(Yes I do realize it was June the 4th, but nontheless, this deserves to be remembered)
From Wikipedia
The Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 culminating in the Tiananmen Square massacre (referred to in China as the June 4 Incident, to avoid confusion with two other Tiananmen Square protests) were a series of demonstrations in and near Tiananmen Square in Beijing in the People's Republic of China (PRC) beginning on April 14. Led mainly by students and intellectuals, the protests occurred in a year that saw the collapse of a number of communist governments around the world.
The protests were sparked by the death of a pro-market, pro-democracy, and anti-corruption official, Hu Yaobang, whom protesters wanted to mourn. By the eve of Hu's funeral, 1,000,000 people had gathered on the Tiananmen square. The protests lacked a unified cause or leadership; participants included disillusioned Communist Party members and Trotskyists as well as free market reformers, who were generally against the government's authoritarianism and voiced calls for economic change and democratic reform within the structure of the government. The demonstrations centered on Tiananmen Square, in Beijing, but large-scale protests also occurred in cities throughout China, including Shanghai, which remained peaceful throughout the protests.
The movement lasted seven weeks, from Hu's death on April 15 until tanks cleared Tiananmen Square on June 4. In Beijing, the resulting military response to the protesters by the PRC government left many civilians dead or severely injured. The number of deaths is not known and many different estimates exist.There were early reports of Chinese Red Cross sources giving a figure of 2,600 deaths, but the Chinese Red Cross has denied ever doing so. The official Chinese government figure is 241 dead, including soldiers, and 7,000 wounded.
Following the violence, the government conducted widespread arrests to suppress protesters and their supporters, cracked down on other protests around China, banned the foreign press from the country and strictly controlled coverage of the events in the PRC press. Members of the Party who had publicly sympathized with the protesters were purged, with several high-ranking members placed under house arrest, such as General Secretary Zhao Ziyang. The violent suppression of the Tiananmen Square protest caused widespread international condemnation of the PRC government.
Number of deaths - Wikipedia * 10,000 dead (including civilians and soldiers) - Soviet Union. * 7000 deaths - NATO intelligence. * 4000 to 6000 civilians killed, but no one really knows - Edward Timperlake. * 2600 had officially died by the morning of June 4 (later denied) - the Chinese Red Cross. An unnamed Chinese Red Cross official estimated that, in total, 5000 people were killed and 30,000 injured. * According to a Time article, Amnesty International and some of the protest participants put the number of dead closer to 1,000. Other statements by Amnesty International have characterized the number of deaths as hundreds. * In excess of 3700 killed, excluding disappearance or secret deaths and those denied medical treatment - PLA defector citing a document circulating among officers. * 300 to 1,000 according to a Western diplomat that compiled estimates. * 400 to 800 plausible according to the New York Times' Nicholas D. Kristof. * A declassified NSA document indicated early casualty estimates of 180-500. * According to the Chinese government, the official figure is 241 dead, including soldiers, and 7000 wounded. * 186 named individuals confirmed dead as at the end of June 2006 - Professor Ding Zilin. But note that the cause of deaths of some of the individuals on Ding's list are not directly at the hands of the army. For example, at least one person had committed suicide after the June 4th incident.
I don't really know what to say, I just wish the actions of the chinese students 20 years ago will not forever be in vain. Hopefully some day China will experience a 'proper' democracy and a free press.
I doubt China will be a democracy any time soon. What China first needs to do is crack down on corruption, but that's impossible considering all the high-ranking officials are corrupt.
Ya my mom was actually there while pregnant with me. (Way to take precautions when you were pregnant mom...)
She says basically, the most important she and few others learned were that you can't force democracy. China in 1989 was not ready to be a democracy and it still isn't.
Interesting choice of Tank Man shot. One of the less common of the four.
Anyway, tragic anniversary, not only for the deaths, but for the wilful ignorance most Chinese authorities/people choose to exhibit towards it. Some students who were protesters are now businessmen engaged in Chinese government trade - people are so damn mercenary.
Props to Hong Kong for demonstrating. Props to Chinese netizens who elected to circumvent censors and post memorials.
Democracy is pretty unfeasible for a country as large as China. China also suffers from a large educational disparity, which makes for a bad electoral process.
well, based on past history, i dont think its a matter of democracy. i think it is more of running a country properly to maximize the welfare of the ppl.
when the economy is doing good, u dont hear any complaints about freedom. haha.
On June 06 2009 08:31 Last Romantic wrote: Interesting choice of Tank Man shot. One of the less common of the four.
Anyway, tragic anniversary, not only for the deaths, but for the wilful ignorance most Chinese authorities/people choose to exhibit towards it. Some students who were protesters are now businessmen engaged in Chinese government trade - people are so damn mercenary.
Props to Hong Kong for demonstrating. Props to Chinese netizens who elected to circumvent censors and post memorials.
On June 06 2009 09:00 dybydx wrote: well, based on past history, i dont think its a matter of democracy. i think it is more of running a country properly to maximize the welfare of the ppl.
when the economy is doing good, u dont hear any complaints about freedom. haha.
On June 06 2009 08:40 p3numbra wrote: Democracy is pretty unfeasible for a country as large as China. China also suffers from a large educational disparity, which makes for a bad electoral process.
India has a democracy and their population is almost the same size as China. They also suffer from a large educational disparity. Democracy seems to be working for them though.
On June 06 2009 08:40 p3numbra wrote: Democracy is pretty unfeasible for a country as large as China. China also suffers from a large educational disparity, which makes for a bad electoral process.
India has a democracy and their population is almost the same size as China. They also suffer from a large educational disparity. Democracy seems to be working for them though.
No India is shit atm corrupt as hell. Go ask some indian friends.
On June 06 2009 08:30 Titusmaster6 wrote: Ya my mom was actually there while pregnant with me. (Way to take precautions when you were pregnant mom...)
She says basically, the most important she and few others learned were that you can't force democracy. China in 1989 was not ready to be a democracy and it still isn't.
I think this is a very good point. I don't know much about history, but how did most democracies arise? Were they results of massive uprising or did they "evolve naturally."
Also, I don't feel that democracy will really solve anything in China because, as others have pointed out, the education and class disparities there are enormous. Nonetheless, full respect to the student protesters involved in the incident and those with the courage to speak out. Even though they didn't achieve their objects, they did make a difference. Hopefully, some day, the problems China faces can be resolved naturally and peacefully.
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 June 06 2009 08:40 p3numbra wrote: Democracy is pretty unfeasible for a country as large as China. China also suffers from a large educational disparity, which makes for a bad electoral process.
India has a democracy and their population is almost the same size as China. They also suffer from a large educational disparity. Democracy seems to be working for them though.
On June 06 2009 10:44 pyrogenetix wrote: 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.
Yeah, massive state-sponsored censorship is really the way to go. People are too stupid for this "freedom" bullshit.
On June 06 2009 10:44 pyrogenetix wrote: yes it was a tragedy that so many people died, but imo the govt did the correct thing for the greater good.
China doesn't have to a democracy for this not to happen. What stops it from happening in America is their Constitution. The term for constitution is literally a contract from Government to People.
CCP does in fact have a constitution, but I'm pretty sure its complete BS and not bound by any legal courts. "The basic line of the Communist Party of China at the primary stage of socialism is to lead the people of all our ethnic groups in a concerted, self-reliant and pioneering effort to turn China into a prosperous, strong, democratic and culturally advanced modern socialist country by making economic development our central task while adhering to the Four Cardinal Principles and persevering in the reform and opening up. "
Upon reading the rest of it, it is kind of scary - it is far too broad to be useful "To earnestly engage in criticism and self-criticism, boldly expose and correct shortcomings and mistakes in work and resolutely combat corruption and other malpractices. "
Most of it is outlining the rules and make-up of the party and not just the average citizens of the country which is where most of the ambiguity occurs.
Back to the subject of the OP: I read an interesting bit recently which talks about how successful the Chinese government has been at erasing Tiananmen from its history. Here's the gist:
I have spent a lot of time over the past three years with Chinese university students. They know a lot about the world, and about American history, and about certain periods in their own country's past. Virtually everyone can recite chapter and verse of the Japanese cruelties in China from the 1930s onward, or the 100 Years of Humiliation, or the long background of Chinese engagement with Tibet. Through their own family's experiences, many have heard of the trauma of the Cultural Revolution years and the starvation and hardship of the Great Leap Forward. But you can't assume they will ever have heard of what happened in Tiananmen Square twenty years ago. For a minority of people in China, the upcoming date of June 4 has tremendous significance. For most young people, it's just another day.
I know this is just anecdotal, but I still found it interesting, surprising, and somewhat saddening.
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....
On June 06 2009 11:01 JWD wrote: Back to the subject of the OP: I read an interesting bit recently which talks about how successful the Chinese government has been at erasing Tiananmen from its history. Here's the gist:
I have spent a lot of time over the past three years with Chinese university students. They know a lot about the world, and about American history, and about certain periods in their own country's past. Virtually everyone can recite chapter and verse of the Japanese cruelties in China from the 1930s onward, or the 100 Years of Humiliation, or the long background of Chinese engagement with Tibet. Through their own family's experiences, many have heard of the trauma of the Cultural Revolution years and the starvation and hardship of the Great Leap Forward. But you can't assume they will ever have heard of what happened in Tiananmen Square twenty years ago. For a minority of people in China, the upcoming date of June 4 has tremendous significance. For most young people, it's just another day.
I know this is just anecdotal, but I still found it interesting, surprising, and somewhat saddening.
Thats pretty common. Watch Frontline's video on the tankman - the last part of it shows the frontline people showing 4 university students the picture of tankman and they have zero - zero clue what it was. Their 2 guesses were it was a drawing or a military parade..
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.
Sigh, did you really need to make this topic? This is just gonna be another lame discussion full of pro-China and anti-China sentiments, with the same uninformed and biased opinions as always.
