Topic: The Rise of the Dragon; Blayne's Unified Pro-China Arguement
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
This is my ProChina arguements for all interested and I predict many sleepless nights defending my arguements from Lythawn, and the other people whose names I've forgotten. Also an english assignment I asked a friend to proof read for me and hopefully it is fully readable.
*also* I already handed it in this is so that I can improve upon it at my spare time.
quote: The Rise of the Dragon By Blayne Bradley
No other country in the world has a history or a culture as long or as rich as the Chinese; China, or “Zhongguo” (Joong-gwor) which means the Middle Kingdom. Today China is one of the world’s most powerful economies, a member of the United Nations Security Council and the world’s largest holder of FOREX reserve. China also possesses the world’s largest army and paramilitary force numbering more than three million personnel and is an economic giant for East Asia. However this economic and military growth along with the fall of the Soviet Union worries many people, especially Neoconservatives and members of the hard right. This paper will deal briefly with the study of Chinese growth, policies and history to determine if there is any validity in the arguments of the men who label China as a threat to world peace.
Chinese history is long and rich. In order to understand China today, one has to study China’s past. This is an undertaking that is beyond a few simple paragraphs so a brief summary will have to do. China’s history is best looked at from a dynastic point of view. Essentially each era of China’s history is best studied by looking at the failures and achievements of each individual dynasty. The dynastic period began with the Xia dynasty in 2200 BC and ended with the Qing dynasty in 1911. Between 1911 and 1949 China was basically in a era of strife and turmoil filled with wars and famines. The end to the chaos slowly began with the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949. One thing that can be safely gleaned is that while the majority of Chinese expansion in and outside China was largely peaceful, for a majority of its history China was mostly confined to what is known as “Han China” between the Yang Tse River and Vietnam. Manchuria only got added when the Manchu’s overthrew the Ming and set them up as the Qing Dynasty and became culturally assimilated into the Han Chinese populace. This essentially made Manchuria a part of China. The more overtly militant annexation of territory by China was during the Yuan dynasty with the annexation of Tibet 700 years ago, continued by the Ming who added Xinjing (which was later officially annexed by the Manchu) semi-officially into China and then further continued by the Manchu’s who added Korea to the empire as well. The Ming also drove the Dutch traders from Taiwan and colonized it with Han Chinese. Vietnam was a vassal since 200 BC and had been ruled by successive dynasties for centuries until they gained their independence from China in the 9th century AD.
So essentially from what we can ascertain, all Chinese attempts at expansion were mostly launched when the political control of China wasn’t even in the hands of Han Chinese! But rather when they were controlled by a foreign power such as the Mongols (Yuan) or the Manchu’s (Qing) though the latter eventually became assimilated. Also, because of this focus of maintaining sovereignty only within China and a few hand picked vassal states China would to all appearances possesses a history of peaceful indirect rule over vassals in stark contrast to Europeans who at the same time directly ruled harshly over their colonies ; preferring instead to take care of matters at home. So thus it is a relatively safe bet that China in the future will as in the past prefer lucrative peaceful trade relationships with its neighbours for resources instead of attacking them for strategic resources, China just simply has far more to gain.
In the economic sphere China has been criticized for a number of economic issues ranging from the massive 200 billion dollar trade deficit to issues on human rights. These are issues that governments should deal in a cautious and prudent manner, making decisions on facts and unaltered evidence not partisan politicisation. Because of the manner of the USA’s two Party system it has gotten to the point where issues are polarized between the two sides on every issue so that what one side supports the other rejects. This ruins the ability for unbiased decision making based on economics rather then gunboat diplomacy. Starting firstly with the deficit, essentially the United States exports a limited amount of resources and high technology to China yet imports a gargantuan amount of finished products, toys, cars, electronics, tools, machinery etc and soon nuclear reactors. This and the fact that the Yuan (Chinese currency) was kept artificially low to better support exports and to make China more attractive for investment. Essentially while companies in America are making money they are nevertheless firing workers because importing from China is cheaper thanks to globalism and the US government is losing money on every transaction. Because of the deficit a number of people in congress have been making much noise on the issue going as far as to suggest cutting off trade ties with China . Firstly such statements and so-called solutions to them are “fubar”, it was the United States that went to China under the Nixon administration to open up trade China only took the olive branch that the USA was so willing to offer them, next the Chinese also know that the deficit cannot and should not be sustained are actively fighting it that and several WTO (World Trade Organization) officials have also stated in affirmative that the deficit is not the fault of China.
