|
On June 06 2009 11:51 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2009 11:39 KissBlade wrote:On June 06 2009 11:36 Jibba wrote:On June 06 2009 11:15 BalliSLife wrote: Couldn't of said it any better than you pyro, it's crazy how some people think democracy could work with 1.4 billion people It's crazy how some people think the liberty of a group of people should be constricted because of their numbers. What kind of democracy are you even talking about? Is a Chinese Parliament, with some form of accountability, that unthinkable? There's corruption, but every democracy started that way. It may require force, but every democracy started that way as well. Just like a lot of things in life, if you wait for the ideal conditions, you'll do nothing but wait. It's not as if we're talking about a complete culture change like the Shah's Iran; China is already very much adapted to capitalism and "western" lifestyles, all we're talking about is a system of accountability between the populace and the government. To be honest, at the end of the day, China's government is like you said, very similar to most of the West. However, they cling to the name of "communism" simply because admitting otherwise will be seen as giving in to foreign pressure. As for corruption, yes, it exists in China but democracy doesn't somehow change all that. If anyone even knows remotely what happened in the recent Taiwan elections, etc, they'd realize that. I'd hate to say it but post capitalism China, the average Chinese citizen is a little too opportunistic. Now it's all about money money money. =\ The Chinese government is not similar to most of the West. I didn't say that at all. Corruption will always exist. In the long run, collectivism perpetrates it, capitalism and democracy do not. Capitalism is to economics what democracy is to politics. They follow from each other (and it's easier to go capitalism->democracy like China has the chance to.) Under what conditions do you suppose the Chinese populace would be "ready" for democratic elections?
I suppose whenever the Government steps back and realizes what they do is wrong - how much history can you change before one can't sleep at night The argument that they still have a large peasant majority which would ruin the idea of electorates is complete bull as well. If they're the majority - then they should get the majority vote. When they know they're not getting educated, they know something is wrong. America's democracy and electoral system was formed back when easily 70% of Americans were in the same boat.
|
Tienanmen Square massacre is a landmark in Chinese history. Nuff said.
|
I think it's pathetic that the government doesn't acknowledge what truly happened. At uni, I had many a conversation about this issue and so many mainland Chinese students gave the knee-jerk response of 'mind your own business' followed by a long diatribe on the hypocrisy of the West etc. etc.
But, fine, ignoring everyone else, I just think it's downright sad the government can't open up and admit to itself what the fuck actually happened. It was Chinese people being killed by fellow Chinese soldiers, not some dirty foreigner uprising. This isn't about international moral high grounds. It's about the country admitting to itself that it killed a bunch of its own fucking people. It's about the country's own dignity to recognise the lives and deaths of its own citizens.
It's even more pathetic when people support the government to continue to hide truth. These people normally have the blind patriotism that comes with being spoon-fed with state media.. "ohh they were dissidents" ... it was fine. Yeah, just slap that word on anyone the government kills and its okaydokey.
|
On June 06 2009 11:06 Railz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2009 11:04 Clasic wrote:On June 06 2009 08:40 REDBLUEGREEN wrote: Oh wow it's the first time I actually saw videos about it. Shooting at unarmed demonstrators is fucked up but shooting on the ambulance wtf.... Yeah I know what you mean dude.. god damn.. Actually they shot the demonstrators at night and then the morning after the parents were looking for their children (Child missing + rioting = uh oh) so the parents go to move into the square and the army fires at them numerous times. That is the scene with the ambulance - they weren't shooting at demonstrators then, they were shooting at the parents of them.
That's so sad to hear. I can't fucking stand communism.
