I have not found any evidence that it is expliciitly supported in the PRC Constitution.
However I have not found it in the US Constitution Either, I've only found it explititly implied in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Now, if we take recent announcement by PRC officials that 300,000,000 peasants will leave the country side for the urban cities we can take take it that individual and even group movements are okay. However large groups of movements while "okay" legally are not allowed in reality only to prevent the flooding of services and is regulated, we can only assume this and I'll ask from recently immigrated Chinese citizens next time I goto school.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:if we take recent announcement by PRC officials that 300,000,000 peasants will leave the country side for the urban cities we can take take it that individual and even group movements are okay.
Wow. You're less cynical than I am. I'd assume that they're mandating it. Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Originally I was aware they werent letting some 30,000,000 citizens move into one of the SEZ's because that it would upset the local economy or something. They were allowed originally but stopped when it became unstable.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Three hundred million people will move? During what time period? And of course the big question is WHY are they moving? Are they moving because the government tells them to? Are they moving because the government flooded their homes, farms and villages to make a new hydro-electric plant? Are they moving to pursue a personal dream for a better life?
300,000,000 people is the equivalent of 45 New York Cities. Does China have urban areas that sum to that size already? If NYC (which has fairly dense population as human settlements go, was 45x larger than it is today, for example, it would be the equivalent of a single dense urban area the size of the entire state of Maryland.
Or, put another way, 45 of the 50 states in the US would each have a city as large as NY city, just from the EXTRA people moving into urban environments.
If I were a betting man, I'd bet that China will be the source of the next pandemic if they go through with this plan.
I don't care how good their santitation is (and I hear it's not all that good), the rapid influx of that many people into an urban environment is going to overwhelm their sanitation systems and provide a perfect breeding ground for disease.
If this is really what is being "planned" and it's over a short period of time, I'd be tempted to call it a hidden program of genocide.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
By the way, 300,000,000 is 30 new Shanghais.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
300 mil will move not because they are told to but because the economic growth is reaching a point where it is predicted that the agricultural populace will leave the countryside to pursue work in the cities and other lesser urban areas.
Its planned that this will happen within the next 35 years gradually as the economic boom increases.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:However I have not found it in the US Constitution Either,
Wrong. It is embodied in two different provisions.
The fourteenth amendment makes anyone a citizen of whichever state they reside in:
quote:All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
The Article IV privileges and immunities clause provides that citizens of state A must be treated the same as citizens of state B while they are within state B:
quote: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
Because citizens of state B may reside in state B, citizens of state A may reside there. And because residing in a state makes one a citizen, one is free to move between states as one wishes.
Taken together, this guarantees an interstate right to travel with three components:
quote:the right of a citizen of one State to enter and to leave another State, the right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than an unfriendly alien when temporarily present in the second State, and, for those travelers who elect to become permanent residents, the right to be treated like other citizens of that State. Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489, 500 (1999).
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
Shanghai has more people in it than New York City? Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
By a couple of million, yes.
Blayne...we're talking almost 10 million people a year. That's not gradual.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
In a country that has in its different boom years in history has managed similar population movements. During the Great Leap Forward the urban population increased from 2-15%
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
I heard recently that China builds urban area for the equivilent population of Philidelphia every month.
Arguing about Chinese demographics is tricky, and fairly pointless, except in the broadest terms. They havn't done censuses (censi?) on a consistent basis, and the government is well known for fabricating statistics of all kinds.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Blayne:
Do you consider the Great Leap Forward as having been particularly successful, and therefore a good model of how the State should handle future mass movement of people?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote: 300,000,000 people is the equivalent of 45 New York Cities.
Might just be easier to say that 300,000,000 is the equivalent of one United States of America.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Look out, BB, my "trick question" sense is tingling! Don't answer Bob! Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Truly, Morbo, your powers of perception are honed to a razor's edge.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"Out of 194 Asian cities with populations of more than one million, 98 are on the Chinese mainland and on Taiwan." with 3 being on Taiwan. Of the 299 most populous cities in the world, 97 are on the China mainland: the smallest has a population of 987thousand.
[ February 03, 2006, 02:45 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
And India STILL has a larger population.
Really, I applaud their ability to plan for this kind of thing...if they can do it. I just worry about super-high population densities because they aren't good for people. I used to think they'd at least be good for the environment (pack the people in high-rises and you at least aren't destroying the rural areas for housing), but the pollution coming from urban dwellers is typically more per-capita than for urban dwellers, so I consider it kind of wash. Maybe it's different in China where the lower-tech rural dwellers are probably still burning fires for heat, in comparison to their urban counterparts who might use electricity and natural gas more.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I think given the PRC's history in effective life-saving planning for this sort of thing, skepticism about their abilities in that area are totally justified.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I've heard that their city dwellers burn coal mostly but I'm not sure I heard it second hand. As for the GLF, steel production did increase by 45% and the population did go from 450 mil to 600 mil people and according to Paul Kennedy in "The Rise and Fall of the great Powers" China's economic growth was amazing between 1949 to 1968(?) until the Cultural Revolution, inwhich with Deng's Reforms Paul geustimated that their total economic strength would've been 20 years ahead, this given that his initial estimate of China overcoming France in GDP terms happens 25 years ahead of schedual well...
Now I am not argueing that millions did die of starvation but lets at least be glad that it wasn't intentional starvation like Stalin did, at least it was because zeal overcame good judgement plus the lack of a suitable scientific community to tell them that their goals (overcoming the steel production of the world in 30 years) was absolutely impossible and insane. And all this because of the Soviets launched Sputnik.
Its not that its planned its just an economic prediction as Modernization and economic growth continues at its average current rate.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: As for the GLF, steel production did increase by 45% and the population did go from 450 mil to 600 mil people and according to Paul Kennedy in "The Rise and Fall of the great Powers" China's economic growth was amazing between 1949 to 1968(?) until the Cultural Revolution, inwhich with Deng's Reforms Paul geustimated that their total economic strength would've been 20 years ahead, this given that his initial estimate of China overcoming France in GDP terms happens 25 years ahead of schedual well...
Now I am not argueing that millions did die of starvation but lets at least be glad that it wasn't intentional starvation like Stalin did, at least it was because zeal overcame good judgement plus the lack of a suitable scientific community to tell them that their goals (overcoming the steel production of the world in 30 years) was absolutely impossible and insane. And all this because of the Soviets launched Sputnik.
Its not that its planned its just an economic prediction as Modernization and economic growth continues at its average current rate.
Deng was purged twice in the Cultural Revolution, they were hardly "Deng's reforms," Blayne.
quote: During the Great Leap, the Chinese economy initially grew, and iron production increased 45% in 1958 and a combined 30% over the next two years, but plummeted in 1961, and would not reach the level it was at in 1958 until 1964.
edit: corrected wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward And most of that "increase" in iron production was just iron products melted in villages. Hence the rapid plunge in production in 1961. Any country could artificially increase it's iron "production" by melting much of it's iron products into useless iron blobs...but it's pretty pointless and stupid.
