They’re both just politicians, at the end of the day. Not a particulalrly virtuous line of work…

April 16, 2007 @ 8:39 pm | Comment

It’s always easy to forget about Zhou Enlai in this sort of debate. He held China together, or as much as he could all by himself, during the madness of Mao, but then Deng came along taking many of his ideas as he own – for example, the Four Modernizations.

I personally don’t think Deng was a particularly great man, and he certainly isn’t worthy of the pedestal he has been put on, it just seems like his ideas were simply the only ones that could possibly have worked given the economic situation.

1989 was a nasty affair as it unravelled, but it’s legacy has arguably been worse: it appears to have left the party looking over its shoulder and too afraid to reform. There is a lack of any personality, originality and seemingly courage amongst the current leaders, and while this may help them appear to be a well-oiled unit in public, I would say it leaves them incapable of tackling the roots of the problems and only capable of window-dressing.

China needs another Zhou Enlai now more than ever – they need someone who can achieve significant systemic change without setting the house on fire.

April 16, 2007 @ 9:44 pm | Comment

I think Zhou’s greatness has been overrated; from what I’ve read, he encouraged Mao throughout the Great Leap Backwards and was not quite the saint we’ve been led to believe. (See this post for reference.) I’ve read enough about Deng to confirm, to my own satisfaction, at least, that he was a man of courage and conviction, and the fact of China’s turnaround is exactly that, a fact, and you can trace its origins specifically to Deng. He also has blood on his hands and his affiliation with Mao, like Zhou’s, is a huge strike against him. But if China ever had a hero, it was Deng, in my eyes. If it hadn’t been for that awful night in June, history would see Deng in a very different light. A big “if,” I know…

April 16, 2007 @ 11:15 pm | Comment

I agree with Richard on both Nixon and Deng. Nixon is a great in foreign policy. He puts Bush to shame. Deng is a great Chinese leader because he realized that he needed stability to modernize China. This almost makes me forgive him for the TianAnMan massacre. We live in an imperfect world and sometimes, it takes a dictator to have stability and stability is absolutely required to foster economic growth. Don’t believe me, just witness Iraq now. Don’t we wish we still have Saddam to kick around? So stability leads to economic growth and that leads to democracy. It is not the European or American way to democracy but it is definitely the Asian way or maybe even the Arab way to democracy. Both Taiwan and South Korea are shining examples of that. Yes, stability comes at a price of personal freedom but that is the price that Asian are willing to pay as long as they are getting prosperous. Don’t belive me, ask any Chinese from mainland.

April 16, 2007 @ 11:59 pm | Comment

I would say that Zhou was aware of the limits he was working in. There have been some damning verdicts on him, for example in The Private Life of Chairman Mao, but also some more positive ones. Zhou couldn’t achieve anything significant while Mao was alive, but his final political testament was the Four Modernizations, which Deng was able to pick up and run with once the post-Mao dust had settled.

Zhou was by no means perfect, and certainly his role in the GLF is probably his darkest hour: he could have done more to stop it, but instead chose to save his own skin to fight another day. What should be remembered then was that Liu Shaoqi was arguably a more powerful figure than Zhou at that time – but the powers of both of them combined were nothing compared to Mao.

I think Mao’s strength is what is always forgotten in the criticism of Zhou: if he had stood up to Mao he would have been crushed. Sure, he could have gone out in a blaze of glory ala Peng Dehuai, but I think for him there was a bigger picture.

If you look at his early life you’ll see that above all he is a nationalist – he grew up (including some very formative years in Tianjin) seeing China ripped apart by warlords and foreign powers. He wanted China to be strong, and I think like Deng he didn’t hugely care how this happened. Therefore, faced with a choice of personal extermination or embarrassing survival he chose the latter. Some will say that’s because he was a wimp, but one look back at his pre-1949 record will show he was no wimp: I really think he believed he could help China in the Cultural Revolution more by staying alive than dying.

Unfortunately, China being as it is the history books are very much closed so it’s unlikely any significant new documentation will appear to shed new light on him – a shame.

April 17, 2007 @ 12:20 am | Comment

I agree with Charlie’s assessment of Zhou Enlai (who was a very complex character). I’d add that he worked for Deng’s succession at the end of his life – anything to avoid leaving the country in the hands of the Four.

Zhou had a hand in creating nearly every major institution of the PRC – he far more than Mao created the infrastructure of the state. His impulse was to build, and what he wanted to build was a modern, stable and strong China. Mao, as has been oft remarked, was brilliant at revolution – and a failure at governing (I’d say he had very little interest in actually governing). Gaining and maintaining power was his genius.

April 17, 2007 @ 1:29 am | Comment

Deng? A Hero? Well if you consider the further absolutizing of the CCPs terrorist control over China a good deed. Why is it that people only look within the confines of the partys propaganda for whats relatively good or bad? Thinking that Deng is actually good is accepting the doctirnes of the communist party in foundation… Thats wrong… because as I see it the sole purpose of the party is to be big and powerful, I really dont think they believe that their theories can create any kind of paradise or anything anymore…

Deng Xiaoping recommended “Killing 200,000 people in exchange for 20 years’ stability.”

What stability? The people are further terrorized into submission, what the hell country wants to survive on such terms??? That is the humiliation of modern China for sure. So the people of China know well that freedom of thought and wishing for the better is against the law in lawless party central china… What kind of country is that???

The people who think that the CCP has done good for China through terrorizing a splendid culture into a mass of quivering cowards would probly also have such reverence for a peice of excrement who showed a 10% increase in GDP.

April 17, 2007 @ 2:32 am | Comment

I have to agree that China still has done well in some ways. The people work hard and they do make sacrifices. Thats why China has moved up. But the so called development that people worship comes with equal destruction to the environment and slavery of the people. Money is not the only thing that Chinese people need. That is an insult to the great people of China.

The great people of China need spiritual and intellectual freedom, they need to think, they need to philosophize. Thats what I think. Under CCP they are tools only, slaves for the goal of longevity of the party.. that is so anti China.

April 17, 2007 @ 2:37 am | Comment

Deng apparently killed all those great Tiananmen people for the stability of China (of course that actually means the solidifying of the party’s terrorist rule), but what could be worse in China then the CCP? Heres a quote from the Nine Commentaries on the Communist Party

http://ninecommentaries.com/

What Is the Real Source of Turmoil?

Many people know and dislike the CCP’s Machiavellian behavior, and loathe its struggles and deceptions. But, at the same time, they fear the CCP’s political movements and the resulting turmoil, and fear chaos will visit China again. Thus, once the CCP threatens people with “turmoil,” people fall into silent acceptance of the CCP’s rule and feel helpless in the face of the CCP’s despotic power.

In reality, with its several million troops and armed police, the CCP is the real source of turmoil. Ordinary citizens have neither the cause nor the capability to initiate turmoil. Only the regressive CCP would be so reckless as to bring the country into turmoil at any hint of change. “Stability overrides everything else” and “Nipping the buds of all unstable elements”—these slogans have become the theoretical basis for the CCP to suppress people. Who is the biggest cause of instability in China? Is it not the CCP, who specializes in tyranny? The CCP instigates turmoil, and then in turn uses the chaos it created to coerce the people. This is a common action of all villains.
………………..
The CCP promotes violence, and has killed countless people throughout its previous political movements. It educates people to treat the enemy “as cold as the severe winter.” The red flag is understood to be red for having been “dyed red with martyrs’ blood.” The Party worships red due to its addiction to blood and carnage.

April 17, 2007 @ 2:40 am | Comment

Richard

Can you allow more posts on the latest thread on Mao? I just have to reply to truth to save a fellow Chinese from brainwashing. They can’t differentiate loyalty to country and loyalty to the ruling party. Thats a tragic thing for the Chinese people. I have to rebutt forcefully to defeat Maoist vermin in the minds of fellow Chinese.

April 17, 2007 @ 2:58 am | Comment

I was just going to mention that I would have liked to have said something there as well.

SP, you seem like you know your history better than me, maybe you can describe the way that the CCP took full advantage of the weakness of the nationalists while they were fighting the Japanese to take power during that time…SO ANTI CHINA… They joined the fight just to steal power, not to help in battle, they went behind the back of the nationalists while the nationalists were defending China.. Snakes!

April 17, 2007 @ 5:48 am | Comment

I would never do anything to diminish the horror of June 4 (read Jim Lilley’s recent book for a chilling episode involving the foreign community in Beijing that week) nor to excuse the decisions or actions of China’s leaders during that period, but I do think a certain amout of context is important to understand the decision to clear the square.

