In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On March 24 2015 00:06 oneofthem wrote: already gave some concrete examples of jingoism/propaganda from official chinese sources. the u.s. has propaganda as well, but the difference is meaningful and substantial.
anyway the cost of the war on terror is not only high but also not contained. i'd blame the lack of functional governments in the middle east, but what effective intervention exists to combat islamism at the social and local politics level.
I saw what you posted, but I am not sure if you have given much thought into how that kind of propaganda differentiates itself from American propaganda. It's very clear to me: such Chinese propaganda distinguishes itself by its naivete and backwardness, but such propaganda is merely commensurate with the state of Chinese society as a whole. We can have a long lecture here about the lack of "objectivity" in the Chinese mentality, its reflexive penchant for ethical self-aggrandisement, etc. In that relation, the relative "realism" and "strategic" bent of the Chinese government is more closely aligned with Western norms, than the average Chinese man. Your demonstration of your point seems to be a defense of Chinese "authoritarianism", and if that was your intention, then I did indeed misread you.
not interested in some cultural anthro analysis of china. i don't profess to have an in depth grasp of modern chinese culture.
the form of propaganda employed by the u.s. is pretty diverse, but the jingoistic stuff from china is pretty characteristic of how the ccp operates. i'll disagree that the quality of this propaganda is reflective of chinese society, it reflects the bureaucratic operations of the ccp. propaganda slogans tend to mirror bulletin point policy directives formulated by some central political body, not much creativity or nuance.
Here's some of my favorite Chinese propaganda from the War Museum in Beijing:
"After Britain started the Opium war in 1840, the imperial powers descended on China like a swarm of bees, looting our treasures and killing our people. They forced the Qing government to sign a series of unequal treaties that granted them economic, political, and cultural privileges and sank China gradually into a semi-colonial, semi-feudal society. The contradictions between imperialism and the Chinese nation and between feudalism and the broad masses of the people became the primary contradictions in modern Chinese society. Achieving national independence and liberation of the people, and making the country strong and prosperous and the people happy became the two great historic missions of the Chinese nation throughout its modern history."
"Building socialism in China is the inevitable outcome of the course of modern Chinese history. The central collective leadership of the CPC, with Comrade Mao Zedong at its core, led the people of all China's ethnic groups on the road of socialist industrialization, innovatively completed socialist transformation, and put a complete basic socialist system in place. The victory of the new-democratic revolution and the creation of a basic socialist system provided the basic political conditions and instituional basis for all of contemporary China's development and progress."
On March 24 2015 00:32 oneofthem wrote: i'll disagree that the quality of this propaganda is reflective of chinese society, it reflects the bureaucratic operations of the ccp. propaganda slogans tend to mirror bulletin point policy directives formulated by some central political body, not much creativity or nuance.
On what basis? China's commercial newspaper market is dominated by the sensationalist tabloid press. Government papers are closer to Western standards of seriousness than what is consumed by the mass market.
"After Britain started the Opium war in 1840, the imperial powers descended on China like a swarm of bees, looting our treasures and killing our people. They forced the Qing government to sign a series of unequal treaties that granted them economic, political, and cultural privileges and sank China gradually into a semi-colonial, semi-feudal society. The contradictions between imperialism and the Chinese nation and between feudalism and the broad masses of the people became the primary contradictions in modern Chinese society. Achieving national independence and liberation of the people, and making the country strong and prosperous and the people happy became the two great historic missions of the Chinese nation throughout its modern history."
"Building socialism in China is the inevitable outcome of the course of modern Chinese history. The central collective leadership of the CPC, with Comrade Mao Zedong at its core, led the people of all China's ethnic groups on the road of socialist industrialization, innovatively completed socialist transformation, and put a complete basic socialist system in place. The victory of the new-democratic revolution and the creation of a basic socialist system provided the basic political conditions and instituional basis for all of contemporary China's development and progress."