Aside from the deficit and other economic matters, now it is time to look at China’s recorded Human Right’s violations and corruption. This is a touchy subject and rarely discussed openly, while they do happen they obviously do not happen on the same scale as the Epoch Times would have you believe. For “The Epoch Times claims that the publication of the "Commentaries" and its subsequent call to CCP members to "erase the beastly brand" has caused more than 10 million CCP members to resign” Epoch Times is obviously biased against the CPC but provides what the “extreme” is to who oppose the CPC. Most of the reported human rights abuses are the arrests of journalists with in China, the supposed massacre and rape of Tibetan nuns (an action I have found no evidence to support), oppression of the Tibetans, and criticized as being an undemocratic society that provides little in terms of civil rights or openness in the restrictions on people in society. However this is something that requires some thought, firstly consider the nation, historically China is based on Confucian ideals, despite efforts to make China less traditional and more progressive to allow the forging of a “New China” the vast majority of the people still hold onto their mix of Confucian/Taoist/Buddhist mix of beliefs, this is not a bad thing seeing as western culture isn’t all that great if we look at it from a different perspective. Confucius has always talked about the relationship between the sovereign and subject and put forward the ideals behind benign enlightened absolutism, this is the cultural frame of mind that has existed for millennia . Thus China in a way is used to the idea of an authoritarian government for as long as it follows the (in the traditional sense) the “Mandate of Heaven” . Practically one could say as long as the Chinese government today has the Mandate of Heaven they will rule until they lose it, as has happened before and the people who are no longer satisfied with the government overthrow it. Furthermore, a more economic reason with Mikhail Gorbechev’s “Glasnost” (openness) and “Perestroika” (restructuring) the Soviet Union could not contain the ethnic dissatisfaction of its varied people’s and could not maintain a peaceful transition to a market economy causing its sudden collapse and the dissolution of the USSR . Deng Xiaoping and China’s leaders since 1979 have all recognized that if they allow a similar transition China might also collapse similarly so the change over to a more open and democratic market economic oriented society has to be gradual. There is no doubt in the increased openness of China’s society with over 110,000,000 internet users in 2006 , a greater amount of personal freedoms and even restrictions on freedom of the press have loosened, political discussions have even been encouraged though watched very carefully.
Allegations of corruption exist and they are for the most part true but not for the reasons the “Red China Scare” crowd announce, in actuality the wealth gap between rich and poor, favouritism, money laundering, kick backs, corporate negligence, etc are all by and large an indirect result of the conversion to a more market oriented economy as proven by the Gini Coefficient that also puts the USA in the exact same category for wealth gap and corruption. So factoring this little tidbit of common sense in we can conclude that in terms of corruption it is not a result of being an officially Communist state or run by a Communist party but because of its transition to capitalism has sped up economic growth so fast that a lot of people didn’t know what to do with it. But corruption on either large scale such as money laundering by politicians or fixing the negligence of factory owners is something that the government is trying to do, will they be successful? The answer is the same in every country with enough government support and enough people working together determined to as Mao put it “Move Mountains”. Anything can be accomplished if such is the case.
The economic and political disputes with the Chinese however is nothing compared to the rising anxiety in the West when it comes to China’s increasing military might. Rapidly it is believed that the People’s Liberation Army (or PLA) is soon becoming a thread to the interests of the United States and its allies and must be contained according to the words of Donald Rumsfeld the secretary of Defence. However, the question we must ask is, “Is it true?” Historically we know that China has never been an overtly belligerent nation, they rarely went to wars with their neighbours preferring influencing events behind the scenes as an Emperor would his vassals. While this may seem arrogant to some but to the ancient Chinese it was downright humane compared to the rampant conquests of Alexander, Caesar, Napoleon and others. While in the last 100 years China has engaged in offensive conflicts, but can we not find them defensive in nature? For example can it not be argued that the reclaiming of Tibet and maybe eventually Taiwan which according to the successor of states theory are legitimately a part of China? Also, the Vietnam conflict if we examine the political circumstances can also be deemed defensive since the Soviet Union was busy in its own plan of containing China and it is arguable that since China did not occupy Vietnam in its conflict with it but simply left after about a month of hostilities. This implies that the Chinese had no intention of territorial expansion in Vietnam but rather to test the Soviet Unions resolve. Next, the 1962 Sino-Indian conflict was also by expert opinion provoked by India. Finally let us actually look at the last 30 years of China’s military history, during the Mao Zedong years China had around 13% of its GDP devoted to supporting the PLA, but with his death and the aftermath of Deng Xiaoping’s Market Oriented reforms, China put the economy first, military second. China’s large military had also been a source of contention between China and its neighbours. After Operation Desert Storm in 1991, China’s military and political leaders knew that they could not defend China’s interests with a large and clumsy armed force. They streamlined the PLA cutting hundreds of thousands of personnel, retired hundreds of obsolete Soviet Era tanks, and focused on a new doctrine of fighting a “high tech war under local conditions” the era of Soviet doctrines of massed armoured attacks is over . In fact even as presently China once again considers building up its armed forces they are doing it in a gradual pace that is following their economic growth so that they can avoid the same fate of the Soviet Union. China has consistently claimed to be of no threat to its neighbours and continues to sign economic agreements to support this fact.
In conclusion, we have analyzed China’s history, government policies, and factual documentation of the situation within China itself and thus possess an idea of how the new economic boom is affecting the common people. The facts as have been determined is that China has no history or tradition of belligerent conquests of foreign lands and have far more humane and mutually beneficial means of interacting with their neighbours in comparison to various European states and empires of the time. China’s economy continues to boom at a rapid pace but is leaving many people behind in the dust resulting in a wide wealth gap between rich and poor. However we also know that the Chinese government is doing what it can to help the people and shorten the income gap between rich and poor, fight corruption and improve the situation of fundamental human rights. China’s political disputes with the West while unfortunate are a result of US government policy and not China’s fault and China is doing everything it can to address these issues. Furthermore while China’s military build up makes some of its neighbours nervous of what China’s intentions are, China however consistently stressed that it is for defensive purposes only and to promote regional stability. China is also the first nation to affirm the “no-first-use” policy in regards to nuclear weapons. Essentially while there are many problems to be fixed in China and many more issues yet to be resolved between China and various other nations there is no doubt that China’s intentions are to continue structural, economic, and social development on the most peaceful roads possible. This is also because China throughout history has always been relatively peaceful towards its neighbours, preferring to seek relationships of either trading partners or as an Emperor and his vassals and have always preferred seeking prosperity and gaining it through peaceful means and trade rather then the use of force except as a last resort. There is no reason why China steeped in 6000 years of culture and traditions would suddenly go against all of this and risk everything for short term gain. There is no doubt that the rise of Dragon can not be stopped from something as insubstantial as the “China Threat” theory.
posted
You should do a read thru of that paper Blayne. There's a few mistakes here and there, so far as misspellings and missing words go.