I have a feeling that when Deng looked out his window (metaphorically speaking) in May of 1989, he didn’t see students calling for greater openness and less corruption, he saw 1966 all over again. During the GPCR, Deng saw one of his closest allies, Liu Shaoqi, hauled away to die naked and alone in an uninsulated toolshed. Deng’s own son was heaved out of a dormitory window resulting in his permanent paralysis. Deng himself was bundled off to work in a tractor factory–and he was the lucky one. For 10 years, China descended into a period of violent anarchy followed by brutal repression. (An interesting take on this period, the play Hong Chen ‘red dust’, was just performed by the NTC at PKU last weekend.)

Faced with a similar situation of “luan,” Deng reacted perhaps as he wished others might have in 1966–to nip it in the bud before it got truly ugly.

There were other issues in 1989 of course: political stability, the mianzi of the leadership, public safety and order, etc. And none of this, as I said, excuses Deng’s actions, but perhaps it might give a “Chris Rock on O.J.”-like context for the event.

I should also point out that this is all mere supposition on my part, so certainly those with greater insight or access to the historical record are free to dismiss or add to this idea as they see fit.

April 17, 2007 @ 8:22 am | Comment

Snow,

I am simply responding to your comments on Tianamen Square and Deng’s reaction. Something similar happened in 1947 ochestrated by communist party, Deng and Moa are probably both were invovled, against KMT and it is known as “The Shen Chong Rape Case and the Anti American Student Movement of 1947.” Tianamen square massacre occured because Zhao Ziyang who was fighting with Li Peng or even Deng for the top leadership. However, Zhao under estimated Deng’s lack of mercifulness, and lost the power struggle through student movement which communist party had pull on KMT approximately 50 years ago at that time.

Btw, my cousin was at Beijing University during the entire thing. He said only “particular population” of University students went to the protest. He didn’t go because he think they are losers. He eventually earned his computer science degree from Beijin Unviersity and now is working in one of the top US software companies.

April 17, 2007 @ 9:20 am | Comment

Off-topic here, but Blogspot is unblocked today (cross fingers).

I wouldn’t think to make Deng-Nixon comparisons, since Nixon didn’t give his plumbers free reign and then cover up the crime in response to trauma or outside influence. But in Deng’s case, 1989 happened not merely because he was jealous of his own power but because Li Peng was whispering in his ear and conjuring up the ghosts of the GPCR, which Jeremiah has sketched out for us.

Unless someone can come forward with proof that Kissinger was behind Watergate, I’m going to call Nixon’s wounds self-inflicted and Deng’s not so much.

As for whether Deng simply recycled Zhou’s ideas, a point raised by Charlie, we should not discount the fact that Deng was also the protege of Liu Shaoqi, and the spirit of Deng’s modernizations flow from Liu as much as from Zhou. Many of Mao’s power-grabs had the net effect of delaying Liu’s modernization program by labeling its supporters “capitalist roaders.” Instead of ideas, Deng’s greater debt to Zhou Enlai is arguably that Zhou helped to protect Deng during the GPCR.

April 17, 2007 @ 10:53 am | Comment

Arty,

“Tianamen square massacre occured because Zhao Ziyang who was fighting with Li Peng or even Deng for the top leadership. However, Zhao under estimated Deng’s lack of mercifulness, and lost the power struggle through student movement which communist party had pull on KMT approximately 50 years ago at that time.

Btw, my cousin was at Beijing University during the entire thing. He said only “particular population” of University students went to the protest. He didn’t go because he think they are losers. He eventually earned his computer science degree from Beijin Unviersity and now is working in one of the top US software companies.”

What happened during those Politburo meetings during the Tiananmen Square incident is still of speculation. But i think its safe to say that Zhao Ziyang was a much more humane and moderate leader than Li Peng. Zhao’s contribution was his role in pushing through the very important reforms when he was Premier. There was a saying “yao chi liang, zao ziyang”. But look at Li Peng, he was a conservative hardliner who was the darling of the party elders. He was the typical CCP leader who would resort to brute force to preserve the CCP’s dictatorial power. He was part of the faction who was against widespread liberal economic reforms. And he was the one who announced matrial law in Beijing which finally led to the bloody crakdown on June 4.

Even if you don’t agree with the students on the Square, please give them due respect. After all, how many of us here can go on hunger strike to demand for changes for the sake of China? You may not agree with their methods, but i think their spirits should be commerorated. You think you can go on hunger strike? You think you dare to speak up their mind like them under a regime based on fear and terror? If you call them losers, i think you are without a conscience. That’s the sad thing about the Chinese. Your cousin’s calling of them as losers reminded me of the chapter in Lu Xun’s novel where curious Chinese looked on as the Japanese Kwantung Army beheaded a fellow Chinese on the streets in the Northeast. And your cousin is no different from one of those onlookers.

April 17, 2007 @ 11:07 am | Comment

“”””””””””I have a feeling that when Deng looked out his window (metaphorically speaking) in May of 1989, he didn’t see students calling for greater openness and less corruption, he saw 1966 all over again. During the GPCR Deng saw one of his closest allies, Liu Shaoqi, hauled away to die naked and alone in an uninsulated toolshed. Deng’s own son was heaved out of a dormitory window resulting in his permanent paralysis. Deng himself was bundled off to work in a tractor factory–and he was the lucky one. For 10 years, China descended into a period of violent anarchy followed by brutal repression.

Faced with a similar situation of “luan,” Deng reacted perhaps as he wished others might have in 1966–to nip it in the bud before it got truly ugly.””””””””””

Jeremiah,

If I am not mistaken, you are saying that Deng wanted to kill all those people, not because he was afraid of change or that he was following CCP terrorist ideology, but because he wanted to kill them to protect the Chinese people from the party because the party would either kill them then or drag the killing out over a long period??

SO killing the students and protesters was Dengs idea of saving the people from the party itself?

Thats pretty messed up. Its sortof like saying to the people of China, do you want me to tear you limb from limb or just slice your throat? Either way the goal is to cause fear and submission. Well, in any case the Tiananmen square massacre did do the partys bidding quite well, it showed the peopel that there is no hope for change, if the people want change they would have to die for it. It is not possible to peacefully appeal to that evil group. The partys message was clear,

“””do not have a spirit, you are under the party and you are nothing and we will be as corrupt and evil as we want and if you dont like it, you will have to challenge our brutality.””””

So all the people who think that this ideology of terror and submission is good for the great people of China, then. I guess Deng could be a hero for them , just like Mao, Jiang etc.

Zhao Ziyang I hear was a normal guy, not willing to loose hiself to the party bleeped up ideology of antichina criminality. For his goodness I’m surprised he wasnt tortured to death, he was punished somewhat lightliy for his crime of being good.. HA.

April 17, 2007 @ 12:05 pm | Comment

Snow,

Sorry, sparky: that’s not what I was saying, you need to read it again. Carefully this time.

April 17, 2007 @ 12:41 pm | Comment

I have a soft spot for Nixon. He was a bastard (or ahem, CREEP), but indubitably a brilliant one. And the Watergate scandal did at least yield some pretty comprehensive campaign finance reforms. Whereas the Tiananmen Massacre caused irreparable damage to Sino-US relations and ushered in a period of even stronger political authoritarianism that began with the appointment of Jiang Zemin (chosen no doubt for his great record in suppressing the Shanghai demonstrations) to General Secretary. The only arguably good thing to come out of the Massacre was that PLA intervention in civilian affairs became relatively unpopular.

Hardliners like Li Peng and then-President Yang Shangkun (who was, fittingly, also the general secretary of the Central Military Commission) had no doubt influenced Deng’s decision to crack down on the demonstrators, but the one to pull the trigger had still been him. So in my opinion, the tarnish on his legacy is quite deserved. There is good reason why James Lilley called the Beijing leadership a pack of butchers.

April 17, 2007 @ 12:45 pm | Comment

As I said, I can never forgive Deng. Nor can I forgive Nixon. Or Clinton, for that matter. Now, of the three, there’s little doubt that Deng’s deed was the most terrible. But his legacy needs to be looked at in its entirety, and his achievements cannot be denied. They can be tarnished, they can be lessened, and he may be forever disgraced in the eyes of many. But those achievements were real and he did more for China’s positive turnaround than any other single man. (I admit, this book had a profound impact on my view of Deng, and I recommend it; Salisbury is one of my heroes.) Maybe it’s Deng who should be described as 70 percent good and 30 percent bad.

April 17, 2007 @ 1:00 pm | Comment

In disassembling Maoism, Deng chose the latter route, validating both Nixon’s previous strategy and discrediting Gorbachev’s later decision to pursue political glasnost before economic perestroika in the now-defunct Soviet Union.

