China 08'

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: raja_indy14

It's actually harder to remember a country which was industrialised while being under such stringent control as the Chinese.quote>

No, the Soviet Union comes to mind instantly.quote>

Right, I forgot that one—perhaps because I've always regarded industrialisation as a tranformative process for the whole community, both in the fields of industry, economics, politics and society. Soviet and Chinese measures aren't the natural process Britain, Germany and the US started on in the 1700s / 1800s, and indeed many South East Asian (the tigers), Latin American and even some countries have embarked on later.

Soviet style five year plans and double digit growth are more about rising productivity than to transform society (because old institutions, classes, economics are still prefered).

It's generally accepted that death from warfare, disorder, starvation (as a result of economic breakdown) and disease is

[raja_indy14 8]

Can someone please explain to me the sense of boycotting Chinese goods?  So another Chinese person wont have a job in a factory and maybe end up starving instead??  So that economic growth slows and perhaps the Government collapses???

Why do so many people seem to percieve China as this terrible monstrosity??  Do people not see the lifting of millions out of dire poverty as some kind of miracle that should be helped along as much as possible???  Why do so many think that so many aspects of China exist in a state of permanence - never to be changed regardless of what happens to the country??

It is terrible some of the things the government has done, but I'm sure - as I've said - that with increasing wealth and education the society should grow freer and more open.  Why does everyone seem to think that this change will come instantaneously?  As ephorex_77 says, there are a myriad problems facing China right now, does anyone seriously think that the sudden application of freedom and democracy will magically remove these ills?

As for my comments of oppression vs death, I do understand that in extreme cases death can be seen by people as preferrable to oppression - but i said a little oppression (i was referring to the general oppression of the majority Chinese population, not the Tibetans) not that kind of extreme oppression.  Most people - you might be surprised to know - don't mind a few restrictions on their political life if in exchange they can see real progress in their standard of living, if stability can be brought out of chaos.  And fighting against 'oppression' is always much more complicated than simply fighting for 'freedom' - the American War of Independence, the Iraq Insurgency etc etc are not simply a matter of 'freedom'.

@krbe - I'm not sure I entirely understand your point about slavery.  My 'stance' on slavery is that while it is abhorrent to us, to many people this has not been so.  Economically, slavery is a poor system to use, I believe that slavery is a major impediment to Industrial revolution.  I would not want to be a slave, nor own slaves of my own, I wouldn't support slavery in any way.

May I suggest a trip out of that sheltered community to Europe to learn something from the Second World War? From the High North in Norway, where Soviet was regarded as liberator from the Nazis; to the Baltics where the Nazis were regarded as liberators from the oppressive Soviet Union?quote>

Wert?  If I was going to take a trip out of a sheltered community - which I have thank you very much - why would I go to Europe when there are countless places I could go to experience oppression and totalitarianism first hand??

And Tibet wasn't conqured to relive actual China of "population pressure"; which is not a valid reason for war. Liberating them from serfdom, which Chinese radio announced, might sound like something the US would have done today; the invasion itself was without fighting. The relative peacefulness by the invasion/liberation has since been followed by a controversial, Chinese government since 1959quote>

Yes, I know that that wasn't the reason for conquering Tibet; I'm saying that that is what is happening to Tibet now.  And I'm not trying to 'justify' this war/occupation/opression with the 'excuse' of population pressure - I'm saying that in can be seen within the context of overpopulation.  You cannot deny that overpopulation and the resultant migrations have caused massive disruption in human history, and I was positing that this occupation and settlement of Tibet can be seen as a natural result of this.

edit - notice the comma it's not "China conquered Tibet because..." it's "China conquered Tibet, because of population..."

[purpledaddy 6]

Well so much for the Kung Pao chicken vs. Schezuan shrimp discussions in my household then.

[crazyyaya 4]

Originally posted by: raja_indy14 Can someone please explain to me the sense of boycotting Chinese goods?  So another Chinese person wont have a job in a factory and maybe end up starving instead??  So that economic growth slows and perhaps the Government collapses???quote>

Who, exactly was calling for a boycott of Chinese goods?

Why do so many people seem to percieve China as this terrible monstrosity??  Do people not see the lifting of millions out of dire poverty as some kind of miracle that should be helped along as much as possible???  Why do so many think that so many aspects of China exist in a state of permanence - never to be changed regardless of what happens to the country??

It is terrible some of the things the government has done, but I'm sure - as I've said - that with increasing wealth and education the society should grow freer and more open.  Why does everyone seem to think that this change will come instantaneously?  As ephorex_77 says, there are a myriad problems facing China right now, does anyone seriously think that the sudden application of freedom and democracy will magically remove these ills?quote>

I see no problems in pushing for greater freedoms for Chinese citizens. Change won't come if the government is allowed to repress change. As long as Chinese society continues to open up, conditions will improve. And actually, the sudden apllication of freedom would greatly help the "ills" you are talking about.