How you can nonchalantly try to argue away what some have called the largest famine in human history is very telling.
[ February 03, 2006, 02:58 PM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Now I am not argueing that millions did die of starvation but lets at least be glad that it wasn't intentional starvation like Stalin did, at least it was because zeal overcame good judgement plus the lack of a suitable scientific community to tell them that their goals (overcoming the steel production of the world in 30 years) was absolutely impossible and insane.
*blink* Do you think the people would have continued to starve by focusing their efforts on melting down iron if the government hadn't forced them to do so, while preventing them from growing food?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
No one was forced to do it, millions left towns and cities to work on communal farms for the very purpose of smelting iron, and for those thatdidnt know how instead from that sources they could find tried to do so.
Deng was purged twice yes but in 1978 it was HIS reforms that allowed the countries GDP to QUADROUPLE between 1978-1987 around the time "The Rise and Fall" was published.
Deng was in countrol of the party from behind the scenes after 1978.
Also dontyou think a reason for that plummet aside from much of the useless Pig Iron could've been because of the starvations which have been reasonably accosiated with the string of natural disasters and draughts? Sure the huge distraction from agriculture is a large factor but be aware it is a good deal better then Stalins deliberate and organized Famines.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:No one was forced to do it, millions left towns and cities to work on communal farms for the very purpose of smelting iron
Yes, Blayne. Now let's fill in the other blank: WHY would people leave a place with food to go smelt iron? Smelting iron is very unpleasant. And many of the people who went to smelt iron starved.
What reason did they have for melting down their own stuff in order to meet ridiculous iron quotas, do you think?
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
But 1978 is considerably after the Cultural Revolution. And so were Deng's reforms.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:What reason did they have for melting down their own stuff in order to meet ridiculous iron quotas, do you think?
Probably due to American anti-Communist propaganda, distributed into the PRC, stating that the average Chinese had a massive iron deficiency in their diets.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
While the amount of facts you know about the PRC continues to amaze and impress me Blayne, the almost inversely proportionate relationship of those facts to your knowledge of the PRC stuns me in a different sort of way.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Ahh, I misread this sentence:"until the Cultural Revolution, inwhich with Deng's Reforms"
I assumed you meant Deng's reforms during the Cultural Revolution.
Carry on with the agitprop. Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I did not mean DURING the cultural revolution, that was a simple grammar mistake.
"While the amount of facts you know about the PRC continues to amaze and impress me Blayne, the almost inversely proportionate relationship of those facts to your knowledge of the PRC stuns me in a different sort of way."
wtf, I'm afraid I don't understand what you meant.
I consider myself more knowledgeable then most people I know. I'm planning on going to China myself to double check + to stake out the grounds so when I become a trained programming and graphics designer I'll have a job.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
He means that you seem blind to the faults and motives of the Chinese Communist Party and Mao in particular, while knowing a lot of facts about them. Also, you integrate the facts in odd ways, that don't seem logical to most westerners.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
That's just me I geuss. :/
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Let me rephrase that: that don't seem logical to me. I can hardly speak for most westerners.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Blayne, have you read much of dissidents, critics and exiles of the PRC? (I have not.)
If not, why not try to get a more balanced view of China before you make up your mind? What have you got to lose? By balanced, I don't mean agreeing with me or anyone, just more facts will help you understand China even better, it's triumphs and failures.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
In many cases I have and even revised my opinion of the GLF and the Cultural Revolution somewhat but I have yet to reach that Chapter in Mao Biography in a book called "Mao: A Life" by I think Phillip Short.
But however, I see more in China then just "ChiComms" I also see many accomlishments, as welll as some collasol failures but I prefered to find explanations for them rather then fixing the blame on single individuals or gorups but willing to allow them to share the blame with other possible mitigating circumstances, I also factor in intent. It was Stalins intent to Starve his peasants, it was Mao's intent to modernize and to build values not to starve them.
I have read some of those testimonials but I have seen similar cases within the United States so i wasn't impressed and the more inflamatory ones, were placed in VERY biased newspapers who seem to make a living on announcing to the world that the "CCP are evil and must be crushed" kind of think, blindly ignoring the many millions who would die and the very few who would benefit.
Also, some of those newspapers such as the Teipai Times if I'm not mistaken are heavily influenced by the Falun Gong who to the consensus reached by some of the local Christians and other religious people at my school (who dont always share my opinions btw) agree that its a cult, why? Because its leader has been known to say hes the creator of the Universe and that you do not need to go to hospitols for cancer treatment etc.
Alot of the "Anti-PRC/CCP" news sources have all managed to make their way predominantly into the realm of wild eye wacko's, racists, and those with an interest to see that the PRC finds trouble with its peaceful development. And of course, fringe groups, political exiles, and other interest groups.
Now lets look at some of the political exiles, I know of one famous case where a PRC "spy master" in the PRC Embassy in Australia was said to have defected and brought with him the information of "thousands of spies" etc etc.
Yet, if we look closer he was facing trial for corruption charges, stole millions of dollars of tax payers money and fled at the first sign of trouble. The Aussies never mentioned what sort of information he recieved and I've found no news from my Australian contact of ANY arrests of Chinese Nationals/Spies and nothing came out of this story.
You, alot of the Counter-PRC arguements I've found were very faulty, and others can be attributed to China's large size. The 10,000 executions per year statistic though I've found no information supporting it yet (I haven't really looked to confirm it but I'm assuming its true for the sake of the arguement) so there's 10k per year, now this is a country that has a population of 1.3 billion people, with a population density though I'm not sure that is obviously bigger then the United States, and because they've culturally never known a laisser-faire system of justice as known in the west simply prefer capitol punishment for severe crimes, which btw include drug abuse.
Now as for mobility rights, I've no clue. I've found nothing with the constituion of the People's Republic that points to it though I haven't looked very hard.
My eyes very good if anyone can find it for me I'ld be appreciative.
Maybe its just assumed?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
By you, perhaps.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Have you read anything by political exiles not accused of corruption?
quote: Now lets look at some of the political exiles, I know of one famous case where a PRC "spy master" in the PRC Embassy in Australia was said to have defected and brought with him the information of "thousands of spies" etc etc.Yet, if we look closer he was facing trial for corruption charges, stole millions of dollars of tax payers money and fled at the first sign of trouble.
That actually is a black mark against the Party, not exiles in general. The Party is said to be rife with corruption that is not properly investigated by the authorities. For example, lots of the money that was supposed to pay for relocating villagers affected the Three Gorges Dam was stolen by corrupt officials, with villagers forcibly relocated yet left homeless while the officials (the ones who got away, anyway) often going into exile with state money.
Actually, your very use of the word "defect" undermines any case for "Mobility Rights in the People's Republic." Whether or not citizens have mobility rights in the PRC, they certainly do NOT have the right to enter or leave the PRC at will--it's strictly controlled by the government.
