Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'You Betrayed The Motherland' (China)
feer ^ | Jiang Xueqin

Posted on 07/31/2002 11:48:38 PM PDT by maui_hawaii

Earlier this year, freelance journalist Jiang Xueqin was deported from China after filming worker protests. Here, he reflects on his arrest, his videotaped 'confession,' and on the Communist Party's continuing deep suspicion of the media

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ON JUNE 3, I was arrested while secretly filming a worker protest in the northern Chinese oil city of Daqing. For 48 hours I was held in a neat, tidy hotel somewhere in the vast countryside outside the city. The police would not release me until I had made my videotaped confession.

"Because I am young and stupid, I broke China's very important national laws meant to protect the sensitive secrets of the Chinese people," I said before the camera, reading from my confession. "I have betrayed my own blood, and hope the ever-generous and tolerant Chinese people can forgive me."

"You were also reporting in China without accreditation," the police chief said.

"Yes," I said, nodding my head.

"Say it," he ordered. I did.

Earlier that day, a clunky train had taken me into Daqing, a Stalinist metropolis of gleaming skyscrapers and wide avenues. I was there to help make a documentary for American television about the huge worker protests that the city has witnessed this year. Back in March, a reported 50,000 workers gathered in the large park outside the tall, white headquarters of PetroChina.

"It's over now, and we've lost. Only about 1,000 workers come now," Yang Haiping, a laid-off worker, told me as we sat near a fountain in the park. "The officials said they had no money, but they're corrupt," continued Yang, who spent two weeks in jail for his involvement in the March protests. "We workers can't pay the doctor. We can't send our kid to school. And they take our retirement money and build empty skyscrapers and new roads."

I walked over to a group of middle-aged men in boots, jeans, and baseball caps who had come to protest. I tried talking to them but they didn't reply. I walked down the clean street lined with trees, and saw a frail old man sitting on the pavement. I asked him a few questions.

"I don't know anything but go over there," the old man said, pointing his finger at a group of people. I walked over and before I knew it three large men had jumped on me from behind, twisting both my wrists. I tried to resist. Two of them punched me. One ran to hail a taxi, which they bundled me into. I continued to kick and punch as they held me under the back seat, easing up only when we reached a large white police van. Five more policemen jumped out of it. Hoping to prevent another beating, I told them I had a Canadian passport. "We policemen don't beat up people," one of them told me.

As the van made its way into the countryside, past peasants cutting rice stalks, it struck me that the old man must have been a police spy (a suspicion later confirmed by junior police officers). I reflected also on how the policemen had arrested me: Even in Tiananmen Square, where the police are on high Falun Gong alert, they asked to look at my identification first. But the game is hardball in this desolate northeastern region so far away from Western eyes. Only a year ago officials used sweet promises to lure protesting workers from the streets. But now the police have been let loose, jumping on anyone suspicious or anyone who dares to speak in public, like Yang Haiping. With a prodigious supply of hungry young thugs and police informants, it seems that the Communist Party believes that only brute force can quell rising discontent.

"So how much did the CIA pay you to spy?" asked one of the policemen in the van, a young man with dark sunglasses and a large grin. It's a typical question in China, where people are often led to believe that all Western journalists work for the Central Intelligence Agency, and talking to one is a betrayal of China.

The provincial police from Harbin drove into town to interrogate me at the hotel. Queasy from lack of sleep and hungry, I sat on a large oval table in the hotel's conference room. A lanky man came in with a stern face and deep voice. "You're Overseas Chinese, so we'll be nice but you'd better tell us the truth," he said, shaking his finger at me. "Why did you do it?"

"What's wrong with letting the world know about these Daqing workers?" I replied.

"Don't you know that these workers got generous packages?" he said. "If they have complaints they can write letters, that's their legal right. But they don't have the right to go and block traffic, break into offices and disrupt work. These workers are lazy, and in the past did nothing but expected everything. Now the world's changed, and society only rewards those who contribute to its economic development. Isn't that only fair?"

His arsenal of rhetoric led me to think that he must be the leader. "You're Chinese in blood, and you betrayed the Motherland," he told me. "You came here to take footage so Americans can mock our economic development. What would your parents think if they knew what you did?"