[plus01 0]

And actually, the sudden apllication of freedom would greatly help the "ills" you are talking about.quote>

If China were to suddenly and instantaneously have complete freedom and democracy many Western nations have today, it would probably follow the same path as the Soviet Union did after 1991.  Back then, the whole nation's government and economy collapsed and took them more than a decade to recover.  In order to regain stability and reinstate Russia's clout in the world stage, Putin had pushed for many reforms that can be considered un-democratic at best.  What would happen if China were to do the same thing?  By the way, I'm all for wanting China to enjoy the freedoms of a democracy, but by the tone of what many people in this thread believe in, instant change will be irresponsible. 

[raja_indy14 8]

Who, exactly was calling for a boycott of Chinese goods?quote>

Some people on the previous page were advocating boycotting 'made in china', I don't understand this at all and I was hoping that someone would explain it to me :S.

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: raja_indy14 Can someone please explain to me the sense of boycotting Chinese goods?  So another Chinese person wont have a job in a factory and maybe end up starving instead??  So that economic growth slows and perhaps the Government collapses???quote>

Can you explain the sense of not boycotting Chinese goods? Any one consumer have no comittment whatsoever to uphold jobs in any one country (if they had, they've failed miserably in Europe and the US). Again, economic policy is the work of the government. If they hadn't replaced Tibet's government with an "autonomus" one, and let the govern themself in relative peace, they would have had none of these problems. And the central bank has already voiced concern over the growth in the Chinese economy, so if a boycott leads to a reduced growth the bank can refrain from using their tools.

Why do so many people seem to percieve China as this terrible monstrosity??  Do people not see the lifting of millions out of dire poverty as some kind of miracle that should be helped along as much as possible???  Why do so many think that so many aspects of China exist in a state of permanence - never to be changed regardless of what happens to the country??quote>

Why is "lifiting millions out of poverty" equal to challenges, which China must face with oppression, executions, censorship? Why do some think that an iron fist is all that's helping?

It is terrible some of the things the government has done, but I'm sure - as I've said - that with increasing wealth and education the society should grow freer and more open.  Why does everyone seem to think that this change will come instantaneously?  As ephorex_77 says, there are a myriad problems facing China right now, does anyone seriously think that the sudden application of freedom and democracy will magically remove these ills?quote>

The same arguments the Chinese used to get the Olympics to Beijing. They've not exactly changed for the better. Sure, business climate has improved a bit, but after the reforms that was to be expected. That people need education for continuing growth, or that a universal health care system is preferable for an economy with many workers which it depends upon, is a no-brainer, and not exactly acts China can harvest goodwill for.

Why do the defenders of China believe that a Big Brother system now, will magically turn out to be a benevolent Politbüro system later, and in the end largely a "free" state? You might think that's what being "objective" is all about, but for those in power no one benefits their system more than the relativists out there. Newton's third law tells us that "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction"; economical actions lead to economical reactions; such as improving business climate leads to prosperity, while excessive sub prime lending leads to depression. Prosperity in itself does not lead to freedom and liberty; that is a politcal reaction which require politcal actions. And police forces throwing people in jail for raising their voice is not the politcal action which leads to liberty.

As for my comments of oppression vs death, I do understand that in extreme cases death can be seen by people as preferrable to oppression - but i said a little oppression (i was referring to the general oppression of the majority Chinese population, not the Tibetans) not that kind of extreme oppression.  Most people - you might be surprised to know - don't mind a few restrictions on their political life if in exchange they can see real progress in their standard of living, if stability can be brought out of chaos.  And fighting against 'oppression' is always m

[Simfan34 11]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy I heard about the SF Torch farce on the BBC....total joke.

The Chinese brought it into SF under cover of darkness then shunned it onto a bus and paraded it down a few streets it was never meant to even be on. All the while the hundreds if not thousands of pro-China supporters were left disappointed as were the anti-Chinese and pro-Tibet supporters........oh well at least everyone was disappointed we have that at least quote>

Indeed. Total farce. Want to see what they're going to do in Buenos Aires.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: raja_indy14

It's generally accepted that death from warfare, disorder, starvation (as a result of economic breakdown) and disease is NOT preferrable to a little oppression.  In this sense whatever oppression is occurring right now is better than what would happen if the country descended into civil war. quote>

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

Generally accepted by whom??

I certainly would not like to have my lifestyle oppressed, my basic fundamental human and civil rights taken away from me and to have a state try to control every aspect of my life...nor be taken to prison and tortured for speaking my mind in public or indeed in private it seems for some.