Whereas in the US and other democracies, any citizen not a wanted criminal is free to enter or leave the US whenever they wish (with some caveats, like Cuba, visas, etc.)
Which system seems more fair to it's citizens, Blayne?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Except the ones who as far as we can tell weren't allowed to leave were criminals, I know plenty of other emmigrants who left of their own free will.
[ February 04, 2006, 02:31 PM: Message edited by: Blayne Bradley ]
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
You are quite right, Blayne. Apparently foreign travel restrictions have eased considerably in the past 20 years.
quote: Compared with 20 years ago, the number of citizens going abroad with a private passport has jumped 50-fold.
But there are still defections by people afraid to return to China.
quote: Now lets look at some of the political exiles, I know of one famous case where a PRC "spy master" in the PRC Embassy in Australia was said to have defected and brought with him the information of "thousands of spies" etc etc.Yet, if we look closer he was facing trial for corruption charges, stole millions of dollars of tax payers money and fled at the first sign of trouble.
Are you talking about the diplomat Chen Yonglin? If so, could you provide links detailing his corruption? The main thing I found was a Chinese official claiming he defected because Austraila has a higher standard of livingAlso, note that denouncing defectors is a standard practice of the PRC and the former USSR, charges that are frequently shown to be complete BS.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Oh God, its going to take me years to find it, its part of a thread that lasted 178 pages in another forum that is the online version of a soup opera. Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:answer to ender, remember the hundreds of millions of migrant workers???
people are allowed to work in other cities and provinces, especially if their home province is poor and can't support them. but the problem is that their ID still identify them as from that province, and different rules apply to people from different area. for example the national university exam. if you are from my province of jiangsu, the marks needed are extremly high, but if you are from shanghai, which is just across the river, you can be an idiot and get in good universities like beijing and tsinghua.
immigration to other countries is a different story. some groups are not allowed to emmigrate such as military officers, some scientists, but generally emmigrating to other countries is a lot more relaxed now than before, but is still harder than say Canada.
btw, i was born in the PRC, but i spend most of my life in Canada.
He lives in Edmonton Alberta.... the little runt with no income tax grr.
That was his anwser to my question about mobility rights here's his anwser to some other more touchy questions.
The questions are:
quote:I have some questions...As most of you know I'm not Chinese..
1. Can any citizen of the PRC establish a church of his own choice reguardless of religion?
2. Can any citizen of the PRC buy a home?
3. Can any citizen buy a car?
4. Is the internet as "free" (open) as it is in the USA or does the PRC government censor some sites?
5. Can any citizen of the PRC stand on any "street corner" and and say anti-government sayings ina non threating manner?
quote:well, i do not think you can just establish a church of your own in china, unless you got a ok form the government. but you can easily estabalished a 'underground' reglion, and the CCP doesn't really care as long as you don't try to spread anti-government idea. that's how FaLunGong group expanded before the government announce them as a cult. the things may change a little after FLG riot. govenment defintely will be more strict on reglious matter now i think.
of course we can, otherwise where we could live? on street? actually, you can buy as many home as you like as long as you have the money. nowadays, more chinese choose to get a installment plan since the house/apartment price is ridiculous high! PS. in 2006, the chinese government forbid all the estate agent to build villas, since they consume more land.
of course we can, chinese automoblie production has just became the second-largest in the world one month ago. my family currently own two cars, my father drive a toyota,and my mother drive a mazada, although i strongly support the idea of boycott japanese product,they do not listen to me
no chinese internet is not as 'free' as America's, censorship is strict those days!(actually one of my friend's adult webpage has just been blockade yesterday! ) anti-chinese government webpage and pornographic webpage are blockade for chinese users. but there are some softwares that could crack CCP's 'fire wall'. chinese internet user is currently the second largest in number.over 100 milion chinese people using internet everyday, internet is international, that's something the CCP could not possibiliy gain fully control, the idea of chinese people being 'brainwash' by 'western propaganda' really scare them. but if you ever visit china,just try talk to the ordinary people, you will find out that this censorship is acutally quite useless, their information accessibility is no less than rest of the world.
why? it a pretty senseless and a stupid thing to do. the economy is booming, many people are getting rich. no one will trade them all just because the USA tell them the CCP is evil! china needs to be industrialized, the people need to earn more money, as long as CCP is still doing the right job, why do we want a revolution? ok, back to your question,if you saying anti-govenment saying on the street, i don't know, you might end up getting some attentions and then policeman might come and ask you to stop. they are not going to arrest you unless you doing something 'too much'. i am not defending CCP's reputation here, and i am not denying china is still lack of freedom, all i am saying here is,the people's everyday life in china is no different from people who live in UK or US(i don't see people say anti-govenment saying on the street in UK everyday,why chinese should do that? ),we are not bunch of slaves that driven by the government like some western media's horrific describation!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:i don't see people say anti-govenment saying on the street in UK everyday
This is clearly someone who hasn't been to Britain. Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Well, the evil CCP wouldn't allow people living there to see it on TV or over the internet either...you wouldn't want to give your citizens any ideas like that Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
*twitch*
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
It was just a joke Blayne, no worries Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Thats why all I did was *twitch*. I remember all to well that on abovetopsecret.com there are many idiots who rant about it, its like they're getting paid to troll.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I think it's indicitive of a deep problem that someone would say, "Why? It's a stupid thing to do," in response to someone asking, "Can you make public statements critical of the government?"
You routinely trust your buddies more than you trust organizations such as Human Rights Watch, Blayne. Your buddies-the few you actually know and the many you speak to online, that font of accuracy-probably know better than stupid organizations like HRW.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
HRW is a large organization dedicated to keeping track of human rights abuses, there there just to document it not to determine the circumstances I trust people actually living and working or who come from China then from a faceless organization.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
So...under what "circumstances", exactly, would you permit your right to peacefully assemble be abridged?
Wait, I forgot your basic principle for talking about the PRC: it's OK for them to have their basic political and human rights violated, because they live in spiffy China. But if that happened to me, here in Canada?! By God there'd be hell to pay!
It's that fundamental hypocrisy which makes nearly every single thing you say about the PRC so contemptible. It's not that you so blatantly disregard any information that comes from anyone critical of the PRC, it's that you're so in love with the mystique that is the PRC, you're willing to actually applaud that part of the mystique which you personally would not bear for even a second where you live today.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Umm since when was I a hypocrit? The cultural and historical circumstance between Canada and China are lightyears different, its justified to maintain social order if it means China can catch up to the west even a decade faster.
quote:its justified to maintain social order if it means China can catch up to the west even a decade faster
Blayne, here's the thing: I do NOT want China to "catch up to the West" any faster at ALL unless it manages to catch up ethically just as fast.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:The cultural and historical circumstance between Canada and China are lightyears different, its justified to maintain social order if it means China can catch up to the west even a decade faster.
It's justified because it's the Chinese it's happening to and not your tender hide. That's why you're a hypocrite: because you're willing to endorse the violation of rights you and I know perfectly well you wouldn't give up yourself.