On June 06 2009 11:01 JWD wrote: Back to the subject of the OP: I read an interesting bit recently which talks about how successful the Chinese government has been at erasing Tiananmen from its history. Here's the gist:
I have spent a lot of time over the past three years with Chinese university students. They know a lot about the world, and about American history, and about certain periods in their own country's past. Virtually everyone can recite chapter and verse of the Japanese cruelties in China from the 1930s onward, or the 100 Years of Humiliation, or the long background of Chinese engagement with Tibet. Through their own family's experiences, many have heard of the trauma of the Cultural Revolution years and the starvation and hardship of the Great Leap Forward. But you can't assume they will ever have heard of what happened in Tiananmen Square twenty years ago. For a minority of people in China, the upcoming date of June 4 has tremendous significance. For most young people, it's just another day.
I know this is just anecdotal, but I still found it interesting, surprising, and somewhat saddening.
On June 06 2009 11:09 foeffa wrote: Sigh, did you really need to make this topic? This is just gonna be another lame discussion full of pro-China and anti-China sentiments, with the same uninformed and biased opinions as always.
No one is anti-China here - I'd say quite the opposite. Caring for a country means making those in charge be responsible for their decisions.
On June 06 2009 10:44 pyrogenetix wrote: the china of that time was absolutely not ready for democracy.
yes it was a tragedy that so many people died, but imo the govt did the correct thing for the greater good.
First sentence - Yes, that is true.
Second sentence - No bloody way this will fly. People are too squeamish about taking the lives of dissenters.
The Chinese then were a disillusioned lot because of the retarded revolutions Mao put them through. After Mao died they gained some measure of freedom and were eager for more.
But Mao left his legacy, which was intent on keeping to his vision. The government clamped down on this dissension, not because it was a strong movement for democracy - it was tiny in fact; but because the event made them lose their face. A dictatorship without any face won't keep any order in the country.
But the government did act in the correct direction. I'm not saying what they did is right, but China at that time was already in deep shit. Had this gone out of hand, China might have collapsed and taken longer to reach what it is today.
I have to agree with pyro's view - they just weren't ready at that time.
While we mourn and argue over China's actions that day, what we must remember is we cannot change the past. All we can do right now is watch China closely. I am certain China will succumb to international pressure; they've got so much more to lose, then say, North Korea.
On June 06 2009 11:09 foeffa wrote: Sigh, did you really need to make this topic? This is just gonna be another lame discussion full of pro-China and anti-China sentiments, with the same uninformed and biased opinions as always.
No one is anti-China here - I'd say quite the opposite. Caring for a country means making those in charge be responsible for their decisions.
I usually read a lot of anti-China comments in these kind of threads. Moreover, these threads are usually just filled with platitudes, born from ignorance. It's just <random person 1> read a CNN or whatever article on China and immediately assumes that's the whole story, starts crying about how China should change this or that or yaddayadda. It's all fine and dandy to "care for a country" and to post your opinion from that perspective, but the ignorance in some posts just tends to make me irrate sometimes.
Exhibit A:
On June 06 2009 10:56 Railz wrote: CCP does in fact have a constitution, but I'm pretty sure its complete BS and not bound by any legal courts.
If you actually had any knowledge on the subject you might know that while the constitution is broad, this is the generally the case in Chinese law because most of it is interpreted at the local level in a manner befitting social circumstances, as a form of pragmatism. While there are without a doubt injustices in the Chinese legislative or judicial system, there has been quite a bit of effort invested in implementing the rule of law in China (based on a European continental law system, more specifically German law). Yes the balance of powers isn't strictly enforced, yes there is a problem with corruption, conflicts of interest and pressure from e.g. LPG's on local courts etc, etc. However, just saying that "the Chinese constitution is BS and whatnot is just uninformed dribble, like a lot of things people tend to say when talking about China. They're not retarded, they know where the problems lie and sooner or later they will be addressed. After all it's still a country in transition in some ways, and they 've come a long way already.
I'm not a China-nut but I do hate people randomly spamming opinions on subjects they don't know that much about, concerning a country they don't know much about either.
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. BTW, some small provincial elections are already starting to be won by non CCP members. It's not much, but it's difficult to stop once it gets started, and it'll be especially difficult when they face more economic slowdowns and their new middle class isn't happy about it.
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.
The argument that democracy is best is IMO ridiculous. However, the militaristic crackdown against TS was completely unnecessary as it was not only a waste of lives but also a plain sign of insecurity of the Chinese government. (though understandable at the time, China was more or less preparing to take the mantle of Soviet Russia as the communistic leader of the world) As for many of the students involved in the actual protest now working as government officials, well, chances are if they were engaged in government protest they were into politics one way or another so what'd you expect. -.-
Btw sArite_nite, good points but I doubt China will succumb to international pressure any time soon simply because of the current Chinese mentality to not "lose face" to foreigners. You'd have to realize, a lot of Chinese still have the "up yours" mentality towards the West for their imperialistic policies towards China the past two hundred years. In some ways, I think Obama's admin is recognizing that given Geithner/Clinton's approach in dealing with China compared to well ... the less well picked ones of Bush's regime.
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. =\
On June 06 2009 10:56 Railz wrote: CCP does in fact have a constitution, but I'm pretty sure its complete BS and not bound by any legal courts.
If you actually had any knowledge on the subject you might know that while the constitution is broad, this is the generally the case in Chinese law because most of it is interpreted at the local level in a manner befitting social circumstances, as a form of pragmatism. While there are without a doubt injustices in the Chinese legislative or judicial system, there has been quite a bit of effort invested in implementing the rule of law in China (based on a European continental law system, more specifically German law). Yes the balance of powers isn't strictly enforced, yes there is a problem with corruption, conflicts of interest and pressure from e.g. LPG's on local courts etc, etc. However, just saying that "the Chinese constitution is BS and whatnot is just uninformed dribble, like a lot of things people tend to say when talking about China. They're not retarded, they know where the problems lie and sooner or later they will be addressed. After all it's still a country in transition in some ways, and they 've come a long way already.
I'm not a China-nut but I do hate people randomly spamming opinions on subjects they don't know that much about, concerning a country they don't know much about either.
Granted, my word usage wasn't the best but the point remains. People were stating that they'd be better off with a democracy. I was pointing out how that's not true at all - all they need is an improved constitution. So I read it and it furthered my belief that the constitution they have was made for the party, not the country. Or am I not allowed to be anti-CCP?
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 perpetuates 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?
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. Even still, you're right, corruption is not as bad as it once was in industrialized nations by a fair margin - but a lot of that was because of the allowance of letting people protest and form workers rights movements above all else.
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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 12:00 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 12:00 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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
- 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.
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 12:00 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.
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.
A communal Republic would actually be the best form of government - something like the United States - but where townships have full authority of their land. Regardless - What China is now is an Oligarchy, there are no parties by communist standard. A one party rule is an Oligarchy.
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.
A communal Republic would actually be the best form of government - something like the United States - but where townships have full authority of their land. Regardless - What China is now is an Oligarchy, there are no parties by communist standard. A one party rule is an Oligarchy.
I have a hard time taking Americans seriously when they speak of 1 party states, considering theyre a 2 party state. You guys got 1 party more than communist China.
- 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.
You imply that China is simply uneducated in the field of democracy, and if they simply understand it, they would want it. That is the utmost ignorance in culture, demographics, and conditions in the country.
First of all, there is and has been a cultural difference between the West and East, especially China. Chinese society is bound by responsibility and the reliability of morals, while something like "Western democracy" is bound by promotion of self-interest and law. The important idea is that not only does this culture contrast with democracy, but also communism (why cultural revolution happened).
Demographics. You want to extend right of the vote to 1.6 billion people. Give something practical or stfu.
Conditions. Democracy cannot be supported by a country that needs infrastructural improvement such as housing conditions, railroads, and industrial development in many areas. A lot of African countries are democracies, and they work great right? Perhaps in the future democratic POLICIES and laxer rule may happen when the wealth that is held by the top trickles down, but for the next 40-50 years there is no/limited extension of democracy in China.
People are not uneducated about democracy; they only seem non-chalant about it simply because most normal people don't have a need to write anti-government writing or talk shit about a government official. If they are going to talk shit, it would be in private and over dinner. So pragmatically, the limit of their daily freedom does not differ from that in the United States. Except for the few exiles, Chinese people do not immigrate to other countries because they want to speak their mind, but rather because there are better economic opportunities abroad.
Don't assume that because you enjoy political discussions and pretending that you have a know-how and influence in a massive government that another culture develop on literature radically different from that you're used to think the same way.
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.
A communal Republic would actually be the best form of government - something like the United States - but where townships have full authority of their land. Regardless - What China is now is an Oligarchy, there are no parties by communist standard. A one party rule is an Oligarchy.
I have a hard time taking Americans seriously when they speak of 1 party states, considering theyre a 2 party state. You guys got 1 party more than communist China.
I'm actually enjoying this discussion at the moment since there's a lot of interesting opinions. I just hope people keep things civil and NOT spill personal bias and propaganda from /both/ sides. I honestly do NOT think democracy and capitalism perpetuate each other nor think they're both the best system for all by any means. The idea that collectivism perpetuates corruption while democracies do not is just baffling. Especially since one of the primary supports of socialism/Marxism is that nations who tends towards it are often those who are sick of government corruption in the first place. (Study Russian/Chinese history for blatant examples of these, ie Nicholas II, Chang Kai shek, etc)
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.
A communal Republic would actually be the best form of government - something like the United States - but where townships have full authority of their land. Regardless - What China is now is an Oligarchy, there are no parties by communist standard. A one party rule is an Oligarchy.
I have a hard time taking Americans seriously when they speak of 1 party states, considering theyre a 2 party state. You guys got 1 party more than communist China.
1) Weak Argument on my end here, but we have more then one party and there are a lot of independent members on state legislators just not on the federal level. 2) Each Party goes through a primary vote which weeds through tons and tons of potential congressmen/president so just because it is 2 party in label, the amount of people we get to choose from is at least a big pile of idiocy. 3) Our Courts don't recognize themselves committed to a party - a judge might have conservative or progressive values but they have no bound to a party ruling. 4) We've had more parties in the past - they die off and the have to re-align themselves with the majority, in fact we're witnessing it right now.
Edit: It is hard to take anyone seriously in a real political debate when they refer to china as "classless, stateless society based on common ownership and control of the means of production and property in general" ie Communism - they haven't been Communist since the Bill Clinton era
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.
A communal Republic would actually be the best form of government - something like the United States - but where townships have full authority of their land. Regardless - What China is now is an Oligarchy, there are no parties by communist standard. A one party rule is an Oligarchy.