|
United States22883 Posts
On June 06 2009 11:54 Railz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2009 11:51 Jibba wrote:On June 06 2009 11:39 KissBlade wrote:On June 06 2009 11:36 Jibba wrote:On June 06 2009 11:15 BalliSLife wrote: Couldn't of said it any better than you pyro, it's crazy how some people think democracy could work with 1.4 billion people It's crazy how some people think the liberty of a group of people should be constricted because of their numbers. What kind of democracy are you even talking about? Is a Chinese Parliament, with some form of accountability, that unthinkable? There's corruption, but every democracy started that way. It may require force, but every democracy started that way as well. Just like a lot of things in life, if you wait for the ideal conditions, you'll do nothing but wait. It's not as if we're talking about a complete culture change like the Shah's Iran; China is already very much adapted to capitalism and "western" lifestyles, all we're talking about is a system of accountability between the populace and the government. To be honest, at the end of the day, China's government is like you said, very similar to most of the West. However, they cling to the name of "communism" simply because admitting otherwise will be seen as giving in to foreign pressure. As for corruption, yes, it exists in China but democracy doesn't somehow change all that. If anyone even knows remotely what happened in the recent Taiwan elections, etc, they'd realize that. I'd hate to say it but post capitalism China, the average Chinese citizen is a little too opportunistic. Now it's all about money money money. =\ The Chinese government is not similar to most of the West. I didn't say that at all. Corruption will always exist. In the long run, collectivism perpetrates it, capitalism and democracy do not. You should be prepared for the backlash from others about saying something about capitalism and corruption not existing together in the long run with the current state of affairs. In the short run, problems occur, especially with inadequate control mechanisms. In the long run, it corrects itself. I'm not talking about pure capitalism/democracy either. Light socialism is not a bad thing, but there still needs to be some accountability between the people and leaders. I think it's on its way anyways, and it might not be pretty.
|
On June 06 2009 12:00 Elric wrote: I think it's pathetic that the government doesn't acknowledge what truly happened. At uni, I had many a conversation about this issue and so many mainland Chinese students gave the knee-jerk response of 'mind your own business' followed by a long diatribe on the hypocrisy of the West etc. etc.
But, fine, ignoring everyone else, I just think it's downright sad the government can't open up and admit to itself what the fuck actually happened. It was Chinese people being killed by fellow Chinese soldiers, not some dirty foreigner uprising. This isn't about international moral high grounds. It's about the country admitting to itself that it killed a bunch of its own fucking people. It's about the country's own dignity to recognise the lives and deaths of its own citizens.
It's even more pathetic when people support the government to continue to hide truth. These people normally have the blind patriotism that comes with being spoon-fed with state media.. "ohh they were dissidents" ... it was fine. Yeah, just slap that word on anyone the government kills and its okaydokey.
Breathe buddy, breathe. I'm guessing by apologizing it's gonna make the government seem more evil so they are just gonna leave it at that even though i'm sure most of them truly feel remorse for what they have done. The government did over react but most likely because they felt that the west was pressuring them through those students/protests.
|
On June 06 2009 12:00 rushz0rz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2009 11:06 Railz wrote:On June 06 2009 11:04 Clasic wrote:On June 06 2009 08:40 REDBLUEGREEN wrote: Oh wow it's the first time I actually saw videos about it. Shooting at unarmed demonstrators is fucked up but shooting on the ambulance wtf.... Yeah I know what you mean dude.. god damn.. Actually they shot the demonstrators at night and then the morning after the parents were looking for their children (Child missing + rioting = uh oh) so the parents go to move into the square and the army fires at them numerous times. That is the scene with the ambulance - they weren't shooting at demonstrators then, they were shooting at the parents of them. That's so sad to hear. I can't fucking stand communism.
I don't think it is something that has to be linked to Communism - Militaristic Stateships - but the governments who tried to practice it couldn't enforce it otherwise because the people had no trust.
|
United States22883 Posts
In ancient China we had the Emperor Yao (2357-2258 BCE) and Emperor Shun (2258-2206 BCE) who departed from the hereditary system and chose their successors. We also had Tang and Wu who overthrew kingdoms by revolution. Preserved in our books are such sayings as :Heaven sees as the people see; Heaven hears as the people hear." "We have heard of a person named Zhou having been slain, we have not heard of a monarch having been murdered " "The people are most important, while the king is of the least importance." All these sayings ring with democratic sentiments. Since we have had only ideas about popular rights, and no democratic system has been evolved, we have to go to Europe and America for a republican form of government. There some countries have become republics and others have adopted constitutional monarchism, under which royal power has shrunk in the face of the rising demand for popular rights. Though hereditary monarchs have not yet disappeared, they are but vestiges and shadows of their former selves.