Why did I stop saying, "Hail China!" again? My concern that it's insulting is diminshing in the face of this level of hypocrisy.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Here's the thing THEY don't care, infact they spent decades suffering under Western Imperialism, remember the Opium Wars? Heck, in one of em EIGHT western major powers all sent troops to intervene in China's internal affairs why? Because China was weak and backwards then and suffered under a weak Imperial Court.
They see catching up in living standards as THE way to make sure it never happens again.
I'ld complain about my violation of rights because there is no justification of mitigating circumstance to clamp down on Canadian rights, we do not need economic improvement that our economy isn't already generating, we do not need to worry about foreign aggressors that can't be handled by our alliance with NATO, and we do not need to worry about exploitative companies because NAFTA protects us.
China has every reason to fear the above and as such ARE justified by any means nessasary to do so.
Now back to HRB's the number as far as I can comprehend is getting smaller, each new generation of PRC leadership is getting younger and more progressing the changing from Jiang to Hu Jintao was the first peaceful transition of power in China, 80% of their county side holds direct democratic elections for their leaders, their military has slimmed down and is easily one of the most advance, well organized and powerful regional military force in the world and a responcible one as well with a tradition of treating POW's well.
Today the PRC is a major player in todays politics as they're currently a major supporter in disarming North Korea and would obvious be our main allies if we ever had to forcefully disarm Kim Jong Il. The PRC's economy since its acsention to the WTO is driving up the economic growth of tis neighbours and will soon exceed America as Japans as its largest trading partner.
Diplomatically the PRC has continued a policy of mutual cooperation beginning with the founding of the Shanghai Cooperation with Russia a leading founder and many other Asian nations as signatories and has continued to contribute to East Asia's stability favoring free trade to Japan's protectionists policies.
South Korea stands firm with China on many issues esp those regarding Japan's recent remergance and their Prime Minister's visit to the Ancesteral Shrine. (thats not to say that I find PM kuizomi (sp?) a driving force in Japanese recovery his privatization of postage I think was a good idea).
Yes China has its problems but what nation doesn't? Russia has huge internal troubles including the Mafia and the Chechnyan insurrection, America has this illegal invasion of Iraq on its hands and its frequent HRV's of Islamic citizens and many foreign nationals all beign shipped to secret prisons in Indo CHina and Eastern Europe. And the swiss! Don't get me started...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: China has every reason to fear the above and as such ARE justified by any means nessasary
Will you still be singing this tune when they blow up your house?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Okay, I'll try not to.
I think it's great that you are interested in China and from what I've heard it has become a great place to visit.
I find your attitude a bit strange because, if anything, I'd hope to see China avoid the mistakes of other countries that have modernized before. It seems that China's industrial revolution is going to end up with them going through 1920's-1960's style pollution problems. But see, they don't have the excuse of ignorance. They're going about screwing up their country for future generations and all in the name of "catching up" with the world.
I don't find Communism particularly scary, to be honest. I just never viewed is that big a threat. It's sort of always been a failed idea in my lifetime. And the regimes that try to adhere to it are all repressive and, as we've now seen, pretty short-lived.
What China is doing...once again experimenting...in the area of petty capitalism makes a lot of sense. The problems they have with massive poverty, over-population, etc., etc. aren't easily solved. I sympathize.
But maybe what they need to do is govern less. Maybe what that country needs is for the government to disolve itself. Honestly, what would change for the average person if the government were not there? Except for the bureaucrats, I suspect precious little.
Except that NOW they're getting involved with things like reshaping the rivers, and disrupting people's lives. It's a mess.
And they STILL have a lot to answer for on Tibet, and their human rights record.
That stuff you can't just cover over as "growing pains, Blayne. It's a history of devaluing their own people and it's a sign of a truly malignant government, if you stop to think about it.
Ah well...just so long as the people there aren't complaining, though, it must all be okay.
Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
One time I had a dream that we could teach monkeys to talk.
Or maybe that was Planet of the Apes, I can't really remember.
Either way, it ended with a bunch of pale guys worshipping a bomb.
--ApostleRadio
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Ok, Tibet has been Chinese for a LONG time and I don't see the states giving back the Indians they're land anytime soon or for that mater agreeing to stop sterizing indian childran for that matter, for the record minorities has it good in China, your allowed yo have up to 3 children and the autonomus regions do have a certain level of growing autonomy over the years, the Dalai Lama himself has said that Tibet needs China.
Disrupting river? This is to provide clean hydroelectric power for the people, it was certainly the governments intent that the people moved be compensated, I've heard a few corrupt officals got at some of that money I hope they're arrested shortly.
Now do yuo honestly expect ANY government to suddenly disolve itself and expect everything to go smoothly? Alot of China's rapid economic growth is through a series of bottom-up policies that all got clumped together and appear to be working, very few chinese are complaining, one of the chinese kids at SinoDefence got his first computer in 93' what can he possibly complain about? For such fast economic growth a few sacrifices can be endured for a little while, so far it been the PRC's governments intent to democratize gradually and so far has kept its promise.
From a moral standpoint human rights abuses aren't okay but from a historical and economic persepctive its a price to be paid for security and so far the government IS doing its job in providing it, they kept arms budget pretty darn low since the 70's concentrating on economic development, opening and stability, improving relations with Russia and India and the central asian nations etc.
I'm content to know that as long as the situation is improving and it is the intentions of the men and women and power to make sure that things improve I can't complain and no one really should. Alot of the complaints so far have been very mch centered not on the rights of the PRC citizens themselves but rather on China's emerging economic threta to "America's" strategic interests. Media coverage of internal PRC life they find and magnify the negatives and hope to use it as only a means to dehumanize the opposition and if that small group of American NeoCons get they're way and manage to provoke a conflict with the Chinese then I fear the worst.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Tibet has been Chinese for a short time, and the atrocities perpetuated by China during the early part of its occupation were awful. However, there are so many Chinese there now as part of the assimilation policy (and plain old need for space) that Tibet will definitely remain Chinese, even if it somehow separated from China as a nation.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
700 hundred years ago the Yuan dynasty conquered Tibet and added it to Imperial territory, since then China Emperors have excersized from de jure to de facto control over tibet but Tibet has nevertheless always been considered China it was only in the 1900's that the British attmepted to try to pry territory off of Tibet for their Indian realm and tried to conclude a separate treaty with the Tibetans the Manchu's refused to even recognize this but dispite the short about of time of sovereignty not one country recognized Tibet as a soveriegn nation and Tibet even in 1920's send in delegates to the Republic of China in Nanjing to to sign a new Constitution of China implying that at this time they considered themselves as Chinese.
As for actual Chinese immigration if you look at the dmeographics the Tibetans are actually the majority in Tibet, they're only a minority if you include other territory once though of tibet that are now quite separate autononmus regions.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:for the record minorities has it good in China, your allowed yo have up to 3 children
The mere fact that this is defined as "having it good" should give you some pause.
quote:I'm content to know that as long as the situation is improving and it is the intentions of the men and women and power to make sure that things improve I can't complain and no one really should.