I have a hard time taking Americans seriously when they speak of 1 party states, considering theyre a 2 party state. You guys got 1 party more than communist China.
No actually we have a 1-party system that comes in 2 different flavors.
The major parties do not disagree on anything substantial. It's all tail wagging.
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.
A communal Republic would actually be the best form of government - something like the United States - but where townships have full authority of their land. Regardless - What China is now is an Oligarchy, there are no parties by communist standard. A one party rule is an Oligarchy.
I have a hard time taking Americans seriously when they speak of 1 party states, considering theyre a 2 party state. You guys got 1 party more than communist China.
No actually we have a 1-party system that comes in 2 different flavors.
The major parties do not disagree on anything substantial. It's all tail wagging.
they have to take the middle ground - Americans are so equally polarized on both ends, to not cater to the majority of either side would be undemocratic. The other side of the coin in mob rule which is just as bad.
You imply that China is simply uneducated in the field of democracy, and if they simply understand it, they would want it. That is the utmost ignorance in culture, demographics, and conditions in the country.
First of all, there is and has been a cultural difference between the West and East, especially China. Chinese society is bound by responsibility and the reliability of morals,
The actions of the Chinese Communist govt. since it came into power are some of the most immoral of all time.
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.
A communal Republic would actually be the best form of government - something like the United States - but where townships have full authority of their land. Regardless - What China is now is an Oligarchy, there are no parties by communist standard. A one party rule is an Oligarchy.
I have a hard time taking Americans seriously when they speak of 1 party states, considering theyre a 2 party state. You guys got 1 party more than communist China.
No actually we have a 1-party system that comes in 2 different flavors.
The major parties do not disagree on anything substantial. It's all tail wagging.
they have to take the middle ground - Americans are so equally polarized on both ends, to not cater to the majority of either side would be undemocratic. The other side of the coin in mob rule which is just as bad.
Here is an essay that explains it pretty well.
Here in Georgia, the gubernatorial race is about to get moving towards the election of 2010. The reason I bring this up is that Georgia Congressman Nathan Deal has just announced his intention to run for Governor. He makes a good example for this essay.
Mr. Deal was a lifelong Democrat...that is, until 1995. He had been elected to the Congress as a Democrat in 1992. Then, when Newt Gingrich became Speaker of the House in 1994, Deal had some kind of epiphany. He switched parties and became a Republican. I cannot say whether his switch was for political expediency or whether it was truly philosophical. However, a look at his voting record would show that political expediency seems to be the leading indicator of his motives.
Actions speak louder than words.
Now, he will run for Governor as a Republican in a heavily Republican state.
Politics is defined by negotiation and compromise. As an insurance adjuster, I have been a professional negotiator for many years. The negotiations that I undertook were based upon the premise accepted by both parties that there was coverage under the terms and conditions of the policy. We were simply negotiating the settlement.
But, when it came to matters of coverage, there was no compromise. Either coverage existed or it didn't. If there was a dispute on coverage between the policyholder and insurer, it had to be settled in a court of law.
American politics is comprised of a political party system. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Green, Communist, Constitution are all names for political parties in America. The two biggest parties, the Republican and Democrat, ignore the others for the most part, as the other parties have little power.
Republicans and Democrats are negotiators and compromisers, just like in insurance claims. They have already accepted the reality of politics, which is that government will grow and tax revenues will be spent. Sessions of Congress, whether controlled by Republicans or Democrats, are simply the negotiations and compromises about where the money goes.
Rarely does the "coverage issue" arise for today's politician. What I mean is that politicians seldom if ever take a position that government should not grow, that laws should not be passed, and that tax revenues should not be spent. The debate in Congress and state legislatures is customarily only WHERE the money is spent.
In the USA, there are only two real philosophical positions that can be taken. The first is the position that the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and that all Federal Government action must be controlled by it. Lawmakers guided and governed by loyalty to the US Constitution would concentrate on Constitutional issues. In the parlance of insurance, they might say "Is this legislation covered...by the Constitution?" If authorization could not be found, the action would die before enactment.
These lawmakers would NEVER negotiate or compromise the Constitution. This first philosophical position guarantees maximum freedom for US citizens.
The second position is every other belief system that runs contrary to the first.
The US Constitution was enacted as the supreme law of the land. ALL actions of the three branches of US Federal Government should be bound by the strictures in the Constitution. But reality is that almost no one in the three branches of US Government recognize the authority of the Constitution anymore.
Curiously, every elected official must swear an oath of office in which he or she vows to support, protect and defend the Constitution. For most politicians, the oath is simply a formality with no force of law.
But actions ALWAYS speak louder than words.
This second position, taken to its natural conclusion, guarantees the greatest governmental burden and least freedom for US citizens.
Therefore, I contend that the two-party-dominant political system in America is in essence only one party...with two main heads. Both heads of the snake agree in principle on the foundation of negotiation and compromise. They mostly reject the constraints of the Constitution upon their actions.
The ONLY way to save this nation is to return to the Constitution at the state level and force the Federal Government to obey the law.
I'm simply saying, the fundamental issue of "coverage" (not right vs left), as this author puts it, is not discussed anymore in politics; it is taken for granted. This will be a major premise of the next American revolution.
It's a political landmine. That's why the CCP don't want to talk about it.
Think watergate, korean ex-president sucide and any other scandals but x1000.
The TS wasn't just a demonstration for progress, it was also an arena for some political score-settling.
I do feel for the students tho, they, however naive, died for the welfare of the nation. They, just like the GMT soldiers in the 8 years war, will never be properly acknowledged.
No actually we have a 1-party system that comes in 2 different flavors.
All democracies have a "1 party system that comes in multiple flavors", more or less.
The crucial difference between a democracy and a totalitarian state is the complete embrace between politics, media and the military/police aligned along the axis of arbitrary exercise of power.
No actually we have a 1-party system that comes in 2 different flavors.
All democracies have a "1 party system that comes in multiple flavors", more or less.
The crucial difference between a democracy and a totalitarian state is the complete embrace between politics, media and the military/police aligned along the axis of arbitrary exercise of power.
No amount of rhetoric changes that.
I was alluding to the mutual rejection of constitutionally-defined scope ("coverage") by the 2 major parties, as outlined in my second post.
I suppose I was being too cryptic, saying such a thing with no context. It was opportunistic and non-sequitur on my part. Totally off-topic, yes, but an important clarification.
In response to you, the ideal 1 party system would be case#1 of my second post, that which respects constitutional government. Case#2 leads to the totalitarian state as you have described. It is a matter of perspective when enumerating. In America, case#1 is not championed by either major party. And thus both parties walk hand-in-hand towards totalitarianism, embracing case#2. A 1-party implementation, still, propped up with the complicity of mass media.
You can hardly say people are educated about democracy and just don't want it when you restrict their sources of information heavily. To say they are not ready for free information or the truth about what happened on the Tiananmen square is one of the most degrading opinions I can imagine.
To think some of you defend shooting on civilians as the lesser evil makes me want to puke.
On June 06 2009 17:58 silynxer wrote: You can hardly say people are educated about democracy and just don't want it when you restrict their sources of information heavily. To say they are not ready for free information or the truth about what happened on the Tiananmen square is one of the most degrading opinions I can imagine.
To think some of you defend shooting on civilians as the lesser evil makes me want to puke.
From a utilitarian perspective, if cooperation via communism is the only way to keep 1.3 billion fed and clothed, it is a no-brainer to shoot-down the 2,600 people standing in the way.
The average US citizen uses this same philosophy to justify Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which killed MANY more people.
Wow, my ignorant self got utterly schooled in this thread, by the scholarly superiors of TL.net. I just naturally assumed that democracy = good, but I see know that this is not the case. However, I still fail to see why democracy shouldn't be able to work in China: India and the European union are diverse places as well, and here democracy seems to be working, albeit with a few (minor/major?) flaws. 1.6 bio. is a lot of people, granted, but if you do it the Indian way (7 election rounds in different parts of the country) wouldn't that work?
TBH, I'd rather be forced to do what the majority of the people want me to do than be forced to be a puppet of 0,000001% of the population that's widely known to be corrupt >_>
On June 06 2009 20:29 Hans-Titan wrote: Wow, my ignorant self got utterly schooled in this thread, by the scholarly superiors of TL.net. I just naturally assumed that democracy = good, but I see know that this is not the case.
On June 06 2009 20:29 Hans-Titan wrote: Wow, my ignorant self got utterly schooled in this thread, by the scholarly superiors of TL.net. I just naturally assumed that democracy = good, but I see know that this is not the case.
- 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.
You imply that China is simply uneducated in the field of democracy, and if they simply understand it, they would want it. That is the utmost ignorance in culture, demographics, and conditions in the country.
First of all, there is and has been a cultural difference between the West and East, especially China. Chinese society is bound by responsibility and the reliability of morals, while something like "Western democracy" is bound by promotion of self-interest and law. The important idea is that not only does this culture contrast with democracy, but also communism (why cultural revolution happened).
Demographics. You want to extend right of the vote to 1.6 billion people. Give something practical or stfu.
Conditions. Democracy cannot be supported by a country that needs infrastructural improvement such as housing conditions, railroads, and industrial development in many areas. A lot of African countries are democracies, and they work great right? Perhaps in the future democratic POLICIES and laxer rule may happen when the wealth that is held by the top trickles down, but for the next 40-50 years there is no/limited extension of democracy in China.
People are not uneducated about democracy; they only seem non-chalant about it simply because most normal people don't have a need to write anti-government writing or talk shit about a government official. If they are going to talk shit, it would be in private and over dinner. So pragmatically, the limit of their daily freedom does not differ from that in the United States. Except for the few exiles, Chinese people do not immigrate to other countries because they want to speak their mind, but rather because there are better economic opportunities abroad.
Don't assume that because you enjoy political discussions and pretending that you have a know-how and influence in a massive government that another culture develop on literature radically different from that you're used to think the same way.
Quoted so more people can read this great post.
You'll have as much luck trying to forcibly push democracy onto China than you would trying to push Islam onto Israel.
Believe it or not most of the people who want to push democracy onto China ain't even Chinese and most Chinese care more about the criticism of being a communist state than actually being a communist itself.
