Another Chinese Free Speech Advocate Joins Roll of Honour
BEIJING — Yu Jie has picked a fight with the Communist Party of China, and if state security forces haul him away in the dark of night, there will be no one to stop them. It’s a risk Yu took knowingly when he wrote a book published this month that slammed the country’s prime minister as an “actor” shilling for an authoritarian government.
His challenge is a rarity in a nation noted for its rough treatment of dissidents, and is made all the more remarkable by the fact that Yu, an unassuming author who looks like a Beijing office worker, has no prominent family or professional connections in China to bail him out of prison.
Via McClatchy’s excellent Tom Lasseter
China’s leaders are petty-minded, paranoid, intolerant, and filled with spiteful punitive intent when challenged. Such is the courage required of the dissenting voice in the Middle Kingdom.
Yu Jie, take a bow. China needs many more as brave as you.
September 26th, 2010 at 9:52 pm
The guy is just a trouble making punk. Wish they would just blow his fucken head off.
The very reason why China is progressing so well on all fronts is precisely because we do not have the sham system of government this running dog agitates for.
Western style democracy would only bring disaster to China.
The country directly comparable to China of course is India – that largest ‘democracy’.
China’s life expectancy in 1976, at the time of Mao’s death, was already higher than what India’s is today (Mao doubled Chinese life expectancy). Today China’s life expectancy is 73. India’s is 63. Literacy in China is well above 90%, in India it is about 50%.
About 40% of Indians live on less than a dollar a day. In China it is about 10%. China’s per capita GDP is 2.2 times that of Indias.
India’s child mortality rate is 2.5 x that of China’s.
Again on life expectancy, refer link below.
http://tinyurl.com/29g8gyd
One could calculate the ‘excess’ deaths from India’s so called ‘democratic’ experiment from not adopting a Marxist Leninist socialist model. The results would be in the hundreds of millions.
China will forge its own path. By and large it is the right path. And in another few decades poverty will have virtually been eliminated from China, and we will have a prosperous socialist motherland, in which everyone is looked after.
September 28th, 2010 at 10:30 am
“And in another few decades poverty will have virtually been eliminated from China…”
That would be great.
But what about the bigger picture? What will the global stats say about poverty in those countries where China is turning the screw on resources? China will earn no plaudits for transferring poverty from its own backyard to someplace else in the world.
Yu Jie would understand.
September 28th, 2010 at 5:37 pm
Stuart,
China’s transferring poverty? The fact is the average ecological footprint of a Chinese is less than a 5th I think of the average american.
Does China have an unfair run of the world’s resources compared to the West? Of course not.
Countries which are doing mightily out of China’s rise are of course Australia and New Zealand. It is only because these two white countries are in the most economically dynamic part of the globe, (dynamism mainly from China), that they are not having the huge problems that Europe now faces, and the skyrocketing unemployment rates.
Without China, Australia would simply be down the gurgler economically.
As for Africa, China is overwhelmingly popular in Africa as poll after poll has shown. Unlike white who just stole African land and resources (Kenya, Zimbabwe), and drove the Africans off their own land, the Chinese pay fair prices and help develop the infrastructure of Africa, without giving the Africans patronising drivel on how to run their own affairs.
The best study of the true Chinese role in Africa, backed up witha plethora of facts and figures is The Dragon’s Gift: The Real Story of China in Africa, by Deborah Brautigam. http://tinyurl.com/y87lm7n
The Africans themselves highly praise China’s role in Africa.
The Rwandan President:
“The Chinese bring what Africa needs: investment and money for governments and companies…..China is investing in infrastructure and building roads……European and American involvement “has not brought Africa forward…….Western firms have to a large extent polluted Africa and they are still doing it”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8301826.stm
The South African President
“China is there discussing with the brothers and sisters in Africa to create a mutually beneficial kind of relationship”, which is “different from former Western colonialists (simply) taking things by force.”
http://tinyurl.com/2eekb7t
Botswana President:
“I find that the Chinese treat us as equals. The West treats us as former subjects. Which is a reality. I prefer the attitude of the Chinese to that of the West. ”
Ugandan President:
“The Western ruling groups are conceited, full of themselves, ignorant of our conditions, and they make other people’s business their business. Whereas the Chinese just deal with you, you represent your country, they represent their own interests, and you do business.”
Enuff said!!
September 28th, 2010 at 5:41 pm
“Yu Jie would understand.”
Come on Stuart – you don’t give a rat’s fart for Yu Jie.
You just want to use this case as a reason to beat China over the head with.
To deny this would be completely disingenuous on your part.
September 28th, 2010 at 5:49 pm
@ MW
On issues like freedom of expression China’s leaders need beating about the head. It lacks any semblance of societal progress or constitutional legality to lock up guys like Yu Jie, Hu Jia, or Liu Xiaobo.
September 28th, 2010 at 10:29 pm
Tell me Stuart, how many so called political prisoners are there in China today? The actual amount is a tiny tiny tiny tiny proportion of the population as a whole.
On a another note, one has far more chance of being locked up in the USA for a misdemenour than China -the US incarceration rate is about 6 times that of China’s!
Back to the first point. Did you know there are academics in Europe now -locked up in prison for several years, just because they question the veracity of just a little part of the official Holocaust account?
To outsiders that know nothing of European history that would be considered completely outrageous (perhaps many Europeans also consider it outrageous – but nevertheless they have those laws and most Europeans care little about it). But if one understood the historical context and the current circumstances of those laws, then there is justification for them (these are offense caused to the survivors, and the use of revisionist beliefs to promote fascism and neo-naziism).
In Germany one is not even allowed the raised arm salute without risking imprisonment.
In Thailand you insult the king, you go to jail (that is after you have already had the shit beaten out of you).
In the UK, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand one can risk imprisonment for defacing the image of the Queen on a banknote (although never enforced).
Liu Xiaobo, for one suggests that China should roll over and accept imperialist rule.
Given China’s suffering under Western and Japanese imperialists for up to a century, the Chinese are completely within their rights to regard this as completely offensive to national dignity and an insult to the nation. Liu Xiaobo deserves his sentence, in the same way that Holocaust deniers in Europe deserve theirs.
September 29th, 2010 at 3:21 pm
I think you are lacking clarity of thought, “Mongol Warrior”. First of all, you are equating legislation against holocaust denial with “legal” procedure that are in themselves lacking rightful procedures, as Wen Jiabao recently put it in New York. When Liu Xiaobo was sentenced to eleven years in prison in December, the accusations you make against him were not the issue stated by the prosecutors. The vague, one-size-fits-all accusation of “inciting subversion of state power” (sh?ndòng di?nfù guóji? zhèngquán) was. If Liu deserves to be jailed for the reasons you suggest, you yourself deserve to be jailed, too, because it takes no binding procedures to get you jailed.
Secondly, I’m sure you would, in a discussion with a Japanese nationalist, cite the German ban on the Hitler salute as an example as to how Japan, too, should deal with its past. You can have it both ways, of course, but then you can’t expect to be seen as a credible critic of either Germany, Japan, or any other country.
Thirdly, I don’t think that Liu Xiaobo really wants imperialist rule over China. He may have said something he shouldn’t have said, but you are the last person who has a right to criticize him for that. After all, you use improper arguments to justify a dictatorship, rather than to advocate justice. I hope that some day, you will have an opportunity to speak your offenses right into the faces of Mr Liu, Mr Hu, and other people as they are walking the streets as free citizens of a free country.
And as in every free country with a mentally stable public, they’ll then probably just shake their heads and tell their people at home that they’ve just met a very angry weirdo.
Have a nice day.
September 29th, 2010 at 7:56 pm
Thanks for that dose of common sense, justrecently.
If I can allow MW to express his dissenting voice here, why can’t Zhongnanhai develop the testicular fortitude to let Liu Xiaobo & co speak?
Those clowns in the politburo could learn so much if they’d just get round to unblocking my site.
September 29th, 2010 at 10:35 pm
“When Liu Xiaobo was sentenced to eleven years in prison in December, the accusations you make against him were not the issue stated by the prosecutors. The vague, one-size-fits-all accusation of “inciting subversion of state power” (sh?ndòng di?nfù guóji? zhèngquán) was.”
While the scope of ‘inciting subversion of state power’ is broad, and perhaps vague, it is a useful measure for capturing those who are obvious enemies of China, and who would otherwise get away with their troublemaking on a mere legal technicality, should the crime be more specifically defined. Liu Xiaobo is a troublemaker and one who would overthrow the current socialist system in China.
While the niceties of procedure may be well affordable and non-destabilising in developed countries like the US, the UK, and Canada, China at its current stage of development simply must put poverty reduction and national unity as its main goals. All other matters are simply subordinate to these two, at least for now.
Poverty reduction and national unity are also the priority of the vast vast majority of the Chinese people. Simply by reducing poverty, vast gains in human rights are achieved for vast numbers of people. And without national unity, China would descend to the type of chaos we see in Somalia today, and indeed was the case for almost a century up until 1949. Perhaps Westerners like Stuart and yourself would prefer to see China go the way of the former Yugoslavia with the accompanying appalling suffering, only played out on a far greater canvas.
Furthermore it is only with poverty reduction and the establishment of a numerically strong, well-educated middle class, imbued with good civic virtues, that there will ever be any hope of running a well functioning ‘democracy’ in the sense you currently have in Western Europe and the US (if indeed this is a desirable goal).
Without this we get the basketcases of India (simply the fact that almost half of its population goes hungry every day is a crime against humanity), the Philipines, and South Africa (where life expectancy of the black population has actually dropped by 10 years since 1994), and perhaps even Russia during the Yeltsin years, when there was similarly a huge drop in living standards, and life expectancy (things have improved now for them under Putin).
So for the moment, yes, there may be the occassional dissident locked up, which may in future years be judged as unjust. China simply cannot worry about that now. The exigencies of this very moment simply have to take precedient over the wishes and privileges of a vanishingly numerically small number of so called intelligentsia.
