|
Stephann -> RE: China (3/3/2007 8:26:51 AM)
|
Meat,
Between 1959 and 1962, Mao made policy decisions that condemned somewhere between 20 and 43 million people to death. There's no clear number, for obvious reasons I hope, but I'm happy to cite five or six independent sources if you're skeptical. In contrast, Stalin was responsible for only about 20 million deaths, Hitler can be directly blamed for 15.5 million (though this figure varies), and about 50 million people were killed in all of World War II. Perhaps it'll be more comforting if you consider Stalin to have been 'Western'? Either way, the West has no monopoly on death.
Merc (or beth?),
don't believe China a reliable 'ally' unless there is common ground or a common goal serving their best interest. If they become so entrenched with capitalism that they would fear the lost of the US as a customer, an alliance could be strong. Your point regarding their track record of human abuse isn't up for dispute. It is much more pronounced than any political prisoners in the west, and much more cruel and oppressive than any world dictator, yet groups such as 'Amnesty International' are practically silent in comparison. The same holds to environmental issues and 'Greenpeace'. Is that an indication of fear or a disclosure of political agenda? You make the call.
My apologies. I don't consider China any sort of ally, yet this seems to be the position being foisted upon the US, certainly to China's benefit.
As much as we agree upon the brutality and oppression of Chinese law and policy I can live with the pragmatic application. Policy seems to be universally applied and consequence quick.
Here's the contentious points. The brutality and oppression are exactly what is wrong with these laws. There is zero transparency in their regime. It is impossible to know who is being persecuted for which reasons, when the regime in question absolutely refuses to disclose their activities to their own people. Essentially, Chinese are expected to live a life for the Communist party. Any deviationalist thought could land you in prison or dead. No appeal, no recourse. You wouldn't even have to realize the thought was deviationalist - something as simple as a suggestion of teaching English in a school to prepare children for interaction with the US could (and was) seen as 'bourgeois.' Bourgeois meant being shipped off to a labor camp, prison, or simply being erased.
Outside of Hong Kong, there are no Chinese millionaires to compare with the pre-breakup of the USSR.
I find this unlikely. The US has a huge trade imbalance with China; that money is going into hands, somewhere, and I doubt seriously they're being kept in Chinese banks.
Again, if there are, they are so far underground as to not be visible to the people.
More likely, this is the reality. Absolute control over the country, means absolute over it's finances.
This make the people less likely to be resentful even in the face of viewing western culture.
Resentment towards the west is taught in school the same as the pledge of allegiance and Betsy Ross in the US.
There also seems to be a deference and great respect for old people. There is an overall respect for Chinese culture as a whole. Unfortunately that includes the repression or any philosophy seen as incongruent with stated goals of the political party line.
On the contrary, Mao incited the youth to rise up and destroy the 'old' Chinese culture, and the old Chinese with it on the heels of the 'Great Leap Forward' Disaster. He used this ploy as a means of taking the reigns of power again, following his tremendous disaster. Take a gander at the "Cultural Revolution" if you're curious. A book called Wild Swans written by Jung Chang might also be of interest to you, it was my first encounter with a first hand account of China, from a Chinese person who lived through the staggering changes in China during Mao's rule.
I'd much prefer a society where rules are simple and enforced; even if I didn't agree with them. Where a crime is a crime and the perpetrator a criminal regardless of 'intent'. Hypocrisy and rationalization aren't so rampant in such a place and disillusionment in the face of hypocrisy less likely.
You might have been very happy as a Puritan. My position is that the rules of society need to serve the society; not the other way around. The US system isn't a bad one; we have simply allowed too much power to those who are best at abusing it. The same is true in China, they simply go about the abuse of power in the back door instead of the front. I would have a very difficult time being happy in a society where I could be executed simply for thinking, believing, and speaking differently than my political leaders. Either way, the argument is similar to that of Cuba; I don't see boats of illegal American immigrants attempting to flee it's shores for the promise of Freedom and Liberty in Beijing.
Stephan
|
|
|
|
