Chinese bloggers shocked world media and those calling for a boycott of the Beijing Olympics this week with blog posts revealing a wide variety of Chinese opinions both independent from and more nuanced than that of the Chinese government on its relationship with Sudanese counterparts. Further surprise came when those posts were translated into English:
But the country's citizens feel no shame, and they will not engage in self-examination; rather, this affair will launch a patriotic movement to condemn Spielberg while proudly claiming that the Beijing Olympics will go on just the same with or without him. They'll even complain about the foreign ministry's few words on the subject—they're only increasing his visibility! Why should our grand nation of China care one whit for the comings and goings of a lowly artist? Scram, spiel-bork.
A small addition to the excellent round-ups linked to above is a researched post from the highly-read independent blogger He Caitou on February 16, ‘Spielberg, the Olympics, and oil‘, in which he takes it upon himself to explain the basics of the situation to his readers, something the Chinese government, Chinese media, Steven Spielberg and the Save Darfur Coalition have apparently all been unable to do:
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 better listen up.
Back to Africa, we all know where Africa is. And everyone knows that the north part is one long stretch of yellow sand. The Chinese Taiwan writer San Mao once worked, studied and lived there. The south part isn't bad either, like South Africa, which as we've learned from TV news, has no camels. A lot of people insist that those who have watched Animal World will have noticed that Africa also has veldt, forest and animals who frolic and copulate as Teacher Zhao Zhongxiang chases them with his booming voice. When Chinese people say the word “African”, they naturally think of their black brothers with faces like ebony and curly hair. Knowing that much is a good start, but it's not all there is.
But then, starting in the 1980s, global warming began. With the weather, the peaceful co-existence situation also began to change. The result of global warming was increased drought in Darfur, and the nomad arabs were the first to feel the impact. Their herds need pasture, and what the camels and sheep saw, was farmland covered in feed. This is what destroyed the friendly relationship between the African blacks and the arabs. Arabs were not able to change their nomadic lifestyles, and the historically farming African blacks were absolutely not going to let anyone take away from their farmland. In 1987, the parched thirsty arabs issued a declaration, that arabs were racially superior. Then they built up an army, and began pillaging land from the blacks. Conflict fully erupted, and only two years later was a peace agreement signed, the price of which had been 3,000 lives and hundreds of destroyed villages. 
Throughout the 1990s, whether you say it was an ethnic conflict or a battle over land resources between herders and farmers, both sides just kept on going at each other, and have been going for nearly twenty years now. Thunder boomed across the land in 2005 when oil was discovered in Darfur's southern region. And large reserves; after extraction got underway, 200,000 barrels a day by some estimates. The 20 years prior to this had absolutely nothing to do with China, but from that point on, the words Sudan and Darfur got stuck right next to China.
Since 1949, China and Africa had established positive relations. What the deal is now, I don't know. But at the time, the African brothers were definitely not treated as outsiders. You help get us into the United Nations, and we'll help you with infrastructure. China had large numbers of cooperative projects in Africa, and relations with most African countries were pretty good. There was no thought of benefits or advantages to this at the time; The engineering teams who went to aid in construction, now that was menial work, trying to do good. Medical teams went to provide health services, and saved countless lives. Sudan was one of China's African brothers, and now that oil has been discovered, the sense of brotherhood towards Africa that the old generation of proletarian revolutionaries carry is finally being realized.
Quite something, eh? America is friends with several big oil countries: Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, Nigeria (Iraq actually wasn't much into oil, but then Saddam was hung, and now it is. Iran doesn't either. Like that'll last long.), which control the world's oil production business. But, China has suddenly struck oil in Sudan, 200,000 barrels a day, 20% of what Nigeria produces, in its own backyard, and this is somehow outrageous? 
By chance, there's the 2003 Darfur uprising mentioned above. How did that happen? Darfur's black brothers organized themselves in 2003, and formed the “Sudanese Liberation Army”, among other armed anti-government forces, striving for self-governance. Then the arabs organized the Janjawid militia and challenged the SLA. Resulting in 10,000 deaths and a million refugees. As with in 1987, the Sudanese government supported the arab Janjawid, supplying weapons and ammunition. Little George Bush shrewdly grasped onto this, declaring the Sudanese government wholly responsible for the Darfur Crisis. What's more, America and its allies one-by-one spoke out: ‘Hey, China, yeah you! Your little brother's gone and made such a mess, why aren't you saying anything?’ Seeing China unresponsive, and continuing to ship oil, everybody started screaming at once: ‘everyone come look! The little black people are being killed, and it's all because China secretly supports the Sudanese government!’
And that's how, over the past few years, the connection between China, Sudan and Darfur couldn't be cut, with inconsistent reasoning and widespread criticism.
I'm not sure what the answer to this question is. There's lots of smart people out there on the internet, and a lot of them own cars, so I'd like to hear what everybody thinks.
Finally, for those car owners with guilty consciences, I just want to say two things. America is the symbol of freedom and democracy, but this clause needs a modifier: domestically. But when it comes to relations with other countries, there just doesn't seem to be that same dear freedom and sweet democracy. To this day, there isn't anything that has more bearing on international relations than ‘the real world’, and Americans admit it straight up: ‘to protect American interests to the greatest extent.’ So then, aside from American interests, there's still every country in the world's interests, or else there would always be conflicts, and people dying for this free and democratic America. America today is caring over Darfur. Well, what about the America during the Rwanda massacre? Or Somalia, where after a few American soldiers died, it evacuated, and turned the place over to God. And Iraq? How many times more American soldiers have died in Iraq than in Somalia? So why haven't the Americans evacuated? God sure isn't fair, failing to bless the people of Rwanda, Somalia and Korea with oil, or else they've have gotten help from the American army, and not just have been forgotten about, left to fend for themselves.
1. The American people enjoy a life of ‘of the people, by the people, for the people,’ this is true.
2. The price of this kind of life is all efforts necessary to maintain American interests, including letting the silly House of Saud rule over that prosperous nation, and keeping despots like Suharto, Noriega and Saddam who serve America in place, this is also true.
3. When American interests no longer exist, any million people who die somewhere that isn't America, might as well have never existed. This is still true.
We live in a world that's just as cruel now as it was 5,000 years ago. In this world it seems numbers of nuclear warheads and supply and demand determine rank between nations. How America lets Americans live such wonderful lives is an example set for all countries to follow, but, this kind of domestic policy isn't allowed to extend to international relations. If you honestly feel so guilty about the blacks of Darfur, that's commendable, but what's even more commendable is if you were to give up your own cars, and started riding bicycles. If you admit that you're selfish, and that cheap gas depends on the lives of a group of people tens of thousands of miles away, well then there's no need at all to feel ashamed. Because, that's just how pitiless the world is, and there's no obligation to put yourself in such a difficult situation. Spielberg, in contrast, only made one of the easiest choices there is.
 “The root causes of the Darfur problem”
 “How did the Darfur Crisis come to be?”
 “Darfur: My name is oil”