Uncle Spielberg announced he would no longer be participating in the 2008 Beijing Olympics, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs went out of its way to respond, all really odd. The reason Uncle Spielberg gave was something about "Darfur", which doesn't really sound familiar, and definitely doesn't explain anything. A world-famous director gets up at the last minute and runs off from the world's most populous country just as it's about to host the Olympics, and because of some place in Africa? That's some "globalization" for you.
So what's up with Darfur? What does it have to do with China? Or with the 2008 Olympics? The media haven't been clear on the what and why, they don't talk about this issue. They might think it wise not to, or inconvenient, but I think I at least might as well. Anyway, I've got nothing better to do this weekend, so I'll try and tell the story so you... ("China: Spielberg, the Olympics, and oil," by John Kennedy. GlobalVoices. February 18, 2008.)
The rest of the article is worth reading.
I disagree with He Caitou's inability to know and to say whether a life in Darfur is worth more than driving cars or the current American lifestyle. It isn't an either-or choice anywhere. If the corporations would just learn to shift gears, we wouldn't be offered a false choice. All the capital that is flowing into both the oil and auto and other industries could just be funneled into research and development of what would allow those corporations to produce what would be beneficial for all rather than just the few at the negative expense, even death, of others.