A revolution would be the worse thing to happen. People hail the fall of the Soviet Union like it was a wonderful step forward, but it was probably one of the worse outcomes. You guys who wax poetic about some romantic notion of the corrupt tyrannical regime falling under a sea of flowers, presuming you do not prefer a sea of blood, and people in China like Liu Xiabo who feed into that with their empty demands and anti-Chinese rhetoric only make the chances of that sea of blood higher.
You presume that I know nothing about Chinese history. Not only am I very familiar with the Tang Dynasty onward, I have lived in China and I speak the language. Every transitional era in Chinese history has been paid for with the blood of millions. I am in no way suggesting that a future revolution would happen under a "sea of flowers"; I think the Chinese people are well aware that if they want democracy, it is not going to be an easy battle. They are accepting the status quo right now because the Communists are providing development and prosperity. The second that goes away, there will be widescale rebellion. There are already riots in the countryside now in epic proportions because the poor are getting extremely poor, and are not being made part of the new prosperity seen in the cities.
The only thing keeping the Communists in power right now is a relatively stable and growing middle class. If that ever ends, the regime is doomed.
A revolution would be the worse thing to happen. People hail the fall of the Soviet Union like it was a wonderful step forward, but it was probably one of the worse outcomes. You guys who wax poetic about some romantic notion of the corrupt tyrannical regime falling under a sea of flowers, presuming you do not prefer a sea of blood, and people in China like Liu Xiabo who feed into that with their empty demands and anti-Chinese rhetoric only make the chances of that sea of blood higher.
You presume that I know nothing about Chinese history. Not only am I very familiar with the Tang Dynasty onward, I have lived in China and I speak the language. Every transitional era in Chinese history has been paid for with the blood of millions. I am in no way suggesting that a future revolution would happen under a "sea of flowers"; I think the Chinese people are well aware that if they want democracy, it is not going to be an easy battle. They are accepting the status quo right now because the Communists are providing development and prosperity. The second that goes away, there will be widescale rebellion. There are already riots in the countryside now in epic proportions because the poor are getting extremely poor, and are not being made part of the new prosperity seen in the cities.
The only thing keeping the Communists in power right now is a relatively stable and growing middle class. If that ever ends, the regime is doomed.
The only anti-Chinese rhetoric is see is from those who think that the Chinese and other Eastern peoples can't handle openness, human rights, and democracy... That is racist, not those of us who support the aspirations of the Chinese people.
This seems to be the usual response, but I think your response only goes to prove my point. I say China should not adopt the West's system (i.e. the system white people made) and you immediately assume I am saying China should not have democracy and human rights. What is implied by your comment is that human rights, openness, and democracy are white European concepts with no basis in Chinese culture. This is in fact the same drivel we find in the Charter '08 Xiabo was involved in drafting and the alleged reason he was imprisoned. You call what I said racist, but your comments are reminiscent of the ideas espoused by someone else I have talked about this with who blatantly said that it was Europeans (white people) who invented the idea of freedom.
Liu Xiabo is not Nelson Mandela. Sure not everyone can be, but it is not like this was as close as they could get.
Yeah, you're right there, he hasn't advocated violence to achieve his goals like Mandela. I thought that is something you'd rather avoid?
This seems to be the usual response, but I think your response only goes to prove my point. I say China should not adopt the West's system (i.e. the system white people made) and you immediately assume I am saying China should not have democracy and human rights. What is implied by your comment is that human rights, openness, and democracy are white European concepts with no basis in Chinese culture. This is in fact the same drivel we find in the Charter '08 Xiabo was involved in drafting and the alleged reason he was imprisoned. You call what I said racist, but your comments are reminiscent of the ideas espoused by someone else I have talked about this with who blatantly said that it was Europeans (white people) who invented the idea of freedom.
My rediculous bias against anything Chinese?!!? That is why I speak nearly fluent Chinese as a fourth language AND married an ethnic-Chinese wife... yeah, biased against the Chinese... :doh
Chinese is not a language. Although treated as a language for political reasons by the governments in Beijing and Taipei eager to unify a culturally diverse country, or as something less than a language by governments in Hong Kong and parts of Southeast Asia, it is in fact a language group (yuzu), one of four such groups in the Sino-Tibetan language family (Mair 1991). Within this group of languages, most experts (Yuan 1960, Zhan 1981, DeFrancis 1984, Ramsey 1987, Norman 1988) recognize 7 or 8 mutually unintelligible varieties which in any other context would be considered languages in their own right. They include: (1) Mandarin, spoken in northern China, where the capital at Beijing is located, and western China; (2) Wu used by some 80 million speakers in the eastern part of China focusing on Shanghai; (3) Northern and Southern Min used on Taiwan, in China's Fujian Province, and in parts of Southeast Asia; and (4) Yue, often called Cantonese, used in China's south. There are also at least three "transitional" varieties (Gan, Xiang, and Hakka) spoken mainly in China's interior.