I'd rather die thanks...becuase you can't really call that a life. quote>

Originally posted by: patriots_1228

Raja: The chinese people don't prefer freedom over dying because they have never had freedom. But, once you taste freedom, you would rather die than live without it. As i said before, if the US were to become opressed, I would get my freedom back, or die trying. quote>

Apparently this is one of the "Western values" we are talking about.   I believe you will find that belfastuniguy and patriots (and s_olah, harlem123, and other people I didn't quote) are expressing very popular opinions in western countries.

As a kid in school, I was taught that "Give me liberty or give me death" was one of the rallying cries of the American Revolutionary war.   It is one of the concepts this country was founded on. To this day, licenses plates in New Hampshire have the motto "Live Free or Die" on them.

As a kid in school, I was taught next to nothing about China or any Asian country.  It is one area where my education was sorely lacking.  All we really knew was China was a closed country; people weren't allowed out, they weren't allowed in, and there were so many people in there that the government had to keep them under it's thumb so they didn't have the freedoms we did.

It was a big deal back then that a Chinese delegation and an American delegation got together to play ping-pong.  It was an even bigger deal when President Richard Nixon went there.

It was quite puzzling to us why, if there were so many of them, they didn't fight back.  The concept that people would willingly accept oppression because it was better than the alternatives wasn't even considered.   In fact, I believe most Americans find this a difficult concept to fathom.

So, not everyone in the world likes "Western values".   okay, I can understand that not all cultures have the same values.   But what exactly are all of these "western values"?  So far, "give me liberty or give me death" seems to be one of them.   From your point of view, what are the others?

I didn't learn about "Eastern values" in school.  I've picked up bits here and there over the years but I am interested in hearing about them.

[TRNSTN 0]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek [

I didn't learn about "Eastern values" in school.  I've picked up bits here and there over the years but I am interested in hearing about them.

quote>

 

Here we are, the conflict of values. Here in the West (I'm in Canada) we've been raised based on principles, such as liberty, freedom, independence, thinking for yourself, it's all about you, me me me. It's not just in our popular culture, it's the essence of Western Society. It's all about the individual and your personal growth and interests. It's been like that for centuries. Capitalism is about the most personal gain and profit without much regard for the people around you. That is why I'm glad in Canada we have at least elements of socialism to keep everyone somewhat equal to a certain extent.

Let's look at East Asian values.

China in particular, has always had a large population and with that large empires and powerful Emperors. If you look at Confucianism, you can see the disparity between ideologies. Confucianism is about obedience and submitting to certain hierarchal structures. Authority over all, men over women, parents over children, fathers over sons, seniority and the respect and authority of age. This is a very old philosophy and it's been embedded in the Chinese way of thinking and way of life for that matter for a very long time. It's hard to really see any kind of democratic values in this kind of society, especially political dissent, it was the responsibility of the government to take care of the people. Only until the last 60 70 years has this changed. Which is why I think Communism takes on the role very well in a modern form (not necessarily right, but it fits). 

You have to understand, the Asian mentality is for the parents to have authority over you and unquestioned obedience, which is why I (as an Asian decendent) have seen and experienced first hand the clashes of personal values, having been raised in Western society and having Asian parents. I'm not saying I was opressed, but I'll just throw in a small example. If an Asian parent spanks/ beats their child, it goes largely unreported and the child is "put back in line". Now transfer that to Western values and I see subway ads against child abuse, and how spanking is horribly wrong, and kids should report their parents and what not. See the difference? Even the way we treat our parents in old age, here we have Senior Homes, in Asia, you raise your family along with your parents.

Asian culture now seems very "westernized' and the pop-culture there, music, arts, fashion, are very liberal. But, the general mantality is still to be "normal" and to conform, and step in line with everyone else, we'll have to see how the rising middle class and and this generation of youth deal with it as they adopt for Western ways of thinking.

Yes, in my previous posts I am against the Chinese governments actions, but I understand the principles they are using to govern the Chinese people. Seeing posts from ephorex_77 and raja_indy14 I can see where you're coming from. But, Western values have only come by based on centuries of trial and error, putting us where we are today, we're not perfect but we've put our hands on the stove enough times to know you shouldn't. China has the chance to side-step these mistakes and follies. In recent years the middle class and richer Chinese have decided to build and live in suburbs, is it hard to see what has come of suburban urban planning in the West? Hisotry and experience exists for a reason, so that the same mistakes are not repeated twice.

The Chinese government must know they are doing something wrong/ bad or why do they censor and violently oppress their own people? If the Chinese government really thought it was right and okay for them to march into Tibet and begin kil

[Meg 368]

Thank you, TRNSTN, I appreciate your insight.   You're in a position to experience both sides and I'm not.