I think quite a bit of this paper is misleading, and even naive. Chinese history is not rose petals and peace. They were just as expansionist and warlike as any other nation back in the day, the Emperor just did a better job at wrapping it up into something looking like civility.
I think you need to explain their involvement in the Korean Wawr a bit more. And explain how this fits into your peaceful China bit. I'd also think some explanation should be used as to why they were so happy to have held their own against a flexing of America's full might, at the cost of possibly as many as a million of their own soldiers. A million men for a border dispute?
I also think the Egyptians, Mesopotamians and Greeks would take issue with you calling China the oldest such and such civilization on Earth, but that's too minor a point to really go into to take issue with.
I think it's a whitewash. If you're going to do a paper like that, singing China's praises, that's all well and good. But you need quotations and direct sources, you need far better and more detailed examples instead of stating things as fact without backup. And if you're going to write this and want it to NOT sound like propaganda, then I think you need to pay serious attention to the people who'd argue against a majority of what you said up there. The best way to defeat an opposing argument is to incorporate it into your essay and then summarily destroy it with your own sources and analysis. It would make the paper stronger.
Edit to add: As for the good things. It's a very well organized paper, which is impressive in itself. The style isn't something that I personally ascribe to, but it's easy to understand for the most part, and shows intelligence.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
much better them my dictatorship one I suppose
I did post source but hatrack wasnt letting me, something about not having a paranthesis with it, so I'll summarize them as:
Epoch Times Xinhui Rise and Fall of the Great Powers Mao: A Life by Philip Short A retired US Navy (Airforce?) colonel. www.sinodefence.com wikipedia for the more general bits on China's history. you know dates of various dynasties.
That's more or less it, but I do have them sourced.
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
oh oh oh and the cbc special China Rises, veyr informative.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Phanto: You are very talented. Great writing. I happen to teach a class on writing style -- do you mind if I use this as an example?
Don't let Phanto use it as an example unless he tells you what he really thinks about it first... That's a bit dishonest of you Phanto if you don't mean what you say.
Blayne, I think I begin to understand. I didn't realize that English was not your first language, if it isn't I apologize for criticising you before. Is English a second, or third language for you?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know Phanto said this was a good paper. Although it's not bad, I'm afraid I have to disagree. Were I to write this paper for a class (second year undergraduate), I would receive a failing mark. Not because of the writing style and sentence structure, which is fine, but because of the way the content of the paper itself is presented.
quote:China’s political disputes with the West while unfortunate are a result of US government policy and not China’s fault
1. Referencing: You list your sources but you do not footnote the exact statements such as these, or, if you made them up yourself, you do not provide any evidence. Especially in a political paper such as this, making direct fact and source references is vital to having your point accepted. I read a sentence like that and my reaction (and the reaction of any university professor or serious reader) is "so prove it".
2. You make huge assertions that you do not support. You must support this with direct evidence and quotations:
quote:I have found no evidence to support
You cannot have looked with the six or seven sources you have given. Seven! Regularly, when writing a political or historical research and argument paper, I use at the very least fifteen, at least half being primary, and my topic is about a zillion times more narrow. I'm an undergraduate student, like yourself. On a paper as bold and as broad-ranging as this one, you should have hundreds of sources.
3. Practice what you preach:
quote:making decisions on facts and unaltered evidence not partisan politicisation
You undermine your point here, because throughout the essay you do this very thing.
quote:While in the last 100 years China has engaged in offensive conflicts, but can we not find them defensive in nature? For example can it not be argued that the reclaiming of Tibet and maybe eventually Taiwan which according to the successor of states theory are legitimately a part of China?
4. Careful with your arguments: I wasn't familiar with the succession of states theory, so I looked it up. To me, it seems that quoting this theory is sketchy at best, perhaps even incorrect (I cannot find enough to verify one way or another). Even so, how many states can claim this about some part of land, and have, and have begun wars over that part of land and called it noble, even 'defensive'? To me, if there is reasonable doubt over the ownership of land, it is not a cut and dried issue. Make sure you understand and explain any concepts you use, not only as facts but also how the concept applies to the situation; in this case, how are Taiwan and Tibet involved in this.
5. Absolutes:
quote:there is no doubt that China’s intentions are to continue structural, economic, and social development on the most peaceful roads possible.
Never use absolutes on a statement for which you have no proof. You will get lynched for that kind of thing by any serious reader. You use the phrase "no doubt" three times. With the number of references, and the resources you do not know, such a statement is ludicrous. There is doubt. There is always doubt, especially in a political and largely completely unknown situation.
6. Pick the title to match the essay.
Your title undermines your point. You don't call a paper about how peaceful and non-threating a country is "The Rise of the Dragon"- it just gives completely the wrong impression.
I suggest you take this paper, and find one sentence within it on the narrowest topic you can find- whatever that is. Research it into the ground until you can say that you are fairly sure that what you are saying is true and provable.
Then you might have a good paper.
I admire you for taking the time to write this paper. I may sound like I am sitting on my high horse here, criticising you, but I guarantee I am saying nothing here that I wouldn't say to anyone else regardless of age or the assumptions her or she makes.
Write what you believe, but do not write what you cannot substantiate.
posted
ummm I don't know where ot begin... Okay, you take an essay in word and try to copy and past WITH the footnotes. Come back and tell me if it works or not.