Then I had heard shouting in the next room: "How could you talk to a Canadian!" I then realized that they had arrested the worker Yang, and were interrogating him. I felt guilty for involving him, because I knew that one way the police deal with Western journalists is by harassing the Chinese they interview. Knowing the game was up, I agreed to confess.

At around 2 o'clock in the morning, the police were finally satisfied, and they permitted me to sleep on the floor. On June 5, the police put me in a black Audi and sent me with escorts to Harbin airport. The leader waved me off with a final message: We will keep at Yang. On the plane to Beijing, I was afraid that police in the capital would repeat the interrogation I'd already been through. Instead, upon arrival three police sedans escorted me to a Boeing 747.

I was leaving China.

On the Air China flight to Vancouver, I tapped my knee and thought about how my time in China had come to such an abrupt end. Three years earlier, I had returned to China for the first time since my family emigrated when I was still a child. After teaching for a year, I had decided to become a journalist, hoping to report on how this seemingly dynamic country was remaking itself. But instead of dynamism, I found only tales of corruption. In Beijing, I interviewed tenants who told me about how they had been forcibly evicted by police to make room for the city's soaring new skyscrapers. My well-off Chinese friends were unimpressed: "They're lying scoundrels, always trying to get more money than they deserve," they reassured me. "The government wouldn't throw people out on the streets like that."

My faith shaken, I decided to travel into China's heartland. On one of my trips, I spent a month in Zhengzhou, the industrial-wasteland capital of central Henan province. The department stores with their red "50% off" sales signs were virtually empty, and the sidewalks at night were packed with vendors trying to hawk trinkets. "There are more people selling than buying things," they told me.

Just outside city hall, a small crowd of angry protesters faced a disciplined line of police officers. "Return our blood and sweat," shouted the elderly protesters, victims of a pyramid scheme sponsored by the provincial government that came crashing down in 1999.

Walking around Zhengzhou's factory district I spoke to unemployed workers playing cards under the shadow of their dilapidated apartments. "The managers are stealing the factory," the workers said indifferently. "They strip the factory clean, and then pocket the proceeds." It was the same in the countryside around Zhengzhou, where I spent a week bicycling around, talking to peasants whose land--and livelihood--was confiscated by corrupt officials. (I wrote about some of these issues for the REVIEW.)

Wherever I travelled the stories were the same, and I became disillusioned and angry with China's upwardly mobile for turning a blind eye. "Do you really believe China is growing at 8% a year when there's so much unemployment, corruption and poverty in this country?" I once said to some Chinese friends over dinner at a restaurant. "Before, Chinese intellectuals stood for the truth, and now they're participating in a lie."

"Let's change topics," said a director friend.

But then it came to my turn . . . When the Daqing interrogators directed that camera at me, and asked me to make my confession I took a deep breath. This masquerade was only a bad Chinese counterfeit of Stalin's show trials, I thought to myself. And I read the script, and contributed to the masquerade. Even though I never felt that I was in real danger (unlike Yang), still the Chinese genetic flaw of fatalism flowed through me: "Why bother? I can't do anything."

I believe we make such rationalizations because the party dangles a choice in our faces: A Chinese reporter can go to news conferences and receive red envelopes to pay for his mortgage, or he can risk his job by writing about the peasant who has just lost his land. A Western reporter can stay in his air-conditioned luxury apartment, cull the Chinese newspapers for stories and attend a cocktail with China's bold and beautiful in the evening, or he can venture out on dirt roads into villages where peasants--fearful of retribution--will keep their door closed and their mouth shut.

And then, of course, there are always the state's tried and trusted ultimate sanctions: When I arrived home in Toronto I immediately called my wife in China, who is a Chinese national. She was crying because the police wanted to interrogate her. When I called her the next day she told me that the police had interrogated her for five hours, and would call her again for another interrogation. The police were sending a signal to me. It came across the ocean, loud and clear.