All through my revolutionary career I have held the view that China must be made a republic. There are three reasons. First, from a theoretical point of view, there is no ground for preserving a monarchical form of government, since it is widely recognized that the people constitute the foundation of a nation and they are all equal in their own country. In the second place, under Manchu occupation the Chinese were forced into the position of the vanquished, and suffered oppression for more than two hundred and sixty years. While a constitutional monarchy may not arouse deep resentment in other countries and can maintain itself for the time being, it will be an impossibility in China. This is from a historical point of view. A third reason may be advanced with an eye on the future of the nation. That in China prolonged periods of disorder usually followed a revolution was due to the desire of every insurgent to be a king and to his subsequent contention for the throne. If a republican government is adopted, there will be no contention. For these three reasons, I have decided for the republican form of government in order to realize the principle of democracy.
My second decision is that a constitution must be adopted to ensure good government. The true meaning of constitutionalism was discovered by Montesquieu. The threefold separation of the legislative, judicial, and executive powers as advocated by him was accepted in every constitutional country in Europe. On a tour of Europe and America I made a close study of their governments and laws and took note of their shortcomings as well as their advantages. The shortcomings of election, for instance, are not incurable. In the past China had two significant systems of examination and censoring and they can be of avail where the Western system of government and law falls short. I therefore advocate that the examinative and censorial powers should be placed on the same level with legislative, judicial and executive, thereby resulting in the five-fold separation of powers. On top of that, the system if the people's direct political powers should be adopted in order that the provision that the sovereign power is vested in the people may become a reality. In this way my principle of democracy may be carried out satisfactorily. 5 branch government?! Boy, that guy is crazy. I bet he has no idea what Chinese people are like. If he did, he'd know they're not ready for that. "Political tutelage" should go on for at least another 100 or 200 years.
|
On June 06 2009 10:44 pyrogenetix wrote: the china of that time was absolutely not ready for democracy. china today? i still think letting china have democracy will do it more harm than good. democracy assumes a certain level of responsibility from the people and some knowledge about the rest of the world and surroundings. letting people choose too much just makes them more susceptible to false information fed to them by other bullshit groups like falun gong or scientology etc (only two examples i could come up with right now but you get the idea).
china is around 4 times the population of the US and the people's heads are really kinda empty. filling them with random information and recruiting them into different organizations and different religions would be just way too easy. from there, turning them on the govt would be too easy as well. seen any videos of china? see all those people? imagine if you were able to convince only 1% of china to become suicide bombers. that's already a LOT of people and you'd have a SHITTY situation to take care of.
the students and politicians of that time wanted something that they could not have because the population isnt mature enough to make those decisions. the same way your parents made sure you ate proper food when you were a kid and not just chocolate and cookies, which is what you would choose if you were given "freedom" to choose whatever you wanted to eat. the same way you wouldn't go to school if you had the choice.
chinese people are extremely passionate about a lot of different things. if something as farfetched as falun gong has gathered as many followers as it has now, then the influx of more bullshit will surely be able to misguide a lot more people and convince them to make really bad decisions etc etc.
yes it was a tragedy that so many people died, but imo the govt did the correct thing for the greater good.
democracy has almost nothing to do with the freedom of individuals. Under democratic rules, you will simply be force to do what the majority want you to do.
|
On June 06 2009 12:00 Elric wrote: I think it's pathetic that the government doesn't acknowledge what truly happened. ... It's about the country admitting to itself that it killed a bunch of its own fucking people.
Governments do this all the time; it's no biggie to them. The way power structures work inhibits accountability and "human decency" because "human decency" is a construct that is based on identity, and a government has no concrete identity. We might as well bitch about hurricanes not feeling sorry for the people they kill, its just how they operate.
The thing is, theoretically we can change / remove a government, unlike a hurricane. That is, if it doesn't kill us first.
|
On June 06 2009 12:30 -fj. wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2009 12:00 Elric wrote: I think it's pathetic that the government doesn't acknowledge what truly happened. ... It's about the country admitting to itself that it killed a bunch of its own fucking people. Governments do this all the time; it's no biggie to them. The way power structures work inhibits accountability and "human decency" because "human decency" is a construct that is based on identity, and a government has no concrete identity. We might as well bitch about hurricanes not feeling sorry for the people they kill, its just how they operate. The thing is, theoretically we can change / remove a government, unlike a hurricane. That is, if it doesn't kill us first.
