94 replies to this topic

[tigger]

I want to say that it's far too early to talk about the impact of those revolutions in the Arab world. It would be years before anyone can understand all of the effects of such a movement, and usually not until the next generation or so to actually sense the results.

Yes. Long term effects is still going to be a long process. But in the short term, the revolution is showing people that are fed up with their governments. The sad part is that the governments of Bahrain and Libya are shooting at unarmed civilians. Power corrupts. Now Morocco is organizing. Simple elections, right to protest, freedom of speech and term limits. Its not that hard to keep a nation from rebelling like all the people of the Middle East. People complain about western governments all the time. But their governments are still in place without the need for bloodshed.

Sorry.. a little off topic. Just tired of seeing these people getting killed for wanting basic rights.

[tigger]

And of course, right when I reply about the Middle East revolution, China is cracking down on China's own Jasmine revolution. I guess there was more relevance than I thought.

[mohistManiac]

As recent discoveries had shown, Ming China could have brought the world navigation map to Europe. In the 15th century, China was not behind in comparison with the world as far as its economy and the navy military power was concerned. The subsequent Manchu dynasty was responsible for China's downfall, and the Manchus were preoccupied with maintaining the alien rule over China and the Chinese populace, and hence did everything to discourage free thoughts, not to mention the queue order. With a short ROC interregnum, China once again fell into an "alien" rule, i.e., the Marxist-Leninist ideology, and free thoughts and the creativity of the Chinese people are suppressed, and obedience and cowardice, as observed by some Westerners, became the stereotype for the Chinese people. While the Manchus pretended to uphold 'Confucianism,' the Chinese Communists, from day one, trashed Confucianism, and it was in the most recent years that the Chinese Communists began to mitigate the communist ideology and attempt to spread the "obedience" and "order" part of Confucianism. However, this "order" as preached by Confucianism is just one tiny part of the whole Confucian philosophy.

To see how CCP had trashed Confucianism, note what Raymond J de Jaegher wrote in his book "The Enemy From Within":

节录自《内在的敌人》 第四章

“中国要灭亡了”！他喊著税：“中国成为帝国主义者的俎上肉，中国已经被洋鬼子榨取枯竭了，现在日本小鬼子就在这里用枪炮飞机炸弹轰轰地杀害我们！中国何以这样衰弱呢？我可以告诉你们原因！那全因为中国人追随孔子，而孔子的思想是落伍的。他不像今日共产党那样眼光远大和前进。儒学已经使中国人成为奴隶，在近代世界里把他们束缚在旧的思想上面。共产主义是今天的进步思想。它可以把你们从奴隶状态下解放出来。它可以使你们在近代世界里更有权势更受尊重，因为近代世界只尊重权势和力量！

他毫无倦容地讲下去，反复连续地满天撒谎，一直在申述著一个主题：孔子是一个不合时代的反动者，中国如果打败日本，必须抛弃孔子的主张和理想。

会议结束时，他要求每个人高呼口号：“打倒孔子！打倒大汉奸孔子”！

What the above said was that in the 1930s, the CCP was preaching the theory that Confuccianism was what made China slaves, and Communisim was something that would liberate the Chinese from enslavement. And they equated Confucius as being equal to the "traitor" who sold out to the Japanese.

I mentioned somewhere else that there was an ancient Chinese who was so proud of himself that he exclaimed three sentences, and I want to paraphrase what I remembered here again. He said:
For one, he could have been born as an animal, not a human being; he was lucky to be born a human being;
For two, he could have been born as a woman, not a man; he was lucky to be born a man;
For three, he could have been born in the barbarian land, not the "middle earth"; he was lucky to be born in the "middle earth".

Today, you would say it was so unlucky to be born in China, at least for my 1 billion peasant slave cousins. It was same fate for the hundreds of "black bears" raised to be extracted bile in the bear's gall bladder as precious traditional Chinese medicine. If you want to say why China will never ever rule the world, the answer is right here.