Jiang Xueqin has been an occasional contributor to the REVIEW since 2000. He is currently based in Toronto, where he is working on a book about his experiences in China.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS: chinastuff

1 posted on 07/31/2002 11:48:38 PM PDT by maui_hawaii
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Hopalong; JohnHuang2; soccer8
bump
2 posted on 07/31/2002 11:51:20 PM PDT by maui_hawaii
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; Jeff Head; tallhappy
bump
3 posted on 07/31/2002 11:54:00 PM PDT by maui_hawaii
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: PhilDragoo; Captainpaintball; Tailgunner Joe
bump
4 posted on 08/01/2002 12:00:54 AM PDT by maui_hawaii
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Comment #5 Removed by Moderator

To: maui_hawaii
Hope he got his wife out before he wrote this.
6 posted on 08/01/2002 12:22:12 AM PDT by piasa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ENLIGHTENED_TRUTH
THE POOREST PEOPLE OF AMERICA (WELFARE QUEENS) HAVE ALSO ALREADY JOINED HANDS WITH THE LEADERS OF THE CHINESE COMMUNISTS TO HELP USHER IN A NEW WORLD ORDER OF WORLDWIDE COMMUNISM.

And the middle class too...

It is every American's responsibility for wanting the cheapest products no matter the human cost, and for pricing our own products out of the market with excessive taxation and excessive government mandated regulation. It is everyone's responsibility when we elect people who say nothing to China about human rights out of fear of blackmail or because they eally need some of that campaign cash from those 'monks.'

That said, communism will collapse in China just as it did in Russia. While they recover, Americans will probably stupidly increase the amount of socialism just as the Europeans have done.

7 posted on 08/01/2002 12:32:28 AM PDT by piasa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: maui_hawaii
they don't have the right to go and block traffic, break into offices and disrupt work. These workers are lazy, and in the past did nothing but expected everything. Now the world's changed, and society only rewards those who contribute to its economic development. Your average American business owner couldn't have said it better himself. But these are the quoted words of an average Chinese policeman. The capitalist ethos is sweeping China. The author of this article actually seems like a Marxist. He would prefer that China actually not lay off any workers from China's state-owned industries but continue to keep them employed forever in a communist, centrally-planned economy. The author actually seems to prefer an inefficient communist welfare state! But common sense says that in order for China to become less communist and more capitalist, laying off workers at China's inefficient, state-owned industries is a necessary step. It's strange to hear, though, some people actually prefer that China try to maintain a communist, centrally-planned economy forever, based on huge, inefficient, state-owned industries.
8 posted on 08/01/2002 12:46:33 AM PDT by AIG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ENLIGHTENED_TRUTH
You mean "worldwide capitalism."
9 posted on 08/01/2002 12:47:12 AM PDT by AIG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: piasa
While they recover, Americans will probably stupidly increase the amount of socialism just as the Europeans have done.

No doubt! America is becoming more communist as we speak while China is trying to become more capitalist. Laying off workers from state-owned industries is an essential step in China's move to capitalism. Some Americans, though, would prefer that China stick to a communist economic system and not lay off any workers at inefficient, state-owned, centrally-planned, communist industries at all!

10 posted on 08/01/2002 12:50:22 AM PDT by AIG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

Comment #11 Removed by Moderator

To: AIG
China may be adopting some capitalism, but it has yet to become more free. I think you mistook much of what I said. China cannot become a truly capitalistic and free state until it has freedom of speech, because with a lack of freely flowing information on economic as well as political issues, the economic decisions of entrepreneurs will be based on something little more solid than cold mountain air. In other words, people will buy and sell more fiction than real marketable goods or services. We saw a similar thing in a few companies in our markets- with one accounting firm pretty much handling things, it was easy for the shortfall of sources of information to morph into propaganda about how well certain companies were doing. No one could check the information. Our system has a way of fixing that, though. Ultimately, enough information slipped out to break the illusion. Now, for people who were paying attention, it was obvious that certain stocks were overvalued. But this was because at least some data was correct and honest data.

There are no checks and balances in China, there is no press to report on companies or on the government, and even if there were, the government is not designed to correct itself since it is designed to entrench itself even further. There are no real elections at the national level and no competing party, so there is no self-policing going on, no appeals for poor decisions. This is NOT capitalism.