I don’t see Deng’s work as discrediting Gorbachev’s priorities at all. Russia’s problems have nothing to do political reform preceding economic reforms, but rather the choice of radical flash economic privatisation that was foisted upon them by certain US economists.

The choices of Gorbachev have led to German re-unification and many new EU states.

And if the power struggle had gone to Zhao Ziyang over Li Peng, you’d have seen at least the same economic progress (if not more, given the years of economic re-centralisation after ’89). Furthermore, political freedom might have allowed discussions of more moderate/less nationalistic political options for foreign relations that are completely off the table due to Deng’s choices.

April 17, 2007 @ 5:06 pm | Comment

“Faced with a similar situation of “luan,” Deng reacted perhaps as he wished others might have in 1966–to nip it in the bud before it got truly ugly.”
Don’t you think what happened in 1989 WAS truly ugly? You might want to talk to a few eyewitnesses or to the families of the people who were killed.

April 17, 2007 @ 6:23 pm | Comment

mor, I’ve written more about that than practically any other topic on this site. It was unforgivable, and Deng can never escape the cloud,

April 17, 2007 @ 7:15 pm | Comment

I am not defending Deng in the Tiananmen massacre. A leader should never order a massive killing of his own people under any circumstances. But I think Deng should be credited with his economic reforms and his steering of China away from destructive Maoism. He lifted China out of its darkest age from 1966-1976.

Talking about the Tiananmen episode, while Deng had been responsible, leaders like Li Peng, Yang Shangkun, Wang Zhen and Chen Xitong were far more guilty. They were the ones who were actively pushing for the use of force. If Deng had joined them without hesitation in the first place, the Tiananmen protests would not have dragged on until June. It was quite apparent that Deng was procrastinating what to do with the students until he finally made the tragic decision to side with the hardliners.

April 17, 2007 @ 7:52 pm | Comment

Don’t you think what happened in 1989 WAS truly ugly?

Of course I do. Be serious, please.

I was referring to the perspective of the collective Chinese leadership–especially Deng–at the time.

April 17, 2007 @ 7:56 pm | Comment

Jeremiah,

I read it again, But I get the same point. The only things I dont get that may be throwing me off is the term Luan (I dont know what it means) and the Chris Rock on OJ (also dont know what that means)

Anyway As far as I understand the over all goal of the party and the acts of both Tiananmen massacre and the the cultural revolution were to instill terror and insure a future of submission to the all brutal party.

April 18, 2007 @ 12:32 am | Comment

[i]I don’t see Deng’s work as discrediting Gorbachev’s priorities at all. Russia’s problems have nothing to do political reform preceding economic reforms, but rather the choice of radical flash economic privatisation that was foisted upon them by certain US economists.[/i]

Good point, Tom. I wish I’d caught that. The way the author framed it is quite misleading.

@Snow: “luan” means “chaos”. As for Chris Rock on OJ, I don’t know neither. Before my time, I think.

April 18, 2007 @ 12:46 am | Comment

sp,

All I am saying is that the entire movement has alterial motives. In 1989, if the student movement was successful, it will drives the entire China into a civil war. Majority of the students have been used by Zhao Ziyang as tool for power struggles (common method used in CCP). I didn’t call them losers, my cousin did, and don’t forget he is in Beijing University at that time and he told me the entire story in the US far from influence of CCP. Don’t forget there is always more than two sides on a story.

April 18, 2007 @ 5:25 am | Comment

mor, I’ve written more about that than practically any other topic on this site. It was unforgivable, and Deng can never escape the cloud,
Posted by: richard at April 17, 2007 07:15 PM

But let’s be clear, Richard, Deng didn’t just throw one of his proteges to the wolves. Deng also was quite happy to purge Hu Yaobang (and the band of political reformists) to the conservatives in an “anti-Rightist” purge in the mid-80s that came right out of Mao’s late-50s/early-60s playbook that took out Deng.

As I’ve said before, Deng was all about the rehabilitation for me, but not for thee (at least if the rehabilitation might threaten Deng’s power and the CCP’s monopoly on power).

April 18, 2007 @ 11:23 am | Comment

Arty,

“All I am saying is that the entire movement has alterial motives. In 1989, if the student movement was successful, it will drives the entire China into a civil war. Majority of the students have been used by Zhao Ziyang as tool for power struggles (common method used in CCP). I didn’t call them losers, my cousin did, and don’t forget he is in Beijing University at that time and he told me the entire story in the US far from influence of CCP. Don’t forget there is always more than two sides on a story.”

Where is the evidence for your claim? Where is your proof that Zhao had been controlling the students for his own political objectives? Or where is your proof that the students were Zhao’s pawns? Unless you can come up with some concrete evidence and argument, nobody will be convinced by your spinning of all these conspiracy theories.

In fact, had Zhao been a real scumbag who made use of the students for his own political aims, i don’t think a respected party elder like Wan Li would openly ask the PRC govt to rehabilitate him when he passed away in 2005.
Song Renqiong even had his weath for Zhao Ziyang’s funeral prepared beforehand as he had pre-deceased Zhao.

I was surprised that you had the guts to use your cousin to justify your argument. I have no problem with your cousin’s personal choice in not joining the protests and going to the US for the greener pasture. But for him to judge the character and morals of the students in the Square in that fateful year is another issue. Who is he to call them losers? To put it in an ugly way, he maybe just a coward. Moreover, he left for the US for a better life. He made his own choices and left China. We don’t blame him. But who the hell is he to judge others? That’s why i compared your cousin’s behavior to those fellow Chinese who looked on curiously as the Japanese beheaded one of them publicly in Lu Xun’s novel.

Instead of focusing on your unfounded and unproven conspiracy on Zhao and the students, why not talk about those who are clearly the butchers of that fateful day? Was Li Peng and Yang Shangkun not power-hungry? Li Peng wanted to secure his image as a party faithful and to gain the hardliners’ support in his quest for the top job. Yang Shangkun’s ambition is crystal-clear when he wanted to replace Jiang Zemin in 1992, but was fortunately outmanovred by Deng Xiaoping.

The more you talked about Zhao and your unproven conspiracy theories, the more i feel that you are on the side of murderers like Li Peg and Yang Shangkun.

April 18, 2007 @ 11:38 am | Comment

Arty,

And your potrayal that the protests had ulterior motives and it will descend into civil war is very interesting.

The students were demanding more transparency and accountability in the government. They also want an end to corruption and that the govt abide by the Constitution of the PRC which had guarantee the freedom of speech.

And Li Peng and his gang labeled them as “counter-revolutionaries” aiming to “overthrow the socialist system in the PRC”. You mean demanding honest, clean and more democratic govt is treason, and demanding an end to corruption is an ulterior motive? If China had a good government and environment, your cousin and millions of Chinese would not have left, i suppose?

When people cannot differentiate between right and wrong, black and white, it is rather shocking. They would rather believe in twisted and distorted “facts”.

April 18, 2007 @ 12:01 pm | Comment

Yeah, just count on the communist party to say that someone was using a movement to gain power and cause chaos in the country. That is exactly what the CCP wants people to think. The CCPs propaganda machine is so vast and capable. Even the day after the massacre they already had spread enough rumours and lies in order to make the PLA seem a victim.

The idea that the student movement against corruption and fascism was going to lead to “luan” is communist propaganda. They want you to associate change with luan so that people are afraid to ask for anything better.

Also, the idea that someone was using the movement to acheive personal power is something the Chinese people do not like the sound of and it totally demeans the movement, and that is exactly what the CCP wanted. This is soooo typical of the CCP. With this lie they are able to get people to not support the movemtn and use the lie to excuse the killing.

This is the exact thing they are currently doing towards Falun Gong and the exact thin they did with the anti rightist movement etc. Its all a bunch of lies and they want people to not believe in anything but the CCP, so they demean and accuse all other forms of thought and ideas and say that those forms and ideas are tools to cause chaos in China blah blah blah bloody liars and cheats.

April 18, 2007 @ 12:09 pm | Comment

sp and snow,

I dear to you two to give me a historical example of rapid change that actually solve the social problem it initially trying to solve. Social change require time and maturity of a society. Changes literally take time and simply yelling out ideology usually ending in disaster. I can give you a few examples: French revolution: Go wikipedia and look under The Reign of Terror English Civil War: Oliver Cromwell preached the improtance of liberty, free speech, and person freedom, and guess what he did to peoeple speak out against him after he gained the abosulte power. American Civil War: A war in name to free slaves, however, black did not gain equal right under the law until 100 years later. Even today, discrimination against blacks is common in the South. Culture Revolution Do I need to say more what it has done to millions of Chinese especially that they were all died during the so call great leap forward. Cuban revolution…wait supported by the middle class and STUDENTS…wow what happen here…it went way wrong huh!