So if China genuinely doesn't want democracy, then why does information have to be restricted? If China doesn't want democracy then why couldn't you have free speech and publish whatever you want? Since you don't really want anything but communism anyway? Oh wait...
On June 08 2009 10:37 Hittegods wrote: So if China genuinely doesn't want democracy, then why does information have to be restricted? If China doesn't want democracy then why couldn't you have free speech and publish whatever you want? Since you don't really want anything but communism anyway? Oh wait...
Free speech? fuck free speech, we got no free speech in the united states. I can't even say Creationism is fucking BS to my students, where's the free speech now, and I'm in the United Fucking States. I got in the trouble for telling a student he can't use the word nigger because it is reserved for people who experienced extreme racism done against them, and when they use it, it signifies comradity of the abused.
Human right? WTF is human right if they can be taken away? WWII Japanese concentration camp? where's our Human right now? Every human is created equal? says who? the fucking slave owners trying to be free from the British controls, so they can continue to own their niggers?
Why do China WANT a hypocritical system name democracy? China at least aren't hypocrites in their policy yet.
On June 08 2009 10:37 Hittegods wrote: So if China genuinely doesn't want democracy, then why does information have to be restricted? If China doesn't want democracy then why couldn't you have free speech and publish whatever you want? Since you don't really want anything but communism anyway? Oh wait...
Free speech? fuck free speech, we got no free speech in the united states. I can't even say Creationism is fucking BS to my students, where's the free speech now, and I'm in the United Fucking States. I got in the trouble for telling a student he can't use the word nigger because it is reserved for people who experienced extreme racism done against them, and when they use it, it signifies comradity of the abused.
Human right? WTF is human right if they can be taken away? WWII Japanese concentration camp? where's our Human right now? Every human is created equal? says who? the fucking slave owners trying to be free from the British controls, so they can continue to own their niggers?
Why do China WANT a hypocritical system name democracy? China at least aren't hypocrites in their policy yet.
Yeah HeadBangaa, I don't think he really knows what utilitarianism is... o_O
What's all this crap about "China wanting/not wanting democracy"? China isn't some kind of monolithic super-entity, and the democratic form of government doesn't have to be taken as an immutable, all-or-nothing package.
On June 08 2009 11:29 MK wrote: People have the government they deserve.
Sad how true this is.
There is no way people can fault the Chinese government on anything besides the decade old nit picking on human rights (humans right isn't going to feed your family or improve your quality of life) and freedom of speech (don't taze me bro!!)
The Chinese government has done far more to it's own population, to the world's population than any other foreign government hope to have achieved. People don't give enough for improving a quarter of the world's population's quality of life, education, health care and living standards.
The one child-policy has done more in the last 40 years to help reduce carbon emission in the long run than any carbon emission scheme still in consideration.
Well, people SCREAM when it's about China but : In France (THE country of freedom... said to be), we actually voted for HADOPI/ This law, in brief, allows SPYWARES to be installed on every PCs in order to track you and cut your internet connection. How about that ? Also, people usually like Singapour. Ok, now, guys, Wiki or Google it and tell me more about Singaporean government. Wanna more ? Ok, I live in Japan (Tokyo) currently and here, many students and I mean REAL STUDENTS FROM GOOD UNIVERSITIES don't even know what really happened during the WW2. Many of them still think Nanking is a joke and Japan are right to try to conquer the world. And the fact is : Japan is the MOST broadbanded country in the world. Everyone has an Internet connection but people still think shit.
I ain't pro-China or whatever yet when it comes to China, people are usually harder.
Once again, people have the government they deserve. This is the only truth.
edit : but yeah, I agree, Chinese Gov. has achieved incredible things but Gov. can't change people. I mean, in the depth, China is still the same (I was born in China and I go there once or twice a year).
On June 08 2009 10:58 psion0011 wrote: I'm laughing at the people making china out to be some kind of police state with big brother wong watching over you all the time.
And as if the US government doesn't restrict information as well hahahaha
Not nearly to the extent as china. China makes obvious attempts to basically brainwash their "people". The US has a nice flow between propaganda from groups higher up and less bias media vs THE STATE is all, the state knows all. Let's see China's government who covers up a ton of things suppresses the media very obviously and would kill thousands to keep it self in power that doesn't sound like a police state, they don't do that. People don't have to fear for their lives for it to be a police state... China has been quite good at making their people not care about things above them.
I'd be more inclined to seriously respond to your post if you could coherently string a couple of sentences together.
Anybody wanna translate this post for me? Preferably in english, thanks.
On June 08 2009 12:06 Cali wrote: Human rights the very interaction with people is not going to improve the quality of your life. Well if you not on the side of the short stick it's probably not going to.
Um, are you basically saying here that human rights won't improve your life, unless your life sucks?
On June 08 2009 12:06 Cali wrote: I'm a firm believer in population control
me too man, We the people of the United States had been the leaders in population control, China got nothing on us. One child per couple? hell We can do it better. MUCH better, How? Wars! In which we can control the worlds population with ez, notice what i said, the WORLD population, i didn't say anything about United States population. Consider the following,
We like war, we´re a war-like people! We like war because we´re good at it! You know why we´re good at it? Because we get a lot of practice. This country´s only 200 years old and already we´ve had ten major wars. We average a major war every twenty years in this country, so we´re good at it! And it´s a good thing we are, we´re not very good at anything else anymore! Hah? Can´t make a decent car, can´t make a TV set or a VCR worth a fuck ... got no steel industry left, can´t educate our young people ... can´t get health care to our old people ... but we can bomb the shit out of your country alright!
Especially if your country is full of brown people. Oh, we like that, don´t we, that´s our hobby? That´s our new job in the world: bombing brown people! Iraq, Panama, Grenada, Libya - you got some brown people in your country - tell ´em to watch the fuck out ... or we´ll goddamn bomb them!
But when´s the last white people you can remember that we bombed, can you remember -- can you remember ANY white people we´ve ever bombed? The Germans! They were the only ones, and that´s only because they were trying to cut in on our action! They wanted to dominate the world - bullshit, that´s our fuckin´ job!
Now we only bomb brown people. Not because they´re trying to cut in on our action, just because they´re *brown*!
On June 08 2009 12:06 Cali wrote: Human rights the very interaction with people is not going to improve the quality of your life. Well if you not on the side of the short stick it's probably not going to.
Um, are you basically saying here that human rights won't improve your life, unless your life sucks?
???
Material lifestyle more important than spirituality ?
On June 08 2009 11:57 MK wrote: Well, people SCREAM when it's about China but : In France (THE country of freedom... said to be), we actually voted for HADOPI/ This law, in brief, allows SPYWARES to be installed on every PCs in order to track you and cut your internet connection. How about that ? Also, people usually like Singapour. Ok, now, guys, Wiki or Google it and tell me more about Singaporean government. Wanna more ? Ok, I live in Japan (Tokyo) currently and here, many students and I mean REAL STUDENTS FROM GOOD UNIVERSITIES don't even know what really happened during the WW2. Many of them still think Nanking is a joke and Japan are right to try to conquer the world. And the fact is : Japan is the MOST broadbanded country in the world. Everyone has an Internet connection but people still think shit.
I ain't pro-China or whatever yet when it comes to China, people are usually harder.
Once again, people have the government they deserve. This is the only truth.
edit : but yeah, I agree, Chinese Gov. has achieved incredible things but Gov. can't change people. I mean, in the depth, China is still the same (I was born in China and I go there once or twice a year).
Singapore's a place of many contradictions, if you really know the place. But our place is safe and sound, no matter what bad things people may say about it. That will ensure we stay around and survive where others could succumb to international pressure.
The problem here is people have a skewed perception of democracy. Democracy is not, by all means, the "preferred right way" that the world should adopt just because. Sure, people want to have their own say. Sure, we have to have our own rights. Sure, being ruled by a dictatorship seriously sucks.
But for every one wise decision-maker involved in the democratic process, we have maybe two, maybe three, un/misinformed ones whose decisions will be made by following the bandwagon.
Just because.
If you'd compare the situation to some of the threads in the forums, you can see how the trend just suddenly sways from one side to another because some troll said something about Flash never coming back from his minislump.
Democracy is never truly the direction we should take, but the one which we want to take. Who knows what path is right when the opinions of the masses come to drown out the narrow, barely visible fracture point that offers the best chances of survival.
I propose we provide opinions on how to improve only when we've considered the position of the government and the other people who will be affected by the changes wanted.
Democracy promotes individualism, which gives rise to thoughts like "how will I benefit?" Peoples' priorities nowadays seem to be 1) wants, 2) fairness. Being fair will never triumph over human want, even though democracy used that as a cover to gain momentum and support.
It was the best alternative at that point of time; Democracy versus Communism. Communism was far too harsh to be implemented in day-to-day lives. Democracy ultimately won out. I fear, however, that it will be the cause of the end of the world, because humanity will first think for itself on an individual level before looking at the consequences for the wider crowd.
On June 08 2009 12:22 Cali wrote: Well it's opinion based improvement; human rights is all opinion based anyways, anything that can be discussed and never quite proven it is an opinion.
Unless you're obviously being given the short end of the stick to see improvement in your life is not going to be as clear.
I mean if you've always been able to walk the streets during the day, allowing the people that were not able to wont really improve your life in such obvious bounds but can definitely improve the diversity of people you meet and if you believe that everything you do have see affects your life then it will change your life for better or worse really depends...
I don't need to see direct improvement in my life, personally, to support basic rights and priveleges for others. In fact even if I'm completely self-centered this remains true, since if other people are getting screwed with now, it is a shorter step to take to screw *me* later.
I think we can agree that basic human rights should include health care, education, freedom of opinion and speech, and freedom of discrimination by race/sex/orientation/etc at the least. You can argue the specifics of those terms but the spirit of the ideas should be clear.
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.
A communal Republic would actually be the best form of government - something like the United States - but where townships have full authority of their land. Regardless - What China is now is an Oligarchy, there are no parties by communist standard. A one party rule is an Oligarchy.
I have a hard time taking Americans seriously when they speak of 1 party states, considering theyre a 2 party state. You guys got 1 party more than communist China.
America has more than 2 parties. Sure, there are 2 that hold the most sway, but in many elections others run under different party platforms, see also: Ralph Nader.