Polls have confirmed that the overwhelming majority of Chinese people support the government, and are optimistic for the future (the most optimistic in the world) apparently.
Of course there is some collateral damage to China’s rise. But dissidents are not killed anymore and if in the future a rich, socialist China is achieved in which everyone is looked after, I would gladly incur the contempt of a rehabilitated Mr Liu Xiaobo as an exceedingly small price to pay for this.
September 29th, 2010 at 10:40 pm
The last two paragraphs of the previous post were part of a draft I inadvertanty left in the final post. Appreciated if you would delete, as I did not intend for them to appear. Many thanks. Mongol Warrior.
Done! Stuart.
September 29th, 2010 at 11:01 pm
If I can allow MW to express his dissenting voice here, why can’t Zhongnanhai develop the testicular fortitude to let Liu Xiaobo & co speak?
Simply because you are happy to allow me to post here (you set up a blog site – obviously you want bloggers), while those in Zhongnanhai are happy to chuck Liu Xiaobo in the clink (hope he gets his faggot ass reamed in there).
Just because the Dutch will let you smoke cannabis in their country, does that mean you can demand the same in Singapore?
Or because I can smoke in your house, I have to let you smoke in mine?
Of course not.
Those clowns in the politburo could learn so much if they’d just get round to unblocking my site.
Clowns? The current Chinese politburo is perhaps the smartest, most competent, most effective bunch of politicians on the face of the earth – all trained professional engineers to a man. They have steered China through the financial crisis with
If they really were clowns, most Westerners would not be nearly so worked up about China as they currently are.
Compare say Hu Jintao to that windbag Obama. I know who I would rather entrust to run a country.
Really, Stuart, I don’t think you have much to teach Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao on how to run a country – especially a developing country of 1.3 billion.
September 29th, 2010 at 11:42 pm
And as in every free country with a mentally stable public,
So what countries have a ‘mentally stable’ public?
You mean whitey countries only?
What about non-white countries like China, or most of the Middle East, Africa – are Asians and Africans and Arabs what you had in mind when you said ‘mentally stable?’
Please clarify by providing some examples of countries with a ‘mentally stable’ population and those countries without the same.
October 1st, 2010 at 1:48 am
Perhaps Westerners like Stuart and yourself would prefer to see China go the way of the former Yugoslavia with the accompanying appalling suffering, only played out on a far greater canvas.
This is what I mean when referring to a country with a mentally stable public. Your assumptions are highly unstable. Accusations, especially against perceived merciless enemies, would only make sense when you can actually back such accusations up. Given that you have regular access to the internet, I suppose that you belong to China’s middle class, or are closer to belonging to it, than many other Chinese people, especially the rural population.
The latter in particular are probably a too practical kind of people to blow their heads every time they read stuff about how foreigners “offended” their country. Rather than becoming more relaxed with success, you seem to become angrier, and more paranoid than – according to your own assertion – most of your compatriots. Everytime there is a howling mob, it seems that it consists of exactly the people who are expected to be your country’s “future”.
This matters in another context you mention, too. You pointed out that in India, people on average die younger than in China. Rajiv Gandhi was the first prime minister in India who tried to modernize India by opening it to world trade, rather than by seeking self-sufficiency. That was some eight years after China made its own first steps into that direction. Contrary to China, India is a country without much birth control, and its economy therefore needs to support more lives. And the country depending more on agriculture, software, and services surely creates fewer jobs than China’s broad manufacturing base does, but may be attributed to culturally conditioned skills in India, rather than to the fact that the country’s officials are elected, or appointed by elected parliaments. When you criticize people next time for praising democracy for a country’s economic and social successes, and answer to it with praise for a dictatorship with economic and social successes of its own, maybe you should get aware of how similar and simplistic both these connections actually are. Your idea that the politbureau is bright and therefore needs to have the last say, instead of the Chinese people, is a more carefully chosen insult than I could throw at your country, if I was the enemy you suggest I am.
Yes, as far as polls in China can be believed, people there are highly optimistic – because not every individual gets into conflict with officials or other powers that be. However, once that happens, people are anything but happy. You only realize chains once you move into a direction considered undesirable by those in power, and a peasant may have very little reason and scope to move into such directions. But that still doesn’t mean that his focus on his own work will keep him happy – many of the conflicts, when they occur, stem from local officials’ behavior, rather than from farmers wanting new liberties. Only once there is a conflict, people with any kind of background get aware of the human rights violations you are trying to justify. (If you would still continue then to shrug them off as “collateral damage” if they hit you is something I’m not trying to speculate about.)
However, the meaning of human rights is that in case of conflict, too, a person with any kind of background can depend on a set of rights which nobody can take from him.
You can continue to offend people who have their rights taken away from them – if I were Liu Xiaobo, I guess your lack of character would be the last worry on my mind. But if I – a foreigner – wanted to heap insult on your country, I’d just copy and paste from your comments on this site to that end.
What about non-white countries like China, or most of the Middle East, Africa – are Asians and Africans and Arabs what you had in mind when you said ‘mentally stable?’
The country I had on my mind right then were places like India and Russia, and the country China could be, if people there could depend on their rights. To give you an example concerning mental stability, your country’s official media can accuse my country of “shadows of nazism” anytime it suits them, and it won’t hurt me, because they still can’t take anything away from me. On the other hand, when you come across someones personal blog (nothing exactly official) and find it offensive, you go on and on to vent your steam there. And if you don’t appear under many different aliases on different blogs, and write comments ten hours a day, I suppose you are not the only one. You think that looks mentally stable?
October 2nd, 2010 at 3:10 pm
You pointed out that in India, people on average die younger than in China……that was some eight years after China made its own first steps into that direction.
Yes, and eight years ago China’s life expectancy, literacy, infant death rate, malnutrition etc were still better than what India’s is today. In fact under Mao, way way way before the economic reforms, China had attained a life expectancy greater than what India’s today, and higher literacy rates.
India is a country without much birth control, and its economy therefore needs to support more lives.
What the fuck?
Your idea that the politbureau is bright and therefore needs to have the last say, instead of the Chinese people, is a more carefully chosen insult than I could throw at your country, if I was the enemy you suggest I am.
China’s system is basically meritocratic. The fact we do not directly elect the politburo does not mean that the system is unfair or that those in power do not deserve their current positions. Elections are just one particular way of reflecting popular will, not necessarily the best way. China’s government is broadly supported by the people, almost 90% are happy with the direction the country is taking and with the government. Far more than the case of most Western governments.
Furthermore there are many situations inwhich people do not vote for their leaders, but accept the situation – soldiers do not vote for their generals, or are polled on what tactics to execute, workers do not vote for their bosses, and patients do not vote for who will be in charge of the local hospital. But this does not imply fairness – as long as the system is meritocratic, and anyone with the ability, drive, and desire to serve, and luck of course, can rise to the top.
In the US of course the system is stacked against the ordinary man running for president. He needs massive financial support and political donations to run – and these are provided by groups like Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and other big corporations. You don’t suck up to these big mfs and you don’t get to be president.
In fact China’s government, is more populist, in a way, than any government in the West. It deals with crime in a way demanded by the masses, it handled the recent imbroglio with Japan in a way that reflected popular public opinion, and it hoisting more people out of poverty at a rate with absolutely no historical precendent.
Just because the US way of governing for the people involves elections, that does not mean it has to be China’s way. China does not demand that the US do things China’s way. So Americans should, reciprocate this respect and butt out of China’s internal affairs.
Now even if you , in principle, will always oppose the political system in China, you can not avoid the fact that it is doing a great job in improving the lives of hundreds of millions of people. And it is expected to continue to do so. So from a very practical perspective, why bother to try and fix something that is currently working? Is it worth it at this stage to suddenly change the political system which is daily improving the lives of so many people? Or is it better to let them get on with their job, and perhaps in two or three decades, when the people all have full bellies, education, medical care (the government is introducing a nationwide health insurance scheme on a step by step basis over the next several years), when there is less risk of political instability before tinkering with the political system?
October 2nd, 2010 at 3:30 pm
However, the meaning of human rights is that in case of conflict, too, a person with any kind of background can depend on a set of rights which nobody can take from him.
Yes, so tell that to the inmates of Guantanamo held incommunicado in appalling conditions for almost a decade now, many just picked up for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Tell that to the 500,000 Iraqi children murdered by US sanctions up to 2003- apparently in the cause of US foreign policy objectives it was ‘worth it’ according to that ugly old ho Albright.
And in a broader sense, China does not need to take lessons on human rights from a country with about six to seven times the incarceration rate of its China’s, where there are more African-American men are in jail than in college (the imprisonment rate of minorities in the US far far outstrips the same for Tibetans or Uighurs in China – in fact Tibetans have a significantly lower imprisonment rate than ethnic Hans, whereas blacks are 8 times more likely to be imprisoned than whites and 1 in 3 blacks men will be in jail at some time in their lives).
Most of all China does not need to accept lectures on human rights from those same countries which invaded and plundered her, and narcotized her people, for almost a century, and to this day have still not issued any formal apology let alone paid compensation to her.
You might as well get Israelis to be stridently lectured on their human rights problems by Germans, although in this case perhaps it would be more reasonable given the Germans have completely rejected their Nazi past and made amends for it, and paid compensation to many of those groups victimised.
October 2nd, 2010 at 3:35 pm
On the other hand, when you come across someones personal blog (nothing exactly official) and find it offensive, you go on and on to vent your steam there.
If I, as a Chinese, am ‘mentally unstable’ for contributing to a blog on China, what the fuck is a white man who sets up a whole website to insult a country which has never harmed him in any way whatsoever. http://justrecently.wordpress.com/
Your opinions on China are of no consequence. Just as most Americans, including yourself, would give little weight to the opinion of an Inner Mongolian goat herder on gun control in the US, the opinions of ignorant white people on China invite similar contempt.