I'm sure people can agree that China has just begun to work itself out of poverty. Regardless there is thinking going on as though an impoverished nation would never rule. The hypothetical of would China ever rule the world and why or why not shouldn't forget that there ought to be a premise of what merits China or any country for that matter as ruling the world in the first place. Is it the superpower status or something altogether different? The author thinks its largely the embeded culture which decides what happens so something like Chinese culture which had Confucianism in it and ends up useing massive effort and time to get through wasteful management schemes won't help China in the long run and it won't help it to rule others. But is deciding what is affluential only derived from massive accumulation of wealth? and is it the only thing perceived for China's way to actually influence and be influenced in turn?

[Gan]

Yes. Long term effects is still going to be a long process. But in the short term, the revolution is showing people that are fed up with their governments. The sad part is that the governments of Bahrain and Libya are shooting at unarmed civilians. Power corrupts. Now Morocco is organizing. Simple elections, right to protest, freedom of speech and term limits. Its not that hard to keep a nation from rebelling like all the people of the Middle East. People complain about western governments all the time. But their governments are still in place without the need for bloodshed.

Sorry.. a little off topic. Just tired of seeing these people getting killed for wanting basic rights.

Wanting basic rights such as the freedom to express and others you mentioned is one half the story. The other is rising inflation, and wanting food and jobs. It's often the latter stuff I mentioned, the need to physically survive that sparks off that fire, to set their desires into motion.

I'm going to say both are equally important, in case there are people (like some pro-authority figures or nationalists), who want to to say one is more significant than the other. Sometimes, the need to survive and basic freedoms are interconnected.

Edited by Gan, 21 February 2011 - 12:55 AM.

[Gan]

The other thing I want to mention, and many apologies for going off topic here, a lot of the people in the middle east are very young. Many are less than 30 years old, so there aren't a lot of strong memories of what life was before dictatorship. Many, not all, are also heavily influenced by the developed world (not necessary Western, but if you all want to use that term, that's fine), and they do want that lifestyle, in many areas not all. However, there are so many issues with that desire alone. Short-term, getting rid of the leadership obstacles is significant, but it's very possible all could go to waste.

For all these other nations in the Arab world experiencing this strong movement, so far, from Egypt and Tunisia, to Algeria,Libya, Yemen, Bahrain and possible more others; for some the immediate alternate is the military in control which if not handle carefully could be long term. The other alternates would be the other political leaders already in the government or the more infamous Islamic theologians.

I really don't know much about life there to comment further, but it's good to hear that people are taking control of their lives, instead of being control by others. It's just, as it is with everything political, just watch out.

Edited by Gan, 21 February 2011 - 12:57 AM.

[tigger]

Wanting basic rights such as the freedom to express and others you mentioned is one half the story. The other is rising inflation, and wanting food and jobs. It's often the latter stuff I mentioned, the need to physically survive that sparks off that fire, to set their desires into motion.

I'm going to say both are equally important, in case there are people (like some pro-authority figures or nationalists), who want to to say one is more significant than the other. Sometimes, the need to survive and basic freedoms are interconnected.

Yes. I totally agree with you. Economics is a huge factor and probably as important. Most people probably just want to live their lives in peace. My thing is, at what point do you say, "It's time for freedom. I'm tired of this."? Even the United States democracy took hundreds of years just to get to where it is today. But you have to start somewhere and sometime. Look at Godaffi. I was watching his speech live on Al Jazeera. He used every scare tactic in the book just to try to stay in power. It was crazy. He was blaming everyone from the Americans to the BBC and Al Jazeera. Short term, yes, there would be growing pains for any nation. But long term, people would be able to protest, speak their minds, etc, without have to worry about their own government cracking down on them and living in fear. The ruling party or leader of a nation is not always right and as hard as it is, they need to step down sometimes.

Also, the thing about democracy is that the people of a nation also have to be tolerant and fair to their leaders. A country like Thailand is always ousting their president. It's kind of hard to ever get anything done that way. Plus, that's why there are elections and term limits. There is always another person or democratic party that can be elected in place of the current one.

I must say its much easier for me to discuss this than to actually go through a revolution with my own countrymen.

[BaiYongYi]

Do you think that China would ever go through with the type of revolts we are/have been witnessing across North Africa?