You know, most people on these boards are mature enough to understand that sometimes people do things that they don't agree with but other times they do. I am not one of those who knee-jerk opposes the position of a person or a group because they are on one side of the political divide or the other -- unlike a couple of radical knee-jerk types I know on these boards...
(heck, Obama won one and the only thing he did was have a D next to his name and be the president).
It was a little more significant than that. Under Bush, the rest of the free world had (quite appropriately) come to view the United States as an authoritarian rogue state, and people both here and abroad were apprehensive of whether it was even institutionally possible anymore to dislodge Republicans from power. There was also the minor fact that Obama is black, which believe it or not gave about a billion people around the world a sudden sense that their options are broader than they thought. Obama deserved the Nobel Prize for all of his accomplishments put together, which have brought more positive change to the world than anyone since Nelson Mandela. Liu, while having shown tremendous personal courage and made terrible sacrifices for his people's freedom, has not been anywhere near as influential - though I say the Nobel is still well-deserved.
The rest of the free world also relies on America to defend them.
Obama did nothing to merit the Peace Prize.
It was given out based off of the fact that Obama wasn't Bush by a bunch of liberal committee members.
I've probably done more for peace and good in the world than Obama
so has Bush.
Our government incorrectly responded to irrational aggressors (Al Quaida). However, when we started the war on terror most of the world was in support of us and recognized the threat. The wars could have gone better, but America was not an irrational aggressor.Hence the global anxiety when our government fell under the control of irrational aggressors.
Obama made a lot of promises but didn't do any of that. Actions speak louder than words, and their vision of "peace" is not what I see as true peace. As it seems, we can't diplomatically reason with an irrational aggressor like Iran. Withdrawal timelines are one of the most foolish things any nation can do during a war as well. Obama is seen as a peace maker because the European left agrees with his illogical concept of peace and achievement foreign policies. Obama's actions do not merit the Nobel Peace Prize. It was all for a political statement by partisan liberal Europeans.This is not a thread about Obama's Nobel, but just off the top of my head: Defeated a Republican Party that had nearly melded itself with the state; defeated a Republican candidate who had all but promised to start a war with Iran; pursued diplomatic engagement with the Muslim world, including Iran; kept to Iraq withdrawal timelines; demolished global assumptions about race and the prospects of minorities; and has actively pursued nuclear disarmament. I would say that merits the Prize more than most of the people who've ever received it, but you're welcome to your own standards.
I have stated in a previous post that I agreed with Liu's award, but typically disagree with who receives the Peace Prize. China's opposition to Liu's prize is not the same as mine to Obama's. China is in opposition because it brings attention to their horrible human rights reccord. I am in opposition because of Obama's merit-less gift from a liberal committee simply because he wasn't a Republican (Bush).And I'm sure the Chinese government is being similarly dismissive of Liu's award. You and they can both insist the award is political, but it remains obvious who is standing up for what's right and who isn't.
I don't do it because I want to be appreciated or for an award. I do it because I want to help others. I'm just saying I would be more qualified than Obama when it comes to being awarded a Peace Prize based on merit and actions.Then your efforts have been sadly underappreciated.
Bush was one of the biggest givers of aid to poor African nations. He didn't start the War on Terror without the support of Congress and most of the free world. Obama can't even support his poor aunt or poverty stricken brother in Kenya.Only if war were peace and evil good, but this is not Oceania - Fox News notwithstanding.
Our government incorrectly responded to irrational aggressors (Al Quaida).
However, when we started the war on terror most of the world was in support of us and recognized the threat.
The wars could have gone better, but America was not an irrational aggressor.
Actions speak louder than words, and their vision of "peace" is not what I see as true peace. As it seems, we can't diplomatically reason with an irrational aggressor like Iran.
Withdrawal timelines are one of the most foolish things any nation can do during a war as well.
Obama is seen as a peace maker because the European left agrees with his illogical concept of peace and achievement foreign policies.
China is in opposition because it brings attention to their horrible human rights reccord. I am in opposition because of Obama's merit-less gift from a liberal committee simply because he wasn't a Republican (Bush).
I'm just saying I would be more qualified than Obama when it comes to being awarded a Peace Prize based on merit and actions.
Bush was one of the biggest givers of aid to poor African nations.
Obama can't even support his poor aunt or poverty stricken brother in Kenya.
A better example would have been Ghandi - however Mandela did renouce violence while in prison and his goals were eventually acheived peacefully and through negotiation.