It's to see hard the benefits of the american system until you've lived in a european, or a typically considered more "progressive" democracy.
Many people crucify our large party systems for taking control of large bodies of the government, because it waters down the opinions of the masses into a few categories, when most people don't completely fit into one or the other.
What some don't understand is the benefits of this system. The benefit is compromise. In the area I lived in for a brief period (To avert a flame war I'll leave out where), the government had issues pushing through any positive legislature because their lawmakers could not muster enough support, their parties were too small. It made the government slower, and less efficient at moving bills through the proper channels.
It seems to me like there are different levels of speed and efficiency that governments can have, and they pay for that speed with fairness and equality. Because the Chinese goverment has firm control over their people, they can enact unbelievable spectacles, such as the enormous dam they're erecting (not bothering to look up the name), or what we saw at the olympics in Beijing. But they also don't take into consideration the feelings of the people very much. In America, more opinions are taken into consideration, relatively, and things move more slowly. In some european countries even more consideration is taken, and it slows things down to a crawl, even past the point where a government can still be useful.
I'm not saying that our government is superior to some in Europe, definitly not, I also do not support the type of government in place in China or North Korea. But a slow government can be a burden sometimes, especially when no one will compromise, which is one of the best parts of our government.
This has been Rakanishu2, with your Geographical Politics 427 lecture of the week!
Which 1 takes piroity? Should you shut your mouth and keep your thoughts to yourself or speak your mind on how this race is better than the other and insight hate?
On June 08 2009 11:57 MK wrote: Well, people SCREAM when it's about China but : In France (THE country of freedom... said to be), we actually voted for HADOPI/ This law, in brief, allows SPYWARES to be installed on every PCs in order to track you and cut your internet connection. How about that ? Also, people usually like Singapour. Ok, now, guys, Wiki or Google it and tell me more about Singaporean government. Wanna more ? Ok, I live in Japan (Tokyo) currently and here, many students and I mean REAL STUDENTS FROM GOOD UNIVERSITIES don't even know what really happened during the WW2. Many of them still think Nanking is a joke and Japan are right to try to conquer the world. And the fact is : Japan is the MOST broadbanded country in the world. Everyone has an Internet connection but people still think shit.
I ain't pro-China or whatever yet when it comes to China, people are usually harder.
Once again, people have the government they deserve. This is the only truth.
edit : but yeah, I agree, Chinese Gov. has achieved incredible things but Gov. can't change people. I mean, in the depth, China is still the same (I was born in China and I go there once or twice a year).
Singapore's a place of many contradictions, if you really know the place. But our place is safe and sound, no matter what bad things people may say about it. That will ensure we stay around and survive where others could succumb to international pressure.
The problem here is people have a skewed perception of democracy. Democracy is not, by all means, the "preferred right way" that the world should adopt just because. Sure, people want to have their own say. Sure, we have to have our own rights. Sure, being ruled by a dictatorship seriously sucks.
But for every one wise decision-maker involved in the democratic process, we have maybe two, maybe three, un/misinformed ones whose decisions will be made by following the bandwagon.
Just because.
If you'd compare the situation to some of the threads in the forums, you can see how the trend just suddenly sways from one side to another because some troll said something about Flash never coming back from his minislump.
Democracy is never truly the direction we should take, but the one which we want to take. Who knows what path is right when the opinions of the masses come to drown out the narrow, barely visible fracture point that offers the best chances of survival.
I propose we provide opinions on how to improve only when we've considered the position of the government and the other people who will be affected by the changes wanted.
Democracy promotes individualism, which gives rise to thoughts like "how will I benefit?" Peoples' priorities nowadays seem to be 1) wants, 2) fairness. Being fair will never triumph over human want, even though democracy used that as a cover to gain momentum and support.
It was the best alternative at that point of time; Democracy versus Communism. Communism was far too harsh to be implemented in day-to-day lives. Democracy ultimately won out. I fear, however, that it will be the cause of the end of the world, because humanity will first think for itself on an individual level before looking at the consequences for the wider crowd.
It's just a way of life isn't it?
Agreed on many counts.
The versus, imo, is : Liberty V Equality.
I mean, if you have everything material, what do you want ? Freedom. You wanna be able to speak, to write, to f... whatever. But if you have NOTHING, what do you want ? Well, the same thing than everyone. So you want to share.
Of course, this is a very very very basic pov because you can tell me that some very rich people are sharing (Bill gates blablabla) yes, but they are still few and they share only AFTER being free. Never before. I want to share if I have NOTHING to share (so I can benefit from others)...
On June 08 2009 11:29 MK wrote: People have the government they deserve.
Sad how true this is.
There is no way people can fault the Chinese government on anything besides the decade old nit picking on human rights (humans right isn't going to feed your family or improve your quality of life) and freedom of speech (don't taze me bro!!)
The Chinese government has done far more to it's own population, to the world's population than any other foreign government hope to have achieved. People don't give enough for improving a quarter of the world's population's quality of life, education, health care and living standards.
The one child-policy has done more in the last 40 years to help reduce carbon emission in the long run than any carbon emission scheme still in consideration.
Er, carbon emissions? Technically carbon emissions shouldn't be such a high priority on people's minds, after all if it were to be allowed to increase unchecked it would land the system we exist in to reset.
@ The square: The Chinese students thought their government was ready for change, and it wasn't.
I seriously don't think democracy's effective. The country's educated in politics through manipulated media that skews every message sent out, and the population hardly gets a say in any matter anyways. Nowadays, all politicial parties are mostly the same. There's too many of them to actually get anything done, and most parliaments are just dissolving because no one can agree on anything.
On June 08 2009 12:46 hcliff454 wrote: I seriously don't think democracy's effective. The country's educated in politics through manipulated media that skews every message sent out, and the population hardly gets a say in any matter anyways. Nowadays, all politicial parties are mostly the same. There's too many of them to actually get anything done, and most parliaments are just dissolving because no one can agree on anything.
So you don't think the execution of the democracy is effective.
You didn't present anything contrary to a democracy that is run properly.
Since ages (Greeks even told it), Democracy is known to be "not THE best" but it's currently the only thing we have which is not "too bad" :/
I personally think the best is still a kinda Lumines Hegemony like in Singapour for example. But yeah, 1-have to find the good guy 2-have to prevent the good guy to turn crap 3-omg, what if we strongly disagree and we know we are right and he is wrong ?
On June 08 2009 12:51 MK wrote: Since ages (Greeks even told it), Democracy is known to be "not THE best" but it's currently the only thing we have which is not "too bad" :/
I personally think the best is still a kinda Lumines Hegemony like in Singapour for example. But yeah, 1-have to find the good guy 2-have to prevent the good guy to turn crap 3-omg, what if we strongly disagree and we know we are right and he is wrong ?
:/
That because Greeks all love to stand around and argue and argue and argue and... yup you guessed it argue.
i was actually at the hong kong candlelight demonstration last year, although turn out this year is a lot higher due to 20th anniversary. They gave me a candle and a cone thing to block the wind and someone else lit my candle for me and i also passed my little flame around. Was quite fun/had a sense of meaning to the action. In any case it was mostly an info session for the young with some angry old people yelling "Never forget!"
I met a UK expat who has been going to these peaceful protests ever since it started, and he works as a freelance photographer on the side of his main job. I also met an old old man who told me that more young people need to be informed and it is good that I am here to listen.
This year many people also went because our Chief Executive (Basically president/regent if you will) said that he represents the Hong Kong people when he says that (paraphrasing) we should stop bitching about 6/4 because if the lives lost resulted in China's economic growth, then it was totally worth it and we should forget the past to promote a harmonious society. Which caused humongous backlash from angry citizens who felt that he was just kowtowing and sucking the balls of the chinese government as a political move. Many people also accuse him of selling his conscience (rofl lots of angry old grandpas/grandmas). And as a result the broke democratic party got a lot more donations that they usually do =p. Funny how things work out.
Now the plan is to keep 6/4 talk/rhetoric around long enough for the July 1st Annual General Protest against Communist Gov. Each year it is about slightly different issues but always mainly about freedom and human rights. Everyone starts at the local popular park and walks/mulls through to the shopping district and into the financial district and finally to the Gov. headquarters where they stay till late night and continue to yell chants and make a lot of noise. Whereby people disperse and the next day the police ridiculously under report the number of protesters and the organizers probably include every bystander and extended family member of protesters and over report the numbers XD.
And slightly off topic but still interesting: River Crabs!!! + Show Spoiler +
River crab (simplified Chinese: 河蟹; pinyin: héxiè), as an internet slang created by netizens in Mainland China, is a reference to Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China. The word river crab sounds similar to the word harmonious (simplified Chinese: 和谐; pinyin: héxié) in Chinese Mandarin. The three wristwatches refer to the Three Represents, where 代表 "represent" and 戴表 "to wear a watch" are homophones.
Because the Chinese Communist Party announced the goal of constructing a "Harmonious Society" (simplified Chinese: 和谐社会) in 2004 and the government of Mainland China usually takes this for reason to delete negative news, Chinese netizens use the name river crab to describe the actions of blockading and covering negative news. Sometimes aquatic product (simplified Chinese: 水产) is used as the same meaning of river crab as an internet slang.
Cao Ni Ma (Chinese: 草泥马), literally "Grass Mud Horse", was supposedly a species of alpaca. The name is derived from cào nǐ mā (Chinese: 肏你妈), which translates to "fuck your mother". Note that the comparison with the "animal" name is not an actual homophone, but rather the two terms have the same consonants and vowels with different tones, which are represented by different characters. Their greatest enemy are "river crabs" (Chinese: 河蟹, Pinyin: héxiè, resembles 和谐 héxié meaning "harmony", referring to government censorship to create a "harmonious society", while noting that river crabs are depicted wearing three wristwatches, vaguely referring to the Three Represents, where 代表 "represent" and 戴表 "to wear a watch" are homophones), and are said to be frequently seen in combat against these crabs.
On June 08 2009 12:52 Cali wrote: "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government; except all the others that have been tried."
- Winston Churchill
When Winston said this Communism was still in its trial stages.
And he wasn't disproven. Communism was still in its infant stages when Hayek wrote about the dangers of collectivism (in response to nationalist socialism in Germany) and he wasn't disproven either.