I have heard (not read) that social media such as twitter, facebook, MySpace, etc., is banned in China. If that is true, do you think that would limit citizens' abilities to coordinate protests/dissent?

And finally: do you think China's, shall we say, undemocratic nature would stymie its ability to make more of a mark on the world (vis-a-vis decicion-making, cultural influence, and so on)? Do you think that the communist government is bad for branding, as it were, or do you believe, perhaps, that non-Chinese would be willing to give China a greater stake and be more receptive to Chinese literature, education, cultural practices, etc., despite China's one-party rule? Or do you have another opinion, take, or angle?

Thank you,

Bai Yongyi

Edited by BaiYongYi, 21 February 2011 - 04:15 PM.

[Gan]

Do you think that China would ever go through with the type of revolts we are/have been witnessing across North Africa?

I have heard (not read) that social media such as twitter, facebook, MySpace, etc., is banned in China. If that is true, do you think that would limit citizens' abilities to coordinate protests/dissent?

And finally: do you think China's, shall we say, undemocratic nature would stymie its ability to make more of a mark on the world (vis-a-vis decicion-making, cultural influence, and so on)? Do you think that the communist government is bad for branding, as it were, or do you believe, perhaps, that non-Chinese would be willing to give China a greater stake and be more receptive to Chinese literature, education, cultural practices, etc., despite China's one-party rule? Or do you have another opinion, take, or angle?

Thank you,

Bai Yongyi

I think that regardless of who is ruling China, there's always going to be people all over the world who will be interested in many things Chinese i.e. the language and literature, the geography, the different types of music from ethnic minorities to mainstream pop culture, curiosity and serious study of the history of China, and many different works of art from paintings, sculpture, etc. Those interests will always remain.

As for learning, or the non-Chinese world being culturally influence by anything Chinese, I don't really know. There are naysayers and those who say such things will happen and they both got a point. Beyond the labels, many different cultures do share quite a bit of similarities to begin with.

On the ESWN website, a lot of articles stated that the Jasmine protests didn't really do anything, or not much happen at all.

[ahxiang]

I'm sure people can agree that China has just begun to work itself out of poverty. Regardless there is thinking going on as though an impoverished nation would never rule. The hypothetical of would China ever rule the world and why or why not shouldn't forget that there ought to be a premise of what merits China or any country for that matter as ruling the world in the first place. Is it the superpower status or something altogether different? The author thinks its largely the embeded culture which decides what happens so something like Chinese culture which had Confucianism in it and ends up useing massive effort and time to get through wasteful management schemes won't help China in the long run and it won't help it to rule others. But is deciding what is affluential only derived from massive accumulation of wealth? and is it the only thing perceived for China's way to actually influence and be influenced in turn?

What this guy was saying had some merit. I once said that if the intelligence and brains of the 1 billion Chinese coolies get developed, any gap that China has with the U.S.A. and Europe, could be closed in. What the CCP leadership was saying, like they needed 100 years to catch up with the U.S.A., was a mis-interpretation of the Aesops' fable, with a faulty assumption that the hare (i.e., the U.S.A.) would take a nap, and the tortoise (China) will catch up. You could tell it was a nonsense. Out of the resources a country has, the most valuable is human beings, not land and capital. The Chinese way of enslaving its billion population, in collusion with the multinational corporations, dooms China from becoming a real power who will exert positive influence on the world.

Edited by ahxiang, 21 February 2011 - 10:58 PM.

[BaiYongYi]

I think that regardless of who is ruling China, there's always going to be people all over the world who will be interested in many things Chinese i.e. the language and literature, the geography, the different types of music from ethnic minorities to mainstream pop culture, curiosity and serious study of the history of China, and many different works of art from paintings, sculpture, etc. Those interests will always remain.

As for learning, or the non-Chinese world being culturally influence by anything Chinese, I don't really know. There are naysayers and those who say such things will happen and they both got a point. Beyond the labels, many different cultures do share quite a bit of similarities to begin with.

On the ESWN website, a lot of articles stated that the Jasmine protests didn't really do anything, or not much happen at all.