Trust me, I can distingish between right and wrong. Tiananmen square massarce is a great tragedy, and perhaps the greatest mistake ever made by Deng. However, I think the timing of protest itself was way too good to be a simple student movement. Btw, the thing they are demanding are almost unreal. Even in a well developed democracy i.e. US, we still have serious corruption problems (go google Duke Cunningham and many more US congress men under investigation). How the hack do you expect the government, i.e. people, to change over night?

Oh btw, you haven’t seen what a real corruption is like until you went to some of the latin America countries i.e. Mexico. The corruptions are from top to bottom. The cops are worse than robbers, and your lawyers will literally take your money, bail money, and run even if you are innocent.

“You mean demanding honest, clean and more democratic govt is treason, and demanding an end to corruption is an ulterior motive?

No, I never implied demand such thing is treason. However, do you think those demand can be accomplished over night even if the goverment agree to it. NO WAY IN HELL. Those demands are ideologies, and ideologies could be deadly. Just ask Karl Marx did he expected his great Communist ideology to kill millions…no, of course, he didn’t think of that.

Also, the idea that someone was using the movement to acheive personal power is something the Chinese people do not like the sound

This statement is almost laughable. Because you don’t like it, does not mean its not true. Don’t forget using workers and students to gain power is a very old trick used by communist party.

Btw, before you reply, please give me a historical example of a rapid social or polictical changes did not go wrong or end up in choas. Don’t use Taiwan as an example because the entire liberlization process in theory took over close to 30 years.

April 18, 2007 @ 5:00 pm | Comment

sp,

Btw, personally I think, Li Peng, Yang Shangkun, Zhao Ziyang, and Deng Xiaoping are all power hungery bastards. Even the party elders, they are bastards, too. To be mean, is there a single good communist? Ever heard of “The absolute power corrupts the absolutely.” There is no argument there. I don’t even know today’s Chinese leaders are capable of solving the overwhelming problems facing China i.e. economic growth, pollution, enviromental changes caused by pollution, corruption, rapid aging population, unequal male to female ratio, food supply problems etc…men that’s a lot of problems.

Oh and, US is not a greener pasture. If you are an immgrant, you have to work even harder. Actually in recent years, alot of American educated engineers and doctors have gone back to China because the wage difference in certain fields is very small now.

April 18, 2007 @ 5:34 pm | Comment

“The idea that the student movement against corruption and fascism was going to lead to “luan” is communist propaganda. They want you to associate change with luan so that people are afraid to ask for anything better.”
Spot on, snow. One of the CCP’s favorite propaganda myths is that any political change would result in chaos while the leadership of the CCP is the only guarantor for stability and safety.

April 18, 2007 @ 7:09 pm | Comment

I agree that Deng Xiaoping was way better than Mao Zedong which is not hard to do, is it? But to call him a hero? Maybe we should ask somebody like Wei Jingsheng what he has to say about that.

April 18, 2007 @ 7:15 pm | Comment

Deng did more than TS. I said, again and again, I can never forgive him. But he did do much to set China on track and he was a true leader. His role in turning China around is a matter of record.

April 18, 2007 @ 9:16 pm | Comment

Arty,

I can see a meeting of minds here at last. But i would like to point out one thing. French Revolution, English Civil War, Cultural Revolution, Cuban Revolution are REVOLUTIONS, which are violent attempts to replace one political system with another through the use of violence. The Tiananmen protests were social protests, which in my view, may have a chance to end peacefully had the CCP been more open and willing to continue sincere dialouge with the students and make some compromise. Yet, then Premier Li Peng and his hardline faction in the Party insisted that it was a “counter-revolutionary movement that aims to overturn the socialist system in the PRC” ie treason. Tiananmen was not an attempt to overthrow the communist regime but it was a massive collective action aimed at social justice (note that the protests involved a huge number of urban workers as well, not just students). It was not a REVOLUTION like those that you have mentioned. There is no case with your argument because you are comparing an apple with an orange.

April 18, 2007 @ 11:45 pm | Comment

Arty,

And i fail to see the link between the American Civil War and the Tiananmen protests. The former was started because of the vast differences between the North and the South and slavery as only the catalyst. The war did outlawed slavery. It was not complete, but nevertheless a giant step to the final liberation of the blacks in America. Outlawing slavery brought an end to institutionalised oppression although other forms of discrimination remained. But it built the foundation of the future Civil Rights movement in the later decades.

An i still fail to see the link to Tiananmen square incident. There is not even a basis for comparison. This is just like what we Chinese called “The oxen’s head does not fit the horse’s mouth.”

April 18, 2007 @ 11:59 pm | Comment

Sp,

Maybe you should check out the entire history of those revolutions. Let’s see French revolution started when peaceful national assembly but it failed miserably. English Civil War started as a tax issue and everything went out of control. Most historians are still wonder how did the entire disagreement between the King and parliament resulting in a miliatry dictatorship headed by Oliver Cromwell at the end. However, I find the most similarity between Tiananmen sqaure movement closest to Cuban revolution btw it is also called the 26th of July movement (hey sp you like to play words, don’t you?) The entire government really didn’t change at the end of the revolution. Castro assumed the old position of Batista in Februray of 1959 with little resistance. However, in October of the same year, he showed his real face. Cultural revolution are in name “revolution.” However it composes many social movements i.e. great leap forward, red guards etc. I don’t think anyone at that time in China think the entire movements were bad bad bad ideas.

Btw, if you want to say that the Tiananmen square protest was merely a harmless social movement, it is merely your personal opinion as much as mine argument that it is not. However, I did give you several historical accounts of what could happen, and you have given me none.

Btw, I will recommend you to read up on Simon Kuznets’s theory, although it is more based on economics. And, it is old but it still have some merit. Then move on to Amartya Sen’s theories, and you can see social movement that you described rarely improve society as a whole. It takes time and correct and stable government policies. P.S. This does not mean I think China is on or not on the right track. So many problems and so many factors.

April 19, 2007 @ 3:31 am | Comment

@richard
You are right, Deng was more than the Tiananmen Incident, but I still can’t see him as a hero. He was much more pragmatic and realistic than any Chinese leader before him and he deserves credit for that, but the 1989 incident also showed that he was willing to sacrifice innocent lives for maintaining power and that does not qualify him as a hero.
@sp
Spot on! The demonstrators in 1989 (we should remember that it wasn’t just students) didn’t want a revolution, they wanted reforms, but they were treated like terrorists.

April 19, 2007 @ 6:26 am | Comment

Arty,

As i have already say, don’t waste your time comparing apples with oranges. Tiananmen was NOT a revolution. The examples you cite are either wars or revolutions which seek to radically topple a political system with another through the use of violence. The French revolution started as an attempt by the bourgeoisie overthrowing the absolute monarchy and the ancien regime. The English Civil war started as a violent power struggle between Charles I and Parliament. The Cuban Revolution was an armed attempt with its stated aim to overthrow Batista right from the beginning.

But Tiananmen shared no such characteristics that events above had: Stated aim to overthrow a present political system through violence. As far as we are concerned, no historians or political scientists had categorised the Tiananmen Incident as a “revolution”.

When you don’t even get basic political science concepts such as revolution right, how can you put those events together and treat them as carbon copies of one another? Obviously, you are not a students of humanities or social sciences. We are studying historical developments here, not making bowls of salad here where you put everything together and mix them without thinking if they are similar. You can make salad in your kitchen, not here pls.

April 19, 2007 @ 10:42 am | Comment

Arty,

And just an additional point. If you completely think that sudden political change are never good, let me ask you this question. So was the Xinhai 1911 Revolution necessary? Is there any other way that you can save China? If not revolution, then you think you can wait for the Manchu Dynasty to slowly rot away? The aftermath of the Xinhai Revolution was not beautiful, but were there any other way out? Maybe you can wait for another 500 years for the Manchu Dynasty to fade away, but i don’t think China at that time can wait.

April 19, 2007 @ 10:47 am | Comment

Right, the Tiananmen protest of 1989 was not a revolution or a plot to overthrow the government as far as credible records show. The CCP says it was but they are not credible in the least.

Arty, Lets say that the protest was not evilly crushed as it was though. Are you suggesting that because revolutions dont work that that is a good excuse to crush those people in the square?