Why not? Because here's the thing: YOUR life will be a lot worse if China winds up running the world.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Umm no cuz by the time they will run the world they would have sufficiently democratized enough that my life wouldn't be alot worse.
And besides I fully intent to live and work as a IT Professional in China anyways.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Umm no cuz by the time they will run the world they would have sufficiently democratized enough that my life wouldn't be alot worse.
And besides I fully intent to live and work as a IT Professional in China anyways.
*grin* I believe the term we're looking for is "Mandarin."
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I also intend to learn the language unless you mean become a Mandarin aka citizenship thats good too.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Ever get a chance to check out China Mountain Zhang, Blayne? I really do think that you'd find the world an interesting one.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Blayne, just because you can point to other problems in the world doesn't make China's government good.
30 million people died in the "Great Leap Forward" (ummm...okay, give or take a few million). That beats out the next largest genocide by 50% (again, give or take a few percentage points). And it beats out the one after that by more than a factor of 4 (IIRC).
And I don't care if it was incompetence or deliberate malicious intent, the government caused the death of a huge number of their own citizens. That's a heck of a legacy.
Point away at others, but don't forget to point back at the source too.
This is not a good government...yet. If it ever gets there, I'll be cheering right along with you, but I don't see much to applaud so far.
To this outsider, they seem not just corrupt, but malignant. My attitude toward "reform" in China is "prove it. In maybe 50 or 100 years or so, if the government has proven itself to be a positive force in the lives of their people consistently for that period, I'll revise my opinion. Until then, all we have is their past on which to judge them. And they fail. Badly. From any human standard I'd care to uphold.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Nope haven't gotten it remember I'm poor I have to mooch off of Tom here
I'll respond to Bob asap busy with soemthing here.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Blayne,
quote:They see catching up in living standards as THE way to make sure it never happens again.
They've got nukes. It's not going to happen again. You know it, I know it, and they know it. They're not stupid, and that excuse doesn't fool me for a second. It is not the spectre of Big Bad Western Imperialism that keeps the PRC's boot on the neck of its people. Give me a freaking break.
quote:China has every reason to fear the above and as such ARE justified by any means nessasary to do so.
It's like you read 1984 and took it literally, as though it were a straightforward statement of honest moral and political truths. Orwell would be delighted, I'm sure.
quote:Today the PRC is a major player in todays politics as they're currently a major supporter in disarming North Korea and would obvious be our main allies if we ever had to forcefully disarm Kim Jong Il. The PRC's economy since its acsention to the WTO is driving up the economic growth of tis neighbours and will soon exceed America as Japans as its largest trading partner.
Diplomatically the PRC has continued a policy of mutual cooperation beginning with the founding of the Shanghai Cooperation with Russia a leading founder and many other Asian nations as signatories and has continued to contribute to East Asia's stability favoring free trade to Japan's protectionists policies.
You've admitted yourself that the PRC openly reneges on its promises, but it doesn't matter as much because they have a "saving face" culture. It's nonsense. We don't have a 'saving face' culture? Of course we do. It's fundamental to our political system.
quote:Yes China has its problems but what nation doesn't? Russia has huge internal troubles including the Mafia and the Chechnyan insurrection, America has this illegal invasion of Iraq on its hands and its frequent HRV's of Islamic citizens and many foreign nationals all beign shipped to secret prisons in Indo CHina and Eastern Europe. And the swiss! Don't get me started...
You get yourself started when you start fanboying over how great the PRC is, and then when anyone-from me, to Bob, to HRW, to the UN, to Tibetans, to Taiwanese, to dead protestors and jailed worshipers-starts pointing out how stupid your fanboying really is you start shouting, "OMG! LOOK OVER THERE!"
It's like a weird bait and switch distraction ploy in politics, and the only one you're fooling is yourself.
quote:From a moral standpoint human rights abuses aren't okay but from a historical and economic persepctive its a price to be paid for security and so far the government IS doing its job in providing it, they kept arms budget pretty darn low since the 70's concentrating on economic development, opening and stability, improving relations with Russia and India and the central asian nations etc.
Yay! It's our old friend, "The ends justify the means." Don't try to bulls*@! a bull@(%%er, Blayne. You wouldn't just roll over and lay down if your government cited a vague, kept-at-bay threat like-for instance-CHINA-and said, "OK Canadians, here's what we're going to do to keep the Yellow Peril at bay. Your rights in politics, press, economics, religion, are hereby severely truncated. Go Canada! We'll be safe from those awful, awful Chinese...someday. Until then, though...do what we say. It's for your own good."
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:They've got nukes. It's not going to happen again. You know it, I know it, and they know it. They're not stupid, and that excuse doesn't fool me for a second. It is not the spectre of Big Bad Western Imperialism that keeps the PRC's boot on the neck of its people. Give me a freaking break.
A) Having nukes doesn't always garantee security, and they only have around 20-40 ICBM's and about 3000 warheads for IRBM and SLBM and tactical use. Conventionally, what happens if a war starts and it is perpetuated by small segment of the political strata that want to see China humbled to keep up the illusion of American Hegemony? China needs the military and political force to make sure that even if a minority does do such a thing (to cite as a possible example) China will have the amble mility force projection to protect their interests.
quote:It's like you read 1984 and took it literally, as though it were a straightforward statement of honest moral and political truths. Orwell would be delighted, I'm sure.
Currently umm EVERY nation does what it needs to do to protect themselves or to compete with the next notch up why not China?
quote:You've admitted yourself that the PRC openly reneges on its promises, but it doesn't matter as much because they have a "saving face" culture. It's nonsense. We don't have a 'saving face' culture? Of course we do. It's fundamental to our political system.
I never said any such thing I said if they keep their new promises is irrelevent I did not say that they have a habit of breaking them. the US broke its agreement to stick to SALTII. China has kept its nuclear force small though constantly makes it more modern.
Everything I listed is a FACT of a promise KEPT. Asian face saving culture is more imprinted upon their subconsiousness, considering that when in the Ruso-Japanese war several Japanese officers commited seppeku when Japan agreed to make peace with Russia under French, German and American pressure.
quote:You get yourself started when you start fanboying over how great the PRC is, and then when anyone-from me, to Bob, to HRW, to the UN, to Tibetans, to Taiwanese, to dead protestors and jailed worshipers-starts pointing out how stupid your fanboying really is you start shouting, "OMG! LOOK OVER THERE!"
It's like a weird bait and switch distraction ploy in politics, and the only one you're fooling is yourself.
Umm no, Tibet is historically part of China and is undenyable. Your argueing is also ridiculasly one sided in comparrison so I defend the PRC because of such one sided arguements. Your paragraph is barely comprehendable do you want me to point out many of America's hyporitical human rights abuses? I know it doesn't justify China's alledged abuses but believe me and the testimonies of those who've been to China that the situation is improving. Go to the link I gave you there's a whole discussion of what has been happening lately within the PRC.