Sure, there may be people who are interested in things Chinese, but will that interest translate to a signfificant degree of, to give it a label, soft power? Will China ever shape the world because of its cultural appeal, like the West has? (And of course, you could argue that although someone from, say, Singapore watches Friends or Star Trek on TV, it doesn't make them any more "Western") I mean, I've studied Qigong, read Lu Xun, Confucius, Gao Xingjian, Ma Jian, studied Chinese, read a lot of history, rummaged for films by Zhang Yimou, and so on and so forth. I've even got a Chinese painting hanging on my wall. But I'm not certain other Western people who aren't, for example, interested in travelling to or working in China, or what have you, would take up such cultural offerings with the type of gusto that would translate to what we might call a significant impact. The other gentleman (I assume he's male) asked whether coming out on top hinges solely on economics. I think that's a good question. I would argue that it's much more than that, but it's a very complicated issue.

Thanks

Bai Yongyi

[Gan]

Sure, there may be people who are interested in things Chinese, but will that interest translate to a signfificant degree of, to give it a label, soft power? Will China ever shape the world because of its cultural appeal, like the West has? (And of course, you could argue that although someone from, say, Singapore watches Friends or Star Trek on TV, it doesn't make them any more "Western") I mean, I've studied Qigong, read Lu Xun, Confucius, Gao Xingjian, Ma Jian, studied Chinese, read a lot of history, rummaged for films by Zhang Yimou, and so on and so forth. I've even got a Chinese painting hanging on my wall. But I'm not certain other Western people who aren't, for example, interested in travelling to or working in China, or what have you, would take up such cultural offerings with the type of gusto that would translate to what we might call a significant impact. The other gentleman (I assume he's male) asked whether coming out on top hinges solely on economics. I think that's a good question. I would argue that it's much more than that, but it's a very complicated issue.

Thanks

Bai Yongyi

Well, in the full sense of the word, soft power really means the ability to influence laws and policies of other states, not necessarily culture or entertainment. In that venue, China is more than capable of doing that. Any nation could for that matter.

As for culture appeal, like I said, it's pretty hard to say. American social influence in that aspect was a large part due to the technological advances (especially media) and it's people being from many places (like immigration) as well as being spread out to many places (like its overseas military). Western influence from Europe was largely due to colonialism of the past. The Europeans took several generations to achieved that level of dominance, you could say. The Americans sort of inherited that position and took it to another notch, one could say.

This is just my opinion. If let's say China wanted to do it like America, that is to reach the world but do it in a short time period, either it becomes more cosmopolitan and it's institutions spread out more, along with inheriting some of the roles the US does for the world. China is only doing that within a limited version, and for so many reasons probably can not afford to do more. So, I don't really see China being able to influence the world in the same way as the US.

However, it might, and emphasize might, be able to do it like the Europeans. That is that Chinese nationals and their many cultural institutions and practices are also spread out throughout the world, except it will take several generations to reach very deep within other nations' psyche. Instead of colonialism, just the sheer size of the numbers moving, working and interacting with one another throughout the globe would be sufficient enough for such effects. Along with steady birth rates and intermarriages can help. I know that part is somewhat controversial but it does have some truths in it.

Although this version of world influence is probably more realistic than the American version, I still have a hard time thinking it will come to be. Mainly because that many regions and countries are more organized than before and culture in many areas is a product of the environment. These are my opinions for the time being.

[mohistManiac]

I also tend to think a lot of the mental reasoning has to do with being the first which really goes to show the strength of the psyche of prestige when it comes to choosing leaders and implies that later developments are followers. Like who gets to lead a company? the company investors, who gets to lead a research team? the people first who nailed and confirmed many aspects of a scientific fact, what do we model superpowers after? America. Who began brain drain? America. So something like the human rights etc might have had serious development in the west but that isn't to its inspiration could have been derived from elsewhere. The cultural features that make the west great could be like Ahxiang said the brilliant thinking patterns and that's the thing that is past around and branded as "western" I think. However many times the "west" can become cynical thinking no one else wants to get on the bandwagon and use it as excuse for some of the problems it has created and whatnot and I think that's what will make a lot of western leading values bottom out and give rise to what appears to be originality amongst other nations and hence their share of the prestige and growth in influencing.