In two words. Fuck off.
October 2nd, 2010 at 6:47 pm
MW – some of your arguments have merit, but all this is lost when you begin with the insults.
As for setting up “a whole website to insult a country which has never harmed him in any way whatsoever” (which I’m sure you’d mistakenly apply to this site as well as justrecently’s), here’s the thing:
A globally influential and powerful China (which it already is) that suppresses freedom of speech (which it blatantly continues to do) is ultimately bad for everyone on the planet. As such, sino-related issues are the business of us all, becase the planet doesn’t need an unaccountable, nationalistic, wanabe hegemon with a sense of entitlement.
Let me know when the politburo grow up enough to unblock this site in China.
October 2nd, 2010 at 8:11 pm
1)
“Mongol Warrior”: You reply to my point about India that China had been better off even under Mao in terms of life expectancy. That may be so – however, it seems to me that you start nitpicking now. While people in India starved because of official neglicence, people in China were killed by official infighting and overpoliticization. Besides, you only address my reference to India’s main industries, and the size and growth of its population with “What the fuck”? In short, there is still no answer if your form of government would lead to faster – material – progress in India, or if it wouldn’t, and still no answer to the question if dictatorship serves China better than democracy in economic terms. You can’t offend me – but even merely technically, “wtf” leads nowhere in a discussion.
(On a different note: Stuart, I appreciate your moderation – that’s what I see as something I need to do myself, too, once people freak out in my commenter threads, or show a lack of civility there. But don’t be worried that I could take offense in this thread. I wouldn’t continue a discussion with MW if I felt hurt by his lack of self-control.)
2)
In another comment, referring to my blog, you tell me to “fuck off”, “Mongol Warrior”. Methinks you have made it sufficiently clear that this is what you want me and others to do. To harmonize myself, by absence if need be. Just to accommodate your inability to handle my views. But why should I fuck off? Only because you want me to? Why should that be my problem?
As for my own blog, I’ll leave any verdicts to its readers. Some are more, some less predictible. As for Stuart’s blog, I believe that – some disagreements between him and me notwithstanding, it has its merits, for example in that it sometimes brings out the worst in people like you. Mind you, “Found in China” doesn’t cause the worst in you, it only makes you show it off. I think that’s a good thing, and people outside China, especially (but not only) Westerners, should know the resentment that exists within China against them – especially, interestingly, among those who benefitted from the politbureau’s wise policies first.
Maybe opinions like Stuarts or mine are “of no consequence”. But attitudes like yours toward me, my people, and people of similar backgrounds or ideas as mine are definitely of some consequence. Fucking off is no option for me.
3)
China’s system is basically meritocratic. The fact we do not directly elect the politburo does not mean that the system is unfair or that those in power do not deserve their current positions.
Who assesses the merits of those in power? Who decides who is going to succeed whom? Who do those in power account to? The strange thing is that during the Mao era, many Western intellectuals were told by the Chinese common people that they were happy and optimistic about the ways their country had taken. Today, not even China Daily would try to make anyone believe that people were happy then. Maybe they actually were perfectly happy – who knows? However, Chinese medias´ articles are now telling a different story about the 1950s and 1960s.
Then the skeletons in other peoples’ cupboards (Guantanamo, Iraq, Afghanistan). Sure – if the international legal system was equal, not only Karadzic, but Bush and Rumsfeld, too, would live in a prison cell in The Hague now. However, Bush’s and Rumsfeld’s crimes are being pointed out, the ongoing responsibilities of their successors are being pointed out, and every citizen has an opportunity to take note of them – even Chinese citizens. Maybe that’s another reason why fewer people outside China are happy with the ways their countries are taking, than Chinese people are with theirs, according to polls. If CCTV, CNR, and a censored newspaper are your only source of information, chances are that there will be a lot of things you will never get to know. 90 per cent happiness is no great premise for achieving improvement and progress.
I’m ready to continue this discussion, but I’ll only pick up one or another of its aspects, and will only react to them one by one once you start reading more closely what other people – like me – write. Reading only superficially what others write leads to very long paragraphs, and a discussion with more distractions than with substance. For example, you don’t even take note of my nationality (when a country is criticized for “shadows of nazism”, that would be Germany, not America – my comment #13).
If you are unable to do read my comments more carefully, but still feel that there are arguments of yours you’d want me to react to first and foremost, just let me know the Top-3 of them.
October 2nd, 2010 at 10:48 pm
Besides, you only address my reference to India’s main industries, and the size and growth of its population with “What the fuck”?
Size and growth of its population is something they cannot control because they do not have the political will to do so. China does. This goes right to the heart of differences in these two countries respective political systems. Furthermore India is held back by its primitive religions and feudal superstitions. Hence the survival of its horrific caste system. China has done a good job in eliminating a lot of her religious baggage. China also put into place land reform 60 years ago, putting all land in public ownership. Landlords were done away with as a class. There is an important link between land reform and industrialisation in that agricultural surplus can instead of being used to benefit a numerically small layer of parasites, is funnelled instead to state coffers to finance industrialisation.
In short, there is still no answer if your form of government would lead to faster – material – progress in India, or if it wouldn’t, and still no answer to the question if dictatorship serves China better than democracy in economic terms.
Yes, the fact that China has prospered under a socialist system, rather than a bourgeois ‘democracy’ is not proof in itself that she would have not have done better under a bourgeois democracy as India has. But in the social sciences one does not have the benefit of controlled experiments where we can wind the clock back to a certain point in history , try out an alternative political system and gather the data and compare.
However what we can do of course is simply appraise the performance of a system after its implementation over a considerable period of time. China has had the socialist system for 60 years, and by any measure the benefits it has brought to the Chinese people are simply huge. Even in the Mao era, despite the attacks on it not only be Westerners but by the post-Mao leaders, massive gains were made in life expectancy, in eliminating social vices such as drug addiction and prostitution, the elimination of child labour, the elimination of the parasitical landlord class (as a class only it must be emphasized), the incredible uplifting of the status of women (one of the first laws, I think the first law passed was the Marriage law which explicitly prohibited arranged marriages – honour killings etc which still abound in India have been largely eliminated in China), and of course perhaps most importantly the driving out of imperialist exploiters.
So the communist party, to my mind gets an A (top possible mark A+), while bourgeois ‘democracy’ in India gets a D, when it comes to appraising their 60 year report cards. That’s the best we can do. Of course China may have done better under the Indian system, but we will never know for sure, but the evidence would point to this as being rather unlikely. But what one can say is this. If I was the leader of a developing country today, and based on the evidence before me, and I had only the choice of two systems , and my aim was to reduce human suffering in poverty in the shortest possible time, I would go with the China model much sooner than the Indian model.
What about you justrecently. What system would you place your bets on? Please don’t evade the question. The Chinese socialist system of the Indian bourgeois capitalist system?
While people in India starved because of official neglicence, people in China were killed by official infighting and overpoliticization
I can assure you that the number of people killed by infighting and ‘ overpoliticization’ comes nowhere close to excess deaths in India from not adopting a socialist system.
The eminent Indian economist Amartya Sen, has estimated that “compared with China’s rapid increase in life expectancy in the Mao era, the capitalist experiment in India could be said to have caused an extra 4 million deaths a year since India’s independence…India seems to manage to fill its cupboard with more skeletons every eight years than China put there in its years of shame, 1958-61’”
That’s about 240 million excess deaths caused by Indian ‘democracy.’
October 2nd, 2010 at 11:01 pm
The strange thing is that during the Mao era, many Western intellectuals were told by the Chinese common people that they were happy and optimistic about the ways their country had taken. Today, not even China Daily would try to make anyone believe that people were happy then.
Having had many family members who lived in the Mao era, including my wife, the era was nothing as terrible as made out. Of course people are materially better off now, but then in the Mao era peoples lives were improving as well. Most people consider the cultural revolution to be a bit of a crazy period, but you will be surprised about the number of people I have come across nostalgic for that period. During the period between 1960, and 1976 huge progress was made in life expectancy and literacy. Peasants for the first time received an education and were given rudimentary and preventive medical care. In fact during this time China as a poor developing nation with low GDP outstripped almost all other developing nations in improving the well-being of her people. People were materially poor, but they had a basic education, enough to eat and basic healthcare.
In fact in terms of availability of healthcare and education, many researchers have pointed out that many of China’s rural population are actually worse off now than they were under Mao.
However the approval ratings now do reflect public opinion and are entirely believable not only because the population have been scientifically polled (google ‘pew optimism china’). Not what officials have told foreigners.
The Chinese revolution as a whole was one carried out by the Chinese people as a whole, and one still supported by most Chinese people. And the Chinese people still revere Mao as the founder of their nation, in spite of his mistakes.
October 2nd, 2010 at 11:18 pm
However, Bush’s and Rumsfeld’s crimes are being pointed out, the ongoing responsibilities of their successors are being pointed out, and every citizen has an opportunity to take note of them
Really this is ridiculous. Please allow me another ‘so fucken what?’
Do you really think the mother of dead Iraqi child murdered by US bombing gives a shit that Americans in their own country are allowed to ‘take note’ of this?
The facts are plain to see. American ‘democracy’ has not been able to stop American imperialism for over a century (nor before that -the extermination of America’s indigenous population). From the genocide of over 1 million Filipinos during the Philippine–American War, the propping up of fascist dictators in Latin America, the aggression against Vietnam which killed millions of Vietnamese civilians, the slaughter of innocent iraqis and Afghans, right now, your American ‘democracy’ (and more generally Western imperialism) has run rivers of blood – far more than anything socialist China can even be accuse of.
The fact that Americans have the freedom to decry this around a cup of coffee or write a letter to the editor about it hardly makes a difference to the third world victims of US imperialism – does it?
If one is persecuted by say a criminal gang, does one say it is OK, because perhaps that particular criminal gang internally asks for a show of hands when deciding who will be the head of the gang? Of course not.