The market value of one's company or other property in China really is unverifiable. So long as the government is content to play, everyone thinks they own something but they are never going to be sure of just how valuable are the holdings. How do you know when to sell when the government can arbitrarily change the rules and devalue your stocks to '0' in order for party official 'A' to get a good deal, and you have no legal recourse for an appeal? If the government changes arbitrarily to a copy of North Korea's or Cuba's systems of flaming red idiocy, all is lost, with little or no warning. Instant wealth redistribution can occur at the drop of a hat.

Property rights are meaningless if you have no way of determining the true worth of what you own- and it is even more meaningless if the government can take those rights away, as China can do with absolute ease. Its system is not one of checks and balances. The corporations that are there are there entirely at the whim of a few men at the top who, incidently, answer to no one, except someone who is able to unseat them by force.

12 posted on 08/01/2002 3:03:29 AM PDT by piasa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: *China stuff
Index Bump
13 posted on 08/01/2002 8:13:14 AM PDT by Free the USA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: maui_hawaii
Thanks for the ping.

This forced confession, "I have betrayed my own blood...." says it all.

The ChiCom view is a Nazi world view based on blood.

14 posted on 08/01/2002 9:12:03 AM PDT by tallhappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: piasa
China is not adopting Capitalism. It is Socialism with Chinese Characteristics.

AIG is a liar and distorter. His forst post here is complete distortion and lies.

He's disruptor of the most basic type trying to 1) fool by lies, 2) waste people's time by making us re-invent the wheel over and over and make the same arguments over and over to their ludicrous, distorted dishonest propaganda.

Ann Coulter describes the methods so well in Slander

See China's disguised failure for a concise review. It includes these very descriptive comments:

Many foreigners think, mistakenly, that China is capitalist. In fact, China's system is exactly what its leaders call it: socialism with Chinese characteristics. In practice, that means a large state sector, party committees even in private enterprises, corporate boards that are unable to fire managers, no market for corporate control and massive changes in economic policy (such as consolidation of the motor industry) dictated without consultation.

Now, see. I've already taken time out to address a lying ChiCom propgandists lies.

That is what a disruptor does.

15 posted on 08/01/2002 9:20:35 AM PDT by tallhappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: maui_hawaii; tallhappy
Thanks for the bump. This was a very good, interesting article. My favorite part:

A Chinese reporter can go to news conferences and receive red envelopes to pay for his mortgage, or he can risk his job by writing about the peasant who has just lost his land. A Western reporter can stay in his air-conditioned luxury apartment, cull the Chinese newspapers for stories and attend a cocktail with China's bold and beautiful in the evening, or he can venture out on dirt roads into villages where peasants--fearful of retribution--will keep their door closed and their mouth shut.

Tall - AIG/latourette will never learn...they just keep playing the 'same old song'.

16 posted on 08/01/2002 3:41:45 PM PDT by batter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: antiLiberalCrusader
"Why don't we just take these chicom [sic] bastards out now while we[']re still more powerful than them [sic]? You guys do know that the SDI which is suposedly [sic] meant for "roge [sic] states" is really meant for China's relitively [sic] small nuclear arsenal. THis [sic] situation reminds me of what Patton said about the Russians in '45[:] "We're gonna have to fight em' [sic] sometime anyway[,] why not do it now while we have the army here to do it with?" Just think what the 20th century would have been like had we heeded Patton's words and permited [sic] him to drive the [S]oviets from Eastern Europe."

Yes, let's start a world-ending nuclear war, rather than waiting a few years for Communism to collapse. Better yet, let's just MIND OUR OWN BUSINESS!!!

Maybe you should spend less time displaying your astounding ignorance here and more time learning English.

17 posted on 08/01/2002 4:06:33 PM PDT by Conagher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: maui_hawaii
"When the Daqing interrogators directed that camera at me, and asked me to make my confession I took a deep breath. This masquerade was only a bad Chinese counterfeit of Stalin's show trials, I thought to myself. And I read the script, and contributed to the masquerade".