On an unrelated note, much of China's self-righteous "historical" narrative of her encounters with foreign powers in the 19th and 20th centuries is accepted by the Western collective consciousness, since it accords so well with our obsessions with post-colonialism and so forth. Whatever you may say about the future, the United States and China have a common interest in protecting more or less the same narrative of the pre-1949 past.
On March 24 2015 01:17 xDaunt wrote: Here's some of my favorite Chinese propaganda from the War Museum in Beijing:
"After Britain started the Opium war in 1840, the imperial powers descended on China like a swarm of bees, looting our treasures and killing our people. They forced the Qing government to sign a series of unequal treaties that granted them economic, political, and cultural privileges and sank China gradually into a semi-colonial, semi-feudal society. The contradictions between imperialism and the Chinese nation and between feudalism and the broad masses of the people became the primary contradictions in modern Chinese society. Achieving national independence and liberation of the people, and making the country strong and prosperous and the people happy became the two great historic missions of the Chinese nation throughout its modern history."
"Building socialism in China is the inevitable outcome of the course of modern Chinese history. The central collective leadership of the CPC, with Comrade Mao Zedong at its core, led the people of all China's ethnic groups on the road of socialist industrialization, innovatively completed socialist transformation, and put a complete basic socialist system in place. The victory of the new-democratic revolution and the creation of a basic socialist system provided the basic political conditions and instituional basis for all of contemporary China's development and progress."
about the same level of national introspection and selfawareness, when americans or europeans say that unimpeded capitalism improves everyones life or that institutionalized racism was overcome 50 years ago...
On March 23 2015 21:13 oneofthem wrote: china is still very meaningfully an authoritarian state,(though who the authority is, is a more complex question than usual, and it is also strategic and rationalistic) i dont see how you can challenge this really. and no, this is simply a factual observation, not a conjecture.
Because calling China an authoritarian state does not relate in any meaningful way to the values which she purportedly represents in the world. Her indifference to human rights and adversarial party politics has very little to do with her political structure.
Being an authoritarian state has everything to do, by definition, with a considerable degree of indifference to human rights, namely political rights, freedom of expression, and the like.
Democratic Florida state Sen. Jeff Clemens tried his very best during a Senate budget subcommittee hearing to corner a Florida official into using the phrase "climate change," which has reportedly been banned in the state, but the official dodged the term multiple times.
Bryan Koon, the Florida chief of emergency management, testified at the hearing on the state's request for federal funding to improve safety notifications ahead of natural disasters, according to the Miami Herald. During the hearing, Clemens referenced reports that FEMA will require states seeking preparedness funds to include an assessment of how climate change could impact their state.
Clemens asked Koon if he was aware that FEMA will "be requesting or demanding that states have a climate change plan before they’re going to issue some of these preparedness dollars."
"That one refers to a state’s hazard mitigation plan, which is done every five years, and the next iterations of them will require to have language to that effect," Koon responded, avoiding the term "climate change."
Democratic Florida state Sen. Jeff Clemens tried his very best during a Senate budget subcommittee hearing to corner a Florida official into using the phrase "climate change," which has reportedly been banned in the state, but the official dodged the term multiple times.
Bryan Koon, the Florida chief of emergency management, testified at the hearing on the state's request for federal funding to improve safety notifications ahead of natural disasters, according to the Miami Herald. During the hearing, Clemens referenced reports that FEMA will require states seeking preparedness funds to include an assessment of how climate change could impact their state.
Clemens asked Koon if he was aware that FEMA will "be requesting or demanding that states have a climate change plan before they’re going to issue some of these preparedness dollars."
"That one refers to a state’s hazard mitigation plan, which is done every five years, and the next iterations of them will require to have language to that effect," Koon responded, avoiding the term "climate change."
On March 23 2015 21:13 oneofthem wrote: china is still very meaningfully an authoritarian state,(though who the authority is, is a more complex question than usual, and it is also strategic and rationalistic) i dont see how you can challenge this really. and no, this is simply a factual observation, not a conjecture.
Because calling China an authoritarian state does not relate in any meaningful way to the values which she purportedly represents in the world. Her indifference to human rights and adversarial party politics has very little to do with her political structure.