Originally posted by: TRNSTN

The Chinese government must know they are doing something wrong/ bad or why do they censor and violently oppress their own people? If the Chinese government really thought it was right and okay for them to march into Tibet and begin killing protestors, then they would allow journalists and the media to report it. Hey, if you're going to do something and you feel it's right just shout it out loud and tell the world. Tibet is in the mountains, and in the middle of nowhere, no large stores of valuable minerals or oil, so why occupy it at all? There is religious tolerance in our Western countries and it has worked well. Buddhism was once used as the state religion in China and it also worked well. Isn't it about time China recognized Buddhism, the Dalai Lama and just let them live in peace, which is what Buddhism is all about already.quote>

I agree.  Sounds good to me.

 

[Frankie_Grove 33]

Originally posted by: TRNSTN

Originally posted by: SkiGeek [

I didn't learn about "Eastern values" in school.  I've picked up bits here and there over the years but I am interested in hearing about them.

quote>

 

Here we are, the conflict of values. Here in the West (I'm in Canada) we've been raised based on principles, such as liberty, freedom, independence, thinking for yourself, it's all about you, me me me. It's not just in our popular culture, it's the essence of Western Society. It's all about the individual and your personal growth and interests. It's been like that for centuries. Capitalism is about the most personal gain and profit without much regard for the people around you. That is why I'm glad in Canada we have at least elements of socialism to keep everyone somewhat equal to a certain extent.quote>

For the last time, Capitalism is not about "most personal growth and interests" its about giving an opportunity for every man woman and child to decide the course of their own lives, and the outcome depends on how much they put in. Capitalism means deciding your own standing in life, Socialism is having the government decide for you. Please do not mislead those who read this thread.

You have to understand, the Asian mentality is for the parents to have authority over you and unquestioned obedience, which is why I (as an Asian decendent) have seen and experienced first hand the clashes of personal values, having been raised in Western society and having Asian parents. I'm not saying I was opressed, but I'll just throw in a small example. If an Asian parent spanks/ beats their child, it goes largely unreported and the child is "put back in line". Now transfer that to Western values and I see subway ads against child abuse, and how spanking is horribly wrong, and kids should report their parents and what not. See the difference? Even the way we treat our parents in old age, here we have Senior Homes, in Asia, you raise your family along with your parents.quote>

Your parents take care of you, feed you, raise you - the least you could do is show them a little bit of respect. I'm not saying you should beat your kids, but you should punish them when they do wrong. I know now that "Liberal Parenting" has influenced us to believing that kids should be free to do whatever they want, whenever they want, but unfortunately that is not a good mentality.

The Chinese government must know they are doing something wrong/ bad or why do they censor and violently oppress their own people? If the Chinese government really thought it was right and okay for them to march into Tibet and begin killing protestors, then they would allow journalists and the media to report it. Hey, if you're going to do something and you feel it's right just shout it out loud and tell the world. Tibet is in the mountains, and in the middle of nowhere, no large stores of valuable minerals or oil, so why occupy it at all? There is religious tolerance in our Western countries and it has worked well. Buddhism was once used as the state religion in China and it also worked well. Isn't it about time China recognized Buddhism, the Dalai Lama and just let them live in peace, which is what Buddhism is all about already.

In regards to the points about governing 1.3bn people? Please do not forget our friends in India with around 1.02 billion people. The largest democracy on the planet. They're doing fine , well maybe except for the Muslim-Hindu conflicts, but that just comes back to the whole religious tolerance thing, no?quote>

I suppose I agree with most of what you've said here.

I find it ironic that all the people who were praising<

[belfastuniguy 18]

Can someone please explain to me the sense of boycotting Chinese goods? So another Chinese person wont have a job in a factory and maybe end up starving instead?? So that economic growth slows and perhaps the Government collapses???quote>

I'm not advocating Chinese goods boycott but I do respect freedom of choice. Hence I avoid them as best as possible. Its a personal choice, pretty much every item of clothing I have is made in Europe or some items from the USA, its better designed, better quality and uses a finer cut of fabric. Again personal choice, if someone losses a job as a result then that's not really my problem to be honest. Nor is it my problem that country does not have adequate social support for that unemployed person.

In regards to the points about governing 1.3bn people? Please do not forget our friends in India with around 1.02 billion people. The largest democracy on the planet. They're doing fine , well maybe except for the Muslim-Hindu conflicts, but that just comes back to the whole religious tolerance thing, no?quote>

Agreed, India has done a wonderful job, its not a perfect nation but it has been doing very well indeed. China cannot use the excuse of population size.

As for all the other points, others have addressed those pretty well.

[deadwoods 542]

Originally posted by: crazyyaya ... Who, exactly was calling for a boycott of Chinese goods? ...quote>

When I was working in the US late last year there was a Florida council that put a ban on Chinese goods. They were using the excuse of the lead paint in the toys, but it was really just fear bred through ignorance.