English being my second language...? I was born in Canada FYI, I may be kinda lazy when I speak and mix my r's and l's (mellon == merron, greatly == greatry) thus people think I'm a chinese spy now but english is my first language and I have no idea what gave you that idea.
Phanto... please elaborate, personal opinion on the essay first please, then you may use it as an example.
Teshi, this is an arguementative essay for an english class, not a major doctorate level kind of thing I'm not expected to find 100 sources per fact.
Well lets look at Tibet originally it was under the jurisdiction of the Chinese Empire (Qing Dynasty) and then passed over to the ROC in 1911 even going to the point of setting down new boundary markers. By 1948 India and Pakistan have gained their independance from Britain and India wanted to push north to set up as the British did before in the 1880's a buffer zone.
For you see the British in the 1880's chartered 2 lines, the (im geussing names here) McKinnen Line and the MacDouglas line (probly not the actual names), the first one was extremely inaccurate and even went as far as to chart 60 miles NORTH of the Qing boundary stones, the second line was far more accurate while supporting British interests was fair and set up the lines based on locals knowldge of the terrain, Qing cartographers, traders, etc.
The British in all Tibetan-Qing relations however adopted the first inaccurate line was the demarkation border. So when India gained its independance it ALSO used the inaccrurate line was the border.
The People's Republic of China was founded to succeed the Republic of China in 1949 and thus also inhereting all its claims as well with the exception of Outer Mongolia to Soviet Pressure. In the 1950/51 The PLA crushed Tibets obselete army and the Dalai Lama signed a peace agreement with the PRC recognizing their soveriegnty over Tibet with Tibet maintained as an autonomous region.
However the exact lines of the Tibetan-Indian border were no fuzzy however Chou Enlai negotiated various dealings with India to promote posperity and pace and both sides agreed not to fuss over the border.
However when the treaty expired in late 1950's India started becomming more aggressive over the Issue with the border and began setting up outposts and patrols in lands claimed and occupied by the PRC as well as lands claimed by India and China but neither side had bothered with until now.
Nehru and Chou exchange various letters and Chou proposed a moderate and to my mind reasonable proposal for dealing with it, both sides keep troops 25 miles away from the border, recognize Askar Chin as Tibetan, China however recognizes some toehr region as Indian etc etc, China essentially keeps its military highway and India gets a buffer.
However Nehru refused utilizing the British claim as India's claim (the inaccurate one) and continued military excursions into Tibet culminating into the 1962 Sino-Indian conflict where China experianced in mountain and alpine warfare in Korea creamed India's mountain army.
Chou once again offered the original proposal and Nehru humilated accepted.
The succession of states theory essentially give China claim over Tibet and Tibet being on the Himilaya's and a central part of China maintaining controlof Sinking so close to the Soviet Union... its defencive in nature because of its invaluable worth as a defencive barrier against Indian and Soviet aggression at the time.
Taiwan is also important, not only because technically the civil war isnt over yet but also because of its invaluable wealth as an economic and transportation hub and its location, its an Island 100 miles from mainland China. If China reunites with it then China's problems with dealing with the various Pacific energy choke points are reduced. Though in this case there is a strong effort by sides to support long term unification under "One Nation, Two Systems", infact Beijing is hosting an economic summit with KMT Taiwanese leaders to talk about expanding trad ebetween the mainland and Taiwan, according to the succession of states theory Taiwan is a integral part of "China" and currently the PRC is legally China. So ROC = PRC, however because the world doesnt like it when forced is used to settle these matters especially a democratic island like Taiwan peaceful unification is the bext method.
Remember in China Dragons are symbols of good luck, so when the Dragon rises, we are all lucky and blessed with good fortune.
IP: Logged |
posted
The reason he thinks English is not your first language is because you write it so poorly. If this is a paper for an English class, you have serious problems with grammar and style, regardless of any logic and argumentative problems. Take my advice from the other thread, Blayne, get yourself to a decent comp instructor as fast as you can.
posted
That's right Prolix, I have a few Korean, Japanese and Chinese friends who came to this country in their teens, and their difficulties with grammar and word order are often similar to yours. Your writing reads like a really long and involved fortune cookie.
FYI, I know people who were born in Canada, and speak English as a second language too... I understand French is still fairly popular in some areas, not to mention Mandarin if your from the west coast.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Teshi, this is an arguementative essay for an english class, not a major doctorate level kind of thing I'm not expected to find 100 sources per fact.
I think you will find that oyu are wrong. It is not a question of sourcing your facts improperly; you are drawing conclusions which are not supported by any tidbit of fact at all, sourced or not. You are not arguing, you are asserting, which is a far different thing. And about language, you really cannot defend yourself with "I'm just a bit lazy sometimes". Yes, we know, we see it every day. You think this will cut any ice with an English professor, you are totally wrong.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you could easily solve the problem by either quintupling the length of the essay, or narrowing the focus to a single issue of Chinese rising, and then cover that extensively.
You've cast your net far too big for the smallish nature of your essay. Do one thing, do it very, very well, and it will come off much better than trying to do a bigger idea but not covering it correctly.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Blayne, why are you so pro-China? Their current government is a totalitarian dictatorship that has no plans to give the people any political freedom or justice. I see their emulation of the West and our ecnonomy as a possible attempt to empower their military and political might in the world. Then we'll have another superpower like the USSR with a totalitarian regime. Oh joy.
So as a result we must try and mold them into a docile power as we assist them their economic boom (which is powered by the West).