Here's an example: a protester goes to Tienamen Square and starts making a ruckus, a police officer goes to help and starts to escourt him away off the Square, the protester struggles and says he won't hurt him and the officer smiles and says "Why would I do that?". There was no brutallity in that instance, there is certainly brutality SOMEWHERE in the PRC afterall reforms don't happen that quickly but there is just as easily police brutality and abuse/corruption in any other country you just have to look, pointing at one HRA and using it as an example of the nation of the whole is what I find as stupid and unfair.
quote:Yay! It's our old friend, "The ends justify the means." Don't try to bulls*@! a bull@(%%er, Blayne. You wouldn't just roll over and lay down if your government cited a vague, kept-at-bay threat like-for instance-CHINA-and said, "OK Canadians, here's what we're going to do to keep the Yellow Peril at bay. Your rights in politics, press, economics, religion, are hereby severely truncated. Go Canada! We'll be safe from those awful, awful Chinese...someday. Until then, though...do what we say. It's for your own good."
Calm down and restate that with a little more politeness and comprehension, maybe even rethink it a little and take into the account the FACTS that you quoted oh so nicely of you and then I'll anwser.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:A) Having nukes doesn't always garantee security, and they only have around 20-40 ICBM's and about 3000 warheads for IRBM and SLBM and tactical use.
It sure as hell worked for the USA, the USSR, and North Korea. Every nation does what it must to protect itself, yes. But the PRC belongs to that smaller community of nations that go out of their way to generate threats that don't actually exist, such as: if we don't tromp on your liberty, peasants, the USA will TAKE OVEROMG!
*sigh*
I've given up again. Enjoy your Oriental style rose-colored glasses.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Blayne, China wouldn't somehow "lose out" economically or militarily if the government allowed dissent. Instead, search engine results are filtered and blogs are censored. This kind of thing has no productive effect. "Cultural differences" don't justify censorship, and saying "other countries are bad too" doesn't make it okay.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Your argueing is also ridiculasly one sided in comparrison so I defend the PRC because of such one sided arguements. Your paragraph is barely comprehendable do you want me to point out many of America's hyporitical human rights abuses?
Ah, delicious, delicious irony.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Hm, JT's post contradicts Davidson's Postulate that posts noting spelling or grammar errors invariably contain such errors. Interesting.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Blayne, China wouldn't somehow "lose out" economically or militarily if the government allowed dissent. Instead, search engine results are filtered and blogs are censored. This kind of thing has no productive effect. "Cultural differences" don't justify censorship, and saying "other countries are bad too" doesn't make it okay.
Its not that they don't allow dissent, some is even encouraged and sometimes even if the authorities don't like it and do try to close it down the person who put it up isn't always arrested anymore, I remeber one case where a students Pro Democracy website was hacked 38 times and he wasn't arrested once, he was questioned, he was asked to give the names of people who handed in essays, he refused but wasn't arrested.
The policy is this: Political Stability is Important for ecnomic growth but critisisms what Do Benefit Economic growth are tolerated.
This is part of a larger policy of gradual democratization.
I kow that it doesn't make it ok but certain governments shouldn't complain until they've fixed their own backyard first.
quote:It sure as hell worked for the USA, the USSR, and North Korea. Every nation does what it must to protect itself, yes. But the PRC belongs to that smaller community of nations that go out of their way to generate threats that don't actually exist, such as: if we don't tromp on your liberty, peasants, the USA will TAKE OVEROMG!
*sigh*
I've given up again. Enjoy your Oriental style rose-colored glasses.
It obviously didn't work, because both sides had tens of thousands of nukes the advantage of having nukes is crossed out thus massive spending on conventional forces and a massive effort in surogot wars to compete with each other.
As for generating threats I think more then one person on different threads have said that America does have the odd trend of invading nations it doesn't like or overthrowing their governments. The ROK and the PRC stand together in their criticisms of the Japanese, are you saying that the Republic of Korea is also one of those nations that generate threats?
The Sino-American relationship is a complicated one, both sides have their blues and their reds, but overall the PRC considers the USA as the greatest potential threat to its national security just as the USA does likewise but both sides however have put alot of media coverage in trying to improve relations and strengthening bilateral ties.
The bottom line is this is to keep your enemies close and your enemies closer, any nation with any decent economy has an investment in their National Defence and the PRC is no different.
Rakeesh your taking an overly simplyfied view of the situation, at the very least take a look at the link and look at the anwsers given by a PRC National. Internet censorship in China is pathetic and easy to get around, maybe you should lodge a complaint to Microsoft for selling them the software to make censorship more effective.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I try to keep it simple.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Its not that they don't allow dissent, some is even encouraged and sometimes even if the authorities don't like it and do try to close it down the person who put it up isn't always arrested anymore, I remeber one case where a students Pro Democracy website was hacked 38 times and he wasn't arrested once, he was questioned, he was asked to give the names of people who handed in essays, he refused but wasn't arrested.
The policy is this: Political Stability is Important for ecnomic growth but critisisms what Do Benefit Economic growth are tolerated.
This is part of a larger policy of gradual democratization.
I kow that it doesn't make it ok but certain governments shouldn't complain until they've fixed their own backyard first.
You're making the same arguments that I've already said I don't accept. Suppression of dissent does not promote political stability in a significant way. Tienamen Square showed us this decades ago.
Dissent is suppressed. Search engines and blog hosts (giants Google and Microsoft, among others) have to filter or block certain terms -- and therefore certain ideas -- in order to operate in China. That is direct suppression of dissent. It's even worse than arresting people who post pro-democracy blog entries; they're stopping people from making those posts in the first place.
And again, saying "but other countries are bad in other ways" is completely irrelevant to this discussion.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Tienamen Square saw a changeover i the political leadership switching to a more proprogressive leadership force. The SARS epidemic also saw the PRC fire and sack several hgh ranking PRC politicians who were responsible for not containing the outbreak, if anything I think The incident had the exact opposite effect then was intented by those who had ordered it. Doesn't make the deaths of a few hundred students right but maybe those students would've died for something and hopefully soon we'll see it happen in full bloom.
Supressing dissent does promote stability if there is no major changeover in government that would happen otherwise, a linear progression in the CCP allows a continueous internal and external policy and aside from small course corrections every few years stability has been kept and the economy keeps on booming thus to a PRC citizen there's no need for any change of government until as Card put it they lose the Mandate of Heaven aka the People.
But once again I'll say again that the controls on dissent have been losening, not much but they have and they continue to do so in small little increments.
The best way to prove that suppressing dissent == stability is to look at India, the "model" of East Asian democracy in a populace multi hundred million people population.
India upon close notice is hardly stable; their various ethnic groups keep causing turmoil, theirs curently a geurilla movements spanning several states, they ruthlessly oppress Kashmere, a much larger proportion of their economy goes into their military and to maintain a nuclear deterrent against India. India itself is rife with political turmoil AND I've seen dozen of Amnesty International Documentaries dealing with India's rather large list of ethnic strife related human rights abuses and womans rights abuses as woman just for being a diffent subcaste of indian was raped by a poice officer.