The history of China is not all that different to the history of many western countries, particularly those in Europe; wealthy Emperors and their families living high on the hog, working classes oppressed and struggling under taxes to pay for those ruling to live the high life, some spirited individuals decide that it's wrong and overthrow the government. They chose communism rather than democracy, but other than that it's no different to France. There were many excesses by those that became the next ruling class (Mao) but modern China is far closer to many Western countries with their recent approach to commercialism. No one can excuse the human rights abuses, but I think many in the western world would be surprised at how western China is particularly in places like Beijing, Shanghai and Hong Kong.

I'm proud to have a Prime Minister (Kevin Rudd) who has the balls to raise the Tibet issue with the Chinese. He addressed an audience, speaking in Mandarin, at the Peking Uni and raised the issue. The party was not happy and publicly told him to stay out of their "internal affairs" but atleast it's been raised.

[skyliner22 16]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy I heard about the SF Torch farce on the BBC....total joke.

The Chinese brought it into SF under cover of darkness then shunned it onto a bus and paraded it down a few streets it was never meant to even be on. All the while the hundreds if not thousands of pro-China supporters were left disappointed as were the anti-Chinese and pro-Tibet supporters........oh well at least everyone was disappointed we have that at least quote>

I think what my city has done was a great idea. Safety was the main concern, not people's enjoyment but SAFETY! Protesters from all across the continent has gone to San Francisco, THOUSANDS. And they were not peaceful, just before it began, they attacked an empty bus thinking there were torchbearers inside. The mayor allowed the protesters to express their first amendment rights and allowed the relay to go on. If you wanted to see a Paris like event happen, then I don't know what is wrong with you. This was done to prevent what happened in Paris. No way it would have been peaceful if it was no re-routed. So you may diss all u want but, in the end our display was successful. Also the protesters were satisfied, because their message and impact caused changes to the route and cut it short. I like other San Franciscans are dissapointed by not seeing it but, its a small price to pay to prevent Downtown San Francisco from turning into Chaos.

I wonder how Buenos Aires will handle this, I have seen numerous riot clips from that city break out from protests, what we avoided!

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[raja_indy14 8]

It's hard to really see any kind of democratic values in this kind of societyquote>

>>

This reminds me of a documentary I watched about China which showcased a village-level election.  It was completely different from what you would have in the west (of course these types of elections aren't actually considered 'valid' by observers).  the secret booth was totally unused, while all the villagers sat around and discussed together who they would vote for.  This illustrates, I think, yet another difference: the consensual/collective nature of east asian societies as compared to the independent nature of western industrial societies.  It would be interesting if China were able to create a kind of democracy different from that of the west.>>

Why do the defenders of China believe that a Big Brother system now, will magically turn out to be a benevolent Politbüro system later, and in the end largely a "free" state? You might think that's what being "objective" is all about, but for those in power no one benefits their system more than the relativists out there. Newton's third law tells us that "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction"quote>

>>

Er, the reason I believe this is that - historically - almost every country entered the early stages of industrialization as non-free, non-democratic states (or at least not entirely).  Increasing prosperity, the development of a middle class, and better education has tended to lead to increased freedoms and democracy.  This is just a correlation that exists, and which I believe can be applied generally, and is why, in my humble opinion, I think that China will eventually grow freer and more democratic.>>

Also, the politburo isn't entirely idiotic, it realizes that social pressures in China are increasing - it can either increase the pressue and risk an explosion or ease off slowly and release some of the pressure.  If the government were to crack down too hard the government might face rebellion, while suddenly lifting all the restrictions might similarly cause the state to descend into chaos.  It's a fine line, imo, and hopefully the government can manage it without having the country collapse

Additionally, the Communist party is paranoid, they take the 'better safe than sorry' approach, and really that isn't going to change anytime soon.  The Communist party is going to be undone, and the state made freer by one of two ways: gradual change or sudden revolt/rebellion.  The second of these is a terribly messy and uncertain affair (you have no idea if what you're getting is going to necessarily be better), not to mention highly disruptive.  I certainly wouldn't advocate a rebellion in China.

You can criticize the Chinese government as much as you want, but I don't think i'll do that much good, and again I dis

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: raja_indy14

This reminds me of a documentary I watched about lace w:st="on">Chinalace> which showcased a village-level election.  It was completely different from what you would have in the west (of course these types of elections aren't actually considered 'valid' by observers).  the secret booth was totally unused, while all the villagers sat around and discussed together who they would vote for.  This illustrates, I think, yet another difference: the consensual/collective nature of east asian societies as compared to the independent nature of western industrial societies.  It would be interesting if lace w:st="on">Chinalace> were able to create a kind of democracy different from that of the west.>>

quote>

Reminds me of what my German teacher told us about the East German elections: I believe they had about three parties, including someone who called themself Lib Dems or something similar, in addition to a peasant party and of course the Socialists. You could vote either open or secret. Each person voting was registered, and their form of voting was too; and of course the party if you chose to vote open.