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If by 'rich' you mean a blend of the admirable and the deplorable, then I agree.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Rakeesh that is exactly what I mean. I challenge you to find one civilization that is still around today and remained largely homogenious for the last 5000 years that has a perfectly perfect history.
Are the meso's still around today? The Aztecs?
Telp, that is exactly the philosphy behind the Kissinger driven Nixon visit to China, only through contact, cultural exchange and trade can we effectively ensure that they're rise is peaceful, their demographics, economic potential and culture will make sure they rise sooner or later so its best to make so with what you know and have then what you don't.
Now please remember I DID source EVERYTHING I claimed, I just cant show it on hatrack.
The main issue is not whether China will Rise but HOW they will and what happenes if they do, do you realize how much bullsh*t there is on the net about how China will attempt to conquer the world with avian flu, premptive nuclear strike on the usa, colonizing north america and austrialia etc etc.
IP: Logged |
posted
The overall quality of the writing (aside from content) is significantly better than that 'video game addiction' thing you posted, but there are still sentences that don't make sense grammatically.
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: However we also know that the Chinese government is doing what it can to help the people and shorten the income gap between rich and poor, fight corruption and improve the situation of fundamental human rights.
This is an absurd statement. The Chinese government cannot "do what it can" to "improve the situation of fundamental human rights" when it is the only thing holding human rights back. You might argue, for instance, that there are elements within the Chinese government that are pushing for improving human rights, but it's simply silly to say that the government as a whole is doing so.
Posts: 326 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Teshi, this is an arguementative essay for an english class, not a major doctorate level kind of thing I'm not expected to find 100 sources per fact.
Again, you need to narrow your focus down to a fraction of what you have here. I don't care whether it's for English or a Political Science or History doctorate dissertation, it's too broad for the amount of space and sources you have here.
quote:This paper will deal briefly with the study of Chinese growth, policies and history to determine if there is any validity in the arguments of the men who label China as a threat to world peace.
See, I have issues with saying this is an argument paper, since you do not state your argument until the very end and your introduction seems unconnected to this statement which introduces the topic of the paper. Inbetween this sentence and the sentence before it you need some sort of segue that leads from your assertation that China is "the world’s largest army and paramilitary force ...and is an economic giant for East Asia" because saying that you're going to prove that this incredibly powerful military giant isn't a threat right after asserting that it is is a little problematic. No one all that peaceful has an army that big unless you can prove that they really are peaceful. You're undermining yourself in your introduction.
You then go off to tell the history of China. This is all fine and good until you suddenly introduce an argument at the end of the paragraph:
quote:So essentially from what we can ascertain, all Chinese attempts at expansion were mostly launched when the political control of China wasn’t even in the hands of Han Chinese! etc.
In order to successfully argue this point from a writing standpoint, even if not from a logical standpoint, you need to introduce what you are trying to say at the beginning of the history paragraph rather than blindsiding the reader at the end, for example:
"When pointing to the threat of China, many academics reference the early history of the country as an example of expansionism and militarism. Although they are right to draw attention to this history of China as relating to how it is in the modern world, they <insert whatever it is you're trying to say here about the wars not counting.>"
Then go on to lay down the history of China and explain your point as relating to each military endeavor as you go.
You then go on to introduce another argument with no examples:
quote:Also, because of this focus of maintaining sovereignty only within China and a few hand picked vassal states China would to all appearances... preferring instead to take care of matters at home.
You cannot say this and not provide even one physical example, you could say something like "such as in the period when China occupied <such and such>- the culture of <such and such> can still be seen to be strong in the <such and such> artwork from that period (reference)."
The next bit is a couple of arguments rolled into one:
quote: In the economic sphere China has been criticized for a number of economic issues ranging from the massive 200 billion dollar trade deficit to issues on human rights.
Here you seenm make two arguments in the same sentence. What you really mean to say is that the United States os biased against the Chinese government in these judgements because of "partisan politicization". Say what you mean to argue when you begin this paragraph.
You can then argue the economic thing elsewhere, explaining about trade and whatnot in a seperate clearly defined paragraph.
The political and Human Rights paragraph is completely illogical. You are using the Soviet Union as an example to support your argument that China must murder and arrest in order to survive? Generally, the fall of the Soviet Union is regarded as a good thing, although I can see why the Chinese government might not agree. All of your assertions in this paragraph are confused and unconnected. You need to clean this paragraph up and find a better way to argue that China's Human Rights record is equal to the Western World without saying "well they need to do it".
Your conclusion brings up topics that were barely discussed:
quote:and thus possess an idea of how the new economic boom is affecting the common people.
No we don't! You mention people and economy briefly, but you never talked at length about this subject.
quote:China’s economy continues to boom at a rapid pace but is leaving many people behind in the dust resulting in a wide wealth gap between rich and poor.
This not only is new but serves no purpose in supporting your argument. If you were arguing purely about the economic effect on China's foreign relations, for example, it might have a place here. Right now, it is unconncted.
quote:China is also the first nation to affirm the “no-first-use” policy in regards to nuclear weapons.
I'm not sure, but you might mean "was". Anyway, this is probably your most convincing argument about peace in China yet and it's in the wrong place. Put it up in the military might section, not in the conclusion and cite the announcement date, like this:
"In <date>, China became the first nation in the world to adopt a 'no first use' policy in regards to nuclear weapons."
quote:This is also because China throughout history has always been relatively peaceful towards its neighbours, preferring to seek relationships of either trading partners or as an Emperor and his vassals and have always preferred seeking prosperity and gaining it through peaceful means and trade rather then the use of force except as a last resort.