Overpopulation in India is a huge problem, much larger then China's, for India has no effective long term plan to control population growth small efforts like offering a ham radio or 50 american $ for a visectomy don't effect the population growth very much at all. Poverty is rife in India has engaged in many skirmishes with Pakistan and one border war with China. Then there's the en masse of troubles with the Muslim Minority within India proper.
And yet India is considered a model of a liberal democracy? To Chinese policy makers and planners India's history is a telling example of how democracy can be detrimental to a society as large and diverse as india.
Then there's the top down approch of Glavnos in Soviet Russia, it lead to the collapse of the once mighty Soviet Union and its leaders have been regretting it ever since, another exmaple of how political democracy can spell the death knell of a large nation. Deng Xiaopeng avoided alot of the economic troubles by the virtue he was mostly encouraging economic reforms made locally.
"It doesn't matter if the cat is white or black for as long as it catches mice. For it is a good cat." - Sichuan Proverb.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Supressing dissent does promote stability if there is no major changeover in government that would happen otherwise...
No, it doesn't. Additionally, allowing dissent is not the same as changing to a democratic system. I'm not advocating the [edit: latter! I'm not advocating the latter!] in this discussion.
[ February 08, 2006, 04:35 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
So wait, are you saying the China should allow dissent or should change to a multi party democracy?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
The first. As I said, I'm not advocating the second in this discussion.
There is no good reason to attempt to smother dissent in the way they are doing, and it's ineffective anyway.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I think you misspoke earlier when you said "I'm not advocating the former in this discussion."
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Oops. I'll add an edit.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
It doesn't matter if it catches mice, as long as it stir-fries well. -- Sichuan Pepper Cat
Sheesh, just cuz nutcases like to "China is the Devil" ain't no cause to go to the opposite extreme. eg The progressive leader of China during the 1989 TiananmenSquare incident was booted out of office and made into a non-person because he opposed the CentralCommittee conservatives' desire to massacre the demonstrators. And even when he finally died in 2004, the CommunistParty still suppressed reportage on his life, and even on the fact of his death, for fear of creating a martyr for human rights demonstrators.
[ February 08, 2006, 04:59 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Actually it is the cause of going to this extreme, I see nutcases doing it so I take the opposite extreme to try to debate them.
Actually what is little known is that the Politburo was deadlocked during the incident, 50-50, the call to crush the demonstrators was done illegally, since then alot of the conservatives have lost their jobs. Hu Jintao and Wen, PRC's latest leadership are the youngest to reach their positions, got it through a peaceful change of power and since then conservative Jiang has lost alot of his support in the politburo.
The thing is is that dissent is encouraged for as long as it does not challenge the One Party system within the PRC, after that the dissent is mostly anti corruption in nature and aimed at correcting...
I'm sorry but I'm feeling very ill. brb.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:It obviously didn't work, because both sides had tens of thousands of nukes the advantage of having nukes is crossed out thus massive spending on conventional forces and a massive effort in surogot wars to compete with each other.
Once again you're changing goals and definitions in mid-discussion. You were talking about how the PRC is justified in anything it does to protect itself from being overrun and dominated as in the Opium Wars.
I cited nuclear weapons, North Korea, and the USSR as very firm examples of nations which possess (or strongly are suspected of possessing to the point of certainty) nuclear weapons that serve as protections against just that sort of thing.
Then you say, "They don't work because of surpluses of nukes and surrogate wars, blah blah blah."
quote:As for generating threats I think more then one person on different threads have said that America does have the odd trend of invading nations it doesn't like or overthrowing their governments.
Yeah! America sucks! Hail China! Your explanations of American history are facile and incomplete. Oh, and America hasn't conquered and subjugated any of the nations we've invaded...unlike the PRC and Tibet.
Oh, right. Tibet was Chinese anyway, they were slavers, they want the Chinese there, and it's really for the best. I forgot. Virtually every organization on Earth that has an opinion on Tibet is wrong, and the PRC's state-owned media is reporting the honest truth.
I'm certainly not going to get into a discussion with you about what PRC nationals think. You have made yourself known around here for utterly disregarding any accounts about the PRC-from nationals or otherwise-so what would be the point? If you could find it within your youthful naivete to bend just a little in your firm Hail China! convictions, maybe I'd be tempted.
But the UN, the US, HRW, WTO, Tibetans, anytime they have something bad to say about the PRC...you change the subject. Other people are worse. They're getting better. You can't believe them, but you can believe the PRC. It's OK because we're threatening them. Blah, blah, blah. It's all bullcrap.
quote:Actually it is the cause of going to this extreme, I see nutcases doing it so I take the opposite extreme to try to debate them.
So! At long, long last you admit you're taking out-there, extreme stances. Well that's reassuring, at least.
quote:The thing is is that dissent is encouraged for as long as it does not challenge the One Party system within the PRC, after that the dissent is mostly anti corruption in nature and aimed at correcting...
That's one of the most fascist statements I've heard made with sincerity lately. "Dissent is OK...just don't question the status quo."
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Once again you're changing goals and definitions in mid-discussion. You were talking about how the PRC is justified in anything it does to protect itself from being overrun and dominated as in the Opium Wars.
I cited nuclear weapons, North Korea, and the USSR as very firm examples of nations which possess (or strongly are suspected of possessing to the point of certainty) nuclear weapons that serve as protections against just that sort of thing.
Then you say, "They don't work because of surpluses of nukes and surrogate wars, blah blah blah."
Here you completely disregard what I wrote so there's no point on continueing on that subpoint.
quote:Yeah! America sucks! Hail China! Your explanations of American history are facile and incomplete. Oh, and America hasn't conquered and subjugated any of the nations we've invaded...unlike the PRC and Tibet.
Oh, right. Tibet was Chinese anyway, they were slavers, they want the Chinese there, and it's really for the best. I forgot. Virtually every organization on Earth that has an opinion on Tibet is wrong, and the PRC's state-owned media is reporting the honest truth.
I'm certainly not going to get into a discussion with you about what PRC nationals think. You have made yourself known around here for utterly disregarding any accounts about the PRC-from nationals or otherwise-so what would be the point? If you could find it within your youthful naivete to bend just a little in your firm Hail China! convictions, maybe I'd be tempted.
But the UN, the US, HRW, WTO, Tibetans, anytime they have something bad to say about the PRC...you change the subject. Other people are worse. They're getting better. You can't believe them, but you can believe the PRC. It's OK because we're threatening them. Blah, blah, blah. It's all bullcrap.
Oh? What about the Pilipines? What about the millions of miles of Indian territory that just happened to used to belong to the natives? What about when you invaded Canada in 1812? We kicked your asses right back out! What about when America deliberately made up an excuse to intervene in Cuba and wrote an unbalance treaty allowing the States to invade any time they wish? What about when you siezed land off of Mexico? What about when you forced the Confederate States to stay in the Union? What about when you invaded the Kingdom of Hawaii? What about when you send Ironclads to force Japan to open to trade? Back to the Indians how to you justify murdering millions of Indians in a ruthless and systematic genocide that still continues to this day with the denying the Indians having been forced to live in Reservations that ironically has some fo the most profitable natural gas and mineral reserves the very money thats being made from exploiting those resources?