I sincerely hope you don't mean the US government. They've talked about their numerous shortfalls of the treatment of Japanese-Americans in WWII, Everyone minus BushCo. recognoized the problems with FEMA and katrina and since then have revamped them.
Hell, we have something called the Freedom of Information act that makes documents all public after X years. the US government has done some atrocious things and don't talk about it, but then certainly don't hide it.
|
On June 06 2009 11:56 Railz wrote:The argument that they still have a large peasant majority which would ruin the idea of electorates is complete bull as well. If they're the majority - then they should get the majority vote. When they know they're not getting educated, they know something is wrong. America's democracy and electoral system was formed back when easily 70% of Americans were in the same boat.
Are you talking about when only property-owning white men were allowed to vote?
On June 06 2009 12:56 Railz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2009 12:30 -fj. wrote:On June 06 2009 12:00 Elric wrote: I think it's pathetic that the government doesn't acknowledge what truly happened. ... It's about the country admitting to itself that it killed a bunch of its own fucking people. Governments do this all the time; it's no biggie to them. The way power structures work inhibits accountability and "human decency" because "human decency" is a construct that is based on identity, and a government has no concrete identity. We might as well bitch about hurricanes not feeling sorry for the people they kill, its just how they operate. The thing is, theoretically we can change / remove a government, unlike a hurricane. That is, if it doesn't kill us first. I sincerely hope you don't mean the US government. They've talked about their numerous shortfalls of the treatment of Japanese-Americans in WWII, Everyone minus BushCo. recognoized the problems with FEMA and katrina and since then have revamped them. Hell, we have something called the Freedom of Information act that makes documents all public after X years. the US government has done some atrocious things and don't talk about it, but then certainly don't hide it. And the Chinese government talks about the disasters like the Cultural Revolution too. I don't see why after an informal number of X years, the Chinese government wouldn't be more open about it too, especially given the event's diminishing importance (within China at least). Though I can see how it might remain sensitive for much longer if much of the western media keeps to the superfical line that it was all about democracy. Lastly, didn't Obama recently just hide those photos of abuse by US soldiers?
|
On June 06 2009 10:44 pyrogenetix wrote: the china of that time was absolutely not ready for democracy. china today? i still think letting china have democracy will do it more harm than good. democracy assumes a certain level of responsibility from the people and some knowledge about the rest of the world and surroundings. letting people choose too much just makes them more susceptible to false information fed to them by other bullshit groups like falun gong or scientology etc (only two examples i could come up with right now but you get the idea).
china is around 4 times the population of the US and the people's heads are really kinda empty. filling them with random information and recruiting them into different organizations and different religions would be just way too easy. from there, turning them on the govt would be too easy as well. seen any videos of china? see all those people? imagine if you were able to convince only 1% of china to become suicide bombers. that's already a LOT of people and you'd have a SHITTY situation to take care of.
the students and politicians of that time wanted something that they could not have because the population isnt mature enough to make those decisions. the same way your parents made sure you ate proper food when you were a kid and not just chocolate and cookies, which is what you would choose if you were given "freedom" to choose whatever you wanted to eat. the same way you wouldn't go to school if you had the choice.
chinese people are extremely passionate about a lot of different things. if something as farfetched as falun gong has gathered as many followers as it has now, then the influx of more bullshit will surely be able to misguide a lot more people and convince them to make really bad decisions etc etc.
yes it was a tragedy that so many people died, but imo the govt did the correct thing for the greater good.
On The Effectiveness of Propaganda; A Treatise
|
Nicholas Kristof presents a fairly cool-headed account and analysis of the Tiananmen events in the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/opinion/04kristof.html It's pretty remarkable that he's one of the few journalists able to see beyond the issue of democracy vs. communism, and yet he was actually present during the killings.
+ Show Spoiler + It was exactly 20 years ago that I stood on the northwest corner of Tiananmen Square and watched “People’s China” open fire on the people.