I think this is a very shaky argument, if not a completely wrong one, but aside from that, you say too much here. Your conclusion should merely restate arguments not tell them all over again.
quote:There is no doubt that the rise of Dragon can not be stopped from something as insubstantial as the “China Threat” theory.
You end on a completely different argument from where you started, with a sentence that is incomprehensible. I think what you mean to say is:
"There is no doubt that the insubstantial "China Threat" theory will be ineffectual in stopping the rise of the Dragon."
However, this is not the argument of your paper, this is another argument. I think the point of the paper is mostly about the fact that China is not going to invade everyone else because it doesn't need to. Here you say that the China Threat theory is attempting to stop the rise of the ever-so-peaceful Dragon (I mentioned the use of the 'dragon' word before, eh?), which seems completely odd, because if you are indeed right there is not need to stop China's rise to superpower status because it won't matter and if China is indeed military or non-military it doesn't matter if there's a theory or not because it's such a huge power that nothing is going to stand in its way anyway.
Yeah- last sentence is a real issue.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Teshi: you reversed his intended meaning in the last sentence. Did you mean that to be a "cannot"?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
My overall problem with your piece is that it is so staunch in one direction that it feels as if you are closing your eyes completely to the other side. You do make some points that have merit, but you neglect to mention events or peoples actions that directly go against what you are saying. Ill try to give you some examples of what you have argued and historical events that you ought to address.
"Chinese history is long and rich. In order to understand China today, one has to study China’s past" Sorry that line bothered me because its a bit obvious.
You make the assertion that China's days of conquest are long behind them and that those days only took place because the reins were in the hands of the Mongols and the Manchu. You addressed the question of their expansion into Tibet as well as the possible expansion into Taiwan as the taking back of previous owned territory. Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Vietnam, Korea, and even Japan were all a part of China at some point or other. If we use your logic China should be able to snag all those countries eventually and call it "taking back whats ours." How much time must go by before a country loses claim to territory? Can Great Britain take back the US because we have only broken off from them for a mere 230 years?
You place doubt on attrocities commited when China steamrolled into Tibet, and claim you have found no proof. If use combine the following 3 factors I think it puts the weight of evidence to the contrary. 1: How does China treat Tibet today, 2: What are people saying that were there, 3: What is China's history when dealing with rebels. 1: Tibetans are strictly forbidden to have pictures of the Dalai Lhama, China has a very aggressive policy of forcing Han Chinese to move into Tibet and assimilate the Tibetans so that their culture disappears, China has actively tried to select the succesor to the Dalai Lhama so that they can get a puppet in control.
2: There are movies like Seven Years in Tibet that talk about these events. Hundreds of people who were there when it happened have published what they saw. The only people you will ever see say no atrocities were committed are Chinese government officials. http://www.savetibet.org/campaigns/torture/testimony.php
3: China often screams at Japan for the "Rape of Nan Jing" which was a terrible attrocity commited during WW2. By terrible I mean diabolical. But if you really want to list China human rights attrocities, you could fill volumes of books with it. Here are a few of the most odious IMHO:
The Taiping Rebellion: Man thinks he is God's son after converting to Christianity, gets a following, starts attempting to convert the whole of China to Christianity through conquest, civil war insues and the cult almost wins. Millions literally MILLIONS die. All followers of the cult are executed once the government reassumes control. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiping_rebellion
Let One Thousand Flowers Bloom: You can google this one, Chairman Mao invites people to be more free in their criticisms so that the government can supposedly reform to the needs of the people. People speak up for a few weeks and everyone who lodges a complaint is written down. A few weeks later mass reeducation for anyone who said anything, executions for the more serious complaints.
I know I used wikipedia for alot of these but I have read about many of these things in many books. I have not even begun to mention the atrocities China still commits on its own population. There is the forced contraceptives for women, which in the 80's started killing women because the methods being used were unsafe. Forced abortions.
The Tiananmen Square massacre of 1989 where the movement for democracy was crushed.
One of the largest stockpile of missils in the world is on the south east coast of China pointing to Taiwan.
There was the Fa Lun Gong purge of the late 90's where thousands of people disappeared into prisons and reeducation camps (some are still missing) because the practiced a form of meditation that refused to be regulated by the government.
In Hong Kong the supposed potential for Chinese accomplishment, the 50 years agreement has not been respected. Hong Kongs Chief Executive Officer in the government is now selected by a panel in Beijing and the people have no say in the matter as they did pre 1997.
I could go on and on, and I guess I have been, but you say China has argued its force build up is purely for defensive purposes, defence from who? None of its neighbors have any aggresive designs against China.
China has no history of conquest? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warring_States_period That is a period of hundreds of years where 7 kingdoms all battled for total control over mainland China. The movie "Hero" is loosely based in that period.
I want to make it clear that I do not think China is an evil country filled with evil people. I grew up in Hong Kong and I love the Chinese people, but to say China poses no threat to either its own people or to others to me is just plain incorrect. China's current government are the succesors of one of the most terrible governments in all history. A government that has the blood of millions on its hands. An entire culture has been damaged beyond repair because of them. Japan did not have a history of conquest either until WW2.
I guess I better end here, I went from a critical overview of your paper into an Anti Chinese government rant. But I want you to know that you need to take a closer look at China's dealings. And open your mind to at least the possibility that China is not incapable of attrocity.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't read the whole thing, but from what I did read, it seems like one problem (aside from all the others people have mentioned) is your use of colloqualisms. It doesn't sound really acadmic.