First it was no revolution, just the voice of the people asking for change, they were really asking, not even disrespecting the “leadership”

The least the CCP (if it werent inherently evil) could have done was to accept the suggestions as the voice of the people asking for change. As so called representatives of the Chinese nation they would have had to do that. They would absolutely have had to accept the criticisms and honestly agree to work towards a leadership that the people would be better. But they chose absolute brutal fascism instead and to ignore the voice of the people and to do things the CCP way. ANTI CHINA.

Some people say that the slaughters of the CCP have been good for China and that people like Deng are actually good. But I dont see it that way, its just so inhumane and so unreasonable and violent. Its just so uncivilized.

And I maintain that the form of leadership the CCP takes is that of terrorism, the Tiananmen massacre was to instill terror and to let it be known that there will be no voice of the people, only the force and thought control of THE PARTY…..

Who thinks that is good for such great people. No No NO the Chinese are not animals who need to be put in a cage. Thats just what the party wants them to think. They are so much more, so much more capable than the party will allow them to be. The CCP is like a wife abusor, hits and hits until theres no more self esteem.

April 19, 2007 @ 10:55 am | Comment

sp,

For your information, I earned a double dipolma with a B.A. and a B.S. degree. I avoided social science i.e. political science (not really a science; my sister will disagree since that’s her major), history, philosophy, anthropology ect. as electives because they are field of objectivities and opinions (and even paly of words). Tiananmen square is not a “revolution” because it did not succeed. The protest by Beijing students during 1947 or in broader term “The Chinese student movement from 1945 to 1949” were very good at overthrowing the KMT rules, and the formation of Red Guard in Tsinghua University in 1966 started the Cultural Revolution.

As far as we are concerned, no historians or political scientists had categorised the Tiananmen Incident as a “revolution”.

There is a book called “Almost a Revolution” by Shen Tong who was supposed to be a student leader at 1989 and later studied political philosophy at Harvard University and Boston University. I guess the term revolution was never used or categorized…well, I guess your University is much better than the H bomb.

And don’t ever say I can’t disscuss things here because it may annoy you. It is an online forum and all are fair games. Forums are for discussion. You can say what you want and I can say what I want. You want to pull a Deng or Commies? (lol) Btw, after my B.A. and B.S. degrees, I earned a master and then a Ph.D. in a REAL SCIENCE field. Currently working in a place that if you open US News and the World Report ranking of the best graduate schools in science, you don’t have to look far to find it (let’s say it is in the top 10).

April 19, 2007 @ 11:36 am | Comment

Snow,

I never said Deng is good or CCP is good. All I am saying is that there is no way you can prove that the students intention are not political and all good. Just like I can not prove it is political. Actually, if you just look at who is at the protest, you can kind of guess it is political or not. And even if the intention of the students were good. The end result my not be what you expected if the student succeed. How can you tell the future.

And I can tell you that revolution does not work in these days anymore. Even large social movement may not work even today. We are in a globe international game these days. I mean I can flight to Beijin in less than 15 hours. If a country has social unrest or riots, the rest of the world will just left it behind. As an American, I will say go ahead and kill each other. It is all good for us. I bet Bush sr. was praying really hard for the student to collapse CCP so he doesn’t have to worry about the rise of China.

April 19, 2007 @ 11:47 am | Comment

Arty,

First of all, i never said that you cannot discuss things here. But if you insisted on a point, be prepared to face robust rebuttal. Life is tough, if you can’t stand it, don’t debate with others.

My sentiments about debates (even comments from my staunchest ideological adversaries) are reflected by what Voltaire had said, “I may not agree with what you have said, but i would defend till my death your right to say it.”

April 20, 2007 @ 12:06 am | Comment

Arty,

I have no doubt about your intellectual abilities. But as our debate centres on whether Tiananmen was a revolution, or can it really be classified as revolution, you seem unable or unwilling for whatever reason to give us your definition of revolution. I have given mine: revolution is a violent attempt with the aim to overthrow one political system with another. And i have told you why Tiananmen is not a revolution: the people on the square did not seek the overturning of the current regime. They demanded changes within the system. They asked that the PRC govt respect the right to freely express themselves which was guaranteed by the PRC’s constitution. The student leaders also met the CCP’s top leaders several times in the Great Hall of People to negotiate, although it fell through eventually. These are hardly indications of a revolution.

Tell me, did the Third Estate negoatiate with the First and Second Estate in the French Revolution? Did the Third Estate want to enhance their rights under the old Estates-General? No, they did not only want changes within, they wanted to overthrow the system. Thats the difference. Nobody on the Square wanted to overthrow the PRC government. That’s why it cannot be regarded as a revolution.

As much as you have been showing off your academic credentials, you have casted serious doubts on your own intellectuall abilities. Why? Because in every proper academic paper, a scholar has to first come up with his/her definition of the things to be argued about to come up with a proper thesis. As far as we are concerned, you went on and on providing examples of revolutions but failed to provide your definition of what constitutes a “revolution”. That means you don’t even have a proper thesis. Until you come up with your definition of a “revolution”, its evident that you are blowing hot air and evading, not engaging in any meaningful debate.

And now we know why you have not chosen social sciences and the humanities: maybe you just can’t do it. You may be a rocket scientist, but that does not that you can be well-versed in matters concerning humanity as well. Brandishing your paper qualifications seems to be the only thing you are capable of. And you have not answered my question to you regarding the Xinhai Revolution, since you claimed that sudden social changes can never be good. Tell us what alternatives we have if we were back in 1911 China under the Manchus. I really wished to see how a Phd student can think better than Dr Sun. I would gladly call you Father of the Nation instead.

April 20, 2007 @ 12:35 am | Comment

Arty,

“(lol) Btw, after my B.A. and B.S. degrees, I earned a master and then a Ph.D. in a REAL SCIENCE field. Currently working in a place that if you open US News and the World Report ranking of the best graduate schools in science, you don’t have to look far to find it (let’s say it is in the top 10)”

Lets assume that you are the smartest person in this Universe. But you are not respected. Because when a true intellectual or academician debates, he/she don’t carry around the Phd tag. I am really glad that Professors that i have met are not like you. They are Phd holders, some of them got it at Cambridge and U Pen. But whenever students disagree with them, they won’t, like yours truly, say, “Shut your trap, i am a Phd holder, who are you, bloody undergrad!” I think with Phd holders such as you with such a horrific arrogant attitude, human civilization’s knowledge would suffer serious deficit in the years to come. Because you think you are on top of the world and you know all and put people down because you got a Phd. You gotta have your academician ethics really wrong here.

April 20, 2007 @ 12:46 am | Comment

Dear Arty with a Phd,

“And I can tell you that revolution does not work in these days anymore. Even large social movement may not work even today. We are in a globe international game these days. I mean I can flight to Beijin in less than 15 hours. If a country has social unrest or riots, the rest of the world will just left it behind. As an American, I will say go ahead and kill each other. It is all good for us. I bet Bush sr. was praying really hard for the student to collapse CCP so he doesn’t have to worry about the rise of China.”

Point taken. But here is the question i humbly ask yours truly, the almighty Phd holder, if you are a citizen of today’s North Korea, Zimbabwe, Myanmar and Belarus, what would you do assuming that you can’t migrate from your country? Enlightened us pls, the smartest ass in the Universe. I humbly await your enlightenment.

April 20, 2007 @ 12:50 am | Comment

First of all, i never said that you cannot discuss things here.

sp said: Obviously, you are not a students of humanities or social sciences. We are studying historical developments here, not making bowls of salad here where you put everything together and mix them without thinking if they are similar. You can make salad in your kitchen, not here pls.

Cough…btw, I only mentioned my degrees after you mentioned that you are studying historical developments arragonly(btw, I did not personally attack you before this while you have). You remind me so much about some of the Ph.D. students.

I am really glad that Professors that i have met are not like you. They are Phd holders, some of them got it at Cambridge and U Pen. But whenever students disagree with them, they won’t, like yours truly, say, “Shut your trap, i am a Phd holder, who are you, bloody undergrad!” I think with Phd holders such as you with such a horrific arrogant attitude, human civilization’s knowledge would suffer serious deficit in the years to come.

And clearly you did get my sarcasm, you are the one saying not here pls. Did I tell you to shut up? No, you did, again arroganly. Oh, I didn’t tell you what’s my B.A. degree, it is in a least subjective social science, and clear you didn’t get my sarcasm on this either.

And you have not answered my question to you regarding the Xinhai Revolution, since you claimed that sudden social changes can never be good. Tell us what alternatives we have if we were back in 1911 China under the Manchus. I really wished to see how a Phd student can think better than Dr Sun. I would gladly call you Father of the Nation instead.

