Anybody who takes this guy seriously, well, shouldn't be taken seriously themselves. Although I do have to question Jackie's ability to understand even his own English, and, I think, what he meant was to be regulated, but didn't know that word so said controlled instead with unintentional implications.
Jackie Chan has been speaking English for at least 30 years so I think his English is pretty decent. Without seeing more context there might be more to his statement but if he said it in English I doubt he didn't understand the meaning of his words. I agree though that I'm not going to take Jackie Chan's political views very seriously and I think its silly to be boycotting his movies. He's an entertainer and I'm still going to watch his movies. IMO the only reason to boycott his movies is the poor quality of acting and fighting as he's getting older.
Seriously, do you understand the words that are coming out of his mouth? Can't believe it took that long for that line
quite uncharacteristically provocative of mister Jackie Chan.. afterall he spent most of his film career making it quite clear.. that he, " don't want trouble"..
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090418/ap_en_ot/as_china_people_jackie_chan Does that sound nationalistic?
Although I didn't find the exact original quote by Jackie Chan, I'm pretty sure that he said those in Chinese and was then translated into English. From what I read, the word he used was "管", which I think should more accurately translated into "management" than "control".
Totally agree that he used the wrong expression of word. I think what he was trying to say is that there ought to be a "code of conducts" that people should be aware and there should be consequences if they crossed the line. This is like the government telling people not to do drugs, or rob a bank. This is not control, or losing freedom. People that are too harsh or negative on China need to go there and live there for at least six months to find out China on their own instead of getting their stories from tv and papers.
My wife is Chinese and her parents are visiting us from Beijing right now. From what I understand, most of the criticism has been lobbed by Chinese media. Unless stories from Chinese TV and Papers aren't good enough either.
Well, which media is Teamwork talking about right here then? It makes no sense he's talking about the Chinese media? So he's talking about how normally the Western media is harsh and that people should truly understand China by going there for themselves. And then my point was that it's the Chinese media that has been the most critical of Chan's statements.
This is what I felt he meant. And TBH, I agree with him. The lack of regulation in China for just about everything is pretty astonishing, at least as someone who's used to a more orderly society in the US. China really is a pretty corrupt country. And if the government actually spends its time regulating things that SHOULD BE REGULATED, the people would lead a lot better lives. That said, the way Jackie Chan said it really does sound pretty bad.
Still don't get it? He talked about the situation in generality and you used one particular incident to try to rebuke it. Have I made myself clear enough?
I find it odd then that he would cite Taiwan and Hong Kong as what is wrong. Its not like Taiwan and Hong Kong are anarchies that encourage people to do drugs. Again though I find this very ironic by citing Taiwan and Hong Kong. I've spent time in the PRC and have done business there and from what I've heard from people in the construction industry who have done work in both the PRC and Hong Kong is that there is more corruption in the PRC. Jackie Chan is clearly talking about the Chinese people as whole and citing Hong Kong and Taiwan as what happens when there isn't a paternalistic hand yet the PRC which is less democratic and more paternalistic is more possibly corrupt than the the other two.
For a guy who has trouble understanding things you sure are condescending. First of all, I'm not the one that brought up the Western Media angle. I wasn't rebuking him - for this specific incident or in general. This thread is about Jackie Chan... not the Western Media. Teamwork starts out by talking about Jackie Chan and then ends up talking about how the Western Media writes negative stories about China. How did this go from criticism of what Jackie said to how Western Media portrays China? This wasn't about China. This was about Jackie Chan. They are not the same thing. Which is quite evident as it is the Chinese Media who has the harshest criticism of what Jackie said.
The word should be 'regulation' or 'management', not 'control'. Basically Jackie's saying the lack of regulations in China are causing many people to take advantage of the system and do many corrupt things. Do any of these sound familiar to you: Poisoned powder milk? Toys with lead in them? Poisoned toothpaste? All of these are examples of the lack of regulation and laws in China leading to very corrupt business owners trying to cut costs. These are only the violations that the Western media knows about. But there are many more instances of corruption and people 'doing whatever they want' in China, all for the gain of 1 extra buck, but at the expense of the general public's healthy and safety. Everyone is taking what Jackie said way out of context and making it a bigger deal than it should be.
Keep trying to spin it if you want to. Being desperate? Let's take a look at how the conversation unfolded . Teamwork had his opinion that the Western media is being biased. And then you replied with your rebuttal that it's not the Western media, but rather the Chinese media which lobbed the criticism in this incident. Then I pointed out you could not base your argument on one single incident. Anyone with half a brain can see the flow of the discussion here. Maybe you can't?
You're an idiot. I already told you that I was never arguing about Western Media in the first place - in this specific incident or in general. This entire thread is supposed to be about Jackie Chan's statement. I never said that the Western Media doesn't have bias against China; nor did I bring up the Chinese Media as support of this argument. You are arguing a straw man. You're stating I had a stance I did not even have, so you can knock it down. Weak. The fact that he started his opinion defending Jackie Chan and then somehow ended up blaming the Western Media is the only reason why I brought up the Chinese Media. He was basically defending Jackie Chan by blaming the Western Media for misconstruing Jackie's statements. I brought up the Chinese Media to show that many people thought his statements were off base.