The fact is in terms of restraining imperialistic impulses, Western style ‘democracy’ has been shown to be a complete and abject failure.
October 2nd, 2010 at 11:23 pm
I am interested in what your agenda is for China. So I ask you the following:
What in the way of political reform do you demand of China right now? Do you think we should move immediately to a one man one vote multi-party system as you currently have in the West?
And do you think that it would be worth moving to such a system at this point, with all the uncertainties it entails, and risk the current progress China has undeniably made in terms of poverty reduction?
And would it not be better to wait until China has a numerically strong and educated middle class before implementing such a system? To me it seems that this is the absolute prerequisite for such a system to work well. What do you think?
October 3rd, 2010 at 9:05 pm
I’ll move on to your three questions in a while, “Mongol Warrior”, but first, I’ll pick up some issues you wrote before asking them.
Your comment #19
1.Size and growth of its population is something they cannot control because they do not have the political will to do so. China does. This goes right to the heart of differences in these two countries respective political systems. Furthermore India is held back by its primitive religions and feudal superstitions. Hence the survival of its horrific caste system. China has done a good job in eliminating a lot of her religious baggage. China also put into place land reform 60 years ago, putting all land in public ownership. Landlords were done away with as a class. There is an important link between land reform and industrialisation in that agricultural surplus can instead of being used to benefit a numerically small layer of parasites, is funnelled instead to state coffers to finance industrialisation. [...] What about you justrecently. What system would you place your bets on? Please don’t evade the question. The Chinese socialist system of the Indian bourgeois capitalist system?
No – India doesn’t seem to have the political will to do likewise. It does seem to have the political will to do otherwise. You might as well say that the CCP felt compelled or driven by China’s demographic development to implement birth control, or by fear of becoming dependent on food imports from dangerous foreign countries. More about the advantages – and disadvantages – of either approach in the next paragraph.
2.Even if I saw only the economic side of the issue, I wouldn’t place my bets on China – I’m actually not doing that. What I learned about the language was out of personal interest, rather than for making money of it – although I did and still do earn a small share of my income with the fruits of my Chinese studies. I’d place my bet on India, not because it is “greater” than China in an abstract sense, but for economic reasons – exactly because India left some important given factors untouched. I’m not religious myself, but I understand that those who are will either not allow their state to take it away from them, or they will pay the price that comes with denying oneself ones own properties. The result of your leaders’ “political will” is, to put it into words as nice as possible, an over-engineered society (more about that under “Three Questions” at the end of my comment). One of the results of the strong will you mentioned to control demographics is an ageing society – this will become a big burden just as China should become more developed. India will have a population bulge at the same time. And India, because of, despite being, or regardless of being a country with elected officials, may not be as ill-prepared as you think it is. Economist Huang Yasheng suggested last year that “China is still a low-technology country with little administrative efficiency, and that India’s investment only amounts to 50% of China’s, but that it still creates economic growth that amounts to 80% of China’s economic growth”. You can only rise once you have fallen out of your bed – that’s what applies to China and India alike. However, the explanation that China does / will do better than India in economic terms only holds water so long as you stew in the logical juice your leaders provide you with to justify their own powers.
3.Even in the Mao era, despite the attacks on it not only be Westerners but by the post-Mao leaders,…
Just a note on the “attacks by westerners”: at the times of Mao, you wanted to liberate my people without their consent, too, in cooperation with the Russians (until your leaders found that Russians “don’t understand China” either and sought themselves new useful idiots, this time the class enemy himself) – I’m not making a fuss of that, but you repeat your old stories so frequently that I’d like to give you an opportunity to see that your country isn’t always the innocent victim you like to paint it.
4.Landlords were done away with as a class. There is an important link between land reform and industrialisation in that agricultural surplus can instead of being used to benefit a numerically small layer of parasites, is funnelled instead to state coffers to finance industrialisation.
Yes, which put local cadres into the old landlords’ position instead, selling off farmland without the farmers’ agreement or say in the price negotiations, and, if found appropriate, without even passing the amounts the entrepreneurs were willing to pay on to the farmers . Cool.
5.The eminent Indian economist Amartya Sen, has estimated that “compared with China’s rapid increase in life expectancy in the Mao era, the capitalist experiment in India could be said to have caused an extra 4 million deaths a year since India’s independence… India seems to manage to fill its cupboard with more skeletons every eight years than China put there in its years of shame, 1958-61’”
Just wondering how China’s history would like if it was not written by the same party that is responsible for that history. Amartya Sen is a respectable economist, but that one quote won’t explain a view of the world, or the nature of people. More about that in my replies to your three questions. You will also find another part of my answer under “your comment #19, “2.”. If that’s not clear enough, ask again, and I’ll state my view in a row in my next comment.
Your comment #20
1. Having had many family members who lived in the Mao era, including my wife, the era was nothing as terrible as made out. Of course people are materially better off now, but then in the Mao era peoples lives were improving as well. Most people consider the cultural revolution to be a bit of a crazy period, but you will be surprised about the number of people I have come across nostalgic for that period.
Maybe foreigners are more likely to meet Chinese people who lost limbs in the Cultural Revolution (not to mention other things of value), than are Chinese nationals themselves – or maybe foreigners like me are more likely to be told about the CR than their own compatriots are. Given my own ears plus the official press, I’m more inclined here to believe the official press. As for more equal access to health services, I can understand those who are nostalgic, but then, many people tend to love anything once it is passed and they survived it. The past is usually the golden age, because no past problem equals existing problems.
2. However the approval ratings now do reflect public opinion and are entirely believable not only because the population have been scientifically polled (google ‘pew optimism china’). Not what officials have told foreigners.
In the years some time before and after 1970, those who talked with foreigners were no officials either – they were said to be common people. As I said – I have included the polls you mentioned from the beginning in our discussion as is so far, and based my points on them myself. However, given the extensive way in which they feature here, let me say that even the people I met in China who had – by their own account – merely been on the receiving end of the Cultural Revolution from the beginning to the end were very happy about their present tense when I met them. They were most grateful for no longer being persecuted for their class background. And still, whenever a Chinese person, among friends, took out some of the dirtier laundry of his country in discussions, others told him to shut up (and turned to me to tell me that in that particular field, the person in question was somewhat confused). My assumption is that in China, you won’t necessarily tell a pollster everything you think or feel either. All the same – I’m prepared to use the results for hard facts, as I did before.
Your comment #21
Really this is ridiculous. Please allow me another ‘so fucken what?’
Do you really think the mother of dead Iraqi child murdered by US bombing gives a shit that Americans in their own country are allowed to ‘take note’ of this?
You may find my point “ridiculous”, but strong words aren’t as good as a strong case. Responsibility begins at home – and at least, American officials are accountable at home, even for what they do abroad. The Vietnam war could have lasted much longer without that accountability. I think Stuart’s blog serves a good purpose here. He points out where he thinks China is wrong – abroad, too -, and you can decide for yourself if he has a point or not. No need to become mad at him. As I said before, Stuart and I have our own disagreements, too, but there is no need for us to abandon some principles of civility in talking with each other.
Three Questions
You may find this surprising – your question suggests that, “Mongol Warrior” -, but I have no agenda for your country. Having a patchworked agenda for my own country keeps me busy enough, besides living my own life.
That said, I do think in political terms about my country, and this includes its exchanges with foreign countries. “Patriotic education” or any other factors have led to a situation in your country where cooperation with many Chinese people is quite difficult – everything is weighed and assessed in national terms, and it frequently corrupts professional integrity, especially when justified that you can’t do wrong to “bad people”. The political culture of your country makes it difficult for Chinese nationals to say no to unethical practise, such as spying (I’ll elaborate on request, if needed). I believe it’s important to point out that China is no authoritarian country in the way Argentina or Chile were, but that the Chinese state wants to shape both peoples’ behavior, plus their minds. To believe that 1.something billion peoples’ attitudes and values should – and could – be engineered may be a natural thing to believe for certain engineers – but it is unethical.
You think that’s my problem, not yours? Maybe. But I’m not here because of you in particular, and that’s one reason as to why I’m not fucking off. I’m not only communicating with you by writing this, but with anyone who may care to read it.
I have no demands to China. I’m suggesting that we – Germans and Europeans, and possibly others, too, should deal with China as it is, in a way that doesn’t hurt the interests of people outside China. When I see people imprisoned for unspecified reasons, I don’t think that there is a higher goal behind it, I don’t expect such a system to have friendlier intentions to my country and values, and for that, China is no great business partner in my view. Moral is no theory – it is practical. That’s why a lot of your neighbors show your country a friendly face (and do business with you), but at the same time keep looking over their shoulders if the good old American hegemon isn’t too far away from the places, either. Your leadership may convince you (after all, they have shown you what they can do if you show signs of not being convinced before), but that doesn’t convince people elsewhere, no matter if they are whiteys (as you like to say), or people of other colors. I’m not believing that democracy is necessarily the only way to make a country trustworthier – if that was the case, Sri Lanka’s government would look trustworthy to people at home and abroad. I do believe that democracy is the best way to hold governments accountable and in line with peoples’ wishes, but I’m no doctor who is prescribing this medicine for others.
As for the building of a strong-enough middle class, I don’t think the CCP is going to give up its monopolies once there is a stronger middle class. It has a strong will (as you said yourself), and at the start of that is a strong will to power. It will always be able to keep people like you (not to mention people with fewer sources of information) scared enough of certain parts of the world outside to stay in power. You think they started the reforms to prepare their own abdication? Strange idea.
If you feel that I missed out on one of your questions so far, feel free to point it out. Depending on how few or many issues I’d like to pick up you are going to put forward, it may take me something between a day or a week to reply.
October 4th, 2010 at 3:46 pm
Sorry for the delay, justrecently – only just checked in. I think I’ve left the version of the comment you wanted.
