？

http://www.paigu.com/a/620936/27949226.html

译自：A Confucian Christmas in China By Thorsten Pattberg

作者简介：

裴德思（Pattberg, Thorsten）、德国籍、男、1977年生、语言学者以及作家，北京大学高等人文研究院研究人员。北京大学文学博士。专攻中西方比较文化与语言文学。2007年毕业于爱丁堡大学东亚研究院，取得硕士学位。2007年考入北京大学博士研究生、2008年赴东京大学史料编纂所访学研究、2010年赴哈佛大学梵文和印度学系访学研究，2012年1月北京大学外语学院世界文学研究所博士研究生毕业，取得博士学位，博士论文题为《德国语境中的中国圣人概念》。

Politeness, meekness, and eloquence won't help, Chen Dingding

Thorsten J. Pattberg

Politeness, meekness, and eloquence won't help, Chen Dingding. Your thoughtful response to David Shambaugh reminds me about Gu Hongming's 1922 genius attempt to explain to Sir Arthur Smith why the West was wrong about China. Next thing you know China lies in the gutters. That's because "a peaceful rise" is not China to decide. I say this a thousand times to Chinese scholars that nobody in the West cares what you think. Not even if its the truth. Scholarship, in fact, the history of the world, is not a string of truths, but a chronology of survivors. Chinese scholars either "westernize" or they will be ignored, marginalized, or, if they caused trouble, ostracized. You may take comfort in the fact that China isn't the only victim. There's nothing that those non-Western nations, governments, and their people can do; although, of course, most are still trying to please. The reality is, it never was about what they did or do; their mere presence (or shall we say "existence") as non-Western nations, governments, and people was (and always will be) the single most important factor as to why they were routinely patronized, coerced, and, if need be, attacked. 

Comment on Chen Dingding's "Sorry America, China is NOT going to collapse", National Interest

裴德思说：中华思想文化核心词不需要英文翻译

学者裴德思说：术语的“中文版”释义出炉之后，就到了翻译家们施展才调的时候。专家委员会、中国翻译协会副会长陈明明坦言，“中华思惟文化术语重视包涵性，良多术语只可领悟，不成言传，并且学术强，翻译难度可想而知。”为此，专家们都秉承一个准绳：面临，既不克不及太学术，又不克不及太简单。英文要合适中文本意，也要重视可读性，用语必然要地道。[。。。]

http://www.chengyuepump.cn/yingyonglingyu/361.html

Salary and Living in Beijing

裴德思: 但大部分中国人若与身处的社会割裂，并不会得到什么好处

中国教育部部长袁贵仁最近指出，应加强管控那些宣扬所谓“西方价值观”的教科书，其言论随即受到西方的“中国问题专家”嘲讽。

禁止学校传授创世论等假科学理论或危险教派的教义，并不完全属于审查。喔不，等一下──在美国，这显然是属于审查。“西方价值观”是凭空捏造的教条，过时又危险。譬如说民主。

民主由古希腊人所创，其好处被大大高估。首先，民主在古希腊并非行之有效。当地首批哲学家都是法西斯主义者，即使在2500年后的今天，这个“西方文明的摇篮”的国力仍然不逮。古罗马君主和一个复仇心重、专制独裁的上帝，才是欧洲致胜之道。

[...] （翻译/Alison Yeung；编审/Nelson Cheng）

[Guancha.cn]

Does ambassador Michael Clauss read Dr. Pattberg's essays?

BEIJING - I don't think that Mr Michael Clauss has read my two recent articles on Sino-Western relations here, and here while in Hong Kong last week. But I surely have another bold and thought-provoking piece about the casus 'Zhang Miao and Angela Köckritz' up my sleeves for Beijing. Should be good in a week or so. Stay tuned in...

"I think I see it better now after some reflection. Mr Clauss pressed Beijing on that poor Zhang Miao and Beijing lost its temper, reached out for the first biddable German and dictated a stream of hate and spite that we had to endure in yesterday's paper under the byline of Thorsten Pattberg, knowing Mr Clauss would be in Hong Kong to read it. This, despite revolting us as ordinary readers, succeeded in its main goal of destabilizing German foreign policy and extracting this craven interview. Western diplomats and leaders are going to need to learn to be stronger than that." 