If he hadn't, he probably wouldn't be around to mention this incident.They then went on to interrogate his wife for 5 hours.Sheesh.What a fascinating look at China. Just another glaring example of a Communist Dictatorship in action.Unfortunately,this story will not and could not appear in any Major US Newspaper either.

18 posted on 08/01/2002 4:34:05 PM PDT by Pagey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy; maui_hawaii
I hadn't encountered AIG before so I didn't know his or her habits, but I guessed as much from the programmed party line enthusiams in his post.

Does he ever answer and is he a reincarnation of someone we know?

19 posted on 08/01/2002 5:55:10 PM PDT by piasa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

Comment #20 Removed by Moderator

To: antiLiberalCrusader
"So because I happen to agree with the views of the best feild [sic] commander of [W]orld [W]ar [II] I'm some how [sic] ignorant and can't speak [E]nglish?"

No, you're ignorant because you know nothing about China, diplomacy or international relations. I have no idea why you can't speak English. No doubt a shining example of our public "skools."

"Do you always throw such unwarrented [sic] insults at everyone who hold differing view points [sic] than you?"

Nope. All my insults are warranted.

"Hey that'd be great if your [C]ommunist [C]hinese freinds [sic] would too."

They do.

21 posted on 08/01/2002 9:57:12 PM PDT by Conagher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: piasa
Does he ever answer and is he a reincarnation of someone we know?

This is as leat his third go-round here.

I forget his other names. Soccer8 above mentioned one of them.

22 posted on 08/01/2002 10:11:33 PM PDT by tallhappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


23 posted on 08/02/2002 1:35:49 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: antiLiberalCrusader
America can't afford any big wars now. The national debt is so big now that China itself has become the second biggest foreign holder of US bonds.
24 posted on 08/02/2002 4:40:07 PM PDT by AIG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: piasa
Your whole premise is incorrect. Democracy, free speech, and checks and balances are definitely not prerequisities for vibrant capitalism. If that were the case, all of today's Third World democracies would be outperforming China economically. But they're not, far from it! They're bastions of economic stagnation, democratic legislative "gridlock," lack of economic reforms, and endless poverty.

The best evidence you and I or anyone else can present to prove our respective cases is what actually is going on in the real world. If it were true that democracy was the way to go for Third World nations with majority-poor populations and no middle-classes, I would have no argument at all with what you say. But one has to simply ask oneself, "If democracy is so great and conducive to capitalism and general societal progress, then why are all of today's Third World democracies such dysfunctional jokes?"

Historically, modern Western democracy only came into being after the "enlightened despots" of the 1700's used their authoritarian power to codify the laws and make other country-wide capitalist reforms, which allowed capitalism to flourish and a middle-class to develop. A middle-class is what set the stage for the American and French Revolutions and the introduction of modern democracy. The American middle-class and its "bourgeoisie" counterpart in France led these respective revolutions. They were particularly disturbed by high taxation on their commercial activities, which helped make them middle-class in the first place.

Similarly, the E. Asian one-party governments in Korea, Taiwan, etc. over the past 50 years pushed through economic reforms that allowed those countries to achieve First World status in a generation. Then, it was only after middle-classes had developed did they adopt democracy.

If you just put a democratic political structure on a developing Third World country, what do you get? You get corrupt Russia! Russia is democratic but in name only. People are still accustomed to disregarding completely whatever laws the Duma passes. Same with India.

But it's a middle-class culture which starts to convince people that following the laws is in their own interest. The laws were created to protect the interests of the growing middle-class anyway, especially their commercial activities (contract law, property rights, etc.) Regarding today's Third World democracies, even if you impose a democratic political structure on them, their peoples have not started to act like typical law-abiding, middle-class Americans!

The liberal intelligentsia is just infatuated with the idea that democracy is the one-size-fits-all panacea for every country in the world, regardless of its stage of development. Consequently, many Third World countries have been harangues into adopting democracy prematurely to their own detriment. Their majority-poor populations inevitably elect socialistic politicians who oppose capitalist reforms and want to maintain their big-government, socialist welfare state forever.