On June 08 2009 12:52 Cali wrote: "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government; except all the others that have been tried."
- Winston Churchill
When Winston said this Communism was still in its trial stages.
And he wasn't disproven. Communism was still in its infant stages when Hayek wrote about the dangers of collectivism (in response to nationalist socialism in Germany) and he wasn't disproven either.
Isn't collectivism the whole foundation of democracy?
On June 08 2009 12:58 fearus wrote: When Winston said this Communism was still in its trial stages.
was ? it still is.
Many woudl consider the fall of the soviet to be the end of it.
China is probably 1 of the more capitalist countries around the block.
well, prolly.
But what I wanna say is China can't just copy/paste like that. I mean even for communism, it has its own style. China can't just develop by trying to do like the USA or Japan. Because China is too big and time has changed. Before, you could put 500 guys doing handwork and pay them 1 cent hour, no other country will shit on you. Now, it changed. Before, you could use as much gaz/oil and not giving a damn about pollution, now, you have to care. Before, you could think about your own country, now, you have to think global.
I believe China has to invent something new from itself to, well, survive. No matter if it's told Democracy or Communism, the fact is : China has to do its own way and China is trying.
On June 08 2009 12:52 Cali wrote: "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government; except all the others that have been tried."
- Winston Churchill
When Winston said this Communism was still in its trial stages.
And he wasn't disproven. Communism was still in its infant stages when Hayek wrote about the dangers of collectivism (in response to nationalist socialism in Germany) and he wasn't disproven either.
Isn't collectivism the whole foundation of democracy?
Democracy can be collectivist, but it doesn't last long. The tyranny of the majority is obviously talked about quite a bit, but that's why Rouseau's social contract sucks. Collectivism is not the basis of it though, since it's not simply about doing things collectively.
Communism is an economic system more than a political system, so it should be compared with capitalism instead.
On June 08 2009 12:52 Cali wrote: "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government; except all the others that have been tried."
- Winston Churchill
When Winston said this Communism was still in its trial stages.
And he wasn't disproven. Communism was still in its infant stages when Hayek wrote about the dangers of collectivism (in response to nationalist socialism in Germany) and he wasn't disproven either.
Isn't collectivism the whole foundation of democracy?
Democracy can be collectivist, but it doesn't last long. The tyranny of the majority is obviously talked about quite a bit, but that's why Rouseau's social contract sucks. Collectivism is not the basis of it though, since it's not simply about doing things collectively.
Communism is an economic system more than a political system, so it should be compared with capitalism instead.
On June 08 2009 12:52 Cali wrote: "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government; except all the others that have been tried."
- Winston Churchill
When Winston said this Communism was still in its trial stages.
And he wasn't disproven. Communism was still in its infant stages when Hayek wrote about the dangers of collectivism (in response to nationalist socialism in Germany) and he wasn't disproven either.
Isn't collectivism the whole foundation of democracy?
Democracy can be collectivist, but it doesn't last long. The tyranny of the majority is obviously talked about quite a bit, but that's why Rouseau's social contract sucks. Collectivism is not the basis of it though, since it's not simply about doing things collectively.
Communism is an economic system more than a political system, so it should be compared with capitalism instead.
^This
I know the lines between politics and economics can blur sometimes, but people compare democracy and communism far too often.
What if we wanted society that was democratic and Communist? It could be done! They are not mutually exclusive.
On June 08 2009 13:46 Rakanishu2 wrote: What if we wanted society that was democratic and Communist? It could be done! They are not mutually exclusive.
This is a very good point. But democracy inculcates individualism, as I've stated back in the other post, while Communism breeds a single-minded force. I'm pretty sure these two ideals will collide in an ugly way.
On June 08 2009 12:59 Railxp wrote: i was actually at the hong kong candlelight demonstration last year, although turn out this year is a lot higher due to 20th anniversary. They gave me a candle and a cone thing to block the wind and someone else lit my candle for me and i also passed my little flame around. Was quite fun/had a sense of meaning to the action. In any case it was mostly an info session for the young with some angry old people yelling "Never forget!"
I met a UK expat who has been going to these peaceful protests ever since it started, and he works as a freelance photographer on the side of his main job. I also met an old old man who told me that more young people need to be informed and it is good that I am here to listen.
This year many people also went because our Chief Executive (Basically president/regent if you will) said that he represents the Hong Kong people when he says that (paraphrasing) we should stop bitching about 6/4 because if the lives lost resulted in China's economic growth, then it was totally worth it and we should forget the past to promote a harmonious society. Which caused humongous backlash from angry citizens who felt that he was just kowtowing and sucking the balls of the chinese government as a political move. Many people also accuse him of selling his conscience (rofl lots of angry old grandpas/grandmas). And as a result the broke democratic party got a lot more donations that they usually do =p. Funny how things work out.
Now the plan is to keep 6/4 talk/rhetoric around long enough for the July 1st Annual General Protest against Communist Gov. Each year it is about slightly different issues but always mainly about freedom and human rights. Everyone starts at the local popular park and walks/mulls through to the shopping district and into the financial district and finally to the Gov. headquarters where they stay till late night and continue to yell chants and make a lot of noise. Whereby people disperse and the next day the police ridiculously under report the number of protesters and the organizers probably include every bystander and extended family member of protesters and over report the numbers XD.
And slightly off topic but still interesting: River Crabs!!! + Show Spoiler +
River crab (simplified Chinese: 河蟹; pinyin: héxiè), as an internet slang created by netizens in Mainland China, is a reference to Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China. The word river crab sounds similar to the word harmonious (simplified Chinese: 和谐; pinyin: héxié) in Chinese Mandarin. The three wristwatches refer to the Three Represents, where 代表 "represent" and 戴表 "to wear a watch" are homophones.
Because the Chinese Communist Party announced the goal of constructing a "Harmonious Society" (simplified Chinese: 和谐社会) in 2004 and the government of Mainland China usually takes this for reason to delete negative news, Chinese netizens use the name river crab to describe the actions of blockading and covering negative news. Sometimes aquatic product (simplified Chinese: 水产) is used as the same meaning of river crab as an internet slang.
Cao Ni Ma (Chinese: 草泥马), literally "Grass Mud Horse", was supposedly a species of alpaca. The name is derived from cào nǐ mā (Chinese: 肏你妈), which translates to "fuck your mother". Note that the comparison with the "animal" name is not an actual homophone, but rather the two terms have the same consonants and vowels with different tones, which are represented by different characters. Their greatest enemy are "river crabs" (Chinese: 河蟹, Pinyin: héxiè, resembles 和谐 héxié meaning "harmony", referring to government censorship to create a "harmonious society", while noting that river crabs are depicted wearing three wristwatches, vaguely referring to the Three Represents, where 代表 "represent" and 戴表 "to wear a watch" are homophones), and are said to be frequently seen in combat against these crabs.
Oh man, i knew about the river crab but never knew the background behind this. I was always wondering why that 4ch horse thingy is all over Chinese boards.
Fuck off, the dude was probably just out buying soysauce (look at his hands).
If some retard did that in China, people will just point at him and call him a tard. it's that simple, Chinese just don't get heroic unless his family is threatened.
On June 08 2009 19:25 haduken wrote: Fuck off, the dude was probably just out buying soysauce (look at his hands).
If some retard did that in China, people will just point at him and call him a tard. it's that simple, Chinese just don't get heroic unless his family is threatened.
Mmm family is one thing, but considering at that time, the mutual camaraderie was really way up there. Like through the roof.
But c'mon, no one without a heart would venture to stand in front of tanks. The man has balls. And heart. And I don't think he was buying soysauce near TNM square.
Web-savvy & cynical: China's youth since Tiananmen
KAIFENG, China – Twenty years ago, on the night of June 3, rumors were flying about an impending military crackdown against demonstrators in Beijing. That's when Feng Shijie's wife went into labor in his hometown, Kaifeng.
The baby born the next morning, June 4, is now an undergraduate at Kaifeng University. After class, he plays games online or shoot hoops at a campus basketball court. He can list the latest Hollywood releases and NBA stats. But he knows next to nothing about the pro-democracy movement that ended in a bloody crackdown the day he was born.
"My parents told me some incident happened on Tiananmen Square on my birthday but I don't know the details," says Feng Xiaoguang, an upbeat graphic design student in faux Nike shoes and an imitation Prada shirt.
Xiaoguang is one of China's 200 million so-called 'post-1980' kids — a generation of mostly single children, thanks to the one-child policy, born on the cusp of an unparalleled economic boom. Aged between 20 and 30, they are Web-savvy, worldly, fashion-conscious — and largely apolitical.
Asked what kind of reform the Tiananmen students were after, Xiaoguang says he doesn't know.
"Did it have something to do with the conflicts between capitalism and socialism?" he asks.
It would be hard for him to know more. The subject is taboo. The demonstrations are classified as a counter-revolutionary riot and rarely mentioned in public. Textbooks touch on them fleetingly, if at all.
Few young people are aware that millions of students, workers and average people gathered peacefully in Beijing and other cities over seven weeks in early 1989 to demand democratic reform and an end to corruption. They are not told how communist authorities finally silenced the dissent with deadly force, killing hundreds.
Chinese leaders today argue that juggernaut growth and stability since the early 1990's prove that quelling the uprising was the right choice. Indeed, young Chinese people are materially better off now than they have perhaps ever been, with annual income per capital soaring to about 19,000 yuan ($2,760) in 2007, up from just 380 yuan ($55) in 1978.
But the tradeoff has been that young Chinese have no real role in shaping their country's future — and may not be very interested in having one.
An official survey released this month found 75 percent of college students hoped to join the Communist Party, but 56 percent of those said they would do so to "boost their chances of finding a good job." The rest wanted to join for personal honor — 29 percent — while 15 percent were motivated by faith in communism, said the Internet survey of 12,018 students by the People's Tribune.
An accompanying commentary said students today are clearly "cold" about politics and cited concern from education experts about "extreme egotism" among the youth.
At Peking University, a hub for the 1989 protests, only one political group cracked the top 15 extracurricular clubs — the elite Marxism Youth Study Group, reputed to be good for career networking.
The generation that demonstrated on Tiananmen Square grew up surrounded by political discussion, scripted as it often was, and lived through mass movements that demanded full public participation, notably the tumultuous Cultural Revolution that ended in 1976.
