Wang has already posted an article about Google's prostration.Frank D. White said:don't say anything bad about your government over your computer! Seems YAHOO & GOOGLE and other foreign internet companies will help the Chinese government track you down and punish you.
Why does it concern you at all? (And for the record, I have posted here myself.)nurizeko said:Why are all the chinese nationals posting everywhere but here?.....especially since they like to add their 2 cents worth about china, why aint they doing it here?.
Also comes no suprise the chinese government is continuing its poor record of freedoms and rights for the people.
well, and what about this?Ma Cherie said:I guess it's true then, it is possible for a society to adopt capitalism and still have strong government control. It's sad really, I thought the whole deal of the modernzation of China was also supposed to help bring Democracy, but it seems that Google and Yahoo are only helping the government in censorship.
Why does it concern you at all?
nurizeko said:Im suprised google is helping the chinese governments restrictive policies.
It only goes to show that multinational corporations only care about the stockholders' interests without regard for moral scrupples when both are in conflict.nice gaijin said:if they didn't bend to the government's will, they wouldn't be allowed to operate in china, cutting them out of a particularly large market that is already being penetrated by other spineless entrepreneurs like microsoft and yahoo. I'm not surprised one bit...
It's possible no chinese national has noticed this thread yet, or you could be paranoid and say that the government has blocked this subforum
Supervin said:BTW, please don't label Chinese members on this forum as 'Chinese nationals' as it emphasizes nationality and allegiance for no good reason. Similarly I wouldn't go around calling the British and American folks here on this forum as 'British nationals' or 'American nationals'. It's fine when you use it in the context of world affairs and politics, but not when you refer to people in a community like on this forum.
And it's a real pity. Propaganda fed from birth through State media and State education.godppgo said:I think most of it has to do with the nationalistic crap the CCP has stuffed in their brain at an early age.
I didn't say 'national' was an illegitimate word. Note also the context you quote in addition to those I quoted where the word is used.nurizeko said:nationals is a legitimate word which is used without issue by customs and immigration authorities all the world over.
The distinction can simply be made by saying 'members from China'. The word 'nationals' has political connotations, suitable for other contexts. Similarly, it won't be appropriate to term those from the US as 'American nationals' for the sake of distinguishing those living in Japan for instance.Elizabeth said:I think the reason Chinese nationals was used here is that it is a useful distinction in discussions like this to distinguish Chinese citizens of China from members of Chinese descent living elsewhere. Anyone of Chinese ancestry can claim to be Chinese, in contrast to American or British that alone imply residency and /or citizenship of the particular country.
What should have been said was anyone living in China under the current restrictions, including foreigners but excluding Chinese citizens living abroad. And no one is suggesting American national be used for expatriates unless American were an ethnicity with significant, even majority, populations in countries around the world besides the US where I dare say, though, very few would be offended by the term.Supervin said:The distinction can simply be made by saying 'members from China'. The word 'nationals' has political connotations, suitable for other contexts. Similarly, it won't be appropriate to term those from the US as 'American nationals' for the sake of distinguishing those living in Japan for instance.
Yes, and I would reckon 'members from China' encapsulates the bulk of this meaning. Those living abroad don't normally call themselves 'from China' anymore.Elizabeth said:What should have been said was anyone living in China under the current restrictions, including foreigners but excluding Chinese citizens living abroad.
You misunderstand me; 'American nationals' as to those living in the US only (not expatriates).Elizabeth said:And no one is suggesting American national be used for expatriates...
Perhaps, though it's down to the individual.Elizabeth said:I dare say, though, very few would be offended by the term.
Elizabeth said:... a useful distinction ... to distinguish Chinese citizens of China from members of Chinese descent living elsewhere.
Elizabeth said:As far as I know, the full and final meaning of American national is having American citizenship. ... Presumably Americans living in Japan would still be American citizens ...
Unfortunately, I am not versed in the detailed requirements for American citizenship although it is common knowledge that being born in the US or in an American controlled jurisdiction bestows automatic citizenship regardless of length of time actually 'lived' or 'bred' there. Certainly it isn't anything that is automatically revokable for citizens living abroad. Americans in Japan that haven't given up their American citizenship are still nationals in the technical sense of definition 1.Supervin said:Let's review what we've reached so far.
What I'm saying is that 'national',
(a) refers to those living in their country of origin, where automatically they would also acquire citizenship of that country (e.g. Chinese living in China, Americans living in the USA, Britons living in the UK and so on),
and
Elizabeth said:Obviously the Chinese referrant is much more ambiguous as an inclusive ethnic term that can be used pretty much by anyone to identify themselves as Chinese descent (living in Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Canada, America etc) that has never set foot in China and has no intention of becoming a citizen or even long-term resident. If this wasn't clear enough already....in this case, therefore, the Chinese national label becomes a useful point of distinction to clarify it is only citizens of China that are a target of discussion.
Bingo ElizabethElizabeth said:I think the reason Chinese nationals was used here is that it is a useful distinction in discussions like this to distinguish Chinese citizens of China from members of Chinese descent living elsewhere. Anyone of Chinese ancestry can claim to be Chinese, in contrast to American or British that alone imply residency and /or citizenship of the particular country.
The distinction can simply be made by saying 'members from China'.
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/national?view=uknational
• adjective 1 relating to or characteristic of a nation. 2 owned, controlled, or financially supported by the state.
• noun a citizen of a particular country.
\ DERIVATIVES nationally adverb.
Look, read. You said that the term 'national' refers only to citizenship. So the distinction does not exist. I'm not going to quote you again; I quoted you in the last post.Elizabeth said:Obviously the Chinese referrant is much more ambiguous ... themselves as Chinese descent (living in Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Canada, America etc) that has never set foot in China and has no intention of becoming a citizen or even long-term resident. If this wasn't clear enough already....in this case, therefore, the Chinese national label becomes a useful point of distinction to clarify it is only citizens of China that are a target of discussion.