It was night; the gunfire roared in our ears; and the Avenue of Eternal Peace was streaked with blood. Uniformed army troops massed on the far end of the square, periodically raising their assault rifles and firing volleys directly at the crowd I was in, and we would all rush backward in terror until the firing stopped.
Then the volley would end, and in the deafening silence we would stop and look back. In the hundred yards between us and the soldiers would be kids who had been shot, lying dead or wounded on the ground.
Some protesters shouted insults at the troops or threw bricks or Molotov cocktails that landed ineffectually in the open area. But none of us dared to go forward to help the injured as they writhed. I was the Beijing bureau chief for this newspaper, and I was cowering behind a layer of other people whom I hoped would absorb bullets; the notebook in my hand was stained with perspiration from fear.
Troops had already opened fire on an ambulance that had tried to collect the injured, so other ambulances kept their distance. Finally, some unlikely saviors emerged — the rickshaw drivers.
These were peasants and workers who made a living pedaling bicycle rickshaws, carrying passengers or freight around Beijing. It was those rickshaw drivers who slowly pedaled out toward the troops to collect the bodies of the dead and injured. Then they raced back to us, legs straining furiously, rushing toward the nearest hospital.
One stocky rickshaw driver had tears streaming down his cheeks as he drove past me to display a badly wounded student so that I could photograph or recount the incident. That driver perhaps couldn’t have defined democracy, but he had risked his life to try to advance it.
That was happening all over Beijing. On the old airport road that same night, truckloads of troops were entering the city from the east. A middle-aged bus driver saw them and quickly blocked the road with his bus.
Move aside, the troops shouted.
I won’t let you attack the students, the bus driver retorted defiantly.
The troops pointed their guns at the bus driver and ordered him to move the bus aside. Instead, he plucked the keys from the ignition and hurled them into the bushes beside the road to ensure that no one could drive that bus away. The man was arrested; I don’t know what happened to him.
So, 20 years later, what happened to that bold yearning for democracy? Why is China still frozen politically — the regime controls the press more tightly today than it did for much of the 1980s — even as China has transformed economically? Why are there so few protests today?
One answer is that most energy has been diverted to making money, partly because it’s a safer outlet. One of my Chinese friends explains that if he were to protest loudly, he might be arrested; if he were to protest quietly, it would be a waste of time. “I may as well just spend the time watching a pirated DVD,” he said.
Another answer is that many of those rickshaw drivers and bus drivers and others in 1989 were demanding not precisely a parliamentary democracy, but a better life — and they got it. The Communist Party has done an extraordinarily good job of managing China’s economy and of elevating economically the same people it oppresses politically.
Living standards have soared, and people in Beijing may not have the vote, but they do have an infant mortality rate that is 27 percent lower than New York City’s.
Not all is sweet: The environment is a catastrophe, an ugly nationalism is surging among some young Chinese and even nonpolitical Chinese chafe at corruption and at Web censorship (including the blocking this week of Twitter, Flickr and Hotmail). Balancing that, their children now get an education incomparably better than in earlier generations — better overall than many children get in the United States.
When you educate citizens and create a middle class, you nurture aspirations for political participation. In that sense, China is following the same path as Taiwan and South Korea in the 1980s.
In Taiwan in 1986, an ambitious young official named Ma Ying-jeou used to tell me that robust Western-style democracy might not be fully suited for the people of Taiwan. He revised his view and now is the island’s democratically elected president.
Some of my friends are Communist Party officials, and they are biding their time. We outsiders also may as well be similarly pragmatic and patient, for there’s not much we can do to accelerate this process. And as we wait, we can be inspired by those rickshaw drivers of 20 years ago.
|
On June 06 2009 13:21 boe_N wrote:Nicholas Kristof presents a fairly cool-headed account and analysis of the Tiananmen events in the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/opinion/04kristof.htmlIt's pretty remarkable that he's one of the few journalists able to see beyond the issue of democracy vs. communism, and yet he was actually present during the killings. + Show Spoiler + It was exactly 20 years ago that I stood on the northwest corner of Tiananmen Square and watched “People’s China” open fire on the people.
It was night; the gunfire roared in our ears; and the Avenue of Eternal Peace was streaked with blood. Uniformed army troops massed on the far end of the square, periodically raising their assault rifles and firing volleys directly at the crowd I was in, and we would all rush backward in terror until the firing stopped.