[William O'Chee]

This is just my opinion. If let's say China wanted to do it like America, that is to reach the world but do it in a short time period, either it becomes more cosmopolitan and it's institutions spread out more, along with inheriting some of the roles the US does for the world. China is only doing that within a limited version, and for so many reasons probably can not afford to do more. So, I don't really see China being able to influence the world in the same way as the US.

I agree with this, although the Americans didn't set out to be a world superpower. Their position in the lead up to both world wars was one of isolationism. Int he wake of the second world war, America found it had no choice to become a superpower because Britain was too indebted and too damaged, and the Russians were threatening what we nowadays call "western" polity. They became a superpower because they had no choice.

There is one other point everyone has overlooked. China cannot become a world superpower just by being a major commodity buyer. Effective economic leadership requires other countries to accept your country as a forum for he settlement of commercial disputes, as well as acceptance of your currency as a currency of international settlement, if not a reserve currency.

The RMB is not a reserve currency, and is unlikely to be for a long time. In fact, there is considerable resistance to it becoming even a currency of international settlement, because it is not freely convertible, and floating.

Finally, nobody but nobody is willing to accept justiciability of contracts in Chinese courts. To even get to a point where they could talk about this, they must have a robust legal system free from political pressure. And a robust legal system requires a degree of free speech which China is disinclined to allow.

[BaiYongYi]

Well, in the full sense of the word, soft power really means the ability to influence laws and policies of other states, not necessarily culture or entertainment. In that venue, China is more than capable of doing that. Any nation could for that matter.

As for culture appeal, like I said, it's pretty hard to say. American social influence in that aspect was a large part due to the technological advances (especially media) and it's people being from many places (like immigration) as well as being spread out to many places (like its overseas military). Western influence from Europe was largely due to colonialism of the past. The Europeans took several generations to achieved that level of dominance, you could say. The Americans sort of inherited that position and took it to another notch, one could say.

This is just my opinion. If let's say China wanted to do it like America, that is to reach the world but do it in a short time period, either it becomes more cosmopolitan and it's institutions spread out more, along with inheriting some of the roles the US does for the world. China is only doing that within a limited version, and for so many reasons probably can not afford to do more. So, I don't really see China being able to influence the world in the same way as the US.

However, it might, and emphasize might, be able to do it like the Europeans. That is that Chinese nationals and their many cultural institutions and practices are also spread out throughout the world, except it will take several generations to reach very deep within other nations' psyche. Instead of colonialism, just the sheer size of the numbers moving, working and interacting with one another throughout the globe would be sufficient enough for such effects. Along with steady birth rates and intermarriages can help. I know that part is somewhat controversial but it does have some truths in it.

Although this version of world influence is probably more realistic than the American version, I still have a hard time thinking it will come to be. Mainly because that many regions and countries are more organized than before and culture in many areas is a product of the environment. These are my opinions for the time being.

I'm not so sure about the spreading by numbers argument (although you admit that that's "controversial"), but I think your response is pretty reasonable overall. Thanks for the feedback.

[BaiYongYi]

I agree with this, although the Americans didn't set out to be a world superpower. Their position in the lead up to both world wars was one of isolationism. Int he wake of the second world war, America found it had no choice to become a superpower because Britain was too indebted and too damaged, and the Russians were threatening what we nowadays call "western" polity. They became a superpower because they had no choice.

There is one other point everyone has overlooked. China cannot become a world superpower just by being a major commodity buyer. Effective economic leadership requires other countries to accept your country as a forum for he settlement of commercial disputes, as well as acceptance of your currency as a currency of international settlement, if not a reserve currency.

The RMB is not a reserve currency, and is unlikely to be for a long time. In fact, there is considerable resistance to it becoming even a currency of international settlement, because it is not freely convertible, and floating.

Finally, nobody but nobody is willing to accept justiciability of contracts in Chinese courts. To even get to a point where they could talk about this, they must have a robust legal system free from political pressure. And a robust legal system requires a degree of free speech which China is disinclined to allow.

Food for thought. Thanks.