The settlers were given a bounty for every indian scalp they found it didnt matter if they were chuldren or women or wait if it were an Indian woman it was raped THEN scalped. You killed the Buffolo to deny them their living, you forced them to sell you land at substandard prices and when they wanted something better you killed them, you invaded THEIR lands and take what you wanted, and once forced to live on reserves you took their children away and forced them to go through brutal assimilation within residential schools to make them nolonger "savages". These by our standards are all crimes against Humanity yet I don't see anyone apologizing or setting things right.
A German comic writer got hanged at Nuremburg for making anti semetic comics, the judges from US, Britain, France, and the Soviet Union all agreed that he worked towards the dehumanization of Jews and even if he didn't kill any allowed Germans to think of Jews as less then human. Today similar is done towards Indians I read an article how there's legal action against various sports teams for having offencive names like Braves, Savages etc.
And don't say its all clean fun what about if we had a team called the Pittsburg Kikes, or the San Fransico Fags or the Drunken Irish or ... or.... get my point?
Weren't you listening? The DALAI LAMA himself said that Tibet needs China for economic development, and hopes for increasing autonomy rights for Tibetans in the future, alot of the "atrocities" commited to Tibetans were caused by Tibetan Red Guards.
And the World Trade Organization has several articles on Google Scholar on how Chinese economic growth is good for the regional economy increasing the local GDP and PPP, and increasing the volumn of East Asian trade and supplying jobs for Asians, I don't see what the WTO said was bad in that.
Actually if you had even looked you would find that there were PRC Nationals that had certain COMPLAINTS about the current state of affairs mostly regarding the pollution in Northern cities and have much to say on China in general its a very moderate forum mostly about China's Defencive capabilities.
Finally, I did not say that Human Rights Watch was WRONG I said that what they provide is mostly DATA, to be interpreted, do you consider that China has 1.3 BILLION people and just may have many more cases of [insert abuse here] because of their size? How many other little things have you maybe forgotten to find ways that A might be explained?
quote:So! At long, long last you admit you're taking out-there, extreme stances. Well that's reassuring, at least.
I still try to argue from a logical perspective utilizing facts, history, and common sense.
quote:That's one of the most fascist statements I've heard made with sincerity lately. "Dissent is OK...just don't question the status quo."
If the States were dirt poor trampled on by foreign nations, suffered from a nearly a near Anarchic and constant civil wars between State governors and Congress either didnt exist or was only a pale shadow of authority wouldn't you maybe just maybe might be willing to sacrifice some freedoms if it meant your children could be proud again? And if it means you can't give constructive critisisms on the organs of state power itself bt can give constuctive critisism on indirect Party policy without trouble wouldn't that be okay given the situation?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: The thing is is that dissent is encouraged for as long as it does not challenge the One Party system within the PRC, after that the dissent is mostly anti corruption in nature and aimed at correcting...
I'm not sure you understand what "dissent" means, Blayne.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Oh? What about the Pilipines? What about the millions of miles of Indian territory that just happened to used to belong to the natives? What about when you invaded Canada in 1812? We kicked your asses right back out! What about when America deliberately made up an excuse to intervene in Cuba and wrote an unbalance treaty allowing the States to invade any time they wish? What about when you siezed land off of Mexico? What about when you forced the Confederate States to stay in the Union? What about when you invaded the Kingdom of Hawaii? What about when you send Ironclads to force Japan to open to trade? Back to the Indians how to you justify murdering millions of Indians in a ruthless and systematic genocide that still continues to this day with the denying the Indians having been forced to live in Reservations that ironically has some fo the most profitable natural gas and mineral reserves the very money thats being made from exploiting those resources?
Long. Time. Ago.
Are you really sure you want to start comparing past atrocities and misdeeds between China and the USA? Are you sure about that? If the sky's the limit on length of time passed, then I trust you with your passable knowledge of Chinese history know what a stupid thing that would be to do. And anyway, the PRC is doing these things NOW. It only serves to illustrate how weak your argument is that you bring up centuries old history to defend PRC tyranny.
All the things you complain of, they're complained about by Americans, too. Openly. People demand reparations from the government all the time, and insult the government, run in elections against the government, in response to those crimes.
Doesn't. Happen. In. the PRC. If the government has done something you don't like, you'd better shut your freaking mouth about it in public or we'll run a tank over you or throw you in jail. You can dissent, but don't dissent against the status quo? Are you even listening to how stupid that is? That's like saying, "You can walk in public...just not on sidewalks, crosswalks, or the grass. You can only walk between these two lines one foot apart, that connect only certain places-if you've got the right forms in triplicate."
Oh, and as for how I didn't even listen to the irrelevant nonsense you wrote about surpluses and buildups of conventional forces? I did respond to them, but those points were irrelevant. My point was that the PRC need nod fear an American takeover like you described because it's got nukes, and having nukes stops that sort of thing.
You responded with, "But that leads to a buildup of conventional forces and nuclear warhead surpluses, blah blah blah." You dodged my point and didn't address it at all. Either refute it-say that nuclear weapons don't protect a nation from hostile takeover or military action-or quit whining already.
You're wrong about HRW. They don't just provide data. Which you'd know if you examined their website about the PRC with anything approaching an objective eye. Your point about population size is stupid-if that were the only reason, the PRC would be shouting it from the rooftops and everyone would have to agree because it would be obviously true. x number of violates per y size of population equals z% abuses overall, compared to other nations, etc. etc. That little comparison doesn't get made.
Geepers! I wonder why?
quote:If the States were dirt poor trampled on by foreign nations, suffered from a nearly a near Anarchic and constant civil wars between State governors and Congress either didnt exist or was only a pale shadow of authority wouldn't you maybe just maybe might be willing to sacrifice some freedoms if it meant your children could be proud again? And if it means you can't give constructive critisisms on the organs of state power itself bt can give constuctive critisism on indirect Party policy without trouble wouldn't that be okay given the situation?
No. It wouldn't be OK. Because, see, I'm an American and I know that these things are possible without tyranny. You're a Canadian, you should know better, too. But you've lived the comfortable life of a Canadian for too long, and things like suffering and tyranny are academic subjects for you, and you lack the imagination to see them as anything but mild inconveniences to be endured for the sake of some larger goal. Try living it for awhile, you hypocrite, and then tell us how willing people are to endure it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It just occurred to me that it might appear that I'm thinking only Americans think that those things are possible without tyranny. Obviously this is untrue, and not what I intended to say.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
the little runt with no income tax grr.![[Confused]](confused.gif)
),we are not bunch of slaves that driven by the government like some western media's horrific describation!![[Smile]](smile.gif)