October 4th, 2010 at 5:01 pm
Responsibility begins at home – and at least, American officials are accountable at home, even for what they do abroad. The Vietnam war could have lasted much longer without that accountability
The Vietnam was not necessarily unpopular just because the American public viewed it as an immoral war – the US military was losing, and Americans did not like to see their sons come home in body bags with no end in sight, and no clear goals. If the US was winning the public attitude would have been far different.
You talk of accountability. Well yes, the American government is accountable to the American people and so the American people will act and vote in their own perceived selfish interests. That is in fact one of the reasons why America is the imperialist monster it is.
Is a mafia family moral and ethical simply because it looks out for its own family members?
Your hypothesis is America will behave more responsibly internationally than China, because America is a ‘democracy’ and China is not.
But it is hypothesis, conjecture only. The hypothesis only translates into a reasonable theory with good predictive value when it is borne out by the facts to date.
So let us consider the facts. How many countries has the US invaded since WWII? How many countries has China invaded? How many immoral and illegal wars is the US involved in right now? How many is China involved in?
How many military bases on foreign soil does the US have? How many does China have?
Just by looking at the disposition of US military force around the world, does the US threaten China, or China the US?
And most importantly, how many innocent civilians in foreign lands have been killed, or become ‘excess’ deaths through the American pursuit of her own foreign policy objectives as opposed to the same for China?
The answer to all of the questions above, I am sure even you will find it impossible to disagree, would place China in the better light.
Again, the rest of the world does not really care about the internal workings of the American political system. It only cares what that entity called the US, does to everyone else. And based on the record to date alone, it can be seen that a so called ‘democratic’ system of government is no restraining hand on imperialism whatsoever and in fact could even encourage it.
Of course I have only discussed the record of the US so far. The record of other Western powers could also be put under similar scrutiny.
So who do you trust more. The man with a criminal record as long as your arm, or the man who has basically lived an unblemished crime free life? And what is more the man with a criminal record still indulges in crime and adopts the posture of a bully.
I say past behaviour (and current behaviour) does have some value in predicting future behaviour.
October 4th, 2010 at 5:29 pm
In the years some time before and after 1970, those who talked with foreigners were no officials either – they were said to be common people.
And what proof have you that the common people of the time, at least those interviewed were unhappy? You just assume it to be the case.
The fact is many intellectual and communist party member suffered during the CR. There were excesses. But many of the peasantry and ordinary workers benefitted – especially from improved medical care and free education. The CR was a revolution within a revolution in which elite party bureacrats were overthrown by ordinary people and replaced with revolutionary committees.
But of course all the memoirs are written by those classes which suffered the most (and of course the people you talk to) – and these give the wrong impression of the movement as a whole.
My wife was born in 1966 in a poor village in Guangdong province. She still has her vaccination certificates from that time, and was raised healthy and was educated to the level to which although leaving school at a young age is completely literate and numerate. Her mother reveres Mao, as do many many other Chinese I know. The increase in life expectancy and literacy of the Chinese people under Mao, especially through the mid 60s to his death in 76 is undeniable and accepted by all serious China scholars. Workers gained rights never seen before in Chinese history, and indeed in most other countries of the world, until dismantled by Deng Xiaoping in the 1980s.
During this time, socialist China outperformed capitalist India by a country mile, saving tens of millions of lives.
To judge the cultural revolution simply on the experiences of some of the so called intelligentsia and party elites (who is all we hear from regarding this period), is no less absurd than judging the moral worth of the American Civil War from reading ‘gone with the wind’ or concentrating on the innocent men women and children who suffered during Sherman’s March to the Sea.
Or closer to your home, simply forming an opinion of WWII from reading stories of German civilian suffering under allied bombing, the ethnic cleansing of Germans from other states immediately after the war etc.
A more balanced appraisal on the GPCR is now coming out – I suggest Li Minqi, Mobo Gao, and other writings of the Chinese new left for a start (new left dissidents strangely enough get little attention from the Western media).
October 4th, 2010 at 5:39 pm
We of course could prognosticate endlessly on India or China – which would be rather pointless – especially because you simply accuse me of being brainwashed when you start to lose the argument.
So instead I will ask you this:
If indeed it could be proven that there was a direct causal link between poverty reducation, and rising living standards, and authoritarianism (you call it totalitarianism), and that this saved millions of lives, would you then accept that the kinds of limited restrictions on civil liberties China currently does have is a small price to pay for this?
In another words is it ever acceptable to run an authoritarian or totalitarian system, if that system can be demonstrated to improve materially the lives of most of the people within the country in which it operates?
Or do you believe that what you call ‘free’ speech is an absolute inviolable right which should override all other considerations?
October 4th, 2010 at 5:47 pm
In a similar vein to the question above:
I listened to a speech by Lord Nicholas Stern recently on climate change. In it he praised China highly for doing its part and also for its considerable investment in green technology.
Western countries are mostly behind the eight ball on this, especially the US – because of a lack of political will.
This political will of course derives from what is or what is not politically expedient. In the West, manipulation of public opinion by a mischievous few could well be decisive in preventing Western nations from taking necessary action.
Now if China was a ‘democracy’ in the Western sense, probably no action would be taken at all with people selfishly voting for their immediate and perceived economic interests, and with the limited time available, China’s emissions along with those of the West would greatly endanger the planet.
So should ‘democracy’ really be put on a pedestal above all other concerns – even when it comes to the very survival perhaps of humanity itself?
October 4th, 2010 at 6:40 pm
To believe that 1.something billion peoples’ attitudes and values should – and could – be engineered may be a natural thing to believe for certain engineers – but it is unethical.
Firstly I don’t believe that the Chinese people are being brainwashed by the government any more than the people of Western countries.
But even if there was some ideological engineering going on, so what? What is it your business?
All people are creatures of their environment. In the West children are raised not only with political propaganda (through the controlled news media in the West), but with non-stop commercial and consumerist propaganda. Insidious and pernicious methods are used to induce fear of status loss in young children and teenagers – to get them to drink, do drugs, and listen to music with disgusting lyrics. Is this not brainwashing? (unfortunately a lot of this is in China now as well).
If China raises patriotic citizens that is fine with me. And at least I have never heard a Chinese say they should invade other countries. Chinese patriotism is focused solely on defending the motherland. Every single inch of territory China currently claims or holds is recognised by the whole international community as part of China.
So what danger is Chinese patriotism to the rest of the world, anymore than say British, French, or German patriotism?
October 5th, 2010 at 3:50 am
Yes, that was the double-posted comment, Stuart. Thanks for removing it.
Now, your comments one by one, “Mongol Warrior”, as usual.
Your comment #25
1. the US military was losing, and Americans did not like to see their sons come home in body bags with no end in sight, and no clear goals
Exactly my point. It’s you who implies that I see only human decency at work at the opposition then against the Vietnam war, or when people stand up for their rights. But to be fair, I should also acknowledge that a lot of Americans did oppose the Vietnam war for moral reasons, rather than for “selfish” ones. And yes – if the U.S. had been winning, the attitude would have been different among the share of the American public who only counted the dead of their own country. But then, if the U.S. had won the war, it would have meant either less or no popular resistence against their support for Saigon. That would have made the war much more justifable.
2. Your hypothesis is America will behave more responsibly internationally than China, because America is a ‘democracy’ and China is not.
I’ll repeat myself under “Your comment #29, item 1.”. There – and earlier in this thread (my comment #23, Three Questions, paragraph 2) -, I have written what should help to answer your assumptions about what could be my hypothesis about America.
But frankly, I can’t see the reason for this assumption of yours anyway. I wrote before that I’m not believing that democracy is necessarily the only way to make a country trustworthier (my comment #23). If you want to have a meaningful discussion, you’ll have to read closely what other people write, “Mongol Warrior”. I find it understandable that sometimes, a position needs more than one explanation before it becomes clear enough for someone else – but many of the things I wrote and that you didn’t take note of are clear-cut, and there can be differences, but there can be no misunderstandings about them.
3. Just by looking at the disposition of US military force around the world, does the US threaten China, or China the US?
I believe you should elaborate here. How is the U.S. threatening China?
4. And most importantly, how many innocent civilians in foreign lands have been killed, or become ‘excess’ deaths through the American pursuit of her own foreign policy objectives as opposed to the same for China?
How much opportunity – you referred to the U.S. military force disposition yourself – did China have to do likewise? Your country’s – not only your government’s – reaction to the Senkaku “incident” and the way you are dealing with your neighbors around the South China Sea shows that you do what you can to bully others – within the scope of options that you have. Besides, not every country is necessarily unhappy about the role America was and is playing. They played a crucial role in defeating Japan in ww2, and another crucial role in making South Korea what it is today. If the CCP had had its way, South Korea would be a different place today.
Your comment #26
And what proof have you that the common people of the time, at least those interviewed were unhappy? You just assume it to be the case.
What you quote here was my reaction to what you told me: that during the later Mao years, officials had told foreigners about the happiness of the common people then, not the common people themselves. I pointed out that then, too, those who talked to foreigners were frequently said to be foreigners. Can you see the point and context now? If not, feel free to ask – but before doing so, read my comment #23, “Your comment #20, item 2.” (that’s where you pasted from).
Your comment #27
1. We of course could prognosticate endlessly on India or China – which would be rather pointless – especially because you simply accuse me of being brainwashed when you start to lose the argument.
I believe it’s pointless to try to be a debator and the referee over a debate at the same time. You can’t make someone “lose” an argument simply by suggesting that he is doing so.
Also, why is it now futile to prognosticate endlessly on India or China, even though you asked me which country I would, in mere economic terms, place my bets on? I answered your question – if you believe it lacks clarity, you can ask me to clarify, or to rephrase my answer. On the other hand, I’m wondering why you expect an answer on any of your questions, if you feel that once “losing an argument”, I’d be able to terminate this discussion at my terms, with just one deadly accusation against you. To keep asking new questions under such circumstances wouldn’t look like logical action. The nice thing about an unblocked internet is exactly that nobody can dictate ones own conditions to someone else in a discussion. But anyway – here we go.
