Title: Port of Los Angeles security under control of Chinese President's son!
Topic: U.S. Politics
Written By: NAUWATCH
Date: Tuesday, November 25 at 14:56
With all eyes on the Big O’s Office of the President-elect, very few know that the Port of Los Angeles--the nation’s largest--is now effectively under the control of the Peoples Republic of China.
The Port has purchased with $1.7 million American tax dollars via a “port security grant” awarded by the U.S. Department of Homeland security, a mobile X-ray scanning system, mounted on a Mack Truck chassis.  The scanning system is owned by Nuctech Company Limited, owned outright by Hu Haifeng, the son of Chinese President Hu Jintao.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/6378
read more

   

"With all eyes on the Big O’s Office of the President-elect, very few know that the Port of Los Angeles--the nation’s largest--is now effectively under the control of the Peoples Republic of China."

This is racist fearmongering basically isn't it?

I don't trust giant corporations any more than the next person but the statement above is really quite outrageous.

And I agree that the US doesn't pay enough to port security (what Lou Dobbs was saying) - it's a concern raised before, in discussion on the "War on Terror"... however implying that Hu's son will conduct malicious, clandestine plans to hurt the US - by saying that he somehow has a direct hand in "controlling" the port, just by selling them this security technology - is far fetched. Fear mongering.

This is much like the Dubai port deal. If you want to be protectionist, just go out and say it, don't pin it on some scary foreign figure. They're not saints, any more than American or western politicians. But it's hardly right to simplify this issue into another scaremongering, simplistic headline.

I can see that you took the whole text from the article - perhaps you don't agree with it wholeheartedly, but if you want to post it you might as well give a proper introduction or something, some context of why you posted it, your thoughts etc.

   

Nope. For it to be 'racist', it must be discriminatory. 'Fear mongering' perhaps, but 'racist', no.

   

For me, creating fear towards a foreign country and their people while grossly simplifying how people think about said group of people, is encouragement of racist thinking. It makes others very negative towards a targeted group of people - in this case, the Chinese - based on gross simplification of relationships / analysis, while also stirring fear... which is typical of racist propaganda.

But - I am curious why you don't define it as racist.. Do feel free to elaborate more, if so inclined.

   

Because 'Chinese' is a 'race', mentioning 'China' does not make the article 'racist'. ('race' being a concept to which I don't subscribe).

Being Moderator, a decision was taken a long time ago by the Vive Board, that 'racism' is a very personal definition, so we chose to go by the definition of 'racial discrimination' as written in Canadian law, in order to remove the personal bias from it. The legal definition of 'racism' includes discrimination based on race. Having used that standard for many years, it has weaned me of looking at things from a purely emotional point of view. I see no discrimination in this article.

Having the security for your port system dependent on a company owned in total by a foreign and hostile government is a matter of national security - not about 'race'.

Do you remember the furor when a Texas State trooper pulled someone over in BC, in a Texas State uniform and patrol car? Such furor isn't racist, because 'Texan' could be considered a 'race'.



Ahhh, see! The fear is created by you in your own mind! The implication that it's anti-Chinese to want the largest security hole in your country to be thought of as 'secure' has caused you not only fear, because somehow you are not allowed to question the competency of someone who is foreign or a company that is foreign owned.

Replace 'Chinese' with 'Elbonian' in the article. Do you have the same outlook on the article?

Is it still 'racist' to question the security proficiency of the Elbonian state owned company? And knowing the long hostile relationship with Elbonia, and recent tainted products from Elbonia as the result of 'profit first, public health second' capitalism; is it racist to question if the Elbonian state owned company would do it's best job for the security of the United States? Especially, knowing that the Elbonian State Dictator's son is in charge of the company?

   

Caleb, no it doesn't strike fear in my hearts... I don't know if you seriously thought that or if you just really want to rouse me into an argument about this.

Whether the writer is technically racist or just extremely simplistic in his thinking is hard to discern, perhaps. I'm quite surprised that Vive, however, would take in an article like this... which you've admitted is fearmongering - or which you say "perhaps" fearmongering...

I will still be here for the news but I guess it is just that, a random collection of news and sometimes a few intelligent conversations on the board...

   

Ummm, that was your word. "For me, creating fear towards a foreign country and their people . . ."

I said I find no discrimination in the article, therefore I don't see the 'racist fearmongering' you saw in your first post. It might be 'fearmongering', yes. But it isn't 'racist'. That was my only point.