It is really easy. The alternative will be to wait it out. One of the reason for Qing’s failure is its inability to face overwhelming foreign power. Also, when you evaluate a historical even you have to ask youself: Did Xinhai Revolution make all the social inequality and unjustice disappear over-night? No, it didn’t. Did the founding of the Republic abolished all the unequal treaties? Hell, no it didn’t. If Xinhai Revolution did not occur, are Chinese better prepared for WWII i.e. second Sino-Japanese war? Obvious no, since the revolution, Chinese has been fighting with themselves. If we have a record of GDP, I bet you will see the GDP take a dive soon after revolution ended since GDP always fall. I can even give you a current even as an example. Do you think Iraqies are living better than they did under Saddam before the war (I dear you to say yes)? Dr. Sun is a great selfless man. However, I do believe his method was incorrect and lack of patience. Also, at that time, foreign powers i.e. Japan and the west want a revolution in China, so it will easiler for them to conquer. Where do you think the gun came from during the revolution?

In addition, let me ask you did Japan has a revolution? No. Through out Japanese economic and military deveopment of later 19 and early 20th centries, Japan was still consider an autocrates if not out right dictatorship, and it takes Japan about half a centry to change not including the final change that it did after WWII. Another example, how about Sweden, its whole polictical system took close to hundred years to mature. No war, no great social instability.

“Nobody on the Square wanted to overthrow the PRC government. That’s why it cannot be regarded as a revolution.”

sp, how about the book “Almost a Revolution” I mentioned. What’s your opinion about this book? Speak up! The definition of revolution is irrelevant because I am simply arguing that the end result will likely to be a revolution and perhaps a civil war.

i humbly ask yours truly, the almighty Phd holder, if you are a citizen of today’s North Korea, Zimbabwe, Myanmar and Belarus, what would you do assuming that you can’t migrate from your country? Enlightened us pls, the smartest ass in the Universe. I humbly await your enlightenment.

If you are truly great, even in those countries you can make a name for youself. You will work through the system, gain power, and change things. Why didn’t those Beijing students i.e. elite intellects join CCP and gain ranks. Of course, again it does not mean you won’t be stepping on the rest of the population i.e. the current Zimbabwe president Mugabe. Oh what how does Mugabe gain power…”Absolute power corrupts the absolutely.” Do you think Morgan Tsvangirai once gain power if he ever will be better than Mugabe?

Btw, I am really dumb. Having a Ph.D. just means that you are book smart. It matters a little but not much in real life;however, sure is good enough to debate with people online.

April 20, 2007 @ 4:23 am | Comment

Arty,

“sp said: Obviously, you are not a students of humanities or social sciences. We are studying historical developments here, not making bowls of salad here where you put everything together and mix them without thinking if they are similar. You can make salad in your kitchen, not here pls.

Cough…btw, I only mentioned my degrees after you mentioned that you are studying historical developments arragonly(btw, I did not personally attack you before this while you have). You remind me so much about some of the Ph.D. students.”

“And clearly you did get my sarcasm, you are the one saying not here pls. Did I tell you to shut up? No, you did, again arroganly. Oh, I didn’t tell you what’s my B.A. degree, it is in a least subjective social science, and clear you didn’t get my sarcasm on this either.”

Arty, i think you have taken my words out of context. I was referring to the fact that you should not compare oranges with apples here. Your comparison is like making salad, out everything that is unrelated together and mix them together.

And pls exercise your logic. I am not the owner of this site. Even if i am a tottalitarian monster, i cannot stop you from posting here right? And even if i own the site, i won’t practise censorship; it would have gone against my principles. So pls do not malign me by taking words out of the context.

April 20, 2007 @ 10:04 am | Comment

Arty,

“t is really easy. The alternative will be to wait it out. One of the reason for Qing’s failure is its inability to face overwhelming foreign power. Also, when you evaluate a historical even you have to ask youself: Did Xinhai Revolution make all the social inequality and unjustice disappear over-night? No, it didn’t. Did the founding of the Republic abolished all the unequal treaties? Hell, no it didn’t. If Xinhai Revolution did not occur, are Chinese better prepared for WWII i.e. second Sino-Japanese war? Obvious no, since the revolution, Chinese has been fighting with themselves. If we have a record of GDP, I bet you will see the GDP take a dive soon after revolution ended since GDP always fall. I can even give you a current even as an example. Do you think Iraqies are living better than they did under Saddam before the war (I dear you to say yes)? Dr. Sun is a great selfless man. However, I do believe his method was incorrect and lack of patience. Also, at that time, foreign powers i.e. Japan and the west want a revolution in China, so it will easiler for them to conquer. Where do you think the gun came from during the revolution?

In addition, let me ask you did Japan has a revolution? No. Through out Japanese economic and military deveopment of later 19 and early 20th centries, Japan was still consider an autocrates if not out right dictatorship, and it takes Japan about half a centry to change not including the final change that it did after WWII. Another example, how about Sweden, its whole polictical system took close to hundred years to mature. No war, no great social instability.”

Dr Sun was a revolutionary, not a magician. Going by your logic, our world would probably be stuck in the colonial era of oppression and imperialism. Dr Sun waiting for the Manchus to rot like you have suggested, well, China would have ceased to exist as each piece of China is gobbled up by the European imperial powers. The Boxer Protocol in 1901 was an example. The Manchus were prepared to hold on to power. If dynastic rule had dragged on, you and i may still be wearing pigtails! The Manchu Dynasty was long overdue, that’s why China was weak and bullied. To let it continue to stagger along would have been disastrous for China and her people. After the revolution, the KMT under Chiang managed to get back the control of the customs and most of the concessions in the coastal cities from the foreign powers.

And going by your PhD logic, Nelson Mandela and Gandhi should have waited for their oppressors to end their rule. Gandhi should even join the British colonial civil service and Mandela should start off as a bell boy for the Apartheid regime. Wow, working their way up and changes would come. and Dr Sun should have taken the classical exams and try to become a Imperial Court official. Haha, your “logic” is getting too hilarious for me to handle.

Japan, unlike China, had an Emperor and ruling class willing to change and modernise under the Meiji Restoration. The Japanese rulers were willing to embrace modernity. That’s why Japan avoided foreign humiliation and the fate of China. China on the other hand, under the Manchus, refused to learn from the West. As dynastic rulers, they stubbornly stick to the old ways and isolate themselves, consider everything foreign to be inferior. The officials in the Qing Court were educated not in science and mathematics etc but in Chinese classics, under them, how can China modernise and defend herself? And the Qing Court stubbornly refused any concrete reforms. Once reforms are ruled out, the only way out is revolution, which was unnecessary in Japan’s case. Before the Manchus put in any effort to modernise, Japan had already defeated Russia in 1905.

Foreign powers wanted a revolution China? That’s an interesting Phd insight. But wait, why didn’t the Eight Allied Powers removed the Manchu Dynasty when they occupied Beijing in 1900? Or why they did most of them recognise Yuan Shi kai when he declared himself emperor? Hmm… Maybe you can tell us more, Mr/mrs/ms Phd…

I cannot imagine your idea of waiting… Imagine 1.3 billion people who had their feet bounded or having pigtails up till today… Your idea is really interesting.

April 20, 2007 @ 10:23 am | Comment

Arty,

“If you are truly great, even in those countries you can make a name for youself. You will work through the system, gain power, and change things. Why didn’t those Beijing students i.e. elite intellects join CCP and gain ranks. Of course, again it does not mean you won’t be stepping on the rest of the population i.e. the current Zimbabwe president Mugabe. Oh what how does Mugabe gain power…”Absolute power corrupts the absolutely.” Do you think Morgan Tsvangirai once gain power if he ever will be better than Mugabe?

Btw, I am really dumb. Having a Ph.D. just means that you are book smart. It matters a little but not much in real life;however, sure is good enough to debate with people online.”

Nothing is absolute. But the fact is, your idea is too creative for me to handle. Like i say, imagine Gandhi working as a clerk for the British, Nelson Mandela working as a bellboy for the white supremacists. Or how about Martin Luther King getting a job as a chapelain in a racially segregated sch? In those oppressive closed systems, you think you can make changes from within that easily? Obviously, you are not schooled in sociology. Maybe you can start enrolling yourself in Sociology 101 and read the chapter on “social stratification”.

Somehow, your Phd not only earn you a place in academia, but maybe in the circus as well.

April 20, 2007 @ 10:34 am | Comment

Arty,

“sp, how about the book “Almost a Revolution” I mentioned. What’s your opinion about this book? Speak up! The definition of revolution is irrelevant because I am simply arguing that the end result will likely to be a revolution and perhaps a civil war.”

A book being published does not mean that it is the sole and full authority on the topic. If not a centre of the left liberal like me would have to start worshipping Ann Coulter and treat her books like the Holt Script(a die-hard ultra-conservative) since she has been publishing like crazy.