2. If indeed it could be proven that there was a direct causal link between poverty reducation, and rising living standards, and authoritarianism (you call it totalitarianism), and that this saved millions of lives, would you then accept that the kinds of limited restrictions on civil liberties China currently does have is a small price to pay for this?
First, I think it is important to point out that an answer to this latest question of yours may have to be different from my previous one. My previous answer didn’t relate to the hypothesis you suggest here now. I assume that by saving millions of lives, you are referring to the mere physical survival of people, not to the individual properties or characteristics (such as their human rights, including religious beliefs) I mentioned in my comment #23.
If it could be proven that there was a direct causal link between poverty reducation, and rising living standards, and totalitarianism, and that this saved millions of lives, I would still find the price exacted by totalitarianism unjustifiable. I’m not relating to freedom of speech in particular, as this right would require closer definition, just as any applicable law does. As you pointed out yourself, advocating nazi ideology is illegal in several rule-of-law countries, too, because the law needs to protect the rights of everyone, including the rights of those whose right to live nazism puts into question. I’m advocating the rule of law, to procedures that apply to every individual, regardless what the person’s speech or action may lead to, so long as it is legal – even if “only” legal in technical terms.
That much as an answer, and now beyond your question.
3. When a teacher in my country sits down to consider an individual case – teachers do not only train students, but also rate the performance of the students they train or teach, they have to be true to the individual, not to society. A teacher’s decisions don’t affect the life of a student in its entirety, but they can have a lot of influence on a student’s future life. It’s a matter of ethics that the teacher leaves any prognosis as to how this student will develop as a character, if the student is likely to become “mean” or “kind-hearted” in his or her later life, a decent person or a bully in a position of responsibility (where a successful school career might help to lead) out of the account when rating their performance. For later situations in life, just as well as for the role of colleagues in rating the student in other school subjects, the teacher has to trust that other teachers may know a thing or two about the student that he himself doesn’t know, and might act correctly, in accordance with that knowledge. For situations later in the student’s life, the teacher has to trust that the law (including law protecting others from abuse of power) will be applied.
This goes beyond economics. As I said before, moral is practical. When I meet people from one of the world’s poorest countries, it is unlikely that they will accuse me for – rather passively – being part of a global economic order which puts me into the position of a beneficiary, while it put their people into poverty, or starvation. If on the other hand, I actively tried to inflict harm on their people, they would most probably tell me that my behavior is unethical. That’s one reason why the Indian government got away with a frequently negligent policy towards its own poor in the past – even though the responsibilities of people in power – with or without democratic legitimation alike – weighs heavier than the responsibilities of other stakeholders. They are not seen as actively inflicting harm. If I tried to inflict harm on other individuals at my own discretion, be it for satisfying my personal ambitions or anger, be it for whatever kind of “higher goals”, people won’t trust me.
That your government does inflict such damage on people, even though – contrary to what you say – there is more than one option in China’s situation -, doesn’t help the CCP’s image either. You may not like that, but that’s your problem, not mine. After all, it’s you who is defending that practise.
4. Also not as an answer to your latest question, but for clarity: just as your dictators are in a policy-choosing situation with only one choice, India’s leaders aren’t either. Whenever they left or leave people to starvation (that applies to India’s colonial rulers, too, when there was – apparently – much more starvation than after independence), the colonial rulers were responsible.
5. Another note beyond your criticism of India’s political system: in an earlier comment (#19), you quoted Amartya Sen as saying that compared with China’s rapid increase in life expectancy in the Mao era, the capitalist experiment in India could be said to have caused an extra 4 million deaths a year since India’s independence. However, in his book “Development as Freedom”, Mr Sen also says that “quite often, economic insecurity can relate to the lack of democratic rights and liberties”. And while Mr Sen would point out China’s rapid increase in life expectancy in the Mao era, he didn’t point to the famine that followed the “Great Leap Forward” at that moment.
According to an Indian ecological activist was quoted as saying in 2002 that while it is true that famine disappeared in India in 1947, with independence and elections, it is ”making a comeback.” The problem, she added in an interview, ”has not yet reached the scale seen in the Horn of Africa,” but if nothing is done, ”in three or four years India could be in the same straits.”
Could be – but then, the BJP was leading the federal government, and they could indeed be accused of neglicence. Against the above realities as a background, they chose the slogan “India Shining” for their 2004 election campaign, and were ousted. Maybe Indian democracy isn’t really that lousy at fighting against famine and poverty after all? You could think of Mr Sen’s assertion – the one you like so much – as a wake-up call to provoke action – such as the “right to food” movement he is recently pushing.
Sure – it could have gotten him into jail for subverting state power, if he had tried that in China.
Your comment #28
I will be happy to discuss the issue of climate change once we have ended the discussion about the issues already at hand here. Just as is India’s performance in reducing or averting famine and malnutrition, I believe the climate issue, too, is more complex than yu seem to believe. So I’m not going into the merits and failings of either side on that issue now.
Your comment #29
1.
I’ll paste from my previous comment #23 here:
quote -> “Patriotic education” or any other factors have led to a situation in your country where cooperation with many Chinese people is quite difficult – everything is weighed and assessed in national terms, and it frequently corrupts professional integrity, especially when justified that you can’t do wrong to “bad people”. The political culture of your country makes it difficult for Chinese nationals to say no to unethical practise, such as spying (I’ll elaborate on request, if needed). <- unquote
As I said – I'll elaborate (or rephrase, if you think that might help you more to understand my position).
2. And at least I have never heard a Chinese say they should invade other countries
Ahem. You only invade what has been yours for ancient times, right?
October 5th, 2010 at 1:06 pm
Yes, which put local cadres into the old landlords’ position instead, selling off farmland without the farmers’ agreement or say in the price negotiations, and, if found appropriate, without even passing the amounts the entrepreneurs were willing to pay on to the farmers . Cool.
This is the kind of corruption which happens in every single part of the developing world, including ‘democratic’ India. But is an abuse of the system, and even though it is a widespread problem, does not happen as a rule, and of course is downright illegal. Of course it could be argued that stronger action needs to be taken on the part of the central authorities – although neither you nor I know the full story –perhaps they are doing their best. And of course things could be improved still further by making local officials a lot more accountable to the masses – this of course was something that happened during the GPCR.
That of course is the major difference pre 1949 and post 1949. Pre 1949 the system was set up so peasants were basically bonded labour, debt slaves to landlords and this was part of the actual system and defended by government of the time and completely legal.
If you use particular abuses of the system to attack the legitimacy of socialist rule in China, (rather than aspects of its implementation), then you might as well attack the legitimacy of the whole US political system for police abuse of minorities, the disproportionate imprisonment of young black men (one in three young black men have been behind bars —proportionately far far more than Tibetans or Uighurs behind bars) , and Abu Ghraib.
October 5th, 2010 at 1:28 pm
When I see people imprisoned for unspecified reasons, I don’t think that there is a higher goal behind it, I don’t expect such a system to have friendlier intentions to my country and values
So China is a threat to your country simply because it imprisons a few dissidents (several hundred out of a population of 1.3 billion – although of course you will say it is the fact that people are prevented from speaking freely that is the problem – not necessarily just those punished for doing so – but I have a response to that also if you go down that path). Now even if we accept that imprisoning these dissidents is completely wrong (not necessarily my view), this type of thing absolutely pales in comparison to what the US, and Britain are now doing in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And imprisoning a dissident is but a misdemeanor, like dropping a cigarette butt in a public place, compared to the murder of half a million Iraqi children by US imperialism (famously described as ‘worth it’ by Madeleine Albright). Like comparing a speeding driver with a child murderer.
And of course it could well be said that Germany could be considered a threat to China , using your own ridiculous reasoning (I don’t believe it for a moment). After all Germany imprisons people also for speaking their minds (Holocaust revisionist scholars) and persecutes religious minorities (scientologists).
And furthermore, while Germany has repudiated its Nazi past, it has not done so to nearly the same degree in respect of its horrific colonial past. As of now not one word of apology has been given to the Namibians for the first genocide of the twentieth century – that of the Hereros.
No apology to the Chinese for abuses committed by German troops in China – the very word ‘hun’ used to describe the Germans in WWI was adopted from this speech by Kaiser Wilhelm II “When you encounter him, know this: no quarter will be given. Prisoners will not be taken. Exercise your arms such that for a thousand years no Chinese will dare to look cross-eyed at a German.”
This lack of remorse for imperialism of course is not just unique to Germany.
However given this lack of remorse on the part of the West, as well as their current behaviour, any reasonable man would have much more reason to fear the West than fear China. And China of course is a trillion more times justified to fear Western aggression than the West fear Chinese aggression.
That you fail to see this and consider China a threat, a malign power, but not the US, likely speaks more of racial or cultural prejudice no your part (whites can invade people but that’s ok), rather than any real concern over injustices (real or perceived) happening in China today.
October 5th, 2010 at 6:07 pm
I think my comments are ending up in your spam or pending filter, as they are either found too long, or with too many links in them, Stuart. I posted one last night, and still can’t see it appear. I’ll split my comments into several from now, and re-post last night’s comment tonight.
October 5th, 2010 at 6:13 pm
It’s in now, Stuart (#31). However, before, it didn’t come through either on this computer (at work), nor at home. Did you clear it from the filter a moment ago?
October 5th, 2010 at 6:22 pm
“This lack of remorse for imperialism of course is not just unique to Germany.”
State-sponsored nurturing of historical grievances against the nations of the world whose present citizens owe nobody an apology for anything is uniquely Chinese, I would say.
Britain has been invaded, pillaged, bombed, ravaged, or occupied more times than your average Chinese man clears his throat in a lifetime. And yet I have no beef with any peoples of the countries responsible for those episodes in history. None whatsoever.