The West didn't have a history of democracy either, until it decided to be democratic. I am not saying that China should take on Western-style systems, but let's face the facts: China is part of a globalized world. It is completely interfacing with western nations economically. It is inviting scores of foreigners to come to its doorstep to teach their people English; it wants foreign business, and thus it caves to foreign customs. The young people there are increasingly curious about the outside. Does modernization have to equal westernization? The jury is still out on that one. I don't think though that just because China would seek a democratic system that it is caving to foreign culture. Democracy is just a way of doing things. The west didn't invent it, it just popularized it.
You also forget (or maybe you didn't know) that during the KMT era, elections were held. It was mostly for the rich to vote in China, and men, but that kind of proto-democracy was the way we originally did it before the system evolved.
I frankly don't get what your beef is. You seem to just be arguing for the sake of arguing, and making up points that I never even said. :shrug:
Who said that a democratic China has to have a Western system of government? Taiwan has a working democratic system that borrows some elements from the west but also retains distinct Chinese characteristics. That makes Taiwan different from China and that it is democratic and respects the rights of citizens (and non-citizen residents) of the country but also different from Western democracies in that its processess have distinctive eastern character -- including the presence of FIVE branches of government rather than the more common three. Japan, South Korea and Mongolia are all states in this part of the world with functioning democracies. All of them take elements from Western systems -- the parts that they can benefit from -- along with retaining some ideas and customs of their own. That can work in China, given the chance. China's government is authoritarian and it's citizens are denies basic human rights that those of us living in civilized states (like the US, Canada, Taiwan and many others) take for granted.
Yeah, you're right there, he hasn't advocated violence to achieve his goals like Mandela.
A better example would have been Ghandi - however Mandela did renouce violence while in prison and his goals were eventually acheived peacefully and through negotiation.
Congratulations. Your opinion on this is now completely meaningless to me.
'Chinese' is not a language
So you speak Chinese huh. One Chinese, Two Chinese, Three Chinese, Four Chinese.
You've made a non too subtle play of the race card.
You can't name a Chinese dissident who isn't in jail.
Are you incorrectly claiming that Mandela didn't advocate violence or are you saying Liu does advocate violence, presumably using the same Sinophile sources that told you that past winners hadn't been under arrest and were unable to collect the prize?
Or are you hiding under your slippery slope, consequentialist nonsense when applying conditions to how the PRC should act when you would never make such a defence of a Western nation (check out how often you use the word "ultimately" in post 21 to justify China's preemptive removal of an individuals rights).
'Chinese' is not a language
So you speak Chinese huh. One Chinese, Two Chinese, Three Chinese, Four Chinese.
Oh but you are not. We know. You thought the Nobel Peace Prize and the committee which awarded was and I quote 'nutty' when they gave it to Obama, Gore but not when they gave it to somebody who supports your anti-China propaganda. But you go on speaking your 'Chinese' Taipei Man.
You really do not get it. The differences between the systems in Taiwan or Japan and the system in the United States are about as significant as the differences between the system in the United States and the systems in France or Germany. A system is rarely identical to another, but if you think there is any significant difference between these systems than you are either fooling yourself or not very informed.
That is because the dynamic isn't all that subtle.
That is just absurd. I said I do not have names that I can pull off the top of my head and the implication from you that every Chinese dissident is in jail just proves how little you know about China.
None of the past winners were in prison and that is just the truth. The reason your opinion is illegitimate is that you seem to think Mandela orchestrating a campaign of sabotage operations that rarely resulted in harm to any human being somehow is enough to negate his many successes to the point where awarding the prize to Liu Xiabo, who has at best achieved nothing and at worst harmed the cause, actually becomes anything more than a political maneuver.
I was not justifying anything. Rather some people have the mistaken notion that it was all about preventing people form dissenting or disagreeing, but it is not that simple. This whole event serves as nothing more than a spectacle meant to incite some action.
That's really nitpicky dude, even for you. In Mandarin you can ask someone if they speak Chinese 中文 as a blanket term, and then you can specify: 普通话 (Mandarin), 粤语 (Cantonese), etc. "Chinese" is just an umbrella term to ask if you speak one of the languages of their land, since there are many.
So yeah... you can ask someone if they speak Chinese, and it makes perfect sense. You just have to clarify later which language in the Chinese family you speak.
link
I kind of felt like this was going to happen after China made its protest against this. There is nothing the Nobel committee likes less than to be threatened by a bully, which is exactly what China is... I wonder what they are going to do to Norway, withhold exports of plastic junk?!?!? lol...
Seriously, I heard this listening to the news on the car radio on the way home and I clapped my hands with excitement (I know, not recommended on the Freeway at 95 km/hr) but I really was happy with this choice... much better than last year's no doubt.
China has gotten a lot of bad press lately and it is about time. It's childish reaction to this, the row it created with Japan and the increasingly tense trade rows with the EU and the US, among other things, are starting to cause more and more people to wake up to the true nature that is China's government.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?