So, all fine then? Of course not. If you chose to vote in secret, you could be sure that you'd miss promotions, benefits and so on. Also, only 50% of the seats were up for grabs; the rest were reserved the Socialists, so that they'd never lose, no matter how many would ever choose to vote secret. That the Chinese aren't using the secret ballot box is probably more a sign of its socialist election system which only favours those in power, and not about some Asian collective "values". You might also have missed the fact that there is an election going on in the United States right now, and that they many places have something called caucuses, and they don't seem that "Asian".

Er, the reason I believe this is that - historically - almost every country entered the early stages of industrialization as non-free, non-democratic states (or at least not entirely).  Increasing prosperity, the development of a middle class, and better education has tended to lead to increased freedoms and democracy.  This is just a correlation that exists, and which I believe can be applied generally, and is why, in my humble opinion, I think that lace w:st="on">Chinalace> will eventually grow freer and more democratic.quote>

They might have been less free than they are today, but they were certainly not oppressive they way the Chinese are. Sure, blacks in America might have been slaves, but apart from them (which were regarded as pieces of property, not humans), the police didn't run around arresting those in opposition to the government. Neither did they so in Britain, or Germany (unless you were socialist), and by the time the small countries, such as my own Norway became industrialised, it was no restrictions on speech and assembly even for the radical workers bent on changing the country into a socialistic, and later communist, haven.

Yes, that is precisely wh

[raja_indy14 8]

So, all fine then? Of course not. If you chose to vote in secret, you could be sure that you'd miss promotions, benefits and so on. Also, only 50% of the seats were up for grabs; the rest were reserved the Socialists, so that they'd never lose, no matter how many would ever choose to vote secret. That the Chinese aren't using the secret ballot box is probably more a sign of its socialist election system which only favours those in power, and not about some Asian collective "values". You might also have missed the fact that there is an election going on in the United States right now, and that they many places have something called caucuses, and they don't seem that "Asian".quote>

lol, I didn't say it was the final word in chinese democracy, simply that there might be some signs of opening up. Of course nothing might ever come of it as well .

Anyways, this discussion is fairly pointless, you keep pointing out that what the chinese government does is wrong, and I'm not disagreeing with that at all. I'm not saying it's right to torture your own citizens over their beliefs, or that it's right to oppress minorities, or that it's right to restrict peoples political rights. I'm simply saying that it likely isn't anywhere near as bad as many people seem to believe, that most people tend to be more interested in economic survival as opposed to political freedom - what difference does it make if you're allowed to criticize the government but you starve to death? - and that, in my humble opinion, the effects of capitalism and increasing prosperity will eventually lead to a freer China.

If you go back to my very first post, I'm not giving unabashed support for the communist party or the oppression of tibet, I'm not saying 'hurrah oppression, it's great!', I'm merely looking at some of these problems within a greater historical context - and trying, at least, to be dispassionate. I personally think the rise of china is a great, I think the lifting of millions out of poverty is a good thing, I think that the return of the world to a non-western dominated multipolarity is healthy, I think that while China is certainly worthy of criticisms the constant anti-chinese spiel gets a little tiring and often fails to take into consideration the many and sizeable difficulties the country and the regime face.

Again, if you go back to my first post I'm not saying, 'let the chinese oppress tibet, because the west did it in it's evil days' (although you could likely interpet it that way), i'm saying that under extreme population pressures these things seem to happen - and i gave the example of the europeans in north america as a relevant example, not as a justification. I do think it's ironic that western powers often behaved very badly during their period of global dominance, and that certain acts were closely linked to their industrialization - for instance the British dismantling the Indian textiles industry so that they'd have to buy textiles from Manchester, or carrying out the largest trade in illicit drugs in history - and now when a country is in very much the same situation as they were back then they cry foul and demand reforms. (a) After the 'century of national humiliation' the chinese are likely not going to be very receptive to outsiders - especially westerners - telling them how things should be done, and (b) I think it is a bit of an arrogant view to expect the world to so rapidly bring itself in line with the west (especially since the west certainly hasn't always supported freedom and democracy worldwide - a trend which has only become questionably apparent rather recently) in the spheres of economic development, politics, and human rights.

Also, please stop referring to Suharto as 'my friend' and 'my protector', I am not a supporter of Suharto, I am not a supporter of what Indonesia has done in<

[patriots_1228 51]

Quit the trivial bickering, i have important news:

India's Sharpshooters threaten to boycott games over ammo supply.

This could have catastrophic affects on the game

[belfastuniguy 18]

ine, replace 'third world' with 'under-developed', and in this instance I wasn't referring solely to China.quote>

China is not that under-developed. Yeah the interior is pretty barren but the eastern coast has been the focus of development and activity since the early 20th century and before that. China is a 'second-world' country. I know some people believe that classification is dead, but its not.