These events are objectively and openly recorded, discussed, and studied as a matter of historical record; but never as an excuse to inflame feelings of resentment and retribution.
The chip-on-shoulder that the Chinese government actively cultivates is a serious impediment to the so-called ‘peaceful rise’. It serves serves not only to breed arrogance and aggressive nationalism, but also gives the lie to any pretensions of a civilised, tolerant society that can play a positive role as a global stakeholder.
October 5th, 2010 at 6:29 pm
“It’s in now, Stuart (#31). However, before, it didn’t come through either on this computer (at work), nor at home. Did you clear it from the filter a moment ago?”
That’s a bit odd, I dealt with that one last night. Not sure what’s going on there.
Yeah, anything with links seems to end up in the ‘pending’ folder even for approved posters. I don’t know if there’s some sort of ‘approve all’ tweak I can apply.
October 5th, 2010 at 6:35 pm
State-sponsored nurturing of historical grievances against the nations of the world whose present citizens owe nobody an apology for anything is uniquely Chinese, I would say.
Hang on there. The world system today, the economic injustices of the world today were set up during the age of imperialism. China has had 60 years of development – which only began when the imperialists were kicked out.
Now nurturing a victim mentality is not healthy of course. But when you go on about China being a threat and all this other yellow peril nonsense, looking at the very recent historical record is instructive – and completely reasonable. And Chinese will only bring these past invasions up when their own country is attacked. We do not go looking for trouble.
Now it is true that Germans, in Europe at least are not so resented anymore – but only because they have thoroughly de-Nazified and completely repudiated their Nazi past, and have paid compensation to their past victims. If this had not been the case, there would be massive resentment.
And that goes to the core of why not only Chinese, but also South Koreans, and other Asian countries still have this resentment towards Japan. Simply because Japan has not thoroughly repudiated its WWII atrocities in the way Germany has.
And similarly the resentment towards the West in general. Not only has the West never apologised for imperialism, and repudiated it, but continues this practise to this very day.
Chinese are not nearly so worked up about the Russians. Why? Because the former Soviet Union repudiated imperialism and gave up a host of Tsarist privileges in China in 1920. So the Chinese, in spite of vast swathes of former Chinese territory now part of Russia, have by and large, when it comes to the Russians let bygones be bygones.
October 5th, 2010 at 6:40 pm
whose present citizens owe nobody an apology
Not as individuals, but as nations they do. And if you identify with a nation, its glories anyway, as most people do, for consistency one should feel shamed by its disgraces – even if one was not personally responsible.
October 5th, 2010 at 6:44 pm
Stuart: A post I put in earlier about world hunger has also not appeared (it also had a few links). However don’t worry about it – just delete it. I will soak up a few more punches from JustRecently (his are rather girly punches) – before unreleashing a massive overhand right to his head (metaphorically speaking of course) hahahahahahahaha MW.
October 5th, 2010 at 8:26 pm
And while Mr Sen would point out China’s rapid increase in life expectancy in the Mao era, he didn’t point to the famine that followed the “Great Leap Forward” at that moment.
Excuse me but that is exactly what he mentioned and said whereas China’s fuck up happened over a short period of time, India’s is a long extended fuck up with greater cost in human lives.
Read that part of the post 19 again:
“compared with China’s rapid increase in life expectancy in the Mao era, the capitalist experiment in India could be said to have caused an extra 4 million deaths a year since India’s independence…India seems to manage to fill its cupboard with more skeletons every eight years than China put there in its years of shame, 1958-61’”
October 5th, 2010 at 8:33 pm
nd yes – if the U.S. had been winning, the attitude would have been different among the share of the American public who only counted the dead of their own country. But then, if the U.S. had won the war, it would have meant either less or no popular resistence against their support for Saigon. That would have made the war much more justifable.
Again you miss the point entirely. You say the way would have been ‘justifiable’ if the American public had approved? What about the Vietnamese people – who are denied there chance of reunification through national elections as originally promised- by the US – because they could foresee that the result would have been an overwhelming victory for Ho Chih Minh?
Again, the rest of the world does not give a shit about how the US runs its internal affairs. What we give a shit about is that the US does not bash other countries and people up. And the fact that US public opinion does count for something is, from the record, not something that reassures the rest of us at all.
In fact a country which is beholden to the selfish whim of a materialistic and greedy electorate is downright dangerous to world peace.
October 5th, 2010 at 8:56 pm
“Could be – but then, the BJP was leading the federal government, and they could indeed be accused of neglicence. Against the above realities as a background, they chose the slogan “India Shining” for their 2004 election campaign, and were ousted. Maybe Indian democracy isn’t really that lousy at fighting against famine and poverty after all?,”
For heavens sake, you basically agree with me that India is a basketcase, and then perhaps it is not! Why! Because they ousted some governemtn in an election which had presided for some time over the appalling human rights situation in India where almost 500 million people go hungry on a daily basis.
Well have things improved since 2004?
Apparently they have not:
http://tinyurl.com/2vj7vj4
All the world experts on hunger praise China’s efforts and slam India’s:
“China is also praised for cutting the number of hungry by 58 million in 10 years through strong state support for smallholder farmers.
But the report criticises economically liberal India where, it says, 30 million people have been added to the ranks of the hungry since the mid-1990s and 46% of children are underweight.
It says hunger exists in India not because there is insufficient food, but because people cannot access it, and that the exploitation of natural resources has led to ‘horrific displacements’ of people, pushing many into poverty.
When people are already on the brink of starvation this is simply unacceptable”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8309979.stm
Now tell me JustRecently – do you consider hunger a human rights issue or not?
And if you do, should not China, while getting a cross perhaps in the free speech ledger, get many ticks in the hunger reduction column?.
Whereas India, while getting some points in the free speech column (something that benefits a small number of elite ‘intelligentsia), get a whole lot of crosses in the hunger column?
So in the overall analysis, if we consider hunger, and human suffering per se, as a human rights issue, it would then be logical to say that ‘totalitarian’ China is streets ahead of India when it comes to human rights?
Come on JustRecently? If you were to be born someplace and it had to be India or China, where would you try your luck – if you wanted to grow up healthy and educated (China’s literacy rate is well over 90% – India’s barely 50%). Come on now. Be honest and don’t duck and evade the question as you are wont to do in your convulted and discursive style. Just cut to the chase.
October 5th, 2010 at 8:56 pm
“A post I put in earlier about world hunger has also not appeared (it also had a few links). However don’t worry about it – just delete it.”
MW, sorry about that, WP reacts badly to links. I’ve put the post in the comments for now, but I can still delete if you want me to.
October 6th, 2010 at 3:41 am
I’ll continue to post my comments in one piece, Stuart. It’s fine with me if they lag once in a while.
October 6th, 2010 at 3:42 am
Your comment #29
1. Insidious and pernicious methods are used to induce fear of status loss in young children and teenagers [...]
Well then – count yourself lucky that status or status loss play no role in China, “Mongol Warrior”. Besides, how many Western children or teenagers in an intoxicated state have you met in your life?
2. In the West children are raised not only with political propaganda (through the controlled news media in the West)
I think if Chinese media were “controlled” to the degree they are in the West – can you elaborate on the kind of control you mean? -, they would scare your leaders shitless with their open coverage.
Your comment #31
1. This is the kind of corruption which happens in every single part of the developing world, including ‘democratic’ India.
No, this is happens where a mafia which puts its own members first builds a business coalition with industrial entrepreneurs. The matter of life expectancy has its religious aspects, too – many Indians simply tolerated poorer lives than Chinese people would. People who expect no second life will be more anxious about the one they have. I don’t condone of such a state of mind, but I’m not advocating forced re-education either. Rather, the government should take its responsibilities serious nevertheless. If the CCP could get away with still more corruption, they’d just do it – it’s a matter of power. And it’s not an abuse of the system – it’s the system itself, where the ruling party appoints the executive officials on every level, plus the legislators, plus the judges and prosecutors.
2. That of course is the major difference pre 1949 and post 1949. Pre 1949 the system was set up so peasants were basically bonded labour, debt slaves to landlords and this was part of the actual system and defended by government of the time and completely legal.
Chinese Republican history is mainly written by historians under the CCP – it’s a great Chinese tradition that with every change in dynasty, the poet laureats to the court excoriate the previous one.
As for land ownership and tenancy before 1949, I have no recent sources about those times at hand that would necessarily be more reliable than the CCP’s history of Republican China, I’m therefore leaving them out of my points. It could have helped if research of this kind could have been continued in China after 1949.
Unfortunately – and this is something I observed in China myself -, not only Chinese historians, but foreign ones, too, habitually please the Chinese Communist Party, sometimes consciously, and often unconsciously.
Once in a while, though, a historian may break ranks – 45 million people worked, starved, and beaten to death in China from 1958 to 1962 makes me curious about Mr Dikotter’s next findings – provided that he will continue to have access to the archives.
3. the disproportionate imprisonment of young black men (one in three young black men have been behind bars) , and Abu Ghraib
4. An attorney in America can look up a sentence and its explanatory statement, “Mongol Warrior”. And if anything suggests that double standards were applied, for example because of the defendant’s skin color, there will be a revision. Besides public defenders, there are also defenders in “selfish” America who volunteer in such cases. There are Chinese defenders of their kind, too – but they stand great chances to get into trouble themselves, and little chance to attend to a proper trial – let alone a new trial.
As for Abu Ghraib, a short history of the way civil courts and court-martials deal with the cases can be found on Wikipedia – and more under the sources they quote.
Isn’t it good that abuse and torture like this is almost unthinkable in Chinese prisons and detention centers?