Comment by ehoprice on South China Morning Post: 

Settle wartime grievances German ambassador to China urges Beijing, Tokyo

12 Years in China (R-rated)

TWELVE YEARS ago, I arrived in China with the determination to study first Sanskrit and Buddhism and then, expediently, the indigenous Chinese traditions such as Taoism and Confucianism. Plagued by precarious living conditions and academic poverty all around us (especially in the Chinese humanities), let alone constant Western media prejudices against China, we managed, largely because of our curiosity, discipline, frugality, and our bristling youth, not only to survive but also to make small careers of it. Overall fine memories of an extraordinary experience:

SHANGHAI - It's been a full zodiac circle. Twelve years ago in the Year of the Sheep 2003, I landed in China and I must confess that I knew nothing about the Chinese zodiac. 

In my country, Germany, we were taught little about the East, except that it was our cultural and ideological adversary. And where I attended university, in Edinburgh … boy, did the British entertain prejudices against mainland China. 

Registered as a Russian major at Fudan University in Shanghai, a metropolis of 20 million people, I found a small room near Wujiaochang crossings, only a 1 yuan (then worth about 12 US cents) bus ride down Siping Lu, passing Tongji University, to the famous tourist spot "The Bund" opposite Pudong. The very day of settling in town I bargained a gregarious Holland bike that was stolen barely 20 minutes later when I checked into a local store for bread and a glass of rancid nutella (chocolate spread) which, as if teaching a painful lesson in humility, caused the first and still most hideous food poisoning in my life. 

[Read full text at ASIA TIMES]

Zhongguomeng and Wenming (Do not translate Chinese key terminologies)

The Zhongguomeng is about the the great rejuvenation of the Chinese "Wenming"... the spiritual civilization.

中国与哈佛

日本《外交学者》7月31日文章,原题:中国对常春藤联盟的恋情 不投资本国高等教育,中国将无法缓和人才向西方大学“流失”的趋势。中国学子对哈佛大学趋之若鹜,并非秘密。正如体坛精英加入顶尖俱乐部,中国的年轻才俊也被名牌大学所吸引。如今外国顶尖大学也正以前所未有的规模吸引中国尖子生。 这并非仅限于哈佛。无论是加州大学伯克利分校、耶鲁还是剑桥,一流学府都充满中国的年轻才俊。对个人这是好事,但其黑暗面就是国家的人才流失。 最新证据源自中国富豪潘石屹夫妇对哈佛的巨额捐款。这本非什么稀罕事,却在中国社交媒体上引发众怒。作为商人,潘氏夫妇或许期盼其“投资”获得某种形式的回报,除了让企业扬名立万,或许还能把自家亲朋好友送进哈佛。鉴于照顾家庭和朋友是儒家传统根深蒂固的组成部分,大多数中国人对此并无异议。其实若拥有相应财富,许多批评者可能也会这么做。但人们关注的是:他们为何不投资中国教育? 在数学、阅读和科学技巧等方面,中国学生(普遍)表现得更优异,这点众所周知。那中国的大学为何无法跻身世界前列? 北京正竭力扭转中国的人才流失趋势。例如,作为培养“未来世界领袖”倡议的一部分,清华吸引了美国施瓦茨曼集团捐赠3亿美元,北大聘请哈佛大学燕京学社前社长…… 中国需要拥有本国的哈佛(及耶鲁、普林斯顿等)。这完全可以理解。中国学生具有积极进取的冲劲和竞争优势(这些因素正推动他们在全世界取得成功)。然而,只要中国精英不相信自己的文明,并将财富投向别国的教育事业,唯有奇迹才能把中国从历史的沉睡中唤醒。(作者裴德思,王会聪译)来源环球时报)
Source: http://www.fkjwm.com/banliliucheng/1365.html