I have seen a couple of American websites reporting that the Chinese are seeking to “resolutely crush” the Tibetan uprising. I have no doubt that the Chinese are using considerable force to stop the uprising. It is also a near certainty that the Chinese tactics are more severe and heavy handed than the tactics that would be used in Western countries.
Nevertheless, it is outrageously absurd to single out the word “crush” in this case. First, I am skeptical that “crush” is the best translation of the character used by the Chinese. MSNBC allegedly quotes the Chinese newspaper The People’s Daily as using the word “crush.” I looked on The People’s Daily Chinese site and I found this article talking about Tibet. The article says that a Chinese official has asked everyone to help “压” (yā) the situation in Tibet. This word can be translated as “crush,” but it can also be translated as “control.”
Translating the word as “crush” removes the word from its cultural context and is misleading. In the US, we use the idiom “hard on crime.” What does it mean to be “hard” on crime? The word “hard” doesn’t have meaning here–it is an idiom and to understand the full meaning requires the cultural context. This is the same thing with “ya” in Chinese. In China, the best way to be “hard on crime” is to “ya” crime. It is fair to translate the word as crush, but it is also fair to translate it as control. In this context, the word “ya” means to fight crime vigorously by legitimate means. In the English context however, the word “crush” implies illegitimate means. To translate this word (ya) as crush is to completely distort the intent of the speaker.
Second, we Americans use similarly inflammatory and aggressive rhetoric when we talk about the “war” on terror. We are going to “hunt them down” and “eradicate” terrorists. Terrorists are “wanted dead or alive.” The language we use to talk about state security is unambiguously violent and heavy handed. China views the Tibetan uprising as a state security issue, yet their rhetoric is ambiguously heavy handed at best.
It is absurd to harp on the language used by the Chinese to describe Tibet. It is much more productive to look closely at how China is acting. I am 100% positive that we will find many things to criticize. Criticizing the language they use, however, is petty and reduces our credibility.
“Aggressive rhetoric” is the perfect choice of words. You know how the West loves their macho posturing under the guise of patriotism. Falls right in line with what the sensationalist headlines want. “Crush”, indeed.