Being an authoritarian state has everything to do, by definition, with a considerable degree of indifference to human rights, namely political rights, freedom of expression, and the like.
You can always win an argument by defining yourself into the right; what matters though is the substance of the argument. oneofthem argues that power cannot be analysed on a basis of value-neutrality. Yet the things that he posits as tipping the scale of "value" for the US are value-neutral in themselves. Freedom of expression begs the question of what I will say with my freedom. The right to vote begs the question of who I will vote into power with my right. If you say that political and intellectual pluralism are goods in themselves, then you must explain why this is an inherent good on the domestic level, and not so on the international level, (i.e. political multipolarity, ideological conflict.)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency is making it tougher for governors to deny man-made climate change. Starting next year, the agency will approve disaster preparedness funds only for states whose governors approve hazard mitigation plans that address climate change.
This may put several Republican governors who maintain the earth isn’t warming due to human activities, or prefer to do nothing about it, into a political bind. Their position may block their states’ access to hundreds of millions of dollars in FEMA funds. Over the past five years, the agency has awarded an average $1 billion a year in grants to states and territories for taking steps to mitigate the effects of disasters.
“If a state has a climate denier governor that doesn’t want to accept a plan, that would risk mitigation work not getting done because of politics,” said Becky Hammer, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council’s water program. “The governor would be increasing the risk to citizens in that state” because of his climate beliefs.
The policy doesn’t affect federal money for relief after a hurricane, flood or other disaster. Specifically, beginning in March 2016, states seeking preparedness money will have to assess how climate change threatens their communities. Governors will have to sign off on hazard mitigation plans. While some states, including New York, have already started incorporating climate risks in their plans, most haven’t because FEMA’s old 2008 guidelines didn’t require it.
“This could potentially become a major conflict for several Republican governors,” said Barry Rabe, an expert on the politics of climate change at the University of Michigan. “We aren’t just talking about coastal states.” Climate change affects droughts, rainfall and tornado activity. Fracking is being linked to more earthquakes, he said. “This could affect state leaders across the country.”
Among those who could face a difficult decision are Republican Governors Rick Scott of Florida, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Chris Christie of New Jersey, Greg Abbott of Texas and Pat McCrory of North Carolina—all of whom have denied man-made climate change or refused to take action. The states they lead face immediate threats from climate change.
The five governors’ offices did not return requests for comment by press time.
On March 23 2015 20:34 oneofthem wrote: it's not very productive to characterize criticism of china as fear of chinese imperialism etc. it is obviously a regional power, with limited ambitions of overtaking the u.s.'s scope of influence, but china's reach is not the main issue, it is the way their regime thinks and the rules they bend with their gravity, so to speak.
human rights is also a very real issue, so is reasonable behavior to neighbors. yes, the u.s. has seen its share of transgressions, but the u.s. has also gone through its own existential and moral crisis that has introduced reciprocity and valuing the lives of others into some of its thinking. in comparison, chinese state organs still run communist era propaganda pieces for both foreign and internal manipulation. you'd think they are at open war with all of its neighbors. still a useful idiot for buying into this idea of a civil chinese state. without deterrence china will see no reason to behave well.
it is important to not reflexively see criticism of china as simply nationalistic partisanship. that stuff is completely ridiculous tbh. however, i will submit that if you do not see important problems with china and russia etc, and distinguish american action, your views do smear over important value questions because of a simplistic framework of equivocal conflict between two 'powers.'
but ok, if foreign policy aspiration is limited to keeping things humming at home i'm sure we could have worked out a deal with all sorts of regional powers largely interested in neighborhood bully status. yes, american position is interventionistic, but it is also value laden in a way that distinguishes it from imperialism. china would obviously characterize american pacific fleet etc as imperialistic meddling, but they also would call their taiwan invasion a liberation or something without the presence of american ships in the area.