But the 1989 crackdown put an end to most public debate on the topic of whither China. Few now risk serious political discussion even behind closed doors, with good reason.
Consider The New Youth Study Group, a short-lived club of young Beijing professionals that met privately to talk about political reform and posted essays online, including one titled "China's democracy is fake." Four of the members were convicted of subversion and intent to overthrow the Communist Party in May 2003 and sentenced to between 8 and 10 years in prison.
With this fear of political dissent, it's hard to tell whether young people like underground musician Li Yan are being shallow or shrewd when they shrug off Tiananmen. Li Yan, also known as Lucifer, was born in May 1989 and is a performing arts student in Beijing with a cultivated rebel image.
"Young kids like us are maybe just more into popular entertainment like Korean soap operas. ... Very few people really care about that other stuff," says Lucifer, before mounting the stage at a Beijing club to belt out "Rock 'N Roll for Money and Sex."
Tiananmen veterans read the reaction as apathy and lament it.
"All those magnificent ideals have been replaced by the practical pursuit of self-centered comforts," says Bao Tong, former secretary to Zhao Ziyang, the Communist Party leader deposed for sympathizing with the 1989 protesters. "The leaders today don't want young people to think."
According to Bao, 76, China's youth are in the arms of the government being fed candy. They could continue this way if the economy remains strong and the government distributes wealth more equitably, he says, but he doesn't think either is likely.
Others say the reckless optimism of the Tiananmen era is the reason young people today lack ideals. The fearless naivete of 1989 serves as a cautionary tale, not inspiration.
Sun Yi's father was a Tiananmen-era dissident. In a self-published magazine in 1990, he openly criticized the crackdown and was soon imprisoned for speaking out. She admires her father but wonders if his sacrifices, a broken marriage and seven years in jail, were worth it.
"It was a really heroic undertaking, but still I feel he gave up so much, too much," says Sun, a 22-year-old engineering student in Sydney, Australia. "His voice was heard by some of the people but not many, not many compared to the population in China. Is that worth it?"
Wu Xu, 39, was a Tiananmen participant. His generation was plagued by insecurity, he says, and hoped that China could "catch up" to the West politically and economically.
"This generation is totally different," says Wu, author of a recent book about Chinese cybernationalism. "There is no kind of feeling of inferiority. ... They have had the advantage of the last thirty years of China's economic performance."
Wu contends that China's youth know more than they let on, and while they tend to be fiercely proud of their country they are also highly critical of their government. He calls them "a double-edged sword with no handle," because their opinions cut in many directions and are not guided by any single ideology or organization.
Xiaoguang, the boy born that June 4, bears out the theory. He criticizes the United States for the "inadequate apology" it made after a mid-air collision between an American spy plane and a Chinese fighter jet in 2001. He is angry at CNN for allegedly exaggerating Chinese military brutality against Tibetan rioters last year. Both views parrot the government. Later though, he scoffs at classmates keen to join the Communist Party and grouses about corruption.
His convictions are worn loosely, like a fashion, and have not translated into action. Like many Chinese people today, he appears satisfied with his hobbies, pop culture and other distractions.
He lives with his parents down a dusty dirt road in a simple concrete home. A grapevine snakes up a trellis in the courtyard. The family is supported his mother's monthly 800 yuan ($117) retirement pension and his weekend odd jobs.
In his bedroom, he can watch downloaded pirate copies of Hollywood films like "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" with slapdash Chinese subtitles. At the same time, he texts friends on his Nokia phone and sends instant messages online.
His parents have scrimped and borrowed to provide their only child with these luxuries — 2,800 yuan ($410) for the computer and 500 yuan ($73) a year for the Internet connection — because he says he needs them for school.
An anxious scowl steals across Xiaoguang's usually cheery face as his father recounts the night he was born.
A debilitating stroke ten years ago has made speaking difficult. But, with help from his wife, Feng told how he dropped his wife at the hospital on the evening of June 3, 1989, then dashed to Kaifeng's Drum Tower where a crowd had gathered in solidarity with protesters in Beijing.
He spent an hour there and the experience inspired his son's name, which means light of dawn.
"His name has great significance. I had just seen China's dawning promise and possibility."
On June 08 2009 19:25 haduken wrote: Fuck off, the dude was probably just out buying soysauce (look at his hands).
If some retard did that in China, people will just point at him and call him a tard. it's that simple, Chinese just don't get heroic unless his family is threatened.
I don't know which generation of Chinese you are, but Chinese history is full of heroic acts based on either naivety, idealism, or brainwashing by propaganda. I'd name them all but I'm too lazy to do it right now. Even reading some elementary school textbooks from China about 10-20 years ago will give you a good idea.
Anyway, nobody really knows the story of that tank man I don't think. Even if he was just caught in the wrong place and the wrong time, history's already made him a symbolic figure.
On June 08 2009 12:59 Railxp wrote: i was actually at the hong kong candlelight demonstration last year, although turn out this year is a lot higher due to 20th anniversary. They gave me a candle and a cone thing to block the wind and someone else lit my candle for me and i also passed my little flame around. Was quite fun/had a sense of meaning to the action. In any case it was mostly an info session for the young with some angry old people yelling "Never forget!"
I met a UK expat who has been going to these peaceful protests ever since it started, and he works as a freelance photographer on the side of his main job. I also met an old old man who told me that more young people need to be informed and it is good that I am here to listen.
This year many people also went because our Chief Executive (Basically president/regent if you will) said that he represents the Hong Kong people when he says that (paraphrasing) we should stop bitching about 6/4 because if the lives lost resulted in China's economic growth, then it was totally worth it and we should forget the past to promote a harmonious society. Which caused humongous backlash from angry citizens who felt that he was just kowtowing and sucking the balls of the chinese government as a political move. Many people also accuse him of selling his conscience (rofl lots of angry old grandpas/grandmas). And as a result the broke democratic party got a lot more donations that they usually do =p. Funny how things work out.
Now the plan is to keep 6/4 talk/rhetoric around long enough for the July 1st Annual General Protest against Communist Gov. Each year it is about slightly different issues but always mainly about freedom and human rights. Everyone starts at the local popular park and walks/mulls through to the shopping district and into the financial district and finally to the Gov. headquarters where they stay till late night and continue to yell chants and make a lot of noise. Whereby people disperse and the next day the police ridiculously under report the number of protesters and the organizers probably include every bystander and extended family member of protesters and over report the numbers XD.
And slightly off topic but still interesting: River Crabs!!! + Show Spoiler +
River crab (simplified Chinese: 河蟹; pinyin: héxiè), as an internet slang created by netizens in Mainland China, is a reference to Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China. The word river crab sounds similar to the word harmonious (simplified Chinese: 和谐; pinyin: héxié) in Chinese Mandarin. The three wristwatches refer to the Three Represents, where 代表 "represent" and 戴表 "to wear a watch" are homophones.
Because the Chinese Communist Party announced the goal of constructing a "Harmonious Society" (simplified Chinese: 和谐社会) in 2004 and the government of Mainland China usually takes this for reason to delete negative news, Chinese netizens use the name river crab to describe the actions of blockading and covering negative news. Sometimes aquatic product (simplified Chinese: 水产) is used as the same meaning of river crab as an internet slang.
Cao Ni Ma (Chinese: 草泥马), literally "Grass Mud Horse", was supposedly a species of alpaca. The name is derived from cào nǐ mā (Chinese: 肏你妈), which translates to "fuck your mother". Note that the comparison with the "animal" name is not an actual homophone, but rather the two terms have the same consonants and vowels with different tones, which are represented by different characters. Their greatest enemy are "river crabs" (Chinese: 河蟹, Pinyin: héxiè, resembles 和谐 héxié meaning "harmony", referring to government censorship to create a "harmonious society", while noting that river crabs are depicted wearing three wristwatches, vaguely referring to the Three Represents, where 代表 "represent" and 戴表 "to wear a watch" are homophones), and are said to be frequently seen in combat against these crabs.
I've been to the candlelight demonstration every year, and every year i'm surprized at how many teens and kids that show up, considering how the Cheif Executive talked about it and telling us to forget about it, and the school textbooks seldom mention about 6/4 anymore. Basically people like me go not to protest against China, but in hopes that the future generations will never forget what happened, and the Chinese government will one day be able to admit the massacre was wrong and they made a bad decision about it. I was in China yesterday and I tried to test out how much China sensors the stuff out. When I typed "6/4" or "六四" (Chinese for 6/4) practically only 1 or 2 relavant sites show up, where they only talk about what happened on that day in the Chinese government's viewpoint. Although the netizens in China couldn't really talk about "6/4", they use terms like "5/35" (the 35th day of May) or "VIIV" (6/4 in roman numerals). Just appears to me that no matter how much the Chinese government tries to cover up / let the memories die away, what happened that night will always be remembered in the people's hearts.
It's ironic that one of the biggest US propaganda's and brainwashing campaigns has been to paint the picture that the Chinese government brainwashes and force feeds information to it's citizens. The average Chinese citizen (urban) is not only quite knowledgeable about the Chinese politics but most likely more politically minded than the average American. Many Chinese are well aware of the shortcomings of the Chinese government. However, they feel for the most part the system works, standards of living are improving. Let's face it, anytime standards of living are improving in a country, people don't want change.
On June 09 2009 04:07 KissBlade wrote: It's ironic that one of the biggest US propaganda's and brainwashing campaigns has been to paint the picture that the Chinese government brainwashes and force feeds information to it's citizens. The average Chinese citizen (urban) is not only quite knowledgeable about the Chinese politics but most likely more politically minded than the average American. Many Chinese are well aware of the shortcomings of the Chinese government. However, they feel for the most part the system works, standards of living are improving. Let's face it, anytime standards of living are improving in a country, people don't want change.
Actually I think I've mostly only heard about the Chinese government's actions from the US media and I can't remember any reporting on how knowledgeable the Chinese people are. So I guess you're saying that the media wants us to go ahead and draw a conclusion about the people but, for me, it's just a big question mark. But that's the way pretty much all our news is. It would be interesting to have reporters pass on vibes from the peoples of the governments we hear so much about.