Many westerners have this strange opinion that because these people don't live in a liberal, capitalist democracy and under an oppressive regime they are permanently unhappy and living in a constant state of fearquote>

No we don't. You attempt to generalise when in fact the majority don't care. Those that do care tend to be able to make more educated and informed views. I don't believe that that everyone that lives in a 'non-western' country feels oppressed or unhappy. But there are many countries where the people are repressed and do feel unhappy as well as fearful of their government.

I do think it's ironic that western powers often behaved very badly during their period of global dominance, and that certain acts were closely linked to their industrialization - for instance the British dismantling the Indian textiles industry so that they'd have to buy textiles from Manchester, or carrying out the largest trade in illicit drugs in history - and now when a country is in very much the same situation as they were back then they cry foul and demand reformsquote>

Its called learning from history as many have already pointed out, yet we continue to go round in a circle. The west did do bad things, but we stopped, learned and brought about reform to prevent such things happening again. What we are saying is that we are in a position to teach and some countries just ignore advice and history and carry on regardless. ALSO the British did not destroy the textile industry in India.

One of the reasons in the decline of demand for Indian textile was the fact that Europe discovered how to make cotton....this allowed Europe to weave its own fabrics easily and as such the demand collapsed. India was taking part in an international market and was not able to compete on price, its simply demand and not the entire fault of Britain nor the British government....please try and give a more balanced view of history to those less informed reading.

Once again the big bad British Empire has been unearthed. Also remember the great deal of legacy Britain left India, democracy, infrastructure and many others including the English language, without which India would not be so successful as it is today.

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: patriots_1228 Quit the trivial bickering, i have important news:

India's Sharpshooters threaten to boycott games over ammo supply.

This could have catastrophic affects on the game quote>

What?? Won't the Chinese supply them??

In other news; politicians not attending the opening ceremony for the unpolitical Olympic Games could face serious politcal punishments, warns the China ambassador to Norway. They might want to polish their English next time, and try to understand what "politics" means in some languages that aren't drawn. She also stated that she didn't know anything about Tibet from before 1950, especially not the years prior to Chinese occupation.

By the way, from a Dachau Memorial site reprinting the Man of the Year 1938 story on Adolf Hitler, I found this Hitler quote:

"The next decade will show those countries with their patent democracy where true culture is to be found."

It wouldn't surprise me if the Chinese lived by this sentence; but should I regard the Chinese as idiots because they're showcasing their abuse, or are they just being honest, trying to tell us that we wouldn't want their government for anything in the world?

Originally posted by: raja_indy14 [Thesis] quote>

On population pressure: That's not a valid reason for occupying a country. Besides, Tibet was occupied in 1950; and that means something. Besides, the Tibetans had initially a friendly attitude towards the invaders, which all changed rapidly after Tibet became controlled from Beijing. I think they by 1959 had proven that all that mattered was to get the Tibetans back into their fold. China's rationale for telling us that Tibet is an internal, Chinese affair sounds rather hollow when you know how Tibet became a part of the Great Socialist Empire.

On Western powers and their dealings with the rest of the world: Stability is the first and foremost goal for every Western nations in their relations with the rest of the world. That's why we've supported dictators some places, and allowed dictators to stay in others. That's why Indonesians were allowed to kill East Timoreans without the west doing anything. A regime that are oppressive, but not directly physically abusive, as the Chinese are on an industrial scale. East Germany and the STASI is the perfect example on how to run "effectivly" run an oppressive, authoritarian state calmly. Germany is also the perfect example of how difficult, but necessary it is to get past such regimes; even though it means an incredibly ambivalent attitude towards the past. It shows that you in a relative short timespan can escape the worst slump (eastern Germany still has large problems, but this is due to how the state was run, not because of the dissolution of the same), and continue in a modern world (something which the FRG did after the Second World War).

On Suharto: Might well not have been your friend, but protector nonetheless. And that you, as a child, did feel the situation bad, doesn't mean that it have to continue on the wrong path. The problem with authoritarian regimes is not that apolitcal people can't do what they believe is right, but that politcal people can't do what the believe is right. It often go unnoticed, though, until you start beating them up on such massive, Chinese scales.

On liberal democracies and any countri which doesn't employ it. As I've said; as long as a regime is stable, and aren't that heavy with the beatings, we tend not to care. And you don't appear on the cover of time because you're a good boy; you do so because of your achievem

[belfastuniguy 18]

In other news; politicians not attending the opening ceremony for the unpolitical Olympic Games could face serious politcal punishments, warns the China ambassador to Norway. They might want to polish their English next time, and try to understand what "politics" means in some languages that aren't drawn. She also stated that she didn't know anything about Tibet from before 1950, especially not the years prior to Chinese occupation.quote>

Oh please like we are suppose to be worried. China can not risk annoying western governments. They and their national corporations still hold the strings to the economic growth in China in many ways. I seriously doubt China would do much to 'punish' us. Especially if they try it with a nation which is a member of the European Union. The EU I doubt would tolerate being 'punished' by China and its communist government. China understands what side its bread is butter on so to speak

[krbe 193]

The Chinese ambassador spoke directly about an upcoming revision of an trade agreement between Norway and China, in an interview with Norwegian newspaper VG. She has also appeared on television talk shows.