Except that I am not so sure that the US has transitioned into "reciprocity and valuing the lives of others" in any meaningful sense of the word. The recent US history is no doubt far better when looking internally than if you look at China or Russia. However, its foreign meddling has been very dubious. From the wholescale destruction of Vietnam during the war, through all the dirty CIA meddling in Central and South America, to the torture of Iraqi PoW in Abu Ghraib and indefinite prison in Guantanamo, I am very hesitant to state that the US can claim the moral high ground.
When we get right down to it, all countries (and people) will do morally dubious things if they think it furthers their cause, and the US is just as human as the rest of us. Sure, there are worse offenders, and China is undoubtedly one of them. However, if you complain about human rights violations, at least have the decency to ratify the international court of law yourself. That would be a vast step towards showing the world that you are actually serious about human rights, and not just yelling "do as I say, not as I do".
On March 23 2015 21:13 oneofthem wrote: china is still very meaningfully an authoritarian state,(though who the authority is, is a more complex question than usual, and it is also strategic and rationalistic) i dont see how you can challenge this really. and no, this is simply a factual observation, not a conjecture.
Because calling China an authoritarian state does not relate in any meaningful way to the values which she purportedly represents in the world. Her indifference to human rights and adversarial party politics has very little to do with her political structure.
Being an authoritarian state has everything to do, by definition, with a considerable degree of indifference to human rights, namely political rights, freedom of expression, and the like.
You can always win an argument by defining yourself into the right; what matters though is the substance of the argument. oneofthem argues that power cannot be analysed on a basis of value-neutrality. Yet the things that he posits as tipping the scale of "value" for the US are value-neutral in themselves. Freedom of expression begs the question of what I will say with my freedom. The right to vote begs the question of who I will vote into power with my right. If you say that political and intellectual pluralism are goods in themselves, then you must explain why this is an inherent good on the domestic level, and not so on the international level, (i.e. political multipolarity, ideological conflict.)
that's just lol. i have no need to go beyond human rights and political freedom in the ordinary liberal sense.
and brazil, not interested in convincing you about why the u.s. is a bit better than china. that was not the argument at all. the argument is simply that, a view of u.s. v china as equivocal power rivalry is ignoring quite a bit of information.
On March 23 2015 21:13 oneofthem wrote: china is still very meaningfully an authoritarian state,(though who the authority is, is a more complex question than usual, and it is also strategic and rationalistic) i dont see how you can challenge this really. and no, this is simply a factual observation, not a conjecture.
Because calling China an authoritarian state does not relate in any meaningful way to the values which she purportedly represents in the world. Her indifference to human rights and adversarial party politics has very little to do with her political structure.
Being an authoritarian state has everything to do, by definition, with a considerable degree of indifference to human rights, namely political rights, freedom of expression, and the like.
You can always win an argument by defining yourself into the right; what matters though is the substance of the argument. oneofthem argues that power cannot be analysed on a basis of value-neutrality. Yet the things that he posits as tipping the scale of "value" for the US are value-neutral in themselves. Freedom of expression begs the question of what I will say with my freedom. The right to vote begs the question of who I will vote into power with my right. If you say that political and intellectual pluralism are goods in themselves, then you must explain why this is an inherent good on the domestic level, and not so on the international level, (i.e. political multipolarity, ideological conflict.)
that's just lol. i have no need to go beyond human rights and political freedom in the ordinary liberal sense.
Of course you don't need to, but then you are exactly where I said you were: at an inhuman abstraction. Your problem in the original argument was that you tried to explain your personal revelation in objective, rational terms. Your failure was due to the fact that you told the truth about what you thought, but lied about where those thoughts came from. Your cowardice was your refusal to be true to yourself, because the internet sneers at oracular thinkers, which is essentially what you are.
well i do wish i have oracular powers, but i don't think it's worthwhile to actually prove an obvious claim like china is authoritarian or denial of human rights and political liberties is part and parcel to this kind of government.
much of your last couple posts don't make much sense.
On March 24 2015 03:04 oneofthem wrote: and brazil, not interested in convincing you about why the u.s. is a bit better than china. that was not the argument at all. the argument is simply that, a view of u.s. v china as equivocal power rivalry is ignoring quite a bit of information.