Then the volley would end, and in the deafening silence we would stop and look back. In the hundred yards between us and the soldiers would be kids who had been shot, lying dead or wounded on the ground.
Some protesters shouted insults at the troops or threw bricks or Molotov cocktails that landed ineffectually in the open area. But none of us dared to go forward to help the injured as they writhed. I was the Beijing bureau chief for this newspaper, and I was cowering behind a layer of other people whom I hoped would absorb bullets; the notebook in my hand was stained with perspiration from fear.
Troops had already opened fire on an ambulance that had tried to collect the injured, so other ambulances kept their distance. Finally, some unlikely saviors emerged — the rickshaw drivers.
These were peasants and workers who made a living pedaling bicycle rickshaws, carrying passengers or freight around Beijing. It was those rickshaw drivers who slowly pedaled out toward the troops to collect the bodies of the dead and injured. Then they raced back to us, legs straining furiously, rushing toward the nearest hospital.
One stocky rickshaw driver had tears streaming down his cheeks as he drove past me to display a badly wounded student so that I could photograph or recount the incident. That driver perhaps couldn’t have defined democracy, but he had risked his life to try to advance it.
That was happening all over Beijing. On the old airport road that same night, truckloads of troops were entering the city from the east. A middle-aged bus driver saw them and quickly blocked the road with his bus.
Move aside, the troops shouted.
I won’t let you attack the students, the bus driver retorted defiantly.
The troops pointed their guns at the bus driver and ordered him to move the bus aside. Instead, he plucked the keys from the ignition and hurled them into the bushes beside the road to ensure that no one could drive that bus away. The man was arrested; I don’t know what happened to him.
So, 20 years later, what happened to that bold yearning for democracy? Why is China still frozen politically — the regime controls the press more tightly today than it did for much of the 1980s — even as China has transformed economically? Why are there so few protests today?
One answer is that most energy has been diverted to making money, partly because it’s a safer outlet. One of my Chinese friends explains that if he were to protest loudly, he might be arrested; if he were to protest quietly, it would be a waste of time. “I may as well just spend the time watching a pirated DVD,” he said.
Another answer is that many of those rickshaw drivers and bus drivers and others in 1989 were demanding not precisely a parliamentary democracy, but a better life — and they got it. The Communist Party has done an extraordinarily good job of managing China’s economy and of elevating economically the same people it oppresses politically.
Living standards have soared, and people in Beijing may not have the vote, but they do have an infant mortality rate that is 27 percent lower than New York City’s.
Not all is sweet: The environment is a catastrophe, an ugly nationalism is surging among some young Chinese and even nonpolitical Chinese chafe at corruption and at Web censorship (including the blocking this week of Twitter, Flickr and Hotmail). Balancing that, their children now get an education incomparably better than in earlier generations — better overall than many children get in the United States.
When you educate citizens and create a middle class, you nurture aspirations for political participation. In that sense, China is following the same path as Taiwan and South Korea in the 1980s.
In Taiwan in 1986, an ambitious young official named Ma Ying-jeou used to tell me that robust Western-style democracy might not be fully suited for the people of Taiwan. He revised his view and now is the island’s democratically elected president.
Some of my friends are Communist Party officials, and they are biding their time. We outsiders also may as well be similarly pragmatic and patient, for there’s not much we can do to accelerate this process. And as we wait, we can be inspired by those rickshaw drivers of 20 years ago.
That's a good read.
|
People who really know nothing about China really need to stop speculating about it. I don't want to go on a long rant here so I'll just put forward a couple points.
- China cannot work as a democracy, the population is far too segemented and popularized from the north to the south and west to be able to mutally agree on an elected leader. Now this may be a hard concept to understand for anyone who has no travelled around to the many different regions of China where "foreigner" pretty much means you weren't born in the local village.
- China will never be a democracy and does not want to be a democracy PERIOD. People like to say that the population has been brain washed and surpressed behind an iron curtain or something or that is at least how the western media like to portray it.
But to all those of you who live on a campus with a large international chinese student presence to have a chat to some of them. These are young generation X/Ys who have a firm grasp of western values and are studying in your western univerties, watching desperate housewives and listening to justin timerlake.