First of all; it's amazing that she has spoken at all. China is slow moving, and often unaware of the consequenses of its actions and how they are percieved. It's also easier to make the threats to a country of just 4.5 millions outside the EU, than to any EU country. Again, she tried to convince the audience that the Games are apolitical for everyone, but apparently the host can use the Games to press other countries.

Here in Denmark, however, are they beginning to realise that it's impossible for each state do deciede on their own, after Minister of Culture proclaimed that he's not going (to the usual utter silence of the Chinese embassy). Former PM Nyrup Rasmussen, now a MEP and leader for the European Social Democrats, will try to work for a common EU scheme where Chinese policy will be evaluated, before EU deciede wether or not to participate in a boycott. Nyrup also tells that the Chinese are improving in a few areas, the most important ones being the death penalty, which are now increasingly handed out by court (that sentence should sound very wrong for all Westeners...) and workers condintions; though they're deaf when it comes to issues such as freedom of speech.

For a China building its Olympic application partly on their will to improve political conditions should this spring serve as a reminder: That individual freedoms are not an "internal affair" when you've pledged to improve them, especially not in connection with such a spectacular event as the Olympics.

[Aontan 0]

Our [the Irish] government might not attend the opening ceremony... I hope they don't  - as do a large majority of people. Anyway, in other news, the Chinese ambasador to Ireland is "annoyed" at what the leader of the Irish Green Party (who are in government) said last night at their annual conference; apparently it's a "diplomatic row" now... oh, well.  A government committee is also going to invite the Dalai Lama to Dublin; adding fuel to the fire, it seems.

09-04-08: Oireachtas [Parliament] committee seeks Olympic boycott

12-04-08: Chinese Ambassador walks out on [Minister] Gormley

13-04-08: [Minister] Ahern plays down China 'row' over Tibet

I think the minister was right (and indeed, has the right) to say what he did, and should not apologize, but I especially love what the Chinese ambasador said:

"The Chinese Ambassador, Liu Biwei, said it was 'totally wrong' to describe Tibet as a country."

But he doesn't think what China is doing in Tibet is 'totally wrong'?

[Simfan34 11]

Hopefully they'll boycott the ceremony.

[your_adress_here 11]

Something about the Olympics and China, from our dear friend Somegreybloke, over at youtube. Makes for a great laugh.

[Haljackey 17,326]

Originally posted by: Simfan34 Hopefully they'll boycott the ceremony.

quote>

But I want to see the opening ceremony!  What good will boycotting it do?  It hasn't done anything in the past, so why will it work this time?

Anyways, being a Canadian, we can tune into both Canadian and American networks.  So if Canada does boycott the ceremony, I can always watch it on an American station.  Same goes if The USA boycotts it, I can tune in via a Canadian station.

If both countries boycott it, then I am not going to be very happy at all.  Seeing all the athletes walk around the stadium waving all their flags is one of my favorite moments of the Olympics.  It's a symbol of Global Identity, not Chinese oppression.

Lets leave international politics out of it and watch some sports.  That's what the games are all about.  A little friendly competition won't hurt anyone.

Best,

-Haljackey

[thinboy66 6]

I believe the Olympics has nothing to do with politics and boycott of China. The Olympics is about the games, and peace of the world and we shouldn't think it as a political thing.

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: haljackey

Originally posted by: Simfan34 Hopefully they'll boycott the ceremony.

quote>

But I want to see the opening ceremony!  What good will boycotting it do?  It hasn't done anything in the past, so why will it work this time?quote>

Boycotting the opening ceremony means politicians not showing up, not that they won't air it.

Lets leave international politics out of it and watch some sports.  That's what the games are all about.  A little friendly competition won't hurt anyone.quote>

Originally posted by: thinboy66 I believe the Olympics has nothing to do with politics and boycott of China. The Olympics is about the games, and peace of the world and we shouldn't think it as a political thing.quote>

The Olympics itself might have little to do with politics; but both the application process and opening ceremony are, because politicians are heavily involved. No one has been talking about staying out of the games; that decision is up to the individual athlete.

And I believe China itself has done what it can to prove that the opening ceremony indeed is political, seeing the talks of the ambassadors in Norway and Ireland the last couple of days. Sure, you can say that they're just doing the same thing, but you can't say both that, and that the Games are purely apolitical.