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I had already explained to my teacher that I intended to write something directly to counter the more notable putforwarders of the China Threat Theory (namely Bill Gertz) and I considered that due to time constraints I couldn't explain everysingle possible act considered an affront to world peace. But yes now I do see what you mean in terms of properly phrasing my arguements, and it will need revising.
huh? The Romance of the Three Kingdoms and other periods of civil strife is just that civil wars, I wouldn't call it a hostile act vs a foreign power and also Laos? Cambodia? They may have been vassals at one time or another but they are so culturally different now that its absurd to think Succession of states theory would legitimize any action to "reclaim" IndoChina, China already dominates the areas economy why would they need to have to physically own the land in the modern era of globalism?
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I had already explained to my teacher that I intended to write something directly to counter the more notable putforwarders of the China Threat Theory (namely Bill Gertz) and I considered that due to time constraints I couldn't explain everysingle possible act considered an affront to world peace. But yes now I do see what you mean in terms of properly phrasing my arguements, and it will need revising.
Good to know, I imagine it would be harder to argue the point you were trying to make, than the otherside (I picked alot of arguements like that in my Rhetoric class). That was WAY back in High School.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tibet was (and always had been) considerably culturally different from China, not that such a counterargument would fly anyways.
If you can justify China's invasion of Tibet based on prior inclusion, you can do so with any state in the region, and the notion you put forward that China won't attack because they only attacked to regain what was once theirs falls flat(ter).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
the difference between Laos and Tibet is that Tibet was under the jurisdiction of not only the Manchu's but also of the Republic of China, when the People's Republic of China was established they had all prior claims that the ROC had, thus Tibet, the ROC and neither frankly did the Manchu's have any claim or juridiction in IndoChina which was at the time quite firmly either under the control of Thailand, or the British or the French.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: the difference between Laos and Tibet is that Tibet was under the jurisdiction of not only the Manchu's but also of the Republic of China, when the People's Republic of China was established they had all prior claims that the ROC had, thus Tibet, the ROC and neither frankly did the Manchu's have any claim or juridiction in IndoChina which was at the time quite firmly either under the control of Thailand, or the British or the French.
As far as I know the ROC (led by Sun Yat Sen and Chiang Kai Shek) did not try to enforce Chinese claims on Tibet because the country by and large was just so different. Tibet was conquered by the Chinese on 2 different occasions but it still retained much of its distinct nature. It was only until the PROC took power that they started trying to consolidate control over Tibet and subjegate it to Chinese control. The religion/social system/and government of Tibet was just so different when Communist China took over that to say it belongs to China is to say Texas belongs to Mexico.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: the difference between Laos and Tibet is that Tibet was under the jurisdiction of not only the Manchu's but also of the Republic of China,
You do realize that Manchu control over China is a faulty arguement as by your own assertion they were assimilated into the Han culture. You also realize the last Manchu emperor of China left his throne in the 1920's a mere 80 years ago? Every single atrocity that China has commited in the last 80 years has been exercised under Han control, their track record is not some sort of shining beacon when compared to Manchu or Mongolian regimes.
And do not compare the ROC to the PROC because they were in effect 2 completely seperate groups. The PROC did not inherit the reins of government through some legitimate means. The PROC used military intrigue and force coupled with Russian help as well as using the Japanese (then pushing into China) as a means to undermine the ROC and weaken it until it could crush it. The PROC used lies within its propaganda to undermine the ROC and then wrested control over a majority of people who were not neccesarily communists or democrats. They then purged the populace of opposition by very systematic and calculated means. And after a period of 20-30 years the PROC was organized as the official government of China, and it was not until Jimmy Carters Administration that it was given international recognition. (People in Taiwan still name their dogs after Carter)
You could ask people if they think the government in China is good, but I doubt they would tell you because apparently most Chinese don't like being tortured for their beliefs, they would rather just not have political opinions and earn an honest living.
Sorry I just realized I should refer to PROC as CPC or the CCP (Communist Party of China/China Communist Party)
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Yes, only now it's called Iraq. And the Greeks and Egyptians still are as well I might add. Their cultures have evolved, but aren't diluted as you seem to be implying.
And please tell me you wouldn't use a phrase like "perfectly perfect" in an essay.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
nope, just in daily conversation.
I however that in terms of culture, religion, and language Iraq is not Mesopetania, heck they weren't even a unified nation of any sort just one more provence in one of many empires in a region.
IP: Logged |
posted
China is not exactly the same today as it was 4000 years ago. The land is not, the people are not, the religion is not, the culture has evolved, and the language has evolved.
It's ridiculous to suggest otherwise.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
To be fair to Blayne, the Mayas and Incas are hardly as old as China; off the top of my head, the first evidence of city-states in the region is around 1300BCE. Now, Egypt is another matter, and the Fertile Crescent. In that region, agriculture and city building go right back to 8000 BCE, a time when the Chinese (who may or may not have been Han at the time, who knows?) were still chucking spears at animals. Now, what the Chinese do have is an amazing ability to absorb foreign cultures; there have been as many invasions and foreign rulers in China as in Egypt, but way less cultural change.
And incidentally, what does it even mean to call a history 'perfectly perfect'? What, every last person who ever lived in China for the past 4000 years was happy every day of his life?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I had already explained to my teacher that I intended to write something directly to counter the more notable putforwarders of the China Threat Theory (namely Bill Gertz)
If you're arguing against the ideas of this Bill Gertz, maybe you should mention his name and outline his ideas, then dismantle them.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
no because Bill gertz is just one of many who espouse the theory, my essay is meant to try to counter many of the more "broad" arguements, not all the little nitpicking ones like a sussposed cel phone conversation between a PRC buisness person and a Irish Communist
though I maybe be wrong about which civilization was around first I am not wrong that China has by far the longest continuos history. The region known as "China" remained more or less intact for thousands of years dispite foreign invasions, famines, natural disasters, rebellions etc.