All this has just resulted in more and more foreign investors pouring less money into today's Third World democracies and more money into China. If you're a foreign investor, why in the world would you want to invest in a place like India when after 50 years of democracy, their gridlock-plagued legislature still hasn't enacted even the most basic of labor, land, and tariff capitalist reforms?

25 posted on 08/02/2002 5:09:10 PM PDT by AIG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: piasa
What is my supposed "programmed party line"? Actually, it is who wants me to believe that democracy is wonderful, despite the fact that democratic S. America is crumbling as we speak. Theory is not the same thing as reality.
26 posted on 08/02/2002 5:13:12 PM PDT by AIG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy; piasa
Tallhappy just has a problem with anyone disagreeing with him. Similar to maui_hawaii in this respect. They preach democracy all day long but don't have much tolerance for dissent. "Disruptor" is a very Orwellian weird word and is actually used to describe anyone who doesn't follow their anti-China party line. This is the biggest irony of all. Tallhappy would like nothing better than to be able to sing to the choir all day. Anyone who dissents is called a "disruptor."
27 posted on 08/02/2002 5:18:46 PM PDT by AIG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: soccer8
The only people "playing the same old song forever" are the inhabitants of today's Third World democracies, who wallow in poverty generation and generation. But of course, I'm sure you still believe that democracy is wonderful for Third World countries, regardless.
28 posted on 08/02/2002 5:22:32 PM PDT by AIG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: AIG
Amazing. You read my post, imagined you saw a word in it, then based your entire reply on your straw dog. Go back to my post at #12 and find the word 'democracy.' Do you see it anywhere?

No?

Don't you wonder why I didn't use the term? Ever wonder why people on the forum here seldom use the term? Ever wonder why the term appears in the Chinese constitution but not in the US constitution?

Are you aware that the US is not a democracy, never has been, and was never intended to be a democracy, although God knows people keep trying to shove us in that direction?

Evidently not, but you're not alone- even the folks who demonstrated in Tianamen square didn't 'get it,' a fact which was obvious when they toted out the 'goddess of democracy,' a Statue of Liberty knock off. Liberty is not democracy nor is democracy liberty. Even US politicians get that one screwed up, and throw the term democracy around as if it is a good thing of which no one can get enough. That bad habit of misusing the term has everyone befuddled, and it has gotten to the point now that the word's meaning has become so arbitrary it may as well mean nothing.

Checks and balances - which I did refer to, are diametrically opposed to 'democracy,' which is one of the reasons they were created. You're in error when you assumed that checks and balances were synonymous with 'democracy,' and then paraded on with trying to equate totally different forms of government with ours under the broad heading of 'democracy,' as if this country fits under that label, which it does not.

You said something else which is quite disturbing, but I will address it later. Let's see if someone else notices what it was.

Now, back to the actual topic of the thread. Go back and read the article at the top of the thread, and realize that laying off workers isn't the central theme and is not what the author of the article was taking issue with. I am assuming you are Chinese because you seemed to be missing everything in the article which would be obvious to an American, whether liberal or conservative. You're Chinese, are you not? That's perfectly OK, I just want to clear the air so I know where you're coming from.

29 posted on 08/03/2002 6:59:38 AM PDT by piasa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: piasa
If it makes you happy, I will start saying "Third World republics" instead of "Third World democracies" because today's Third World republics are dysfunctional jokes just the same. Why do people like you get all uptight about when people say "democracy" instead of "republic." Are you so anal that you don't realize that "democracy" is the commonly used term for "republic." No pure democracy exists today. They are all republics. So there's no need to write a long, anal-retentive article about it.
30 posted on 08/03/2002 8:26:05 PM PDT by AIG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: AIG
Don't worry, you are not the first anal-retentive to make a big deal out of the use of the word, "democracy," instead of "republic." This seems to be a big theme here. That people make such a big deal out of shows they have a lower intelligence level. As I said, no pure democracy exists today. They are all republics for sure. Don't u have the common sense to realize that "democracy" means "republic" in common parlance?
31 posted on 08/03/2002 8:36:01 PM PDT by AIG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson