> they have an absolute control of picking the head of the SAR governments They have a huge influence, but not exactly absolute control.
In the last election the pan-democrats tried to put a nominee to the chief executive election, he didn't get nominated but still got a few nominations.
There are plans to change the system to a more democratic one, in 2017, but we'll have to look and see whether that happens.
Look, you hail your founding fathers as heros, despite things like "mainstream Americans eradicating the culture/language/religion of American Indian" (and slavery too). Why is it that hard to understand Chinese people could also hail their founders as heros, despite the crap they have done to some ethnic minorities?
So the Tibetan referendum hasn't happened. Why are the pro-Tibetans so fscking sure that the Tibetans want independence then?
They should change their slogan to "ask Tibetans!" instead of "Free Tibet!"
Argh, I've heard things on the lines of "Free Hong Kong" (duh). And ask Taiwanese whether they want "independence", and you'll get mixed answers but probably mostly on the lines of "don't mess things up".
Did you learn how your founding fathers committed treason by rebelling against the British empire, the early colonists who wiped out most native Americans, that George Washington owned slaves, etc.?
Question 1: are you as vocal against Guantanmo as against Tibetan oppression?
if yes, then Question 2: do you realize on the whole, people are much more vocal (and irrational!) against Tibetan oppression than Guantanmo?
and Question 3: Do you realize that nobody knows who you are and that you've also been as vocal against other forms of injustice? (and therefore lumps you against the other hypocrites just as you speak of "Chinese nationalists")
And if you're not as vocal against Guantanmo than Tibetan oppression, I won't label you as a hyprocrite just yet, but I'll have to ask you why you're picking out the Tibet issue rather than Guantanmo.
That happens to the anti-communist people too.
"Well, I don't know if China is any different, but our relationship with China is certainly different. We're in hock to the Chinese up to our eyeballs because of the war in Iraq, for one thing. They're holding hundreds of billions of dollars worth of our paper. We also are running hundred of billions of dollars worth of trade deficits with them, as we continue to import their junk with the lead paint on them and the poisoned pet food and export, you know, jobs to places where you can pay workers a dollar a month to turn out the stuff that we're buying from Wal-Mart. So I think our relationship with China has certainly changed. I think they're basically the same bunch of goons and thugs they've been for the last 50 years" (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Cafferty and you can find more sources everywhere but that's where I quoted it from out of laziness)
Tell me how he logically/rationally arrived at the conclusion. Basically he's saying "all our problems are because of China" (which, when you come to think of it, most of the complaints there have nothing to do with China.... national debt? Iraq war? Americans buying crap from Walmart?).
I've sure seen the irrational pro-China people though.
There are vectors of criticisms which are acceptable. There are vectors of attacks which are not. One of the things that ignited the whole internet frenzy is Jack Cafferty comments on CNN a few days ago. Saying a government comprises "goons and thugs" (actual quote) is no respectable way to comment on things, and it's that kind of attitude which is unacceptable.
I'll give you an analogy. You can hate your mother, but still be offended when somebody calls your mother names. Tell me that "goons and thugs" is not name calling.
Actually, nobody knows what's exactly happening inside Tibet except reports and testimonies from two extreme sides.
Doesn't stop people from commenting as if they were talking about cold, hard, facts though. Last I heard, border dispute and ethnic tensions are not exactly what I'd call "imperialist". Sometimes I wish China had more free speech and free press so we could all see what's exactly happening inside Tibet instead of having western hippies quote their data from some biased pro-Tibet organization and the blind,nationalistic Chinese quote "official" data from the Chinese propaganda dept.
Sometimes these days I don't even know which side to believe, or where to find facts...
My feeling is, if China wants to be a great nation, they need to act like a great nation, not whine on anti-cnn online forums. Yes, the if only the rest of the world stops whining at the Chinese. I don't think the communist-haters here are any better than the Chinese whiners. Every government has their black spots, but it's extremely frustrating that whenever China comes into the news spotlights some smartasses will make snide references to Tibet, human rights or whatever. I'll borrow an analogy I've seen somewhere else: when the media reports on USA Superbowl, nobody cracks up lame references to Guantanamo or Iraq.
Not as many westerners know China enough to have a fair opinion as you do. There are so many comments here that are so wrong I don't know where to begin.
PS: You've absolutely nailed it that China desperately needs a better PR dept. Most people in power probably haven't had sufficient exposure to the West (since they grew up during the cultural revolution) and probably don't know exactly how the rest of the world perceives their actions...
Until in the recent 2-3 years, to reap the benefits of Linux you basically had to understand the system inside out. In the past decade there were times when the software on Linux didn't even pass the "web browsing, emailing wordprocessing and IM" test. There wasn't a usable browser during the time after Netscape folded and before Mozilla was usable, Wordprocessing (unless you include TeX) was non existent until OpenOffice came along, and IM apps came and went and were generally rather unstable using old protocols.
I've been using Linux as my main desktop machine since 2001, and I can say that things were at first totally unusable... but since now the apps are almost as good as the Windows equivalent, and distros like Ubuntu make installation easier than Windows... we can start talking about the advantages of using Linux over Windows as a desktop.
Why are you sure you could influence who you are? (That's where the debate is, not whether past experiences are a factor to who you are, but whether they determine it 100%)
> If I overdose on drugs, let me lay there and die if I don't have insurance or can't > pay the bill myself if you so choose
Actually, if society lets your body rot on the streets then it'll be a heck of public hygiene problem. Otherwise I'd agree with your points. (So maybe every adult should pay a "burial tax"?;-p)
http://www.iwannachat.net/. It's basically a rather modern AJAX persistent web chat. I don't know how it compares with Huddlechat since I didn't follow the news yesterday and now its down:-/
1. Shareholder want their shares to have higher value. 2. Yahoo! execs say MS undervalues them. 3. Shareholder supports Yahoo! 3.5 (Hopefully) MS buys Yahoo! at a ridiculous price 4. Profit!!!
You make big claims as to your "facts" without supporting them. Maybe your post was intended as a rant but if you're intending to convince people you better ground your claims with a bit more evidence.
The thing I'm pretty positive about is regarding "law" in China. They did not have laws until quite recently. They have "policies", and law currently serves as an enforcement tool for their policies. And you may be interested to know that in the days during cultural revolution Mao basically denounced "law" as an oppressive tool of the bourgeois, and intended to deprecate law in place of his personal teachings. So the bulk of laws do NOT come from Mao. Some political ideas do, which is why officially they still claim to follow Maozedong Thought. You can claim that this is essentially "law", but this would contradict your previous argument that the situation is better but the "bad laws" are still in place, not to mention this exposes your ignorance towards the Chinese "legal system" in general.
That's a bit more of a nit-pick, your general assertion that "the core laws from 40 years that limit your rights are STILL in place" is a bit more correct, but the main issue is more like a lack of a legal framework that protects the rights of Chinese citizens, not because some law says "you have no freedom to X". Under current practical circumstances and political reality, the only way for this to happen is to first have the Chinese administration feel comfortable about allowing citizens more "freedoms", then they may put something more permanent into place. So this is why many Chinese claim this is an improvement. Westerners are predominantly legalistic, and are used to having those things entrenched in its constitution. I'm not saying we shouldn't strive for this, but one can't hope for unrealistic giant leaps, at least not without a plan.
A total lie that I was having a difficult time explaining to ppl at that time; ppl found it hard to believe that OBL hated Sadaam and other leaders that do not support him, as much as he hates America). Many American bought into it because of 9/11. That is sad that we allowed feelings to override logic
Of course. Actually you might want to read my original statement a bit more carefully. I said "one of the justifications was that their government was crap and the people need to be liberated from the oppressive government" (emphasis "mine", i.e. not in original post). Of course I knew about the false 9/11 hints, the oil issues and so on (nothing you stated about the Iraq war was new to me), but tell me, what was the point of portraying Saddam as an oppressive leader who tortured and ill-treated Iraqis? Sure the justification was bullshit, but it was one of the reasons that sold to some people.
Sometimes it's really hard to differentiate the idiots from the reasonable. And sometimes in slashdot discussions I feel that Americans somehow have the idea that if they oppose government policies it means that they are somehow automatically more credible. An analogy is that most Chinese oppose the horrors during the Chinese Cultural Revolution, but denouncing the cultural revolution doesn't automatically mean that they are "rights conscious" enough and are doing enough to promote rights and freedoms.
My main point is this, as it has always been: if you're interested enough in China issues to be vocal about it, please understand the situation more, not only from an American's POV but from the Chinese POV. Maybe you don't agree with the Chinese POV, but since the topic at hand is China, it seems prudent to understand what the "other" side is thinking before acting. I'm trying to give you a taste of the "Chinese POV" (though of course nowhere authoritative), feel free to disagree after you've understood my points.
Sometimes conflicts are really tough and could not be resolved without bloodshed. That's the fact of life on a planet with limited resources. But sometimes conflicts could be resolved by a bit more understanding, and I believe the
The applications are not pushed, and punishments are not so harsh anymore Is this not an improvement? I think an "improvement" is an understatement, but I'll leave it at that since I don't know where to find more stuff showing how things changed in the past 40 years...
But nearly any law of 40 years ago, STILL is on the books and can be applied if and when the gov decides to China had laws 40 years ago??? Are you kidding me? The so called "legal system" in China was formed around 20-30 years ago, still not complete, and most laws in force have a history of around 20 years or so.
And have quietly shifted back into cold war time Please don't tell me you need me to explain what the cold war was and why the situation today is nothing of that sort, not even remotely similar...
As to Iraq and Afghanistan, well, they really had nothing to do with democracy Of course. But one of the justifications was that their government was crap and the people need to be liberated from the oppressive government. And people believed in this. Maybe you never bought into the lie, but so many people in America bought into this that it isn't even funny. And I wonder how many think along the lines of "OK, the war isn't entirely justified, but they are 'bad guys'(TM) anyways so they deserve it."
As much as you're paranoid that China is building up a strong military and might use it somehow against you, the Chinese are also paranoid (and more justifiably so, IMHO) that the USA will pull an "Iraq" on China. If Americans are stupid enough to vote for a war in Iraq to "liberate" people, then why wouldn't they be stupid enough to invade China to get rid of this "bad" communist regime? And this is one of the reasons why China has to build up its military.
We invaded Afghanistan because that was the base of Al Qaeda, and the gov. of Afghanistan would do nothing about it (and we had EVERY right to do so; self defense). Well let me ask a rather rhetorical question: do you think the Iraqi people would be justified to invade USA to remove the warmongers in the US administration? Or maybe fly a plane into the White House to wipe them out? (the answer: "oh those guys will be gone in 8 years" won't fly. Imagine the Afghanistan government saying "sure we'll work on it, give us 8 years and maybe we'll find Bin Laden")
War is never "right". I'm not saying self defense is wrong, but it doesn't translate into an "inalienable right" to invade another country just because some madmen were hiding in some caves of that country.
You see, the problem is not only the US administration. These days Americans seem to like to blame the administration for all their faults on foreign policy, but it's not like they didn't vote those guys into office. It's the warmongering attitude of Americans which is appalling.
Since English has become basically the de-facto universal language, I'd imagine the number of Chinese who understands English is non-trivial. I'd even venture to say that if a Chinese is using the Internet (i.e. at least middle class in a developed city), it's rather likely that (s)he'll be able to understand simple English.
And obviously nobody's going to learn a language just to read wikipedia in that language... did you just suggest that? I might actually go learn Arabic to read the arabic wikipedia you know...
That's more of what I'm getting at. Sure if someone waved a magic wand and the single party rule of the CPC was swept away and a modern liberal multiparty democracy replaced it, a majority of the people would say, "Hey. That's better." However I don't believe that a majority, or even a large minority, of population wants to take any real effort to make reforms. It's not only the government. You're right that it's the mindset of the people... and sadly those with the "right" (in my opinion) mindset are far and few between. You got these people who are basically radicals and demand unreasonable things (almost like the magic wand you mentioned), and of course there are those who completely shunt the idea.
Progress on this front won't occur in China until the mindset is changed. After that happens, the rest is comparatively easy. Sigh. You're right:(
But then most people who babbles about China and democratic reforms have no frigg'n understanding about China at ALL. They're not helping. The reason I'm writing extensive replies on slashdot (you can read my posting history) on this subject is because I hope that more people will understand the inherent problems and refrain from proposing totally ridiculous ideas (which usually worsens the situation more than it helps), and that I'll understand the whole thing a bit more.
What they were right? I mean, how much do you understand about China which makes you so confident that the claims were wrong?
At least, the Chinese immigrants experienced the Western model. Did you actually get to live and experience the political, social, and cultural realities in China?
As you might have guessed, I do think China will fall apart if not ruled with a sufficiently strong hand, if only due to the chicken and egg problem. If the people don't know enough about democracy and how it's supposed to work, it will not work. And the censorship and FUD in China doesn't help.
But at any rate it's still not possible to do it in the foreseeable future without tearing apart a lot of things... which could really lead to chaos.
If Iraqi people protested in USA about the invasion I'm willing to bet there will be enough similar pro-American idiots denouncing the anti-war group.
My point is that there are blind patriots in every country. I'd otherwise agree with what you're saying.
(In fact, I don't even know how I should understand the Tibetan situation. The media hype doesn't make it easier to understand it objectively, since either you're pro-Tibet (x)or pro-Chinese, and given the high polarity it's really hard to shed doubts that both "sides" have deliberately withheld information and exaggerated some.)
Slashdot Mirror
> they have an absolute control of picking the head of the SAR governments
They have a huge influence, but not exactly absolute control.
In the last election the pan-democrats tried to put a nominee to the chief executive election, he didn't get nominated but still got a few nominations.
There are plans to change the system to a more democratic one, in 2017, but we'll have to look and see whether that happens.
Look, you hail your founding fathers as heros, despite things like "mainstream Americans eradicating the culture/language/religion of American Indian" (and slavery too). Why is it that hard to understand Chinese people could also hail their founders as heros, despite the crap they have done to some ethnic minorities?
So the Tibetan referendum hasn't happened. Why are the pro-Tibetans so fscking sure that the Tibetans want independence then?
They should change their slogan to "ask Tibetans!" instead of "Free Tibet!"
Argh, I've heard things on the lines of "Free Hong Kong" (duh). And ask Taiwanese whether they want "independence", and you'll get mixed answers but probably mostly on the lines of "don't mess things up".
Did you learn how your founding fathers committed treason by rebelling against the British empire, the early colonists who wiped out most native Americans, that George Washington owned slaves, etc.?
Question 1: are you as vocal against Guantanmo as against Tibetan oppression?
if yes, then Question 2: do you realize on the whole, people are much more vocal (and irrational!) against Tibetan oppression than Guantanmo?
and Question 3: Do you realize that nobody knows who you are and that you've also been as vocal against other forms of injustice? (and therefore lumps you against the other hypocrites just as you speak of "Chinese nationalists")
And if you're not as vocal against Guantanmo than Tibetan oppression, I won't label you as a hyprocrite just yet, but I'll have to ask you why you're picking out the Tibet issue rather than Guantanmo.
Tell me how he logically/rationally arrived at the conclusion. Basically he's saying "all our problems are because of China" (which, when you come to think of it, most of the complaints there have nothing to do with China.... national debt? Iraq war? Americans buying crap from Walmart?).
I've sure seen the irrational pro-China people though.
> (well, *you* did it, so why can't we?).
More like "*you* did it, everybody did it at some point, so why pick on us?".
There are vectors of criticisms which are acceptable. There are vectors of attacks which are not.
One of the things that ignited the whole internet frenzy is Jack Cafferty comments on CNN a few days ago. Saying a government comprises "goons and thugs" (actual quote) is no respectable way to comment on things, and it's that kind of attitude which is unacceptable.
I'll give you an analogy. You can hate your mother, but still be offended when somebody calls your mother names. Tell me that "goons and thugs" is not name calling.
Actually, nobody knows what's exactly happening inside Tibet except reports and testimonies from two extreme sides.
Doesn't stop people from commenting as if they were talking about cold, hard, facts though. Last I heard, border dispute and ethnic tensions are not exactly what I'd call "imperialist". Sometimes I wish China had more free speech and free press so we could all see what's exactly happening inside Tibet instead of having western hippies quote their data from some biased pro-Tibet organization and the blind,nationalistic Chinese quote "official" data from the Chinese propaganda dept.
Sometimes these days I don't even know which side to believe, or where to find facts...
Not as many westerners know China enough to have a fair opinion as you do. There are so many comments here that are so wrong I don't know where to begin.
PS: You've absolutely nailed it that China desperately needs a better PR dept. Most people in power probably haven't had sufficient exposure to the West (since they grew up during the cultural revolution) and probably don't know exactly how the rest of the world perceives their actions...
Until in the recent 2-3 years, to reap the benefits of Linux you basically had to understand the system inside out. In the past decade there were times when the software on Linux didn't even pass the "web browsing, emailing wordprocessing and IM" test. There wasn't a usable browser during the time after Netscape folded and before Mozilla was usable, Wordprocessing (unless you include TeX) was non existent until OpenOffice came along, and IM apps came and went and were generally rather unstable using old protocols.
I've been using Linux as my main desktop machine since 2001, and I can say that things were at first totally unusable... but since now the apps are almost as good as the Windows equivalent, and distros like Ubuntu make installation easier than Windows... we can start talking about the advantages of using Linux over Windows as a desktop.
Better stability, less crapware, fewer viruses, and free (as in beer)?
Besides, Linux desktops can actually look cool these days.
More like every manufacturer has to make sure their products works with Windows...
Why are you sure you could influence who you are?
(That's where the debate is, not whether past experiences are a factor to who you are, but whether they determine it 100%)
> If I overdose on drugs, let me lay there and die if I don't have insurance or can't
;-p)
> pay the bill myself if you so choose
Actually, if society lets your body rot on the streets then it'll be a heck of public hygiene problem. Otherwise I'd agree with your points. (So maybe every adult should pay a "burial tax"?
I'm not living in America, but I had to ask: if that's what's happening then why is nobody trying to change it?
http://www.iwannachat.net/. It's basically a rather modern AJAX persistent web chat. I don't know how it compares with Huddlechat since I didn't follow the news yesterday and now its down :-/
:)
Please pardon the testing crap in the demo room
1. Shareholder want their shares to have higher value.
2. Yahoo! execs say MS undervalues them.
3. Shareholder supports Yahoo!
3.5 (Hopefully) MS buys Yahoo! at a ridiculous price
4. Profit!!!
The thing I'm pretty positive about is regarding "law" in China. They did not have laws until quite recently. They have "policies", and law currently serves as an enforcement tool for their policies. And you may be interested to know that in the days during cultural revolution Mao basically denounced "law" as an oppressive tool of the bourgeois, and intended to deprecate law in place of his personal teachings. So the bulk of laws do NOT come from Mao. Some political ideas do, which is why officially they still claim to follow Maozedong Thought. You can claim that this is essentially "law", but this would contradict your previous argument that the situation is better but the "bad laws" are still in place, not to mention this exposes your ignorance towards the Chinese "legal system" in general.
That's a bit more of a nit-pick, your general assertion that "the core laws from 40 years that limit your rights are STILL in place" is a bit more correct, but the main issue is more like a lack of a legal framework that protects the rights of Chinese citizens, not because some law says "you have no freedom to X". Under current practical circumstances and political reality, the only way for this to happen is to first have the Chinese administration feel comfortable about allowing citizens more "freedoms", then they may put something more permanent into place. So this is why many Chinese claim this is an improvement. Westerners are predominantly legalistic, and are used to having those things entrenched in its constitution. I'm not saying we shouldn't strive for this, but one can't hope for unrealistic giant leaps, at least not without a plan.
A total lie that I was having a difficult time explaining to ppl at that time; ppl found it hard to believe that OBL hated Sadaam and other leaders that do not support him, as much as he hates America). Many American bought into it because of 9/11. That is sad that we allowed feelings to override logic
Of course. Actually you might want to read my original statement a bit more carefully. I said "one of the justifications was that their government was crap and the people need to be liberated from the oppressive government" (emphasis "mine", i.e. not in original post). Of course I knew about the false 9/11 hints, the oil issues and so on (nothing you stated about the Iraq war was new to me), but tell me, what was the point of portraying Saddam as an oppressive leader who tortured and ill-treated Iraqis? Sure the justification was bullshit, but it was one of the reasons that sold to some people.
Sometimes it's really hard to differentiate the idiots from the reasonable. And sometimes in slashdot discussions I feel that Americans somehow have the idea that if they oppose government policies it means that they are somehow automatically more credible. An analogy is that most Chinese oppose the horrors during the Chinese Cultural Revolution, but denouncing the cultural revolution doesn't automatically mean that they are "rights conscious" enough and are doing enough to promote rights and freedoms.
My main point is this, as it has always been: if you're interested enough in China issues to be vocal about it, please understand the situation more, not only from an American's POV but from the Chinese POV. Maybe you don't agree with the Chinese POV, but since the topic at hand is China, it seems prudent to understand what the "other" side is thinking before acting. I'm trying to give you a taste of the "Chinese POV" (though of course nowhere authoritative), feel free to disagree after you've understood my points.
Sometimes conflicts are really tough and could not be resolved without bloodshed. That's the fact of life on a planet with limited resources. But sometimes conflicts could be resolved by a bit more understanding, and I believe the
As much as you're paranoid that China is building up a strong military and might use it somehow against you, the Chinese are also paranoid (and more justifiably so, IMHO) that the USA will pull an "Iraq" on China. If Americans are stupid enough to vote for a war in Iraq to "liberate" people, then why wouldn't they be stupid enough to invade China to get rid of this "bad" communist regime? And this is one of the reasons why China has to build up its military. We invaded Afghanistan because that was the base of Al Qaeda, and the gov. of Afghanistan would do nothing about it (and we had EVERY right to do so; self defense). Well let me ask a rather rhetorical question: do you think the Iraqi people would be justified to invade USA to remove the warmongers in the US administration? Or maybe fly a plane into the White House to wipe them out? (the answer: "oh those guys will be gone in 8 years" won't fly. Imagine the Afghanistan government saying "sure we'll work on it, give us 8 years and maybe we'll find Bin Laden")
War is never "right". I'm not saying self defense is wrong, but it doesn't translate into an "inalienable right" to invade another country just because some madmen were hiding in some caves of that country.
You see, the problem is not only the US administration. These days Americans seem to like to blame the administration for all their faults on foreign policy, but it's not like they didn't vote those guys into office. It's the warmongering attitude of Americans which is appalling.
Since English has become basically the de-facto universal language, I'd imagine the number of Chinese who understands English is non-trivial. I'd even venture to say that if a Chinese is using the Internet (i.e. at least middle class in a developed city), it's rather likely that (s)he'll be able to understand simple English.
And obviously nobody's going to learn a language just to read wikipedia in that language... did you just suggest that? I might actually go learn Arabic to read the arabic wikipedia you know...
But then most people who babbles about China and democratic reforms have no frigg'n understanding about China at ALL. They're not helping. The reason I'm writing extensive replies on slashdot (you can read my posting history) on this subject is because I hope that more people will understand the inherent problems and refrain from proposing totally ridiculous ideas (which usually worsens the situation more than it helps), and that I'll understand the whole thing a bit more.
What they were right? I mean, how much do you understand about China which makes you so confident that the claims were wrong?
At least, the Chinese immigrants experienced the Western model. Did you actually get to live and experience the political, social, and cultural realities in China?
As you might have guessed, I do think China will fall apart if not ruled with a sufficiently strong hand, if only due to the chicken and egg problem. If the people don't know enough about democracy and how it's supposed to work, it will not work. And the censorship and FUD in China doesn't help.
But at any rate it's still not possible to do it in the foreseeable future without tearing apart a lot of things... which could really lead to chaos.
If Iraqi people protested in USA about the invasion I'm willing to bet there will be enough similar pro-American idiots denouncing the anti-war group.
My point is that there are blind patriots in every country. I'd otherwise agree with what you're saying.
(In fact, I don't even know how I should understand the Tibetan situation. The media hype doesn't make it easier to understand it objectively, since either you're pro-Tibet (x)or pro-Chinese, and given the high polarity it's really hard to shed doubts that both "sides" have deliberately withheld information and exaggerated some.)
I was in Guangzhou last month and I couldn't access wikipedia (neither Chinese/English).
;-p
I dunno, maybe you really were tracked by invisible Chinese spooks