Like i say, i have given my definition of what a “revolution” is, and illustrated why that it is not a revolution under such a definition. You have not say why the so-called “revolutionaries” on the Tiananmen Sq have referred to the PRC’s constitution for the right to freely express themselves and bother to negotiate with CCP’s top leaders. Revolutionaries negotiating with the supposed reactionary leaders of the regime they wanna overthrow? Wow, Thats really creative. I think going by your stand, all historians and political scientists would have to revise all their scholarly definition on what is a revolution.

C’mon, why no definition from you? You mean a Phd holder cannot even give a proper definition in his academic paper? You only speculate, speculate that there will be civil war and revolution etc without fully explaining how and why it would come about. And the laughable thing is, a spin-doctor like you has been claiming about being scientific. People on thise thread knows that i am not a escapist. Ask CCT and brickfat if you have doubts about me giving rebuttals and replies.

April 20, 2007 @ 10:47 am | Comment

””””””As an American, I will say go ahead and kill each other. It is all good for us. I bet Bush sr. was praying really hard for the student to collapse CCP so he doesn’t have to worry about the rise of China.”””””””””

Whats all this about? The first point sounds terrible, and the second point sounds exactly like propaganda. The CCP (and the Korean regime uses the same line) wants you to think that America hates China (and North Korea) and wants them to fail… I dont think thats true though. I think that America doesnt like communism and the massacres and total disrespect for humanity that communist regimes stand for. The CCP tells you that people dont like China so that you will all help the CCp defeat those anti China forces. But the fact is that those forces are not anti China, they are anti CCP, and they actually want the people of China to be free. The CCP wants to survive and keep power, they will tell you any lie to stay there.

April 20, 2007 @ 2:18 pm | Comment

SP,

“After the revolution, the KMT under Chiang managed to get back the control of the customs and most of the concessions in the coastal cities from the foreign powers.”

Actually KMT didn’t get concessions from the coastal cities till the end of WWII, And soon after Chaing lost the entire China.

Nelson Mandela and Gandhi should have waited for their oppressors to end their rule. Gandhi should even join the British colonial civil service and Mandela should start off as a bell boy for the Apartheid regime.

Nelson Mandela sit in the jail for 27 years. In thoery, he did wait for the thing to change after Botha stepped down due to a stroke. Hey, and guess what, South Africa is worse today than 17 years ago based on the United Nations Human Development Index. Maybe he should sit in jail longer (btw, this sentence is a joke).

How long did Indian independence movement last? Let’s count, it started initially in 1857 by Indian soliders who initially gave India to the British (the colonization of India by the British is a very interesting read, and I guess most people can’t believe that the soliders used by British for India conquest are actually Indians).
Ghadi started his movement in 1918 and India finally gain independence in 1947. That’s 90 years from the start and close to 30 years from Ghadi’s movement. Talk about slow paced change. I believe the students in Tiananmen square wanted an immediate change by the government and will not stop until what?

“Foreign powers wanted a revolution China? That’s an interesting Phd insight. But wait, why didn’t the Eight Allied Powers removed the Manchu Dynasty when they occupied Beijing in 1900? Or why they did most of them recognise Yuan Shi kai when he declared himself emperor? Hmm… Maybe you can tell us more, Mr/mrs/ms Phd…

I cannot imagine your idea of waiting… Imagine 1.3 billion people who had their feet bounded or having pigtails up till today… Your idea is really interesting.

Because even with superior weapons, the eight allies realized that they can’t control China as a colony. It is far more profitable to sign a treat and get what you can from it at that time. It will take Japan another 35 years to get ready for a full invasion.

When I say to wait, it does not mean the society itself will not change slowly by itself. Acutally if Xinhai Revolution didn’t succeed in 1911, the world were very different three years later in 1914, followed by the great depression, and then WWII (I don’t think you will disagree that Japan would have invaded China no matter what during WWII). In addition, women still have their feet bound and a lot of people still have the tail even years after Xinhai Revolution. Did the Republic change that? How many wives and mistresses did KMT leaders Chiang has; a practice based on old Chinese tradition? As of Japan, my whole point is that it takes Meiji Restoration from 1962 to 1905 for a small country like Japan to be strong. It would take China far longer and it “could” be done most likely peacefully regardless how corrupted Qing dynasty was because world event like WWI and WWII will eventaully change China’s position.

In theory, without a violent revolution, China will be in far better position. Without civil wars and local warlord conflicts after revolution, China will be in far better position to face Japan in WWII even under the rule of Qing dynasty (again in theory).

“Nothing is absolute.”

I guess you didn’t get the phrase “Absolute power corrupt the absolutely.” It is a well known phrase stating that power, absolute power, corrpts even the greatest men and women i.e. the absolutely.

Somehow, your Phd not only earn you a place in academia, but maybe in the circus as well.

This I agree. I know some magic tricks.

A book being published does not mean that it is the sole and full authority on the topic.

I didn’t say he is an expert although he did go to Harvard. I am simply dispute on your statement that there is no one use revolution to describe Tiananmen square on paper.

“You have not say why the so-called “revolutionaries” on the Tiananmen Sq have referred to the PRC’s constitution for the right to freely express themselves and bother to negotiate with CCP’s top leaders. Revolutionaries negotiating with the supposed reactionary leaders of the regime they wanna overthrow? Wow, Thats really creative. I think going by your stand, all historians and political scientists would have to revise all their scholarly definition on what is a revolution.”

Btw, Chinese consitution is crap when no one is respecting it or believes in a society ruled by law. However, here is my definition of “revolution:” A revolution (from Late Latin revolutio which means “a turn around”) is a significant change that usually occurs in a relatively short period of time. Not always violent. Here is a quote from Wiki:

From the late 1980s a new body of scholarly work begun questioning the dominance of the third generation’s theories. The old theories were also dealt a significant blow by new revolutionary events that could not be easily explain by them. The Iranian and Nicaraguan Revolutions of 1979, the 1986 EDSA Revolution in the Philippines and the 1989 Autumn of Nations in Europe saw multi-class coalitions topple seemingly powerful regimes amidst popular demonstrations and mass strikes in nonviolent revolutions. Defining revolutions as mostly European violent state versus people and class struggles conflicts was no longer sufficient.

Happy now sp 🙂 Apprently the definition of revolution changes…wow, what a shocker. I am shocked, don’t you? I thought they change the definition for me, damn! I need to go find myself a circus to work.

April 20, 2007 @ 3:20 pm | Comment

Snow,

I lived in the US. I don’t even watch Chinese TV program. Where do you think I get the information? American TV and news media perhaps?

You seem to quote Falun Gong alot. And from my personal opinion with my interaction with some Falun Gong members in the US, they show classic sign of cult brianwashing. Althoug, it is not neccarily evil but it is scary. Come on, come join Scientology with me it is much better, at least, you get to pray with hot hollywood stars :).

April 20, 2007 @ 3:55 pm | Comment

Arty,

“Actually KMT didn’t get concessions from the coastal cities till the end of WWII, And soon after Chaing lost the entire China.”

Starting from 1917, Germany and Austria-Hungary had to surrender all their privileges in China due to their defeat. In 1920, China terminated Russian treaty rights because Nationalist China did not recognized the new Soviet Union then. In 1929, British concessions in Wuhan and Jiujiang reverted back to full Chinese control. During the 1920s to the 1030s, extraterritoriality was relinquished by several powers. Belgium gave up her concession in Tianjin in 1929. All these foreign intrusions were formally (although most it had in effect been dismantled) abolished in the spirit of the Atlantic Charter.

And the Nationalist government, having dismantled the Beiyang Warlord government since 1928, had regained effective control of the Chinese customs lost to foreign control during the late Qing period.

Some Phd holders need history revision here.

April 21, 2007 @ 1:35 am | Comment

Arty,

“How long did Indian independence movement last? Let’s count, it started initially in 1857 by Indian soliders who initially gave India to the British (the colonization of India by the British is a very interesting read, and I guess most people can’t believe that the soliders used by British for India conquest are actually Indians).
Ghadi started his movement in 1918 and India finally gain independence in 1947. That’s 90 years from the start and close to 30 years from Ghadi’s movement. Talk about slow paced change. I believe the students in Tiananmen square wanted an immediate change by the government and will not stop until what?”

The 1857 Sepoy Rebellion was a starting point but it cannot be seen as a nationalist movement because it was a mutiny more than a nationalist revolution. None of the sepoys mutinied because of some feeling of patriotism or nationalistic ideals. Moreover, it was sporadic and not planned. Violence broke out in different parts of India at different times.