These people are the future of China and they are as patrioitic and nationalist as ever, even to the point where I'm actually worried that Chinese nationalism in the 21st century may even exceed the levels during the cold war from the Mao's children, generation.
|
On June 06 2009 11:36 KissBlade wrote: The argument that democracy is best is IMO ridiculous. "Democracy is the worst form of government - except for all the others." - Winston Churchill
As I grow older and get a little more knowledge of politics etc., I continue to understand and agree with the sentiment of that quote more and more.
|
- China cannot work as a democracy, the population is far too segemented and popularized from the north to the south and west to be able to mutally agree on an elected leader. Now this may be a hard concept to understand for anyone who has no travelled around to the many different regions of China where "foreigner" pretty much means you weren't born in the local village.
Who said it can't work as a democracy? Is it because people are different? Isnt the whole point of democracy bringing different people together? The EU is 20+ countries working together in a democracy. The only reason I see why China wouldnt work as a democracy right now is because of lack of respect for it's own people.
- China will never be a democracy and does not want to be a democracy PERIOD. People like to say that the population has been brain washed and surpressed behind an iron curtain or something or that is at least how the western media like to portray it.
The people benefiting from the current rule would never want it to be a democracy. The people who arn't in the majority or being neglected rights for other reasons want democracy, if they know of it as an alternative. I wouldn't have botherd writing in this thread if it wasnt for my chinese neighbours. Wonderful people in every aspect but they lack any sort of ciritical thinking when it comes to politics.
Even though I love China, I'd love for the Chinese people to be educated about democracy in a proper way and get several sources of information to learn critical thinking.
|
"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those others that have been tried"
-Winston Churchill
|
On June 06 2009 13:05 Spinfusor wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2009 11:56 Railz wrote:The argument that they still have a large peasant majority which would ruin the idea of electorates is complete bull as well. If they're the majority - then they should get the majority vote. When they know they're not getting educated, they know something is wrong. America's democracy and electoral system was formed back when easily 70% of Americans were in the same boat.
Are you talking about when only property-owning white men were allowed to vote? Show nested quote +On June 06 2009 12:56 Railz wrote:On June 06 2009 12:30 -fj. wrote:On June 06 2009 12:00 Elric wrote: I think it's pathetic that the government doesn't acknowledge what truly happened. ... It's about the country admitting to itself that it killed a bunch of its own fucking people. Governments do this all the time; it's no biggie to them. The way power structures work inhibits accountability and "human decency" because "human decency" is a construct that is based on identity, and a government has no concrete identity. We might as well bitch about hurricanes not feeling sorry for the people they kill, its just how they operate. The thing is, theoretically we can change / remove a government, unlike a hurricane. That is, if it doesn't kill us first. I sincerely hope you don't mean the US government. They've talked about their numerous shortfalls of the treatment of Japanese-Americans in WWII, Everyone minus BushCo. recognoized the problems with FEMA and katrina and since then have revamped them. Hell, we have something called the Freedom of Information act that makes documents all public after X years. the US government has done some atrocious things and don't talk about it, but then certainly don't hide it. And the Chinese government talks about the disasters like the Cultural Revolution too. I don't see why after an informal number of X years, the Chinese government wouldn't be more open about it too, especially given the event's diminishing importance (within China at least). Though I can see how it might remain sensitive for much longer if much of the western media keeps to the superfical line that it was all about democracy. Lastly, didn't Obama recently just hide those photos of abuse by US soldiers?
On your first point: ya all those land owning white males were farmers who had no connection to the urban port traders of Boston and Virgina, the exact case thats going on in China with her peasants and urban dwellers.
On the second point they talk about the Cultural Revolution like the North talks about the Civil War in America, oh it was good we freed slaves, but we also know in the south they have a soft feeling that it was the North states stomping on their right to be a free state. They leave out the bad. On the point about Obama - we know it happened and photos are released. Nat Geo even printed out some recently on a documentary. We'll see the photos regardless in 50 years, but I'm sure after the whole ordeal is blown over it'll become moot and the public will see them if UCLA asks for them if they still want to see them.
|
|
|
|