IP: Logged |
posted
Hang on, just how are you defining continuous? There has been a "region known as 'Egypt'" since 4000 BCE, in spite of foreign invasions, famines, natural disasters, rebellions, etc. Just what is the criterion for being 'continuous'?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
I agree with many of the critiques posted here. I read this as if it was an op-ed piece (an attempt at convincing me of something). By that "standard" (loose as it may be), I found the most contentious points in your paper to the be the ones where you provided absolutely NO backup. Asserting something is "not China's fault" or "defensive instead of offensive" or that the trade deficit is exactly what America wanted...
Those are things that scream out for you to quote some facts from a reliable source. You don't.
What happens in my mind at each of those points is that I move away from reading your essay in hopes of learning something (a new fact, or a new interpretation of well-known data) to adversarial. By the third one of those I was just thinking that it wasn't worth continuing because there was very little in your piece but unsubstantiated opinion.
Careful editing and spell checking would be a plus. The frequent errors just give your detractors ammunition. Stuff like "fubar" is another knotch or two worse than typos and misspellings. It's the kind of thing that nudges your piece beyond the earlier opinion of "dismissable because the opinions aren't backed up" to "this guy's a crank with an axe to grind."
IMO, you NEVER want to fall into the latter category as you make yourself instantly irrelevant to the debate. At least for people interested in a reasoned debate. Using loaded terms (that, by the way, include nasty swear words in the acronym, in case you aren't already aware of it, and may, incidently violate the user agreement here) isn't useful in this kind of document. It rarely is useful. Here, it's simply one more thing that degrades your credibility.
A few ideas on how to make this better:
1) All statements of fact should be backed up with at least one citation from a reliable source.
2) Opinions should be drawn as logical conclusions from facts you have previously cited (and given solid sources for)
3) The more contentious the statement or opinion, the more sources you should cite.
4) If your sources are unfamiliar to most of your audience, bolstering them with additional sources is a good way to overcome initial reluctance to grant them as facts.
5) Citing other people's opinions counts less than citing real data. If all you have are other opinion sources...you'd better have an awful lot of them, and they should be recognized as subject-matter experts by your readers.
6) If the paper is getting too long because of the need to cite so many sources, consider narrowing the topic to take on just one or a couple of central points. A thorough job on one point is more convincing than a shallow job on 20 points.
7) Except in VERY LIMITED circumstances, avoid slang, jargon, loaded terminology, and scatological references. The major problem with this type of word is that readers react to them in ways that you probably didn't intend (including simply forming a negative opinion of your maturity or ability to express yourself).
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Okay, I am going to kill someone, Bob please reread everything I have posted in this thread and voila! you'll be pleasantly surprised to know that I used footnotes as the means to document my sources oh thats right, I can't copy footnotes to Hatrack hmmmm.... Either I'm delusional or......
Its like me saying I moved a rock 5 feet and took a picture and the other guy saying did you move the rock yet? when I already told him I moved the rock.
IP: Logged |
posted
Blayne, I know that you can't copy in the exact format the superscript and subsequent footnotes precisely.
But why don't you copy/paste the footnotes to a post, and then include a little pointer like (this goes with the second sentence of the third paragraph) and then people can judge it for themselves and maybe you can get out of this jam here.
Otherwise: Delete this thread. You can't put forth a paper like that, get valid criticism in return, claim you have good sources, and then NOT provide them whilst still claiming your paper to be correct. Either you put forth the sources in a separate post or edit, or you drop this entirely, as absolutely nothing fruitful will come of it.
So far as I'm concerned, it's more akin to you telling us the rock is a balloon, then asking us a question about it without any proof that your basic assertion is correct. We can't argue about the balloon until you prove it isn't a rock.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I didn't know it was an issue, well this friday I'll get to it I need to finish about...... 2 assignments.
IP: Logged |
posted
Blayne, you keep saying that your footnotes cite your sources, but that won't help you with the criticism you are being given. You still need to actually write out facts to support your assertions, not provide a list of places where people could find the facts on their own. Unless your footnotes are sentences which contain the missing support, they are irrelevent.
posted
This also does not address the issues of grammar that I pointed out. I do feel that it's important to understand basic sentence structure before starting in on argument structure. You gotta crawl before you walk. Blayne is trying to run a marathon with one leg cut off, and you guys are suggesting he begin with a 500-meter instead. Well, yeah, fine, but the first step is to get the damn leg back in place!
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
In fact, as an exercise, let's look at one sentence :
quote:Practically one could say as long as the Chinese government today has the Mandate of Heaven they will rule until they lose it, as has happened before and the people who are no longer satisfied with the government overthrow it.
Blayne, identify the problems of grammar in this sentence, and rewrite it for clarity and grammar. A hint : You are allowed to recast it as more than one sentence.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Maybe it's a fine point, but if you are citing people, actually cite them. A footnote is not sufficient. Part of your job is to tell the reader who said what, and where their statements leave off and your interpretation begins.
You don't do any of that. Having a little superscripted numeral next to some or all of your statements wouldn't change my criticism one iota.
quote:The main issue is not whether China will Rise but HOW they will and what happenes if they do, do you realize how much bullsh*t there is on the net about how China will attempt to conquer the world with avian flu, premptive nuclear strike on the usa, colonizing north america and austrialia etc etc.
Just like Mexico... Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