Hah, that was exactly my thought when reading Acrofales and puerk's posts. Completely ridiculous.
On March 24 2015 01:17 xDaunt wrote: Here's some of my favorite Chinese propaganda from the War Museum in Beijing:
"After Britain started the Opium war in 1840, the imperial powers descended on China like a swarm of bees, looting our treasures and killing our people. They forced the Qing government to sign a series of unequal treaties that granted them economic, political, and cultural privileges and sank China gradually into a semi-colonial, semi-feudal society. The contradictions between imperialism and the Chinese nation and between feudalism and the broad masses of the people became the primary contradictions in modern Chinese society. Achieving national independence and liberation of the people, and making the country strong and prosperous and the people happy became the two great historic missions of the Chinese nation throughout its modern history."
"Building socialism in China is the inevitable outcome of the course of modern Chinese history. The central collective leadership of the CPC, with Comrade Mao Zedong at its core, led the people of all China's ethnic groups on the road of socialist industrialization, innovatively completed socialist transformation, and put a complete basic socialist system in place. The victory of the new-democratic revolution and the creation of a basic socialist system provided the basic political conditions and instituional basis for all of contemporary China's development and progress."
This is pretty much a Chinese thing, not just a CCP thing. It's a narrative the CCP co-opted and uses to legitimize itself (plus all the standard socialist/communist tripe), but seriously: consider the history of China from a Chinese perspective from the start of the First Opium War (and more specifically the start of opium selling by the British) to the end of World War Two and get back to me; it was, for the Chinese, one long, drawn out national trauma. Wars after massive bloody conflict after continuous weakness followed by effective colonization, government collapse, and an extended period of warlordism, topped off with one of the most brutal wars in Chinese history (and stuff like Nanjing and Unit 731 etched into the national consciousness). I've heard accounts of former concentration camp prisoners who had everything taken from them (their wealth, their property, their good name), yet, in the post-Mao era, sharply criticized the youth of the country for not respecting Mao enough for reunifying China, despite everything that happened to him personally.
Much like how the 1953 Iranian coup of Mosadeggh (and subsequent rule by the Shah) has tainted Iranian views of the West for a generation after the 1979 revolution and greatly shaped Iranian security concerns (when coupled with the Iran-Iraq war), the period between 1840 and 1950 has similarly shaped Chinese perceptions and foreign policy attitudes and objectives. Similarly, how the Holocaust and the numerous Arab-Israeli wars have shaped Israel's security policy and sensitivities.
Of course, public education in China reinforces this narrative, but that's public education everywhere. Look at US public education largely whitewashing the effective genocide of Native Americans, or, heck, 3rd Republic France and language education. It's all part of nation-building and cultivating a collective identity and narrative. As an authoritarian regime that suppresses dissent and knowledge of negative events like Tiananmen, the PRC has a greater degree of latitude enforcing this, but all countries do participate in this in one degree or another.
On March 23 2015 21:13 oneofthem wrote: china is still very meaningfully an authoritarian state,(though who the authority is, is a more complex question than usual, and it is also strategic and rationalistic) i dont see how you can challenge this really. and no, this is simply a factual observation, not a conjecture.
Because calling China an authoritarian state does not relate in any meaningful way to the values which she purportedly represents in the world. Her indifference to human rights and adversarial party politics has very little to do with her political structure.
Being an authoritarian state has everything to do, by definition, with a considerable degree of indifference to human rights, namely political rights, freedom of expression, and the like.
You can always win an argument by defining yourself into the right; what matters though is the substance of the argument. oneofthem argues that power cannot be analysed on a basis of value-neutrality. Yet the things that he posits as tipping the scale of "value" for the US are value-neutral in themselves. Freedom of expression begs the question of what I will say with my freedom. The right to vote begs the question of who I will vote into power with my right. If you say that political and intellectual pluralism are goods in themselves, then you must explain why this is an inherent good on the domestic level, and not so on the international level, (i.e. political multipolarity, ideological conflict.)
