Okay, so back to Sophie speak.

I am sure that much of the essay I posted below will probably offend some readers! In fact, I was rather taken aback by some of the comments that this fellow blogger made when writing this article. I won’t tear them to bits, I just wanted to make the “other” side of the argument available.

Although I do agree that perhaps boycotting the Olympics is not the accurate means to channel the dissatisfaction that many have with the Chinese government, I would have to argue against the comments about Darfur being a “manufactured” conflict, and the naming of protesting monks as being as bad as Anna Nicole Smith.

So, although I don’t entirely agree with what is being said, I just wanted to clarify that I posted this to see some of the other arguments that are being raised around the debate of the Olympic protesting.

 Below I have added the argument I posted in response to this essay on the site that it has come from:

“I am a Political Science student so many of the arguments you put forward hold true. I just found X’s spin on the situation very different to anything I have read so far on the matter. In fact, I haven’t read any articles on the defending viewpoints of the Chinese people, other than what is published in the mainstream media, and I am sure that is not even the half of it.

I lived in India for three years, so perhaps my opinion is baised but I also agree that it is almost impossible to justify China’s actions against Tibet. Moreover, justifying the actions of the monks as being similar to that of “Anna Nicole Smith” probably also isn’t the best way to demonstrate a point!

I also agree that it is greatly unfair to justify Darfur as being purely manufactured. I really don’t see how one can support that claim either.

However, I still found Yang’s personal account interesting, not necessarily correct…I just wanted to put that out there! I appreciated the differences of X’s argument, however much I disagree with them…and I’ll put that on my blog too!”

There, damage control!