Your comment #32
1. From my comment #23, “Three Questions”, para 4 – but combined with para 2, to make the connection clearer:
quote -> [...] I do think in political terms about my country, and this includes its exchanges with foreign countries. “Patriotic education” or any other factors have led to a situation in your country where cooperation with many Chinese people is quite difficult – everything is weighed and assessed in national terms, and it frequently corrupts professional integrity, especially when justified that you can’t do wrong to “bad people”. The political culture of your country makes it difficult for Chinese nationals to say no to unethical practise, such as spying (I’ll elaborate on request, if needed). I believe it’s important to point out that China is no authoritarian country in the way Argentina or Chile were, but that the Chinese state wants to shape both peoples’ behavior, plus their minds. To believe that 1.something billion peoples’ attitudes and values should – and could – be engineered may be a natural thing to believe for certain engineers – but it is unethical.
[...]
I have no demands to China. I’m suggesting that we – Germans and Europeans, and possibly others, too, should deal with China as it is, in a way that doesn’t hurt the interests of people outside China. When I see people imprisoned for unspecified reasons, I don’t think that there is a higher goal behind it, I don’t expect such a system to have friendlier intentions to my country and values, and for that, China is no great business partner in my view. Moral is no theory – it is practical. That’s why a lot of your neighbors show your country a friendly face (and do business with you), but at the same time keep looking over their shoulders if the good old American hegemon isn’t too far away from the places, either. <- unquote
So, I'm not recommending aggression or racism, but more caution in our economic and political connections with China.
Talking about Wilhelm II, there is another quote from him which sounds as if I had heard similar stuff myself, even though it doesn't come from Germany these days:
You English are like mad bulls — you see red everywhere! What on earth has come over you, that you would heap on us such suspicion as is unworthy of a great nation… I regard this missaprehension as a personal insult… You make it uncommonly difficult for a man to remain friendly to England.
Your comment #33
I think I have replied to your paras 1 to 5 there before, in my comment #30 (in reply to your hypothesis), and my comment #23, paras 1 and 2. That starving people leave me unmoved is what you believe, and I’m not trying to change your beliefs. As I said before, a commenter thread is a public forum, and everyone who cares to read will draw his or her own conclusions.
Your comment #38
Chinese are not nearly so worked up about the Russians. Why? Because the former Soviet Union repudiated imperialism and gave up a host of Tsarist privileges in China in 1920. So the Chinese, in spite of vast swathes of former Chinese territory now part of Russia, have by and large, when it comes to the Russians let bygones be bygones.
I think I’ll simply leave it to other readers to judge the value of this comment individually…
Your comments #40 and #44
Your wet dreams aren’t my business.
October 6th, 2010 at 3:43 am
Excuse me but that is exactly what he mentioned and said whereas China’s fuck up happened over a short period of time, India’s is a long extended fuck up with greater cost in human lives.
Indeed.
October 6th, 2010 at 2:44 pm
“45 million people worked, starved, and beaten to death in China from 1958 to 1962 makes me curious about Mr Dikotter’s next findings – provided that he will continue to have access to the archives.”
Mr Dikotter is a joke —-a revisionist historian with a huge chip on his sh0ulder – bankrolled by the Chiang Chingkuo foundation. hahahahhaha
He also thinks the Opium war was a favour done to the Chinese by the British – hey thanks! hahahaha. And pre-revolutionary China was just a paradise with all those whiteys swarming over Shanghai hahahahaha
Also the guy is patently dishonest. That famine picture on the cover of the book is from a 1946 famine…… under the nationalists.
http://www.life.com/image/50863592
hahahahhahahaha
October 6th, 2010 at 3:23 pm
“The matter of life expectancy has its religious aspects, too – many Indians simply tolerated poorer lives than Chinese people would. People who expect no second life will be more anxious about the one they have.”
That comment is the most pathetic drivel I have read on the internet for a while —-it would be absolutely laughable if the topic was not so tragic, and your attitude so patronising.
But it does show you are clutching at straws – if that is the best thing you can come up with.
So it is not about social injustice, economic mismanagement and lack of political will to help the poor – but simply because Indians just don’t care about dying the way the rest of us do!
Well I suppose those millions of malnourished Indian kids are mature enough to understand that going constantly hungry is just a stage to nirvana or whatever?
Actually you are quite wrong JustRecently – the will to live exists in all people of whatever religious persuasion – it is evolutionarily hard wired – and religious people have been shown to fear death and be unaccepting of it as much as atheists.
Anyway I am sick of reading your convulted rationalisations and justifications for racism, imperialism, and non-white poverty.
So my contribution ends here. Thanks again Stuart for the forum.
Have a nice day.
October 6th, 2010 at 7:33 pm
1. But it does show you are clutching at straws – if that is the best thing you can come up with
You can’t leave anything to chances, “Mongol Warrior”, right? Rather than letting other readers of this thread (with or without comments of their own) decide for themselves, you need to put yourself into the position of a referee.
2. Also the guy [Dikotter] is patently dishonest. That famine picture on the cover of the book is from a 1946 famine…… under the nationalists.
I think if the photo on Mr Dikotters book shows a 1946 picture, it would be a mistake, “Mongol Warrior” – unless he / the publishers point out correctly within the book where this photo comes from. Can you tell if they do or not? I doubt that Dikotter would use a photo that became famous with “Life Magazine” and expect to get away with it. And I wouldn’t stop reading a book or an article because a wrong picture on its cover. Historians, as long as they state their sources, aren’t there to be “trusted”; they are there to be read with a critical mind.
I can find a critic‘s line about Dikotters book which says The British and their mercantile allies may actually have done the Chinese a favour, but not the direct quote from Dikotter. Can you?
3. Mr Dikotter is a joke —-a revisionist historian with a huge chip on his sh0ulder – bankrolled by the Chiang Chingkuo foundation
I can understand that you have a problem with Republican Chinese, rather than CCP institutions supporting his research financially – after all, there must be only one source of Chinese history, right?
4. Actually you are quite wrong JustRecently – the will to live exists in all people of whatever religious persuasion – it is evolutionarily hard wired – and religious people have been shown to fear death and be unaccepting of it as much as atheists.
I have seen eight people of differing ages dying (with some time of illness before that) so far, and the ways they confronted death were all different from each other, from very strong resistance to acceptance. Obviously, they all had certain options to fight for some more times or letting go, and they had been used to (and been taught to) making choices during their lives – certainly different from members of lower castes in India. But given your idolization and generalization of a “strong will”, I’m not surprised that you think it’s (supposedly equally) “hard wired” in different people.
For my part, I’m not sick of your comments – after all, I know that people can be morally disoriented, and it doesn’t surprise or sicken me when I see examples in written.
5. So my contribution ends here.
Up to you. Thanks for the discussion, “Mongol Warrior”, and thanks and for hosting it, Stuart.
October 7th, 2010 at 5:30 pm
Well, that’s China’s National Holiday for you – seven straight days with bugger-all to do except hang out online.
Presumably one of those fenqing sites like Anti-CNN has assigned ‘Mongol Warrior’ as your new minder, Stuart. I miss ‘Cuddles’; couldn’t we have him back?
‘Mongol Warrior’ seems an odd choice of monicker. The historical mission of the Mongols has always been to kick China’s arse, after all.
October 8th, 2010 at 11:03 am
Hey, Froog, thanks for stopping by.
How about ending the holiday on a high note with Liu Xiaobo being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize?
October 8th, 2010 at 8:03 pm
The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided to award the Nobel Peace Prize for 2010 to Liu Xiaobo for his long and non-violent struggle for fundamental human rights in China. The Norwegian Nobel Committee has long believed that there is a close connection between human rights and peace. Such rights are a prerequisite for the “fraternity between nations” of which Alfred Nobel wrote in his will.
October 8th, 2010 at 8:22 pm
Amen to that, jusrecently.
Proud of the Nobel Committee for this choice – and all Chinese should be too.
October 9th, 2010 at 12:52 am
I didn’t dare to believe that this was really going to happen. The only thing that made me think it was possible, likely, was the sudden upswell of fenqing agitation against him in the last week or so.
Foreigners in Beijing are mostly quite elated at the news, I think. I gather the mood at the Foreign Correspondents’ Club social tonight was quite ebullient, although I couldn’t make it myself. And a lot of people skipped it, or left early, to go hunting for possible reaction stories.
I hear rumours of a few modest celebrations on campuses, but…. well, it’s the end of the National Holiday, people let off firecrackers. And I suspect that a lot of Chinese youngsters would just be inclined to celebrate the fact that some Chinese dude won something, without having any idea what it was all about.
The authorities have communications locked down pretty tight: foreigners are able to Twitter over VPNs, but any mention of LX by name on SMS is getting blocked, and I’ve had a couple of friends (journalists, admittedly) complain of telephone calls getting cut off. Police are a lot more visible than usual too, though I haven’t seen any of the paramilitaries as yet. Not sure how things are down around the Square. Thinking of going to take a look shortly.
I would love to find a flag-burning or something like that going on, but I fear reaction from the locals is mostly pretty muted. I’m tempted to start texting Chinese friends and colleagues with “Congratulations on China’s Prize win”" and see what kind of reaction I get.
October 9th, 2010 at 1:03 am
Froog, I think the best thing you could send to Chinese friends would be the Chinese character version of Liu’s statement before his incarceration: http://ow.ly/2QEwz
Inspiring stuff (Chinese link is at the top there somewhere).
October 13th, 2010 at 7:32 pm
[...] on the one hand, and then quotes Amartya Sen, an Indian national, with the following words: The eminent Indian economist Amartya Sen, has estimated that “compared with China’s rapid increase in life expectancy in the Mao era, the [...]
October 30th, 2010 at 5:54 am
Boy, Mongol Warrior is one of the most twisted individuals posting anywhere in the Chinese blogosphere. He is essentially defecating on your blog with no redeeming contribution.
Why is he tolerated?
October 31st, 2010 at 8:03 pm
Thanks for stopping by, slim.
“Why is he tolerated?”
These are all good questions. I use him to check the CCP’s temperature – this one seems to have them rattled.
November 1st, 2010 at 10:38 pm
Besides, a man who starts defecating whenever he opens his mouth deserves a bit of compassion – from a safe distance, of course.