I like you. Don't agree with you completely as values and norms are incredibly important in shaping the international and domestic environment states operate in, but I like you.
On March 23 2015 20:34 oneofthem wrote: it's not very productive to characterize criticism of china as fear of chinese imperialism etc. it is obviously a regional power, with limited ambitions of overtaking the u.s.'s scope of influence, but china's reach is not the main issue, it is the way their regime thinks and the rules they bend with their gravity, so to speak.
human rights is also a very real issue, so is reasonable behavior to neighbors. yes, the u.s. has seen its share of transgressions, but the u.s. has also gone through its own existential and moral crisis that has introduced reciprocity and valuing the lives of others into some of its thinking. in comparison, chinese state organs still run communist era propaganda pieces for both foreign and internal manipulation. you'd think they are at open war with all of its neighbors. still a useful idiot for buying into this idea of a civil chinese state. without deterrence china will see no reason to behave well.
it is important to not reflexively see criticism of china as simply nationalistic partisanship. that stuff is completely ridiculous tbh. however, i will submit that if you do not see important problems with china and russia etc, and distinguish american action, your views do smear over important value questions because of a simplistic framework of equivocal conflict between two 'powers.'
but ok, if foreign policy aspiration is limited to keeping things humming at home i'm sure we could have worked out a deal with all sorts of regional powers largely interested in neighborhood bully status. yes, american position is interventionistic, but it is also value laden in a way that distinguishes it from imperialism. china would obviously characterize american pacific fleet etc as imperialistic meddling, but they also would call their taiwan invasion a liberation or something without the presence of american ships in the area.
Except that I am not so sure that the US has transitioned into "reciprocity and valuing the lives of others" in any meaningful sense of the word. The recent US history is no doubt far better when looking internally than if you look at China or Russia. However, its foreign meddling has been very dubious. From the wholescale destruction of Vietnam during the war, through all the dirty CIA meddling in Central and South America, to the torture of Iraqi PoW in Abu Ghraib and indefinite prison in Guantanamo, I am very hesitant to state that the US can claim the moral high ground.
When we get right down to it, all countries (and people) will do morally dubious things if they think it furthers their cause, and the US is just as human as the rest of us. Sure, there are worse offenders, and China is undoubtedly one of them. However, if you complain about human rights violations, at least have the decency to ratify the international court of law yourself. That would be a vast step towards showing the world that you are actually serious about human rights, and not just yelling "do as I say, not as I do".
If we wanted to point out US abuses of human rights, and questionable interventions, we have a long, long laundry list since the end of WWII. Hell, before it too.
But, once again, at state-level diplomacy, this generally matters very little.
On March 24 2015 03:15 oneofthem wrote: well i do wish i have oracular powers, but i don't think it's worthwhile to actually prove an obvious claim like china is authoritarian or denial of human rights and political liberties is part and parcel to this kind of government.
much of your last couple posts don't make much sense.
China is Authoritarian: True Authoritarian regimes equate a denial of human rights and political liberty: Mostly Correlated ...?
First, he's asking you to explain why such issues as freedom of speech, the right to vote, etc. are positive values. Why are they good on the domestic level. Then he's asking you to show how these things apply on the international level: why should being an authoritarian regime and not having these positive values affect Chinese relations with the US, and how do they shape Chinese security and foreign policy; does it make them more threatening to the US?
The answer to this would generally be democratic peace theory, but this a very hotly debated and studied theory at the moment and is generally extremely divisive if you brought this up to a political scientist.
On March 24 2015 01:17 xDaunt wrote: Here's some of my favorite Chinese propaganda from the War Museum in Beijing:
"After Britain started the Opium war in 1840, the imperial powers descended on China like a swarm of bees, looting our treasures and killing our people. They forced the Qing government to sign a series of unequal treaties that granted them economic, political, and cultural privileges and sank China gradually into a semi-colonial, semi-feudal society. The contradictions between imperialism and the Chinese nation and between feudalism and the broad masses of the people became the primary contradictions in modern Chinese society. Achieving national independence and liberation of the people, and making the country strong and prosperous and the people happy became the two great historic missions of the Chinese nation throughout its modern history."