On June 09 2009 04:07 KissBlade wrote: It's ironic that one of the biggest US propaganda's and brainwashing campaigns has been to paint the picture that the Chinese government brainwashes and force feeds information to it's citizens. The average Chinese citizen (urban) is not only quite knowledgeable about the Chinese politics but most likely more politically minded than the average American. Many Chinese are well aware of the shortcomings of the Chinese government. However, they feel for the most part the system works, standards of living are improving. Let's face it, anytime standards of living are improving in a country, people don't want change.
Actually I think I've mostly only heard about the Chinese government's actions from the US media and I can't remember any reporting on how knowledgeable the Chinese people are. So I guess you're saying that the media wants us to go ahead and draw a conclusion about the people but, for me, it's just a big question mark. But that's the way pretty much all our news is. It would be interesting to have reporters pass on vibes from the peoples of the governments we hear so much about.
I don't think reporters will pass on anything besides the most negative things said. I'm not saying this out of prejudice or anything but you'd have to realize the easiest way to make a nation feel better about themselves is by saying "at least we're not them". And currently the US isn't in the best of shape so it's imperative that media try to shift as much attention to something other than the US at the moment whether it be North Korea, China, etc. On top of that, China is still a challenge to the US, in world politics, you never want to talk up your rival. For example, check out an economics textbook from the 60's. It's honestly laughable how many comparisons you'll see being made between the US and the USSR. XD
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.
A communal Republic would actually be the best form of government - something like the United States - but where townships have full authority of their land. Regardless - What China is now is an Oligarchy, there are no parties by communist standard. A one party rule is an Oligarchy.
I have a hard time taking Americans seriously when they speak of 1 party states, considering theyre a 2 party state. You guys got 1 party more than communist China.
America has more than 2 parties. Sure, there are 2 that hold the most sway, but in many elections others run under different party platforms, see also: Ralph Nader.
In the same way that America has more than 2 parties, China has more than 1 party.
Pretty ingenious, but anyone catching on it could manage to piss off the officer pretty quickly. Low Angle shots and the like.
-.- I think most of you guys missed the idea here. That article was meant to be a parody of how much Western media plays up Chinese censorship...
I think you're missing the point, just like you usually miss the point in your posts. The article isn't a parody of anything, the Chinese government had officers with rain umbrellas (notice the sunlight) to get in the way of Western reporters.
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.
A communal Republic would actually be the best form of government - something like the United States - but where townships have full authority of their land. Regardless - What China is now is an Oligarchy, there are no parties by communist standard. A one party rule is an Oligarchy.
I have a hard time taking Americans seriously when they speak of 1 party states, considering theyre a 2 party state. You guys got 1 party more than communist China.
America has more than 2 parties. Sure, there are 2 that hold the most sway, but in many elections others run under different party platforms, see also: Ralph Nader.
In the same way that America has more than 2 parties, China has more than 1 party.
On June 09 2009 04:07 KissBlade wrote: It's ironic that one of the biggest US propaganda's and brainwashing campaigns has been to paint the picture that the Chinese government brainwashes and force feeds information to it's citizens. The average Chinese citizen (urban) is not only quite knowledgeable about the Chinese politics but most likely more politically minded than the average American. Many Chinese are well aware of the shortcomings of the Chinese government. However, they feel for the most part the system works, standards of living are improving. Let's face it, anytime standards of living are improving in a country, people don't want change.
How much do we over play it? I mean when you have big brother installed onto your computer and posting on an Internet culture website.
How does this prove the Chinese are ignorant? It seems to point the otherway since the CCP is trying to implement even stricter censoring.
I'm with KissBlade with this one. Pretty much all my relatives (country and urban, lower and high class) have talked about the government and have criticized it for various things. It's by no means perfect, and they know it. If change will happen, it'll be a slow thing.
I like the kids chiming in with their cute opinions here. Of course they've never been to china or talked to anyone from china or, really, know anything about anything, but it's a police state!
Well, actually, I feel much better in Beijing than in Paris. And in China, sometimes, I feel even more able to freespeech than in France. You can speak without caring about the racism BS. Yup, in France, skin color is taboo. :/ Oh yeah, in France, money is also taboo.
Quote from OP: I just wish the actions of the chinese students 20 years ago will not forever be in vain. Hopefully some day China will experience a 'proper' democracy and a free press.
On June 09 2009 11:30 psion0011 wrote: I like the kids chiming in with their cute opinions here. Of course they've never been to china or talked to anyone from china or, really, know anything about anything, but it's a police state!
have you been to china? have you read extensive articles about this? have you ever been "policed" by china? i'm not saying i'm on any side of this argument but unless you're able to back your own stance up don't knock down others. The subject of china and it's government is a lot more complex than "omg police state" or even "large numbers=democracy not possible". Try to get both sides of the argument before coming to preconceived notions of how the government and people china actually work. coming into any argument with a closed mind means there's no discussion to be had, just two sides butting heads.
On June 09 2009 10:55 orgolove wrote: ... Look at the absolute HORDES of inhouse Chinese nationalists coming to defend the utter dictatorship/autocratic police state that is China.
I attack i don't defend.
On June 09 2009 11:53 Exteray wrote: Quote from OP: I just wish the actions of the chinese students 20 years ago will not forever be in vain. Hopefully some day China will experience a 'proper' democracy and a free press.
Well said, exactly my thoughts.
Fuck democracy and free press, all hypocritical mother fucking bullshit.
On June 08 2009 11:07 rei wrote:
Free speech? fuck free speech, we got no free speech in the united states. I can't even say Creationism is fucking BS to my students, where's the free speech now, and I'm in the United Fucking States. I got in the trouble for telling a student he can't use the word nigger because it is reserved for people who experienced extreme racism done against them, and when they use it, it signifies comradity of the abused.
Human right? WTF is human right if they can be taken away? WWII Japanese concentration camp? where's our Human right now? Every human is created equal? says who? the fucking slave owners trying to be free from the British controls, so they can continue to own their niggers?
Why do China WANT a hypocritical system name democracy? China at least aren't hypocrites in their policy yet.
Im pretty sure you can talk about skin color because you can be racist/callas in China as long as it's not against your fellow China man
well, maybe. But in many french schools, if the teacher say something to a "colored" student, he/she will automatically be called racist. This is absurd :/
On June 09 2009 11:50 MK wrote: Well, actually, I feel much better in Beijing than in Paris. And in China, sometimes, I feel even more able to freespeech than in France. You can speak without caring about the racism BS. Yup, in France, skin color is taboo. :/ Oh yeah, in France, money is also taboo.
Im pretty sure you can talk about skin color because you can be racist/callas in China as long as it's not against your fellow China man
... Are you serious? Because once again you prove how little you really know about China with your whole "All Chinese are the same" mindset. People from Shanghai for example will always trash talk about Fuxian hicks, just like how something from the south will make comments about people from the North. It's the same thing like the US how some New Yorkers think of the bible belt as uneducated hicks and vice versa. I don't even want to know where you get the kidnapping people at night and putting them in labor camp idea from but at this point I'm not sure if I'm just feeding a troll.
On June 09 2009 14:18 KissBlade wrote: ... Are you serious? Because once again you prove how little you really know about China with your whole "All Chinese are the same" mindset. People from Shanghai for example will always trash talk about Fuxian hicks, just like how something from the south will make comments about people from the North. It's the same thing like the US how some New Yorkers think of the bible belt as uneducated hicks and vice versa. I don't even want to know where you get the kidnapping people at night and putting them in labor camp idea from but at this point I'm not sure if I'm just feeding a troll.
LOL it reminds my fighting with my gf. She's pro-HK and I'm pro-BJ :p Ahah, BJ, SH and HK are the worst enemies ever ahah
PS : Fujian is good. Top students are all from FJ.
On June 09 2009 11:30 psion0011 wrote: I like the kids chiming in with their cute opinions here. Of course they've never been to china or talked to anyone from china or, really, know anything about anything, but it's a police state!
have you been to china? have you read extensive articles about this? have you ever been "policed" by china? i'm not saying i'm on any side of this argument but unless you're able to back your own stance up don't knock down others. The subject of china and it's government is a lot more complex than "omg police state" or even "large numbers=democracy not possible". Try to get both sides of the argument before coming to preconceived notions of how the government and people china actually work. coming into any argument with a closed mind means there's no discussion to be had, just two sides butting heads.
Uh, yes, of course? I have a lot of family there and visit from time to time. Pretty much the chillest place ever.
On June 09 2009 11:50 MK wrote: Well, actually, I feel much better in Beijing than in Paris. And in China, sometimes, I feel even more able to freespeech than in France. You can speak without caring about the racism BS. Yup, in France, skin color is taboo. :/ Oh yeah, in France, money is also taboo.
Im pretty sure you can talk about skin color because you can be racist/callas in China as long as it's not against your fellow China man
... Are you serious? Because once again you prove how little you really know about China with your whole "All Chinese are the same" mindset. People from Shanghai for example will always trash talk about Fuxian hicks, just like how something from the south will make comments about people from the North. It's the same thing like the US how some New Yorkers think of the bible belt as uneducated hicks and vice versa. I don't even want to know where you get the kidnapping people at night and putting them in labor camp idea from but at this point I'm not sure if I'm just feeding a troll.
Lol We call our own country men hick that makes what we say alright. Obviously your logic is flawless.
Where in the world did I say it's alright? I just said that your idea that all Chinese think the same of each other is ridiculous. I swear I'm going to stop feeding the troll now.
So if the people of China are well educated about the world why would you need to restrict their information? If nothing is wrong in China why would the government need to restrict foreign news stations? I mean if we can't get free information from an incident it will of course look fishy and lower the image of China in the world.
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.cnd.org/June4th/photos/mascr017.gif)
![[image loading]](http://www.peacebuttons.info/IMAGES/0421.1989_Tiananmen-Square.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.cnd.org/HYPLAN/yawei/june4th/bj10.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://ramblingsofpassion.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/051201_tiananmen-square_ex.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/tian_06_05/t15_19247371.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/tian_06_05/t14_19258029.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bb/%E6%B2%B3%E8%9F%B9%E6%88%B4%E8%A1%A8.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41219000/jpg/_41219151_1hk_afp300.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://farm1.static.flickr.com/37/87875364_718b8e0b99.jpg)