"Building socialism in China is the inevitable outcome of the course of modern Chinese history. The central collective leadership of the CPC, with Comrade Mao Zedong at its core, led the people of all China's ethnic groups on the road of socialist industrialization, innovatively completed socialist transformation, and put a complete basic socialist system in place. The victory of the new-democratic revolution and the creation of a basic socialist system provided the basic political conditions and instituional basis for all of contemporary China's development and progress."
This is pretty much a Chinese thing, not just a CCP thing. It's a narrative the CCP co-opted and uses to legitimize itself (plus all the standard socialist/communist tripe), but seriously: consider the history of China from a Chinese perspective from the start of the First Opium War (and more specifically the start of opium selling by the British) to the end of World War Two and get back to me; it was, for the Chinese, one long, drawn out national trauma. Wars after massive bloody conflict after continuous weakness followed by effective colonization, government collapse, and an extended period of warlordism, topped off with one of the most brutal wars in Chinese history (and stuff like Nanjing and Unit 731 etched into the national consciousness). I've heard accounts of former concentration camp prisoners who had everything taken from them (their wealth, their property, their good name), yet, in the post-Mao era, sharply criticized the youth of the country for not respecting Mao enough for reunifying China, despite everything that happened to him personally.
Much like how the 1953 Iranian coup of Mosadeggh (and subsequent rule by the Shah) has tainted Iranian views of the West for a generation after the 1979 revolution and greatly shaped Iranian security concerns (when coupled with the Iran-Iraq war), the period between 1840 and 1950 has similarly shaped Chinese perceptions and foreign policy attitudes and objectives. Similarly, how the Holocaust and the numerous Arab-Israeli wars have shaped Israel's security policy and sensitivities.
Of course, public education in China reinforces this narrative, but that's public education everywhere. Look at US public education largely whitewashing the effective genocide of Native Americans, or, heck, 3rd Republic France and language education. It's all part of nation-building and cultivating a collective identity and narrative. As an authoritarian regime that suppresses dissent and knowledge of negative events like Tiananmen, the PRC has a greater degree of latitude enforcing this, but all countries do participate in this in one degree or another.
I very much do think think about recent Chinese history from the Chinese perspective, which in turn shapes my opinion of how they should be dealt with at a foreign policy level. My wife is Han Chinese (born and raised there), so I have far more of an insider's perspective than the average American. Thus, when I look at your posts, I see some major whitewashing when it comes to China's nationalist and imperial ambitions.
it's hilarious to think that "pluralism on the international level involves tolerating totalitarianism and fascism etc" is a worthwhile point. the ontological levels are different, there is no need to treat pluralism as equally sensible at the level of individuals in society, and at the level of ideology and national politics.
a principle like 'pluralism is good' is suffering from infirmity of foundation. to assume that i hold this sort of a flawed idea was too flabbergasting so i didn't really consider it. it would be incorrect to assume that i take liberal values as somehow objective or neutral. it is very much historically unique and distinct and needs active defending.
First, he's asking you to explain why such issues as freedom of speech, the right to vote, etc. are positive values. Why are they good on the domestic level.
any explanation is circular here and if you are not receptive to the normative value at some level there is no point. thus my response here would be lol dont waste my time.
Then he's asking you to show how these things apply on the international level
that was a distinct discussion. it would be unfair to ask me to remember what moltke is saying, but that discussion about authoritarianism was simply him challenging my claim that china is authoritarian.
why should being an authoritarian regime and not having these positive values affect Chinese relations with the US, and how do they shape Chinese security and foreign policy; does it make them more threatening to the US?
your fp centric thinking is quite limited and i already told you i'm going beyond the simple question of 'threat to the u.s.' (the answer to that is no, because of china's priorities) to the larger question of 'is china gud?' that a guy like nyxisto is actually trying to ask.
EPT