The “Indian” soldiers did not give India to Britain. Before British arrival, India was not even a geographical unified entity with a national identity. There were no concept of “Indians”, different region had different language, namely Sikh, Urdu, Hindi, Tamil, Bengali, Malayalee etc. The people had no nationalistic identity. Ironically, British rule unified the people in an unprecedented scale into a unified administration and legal framework, network of railways and the geographical concept of British India would laid the foundation of today’s India and Pakistan. Thats the irony of colonialism; it sowed the seeds of its own demise by planting the seeds of nationalism unintentionally.

And Gandhi did not cooperate or work his way through within the colonial system for changes as you have been dying to advocate people to do so. All his actions, from non-cooperation to the Salt March was to made British administration with the aim of compelling the colonial masters to LEAVE AND QUIT INDIA. Gandhi’s activities were outisde of the system. He did not become a colonial clerk as you have hilariously suggested people to do so for changes. India gained independence in 1947 when London realised that no matter how many arrests the colonial authorities made, it would not appease the Indian nationalism fostered by Gandhi through his anti-British tactics of non-cooperation. In other words, Gandhi would gladly want the British to leave asap, but they had no choice because Britain had all the tools of oppression in place.Note the numerous years and number of times that Gandhi had spent in the colonial jails.

Its really a wonderful time to teach a Phd holder history. Indian and Chinese history 101 for a Phd holder? Nobody is too old for elementary classes, don’t worry.

April 21, 2007 @ 2:00 am | Comment

Sp,

It was never too old to learn. Part of Ph.D. trainin is to debate, talk, and continue learning from new data and other colleages. However, I do have to disagree on your take on how much KMT retake back the concession is due to the founding of the Republic. It is more due to WWI and WWII. Majority of colonies independence from British could also be contributed to WWII because England’s power is serverly weaken during WWII.

I debate with my colleages all the time. Sometimes I am right, sometimes they are. However, in my field, the debate could be settled by experiments. And from your tone, it seems that once you have a degree in certain fields, you can stop learning. Acutally, I think that’s the biggest difference between a good scientist and a bad scientist. Just like few days ago I look at an unpublished paper and refuse to review it because they did an experiment that have been done and only publishable about 15 years ago. I can tell them the result even without the experiment. I always love to learn new stuff, so at least when I write a real paper it doesn’t make a fool of myself. In addition, there is no way a person could be an expert of everthing, right? Even in a particular science field, a paper is only given to the person who are acutally doing similar reseraches to review or consider a expert to the subject field.

April 21, 2007 @ 2:19 am | Comment

Arty,

“Nelson Mandela sit in the jail for 27 years. In thoery, he did wait for the thing to change after Botha stepped down due to a stroke. Hey, and guess what, South Africa is worse today than 17 years ago based on the United Nations Human Development Index. Maybe he should sit in jail longer (btw, this sentence is a joke).”

First of all, thats a really bad joke. First its not funny, especially in the context of the suffering of the blacks under the white racist regime from 1948-1994 and to make a man who had sacrificed his entire life to fight for simple justice a subject of your joke shows how morally bankrupt you are as an individual. Its a malicious not-funny-at-all “joke” made with the worse sense of humor. You have definitely provided us valuable insights into your character.

While Mandela was in jail, he continued to be a icon for the African National Congress. His plight also drew international criticisms and isolated the Apartheid regime. Mandela continued to inspire his people and became a symbol of resistance against the racist regime. Botha felt that he could no longer ignored the ANC when the Smith regime fell in Rhodesia (Zimbabwe), when African nations around South Africa became independent and hostile and when the whole international community focused on the plight of the blacks. Mandela stepped out and willingly become a fighter for his people. I don’t think you have heard of �一呼百应�. So would the whites rulers decide that the game was over for them if Mandela had become a bellboy at their resorts? Mnadela gave the white regime lots of pressure. Your suggestion makes you a really good entertainer.

So would South Africa be a better place with Apartheid? It seems that with your citation of the UN Human Development Index, you sem to suggest that Apartheid should stay put in the 21st century in order to give South Africans a better life. Wow. I just realised that i have dug up an antique like you. Only antiques believe in Apartheid. Try Neo-Nazism? Its more in tune with time and you would not love it less than Apartheid.

April 21, 2007 @ 2:20 am | Comment

Arty,

“When I say to wait, it does not mean the society itself will not change slowly by itself. Acutally if Xinhai Revolution didn’t succeed in 1911, the world were very different three years later in 1914, followed by the great depression, and then WWII (I don’t think you will disagree that Japan would have invaded China no matter what during WWII). In addition, women still have their feet bound and a lot of people still have the tail even years after Xinhai Revolution. Did the Republic change that? How many wives and mistresses did KMT leaders Chiang has; a practice based on old Chinese tradition? As of Japan, my whole point is that it takes Meiji Restoration from 1962 to 1905 for a small country like Japan to be strong. It would take China far longer and it “could” be done most likely peacefully regardless how corrupted Qing dynasty was because world event like WWI and WWII will eventaully change China’s position.

In theory, without a violent revolution, China will be in far better position. Without civil wars and local warlord conflicts after revolution, China will be in far better position to face Japan in WWII even under the rule of Qing dynasty (again in theory).”

I have said that Dr Sun was a revolutionary not a magician. You can’t expect that 5000 years can be cured in one day. But the revolution is a NECESSARY event. Why? Because China had to made a break with her past, abolished her long overdue institutions such as Confucian classics exams, dynastic rule, feudalism so that China can have a starting point in modernization. Under the Qing Court, it will never have a starting point because modernization would put the Imperial Court out of business. The Qing officials would become irrelevant. So Dr Sun had to launch a revolution so that China can enter into a modern era. Dr Sun had submitted a petition to Li Hongzhang in 1894 for radical changes but Li refuted it. So the way out for China is to overthrow the Qing Court and establish a Republic. China had to start somewhere, she cannot remain the sickman of the Oriental.

Its clear that the Qing Court would not implement changes. Your scenarios are based on a series of “what ifs” and speculation and hindsight. Even if your “what-ifs” comes true, would people in 1911 forsee 1914 or even 1929? Dr Sun and his generation only saw and remembered 1842, 1860, 1895, 1901. And what makes you so sure that the Manchus would not stagger on despite WWI and Great Depression. You mean you can stand another twenty years of unequal treaties and foreign intrusion?

China did not have the fortune of having a Meiji Emperor who embraced modernity. Instead, China had a xenophobic and terrible selfish leader called Dowger Cixi. Thats why a revolution in China was necessary but not in Japan.

I never say Japan would not invade China no matter what. Pls DO NOT put words into my mouth. Thats why i suspect whether you have academic ethics; putting words into other’s mouths.

And your theory about China being more able to cope with a Japanese invasion in 1937 if China was still ruled by the Manchu Dynasty. Wait, didn’t the Japanese did that in 1895 and made the Manchus sign the humiliating Treaty of Shimonoseki even when Li Hongzhang had built an impressive Beiyang fleet? I think you are right actually. All the Qing Court need to do is to recognise the puppet state of Manchukuo in 1931 and then signed another Treaty of Shimonoseki with Japan to cope with the invasion in 1937 and submit China under Japan’s “Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere”. Those are the things both Chiang and Mao could not have done whereas only the Qing Court can: sell the nation. For once, you are right, wow, congrats.

April 21, 2007 @ 2:49 am | Comment

Arty,

“I guess you didn’t get the phrase “Absolute power corrupt the absolutely.” It is a well known phrase stating that power, absolute power, corrpts even the greatest men and women i.e. the absolutely.”

I declared “Nothing is absolute” in light of what you have said in the same posts, “Do you think Morgan Tsvangirai once gain power if he ever will be better than Mugabe?” How can i guarantee that? Thats why i say “nothing is absolute”. When Mao took power in 1949, who would have foresee that he would kill 30 million people? on the other hand, who would have predicted that an authoritarian leader like Chiang Ching kuo would have lifted martial law in Taiwan in 1987? You first asked a rhetorical question and then misunderstood what i have said.

April 21, 2007 @ 3:00 am | Comment

Arty,

“I didn’t say he is an expert although he did go to Harvard. I am simply dispute on your statement that there is no one use revolution to describe Tiananmen square on paper.”

First, i have to reiterate that i would not worship and accept someone’s ideas just because he/she publishes. Both Ann Coutler and Mao publishes, should i believe in them then? Then his book was “Almost a Revolution” meaning that it was still NOT a revolution. And he already put it as the title of his book, i don’t see the need to argue here.

Btw, did you know that George W Bush was also from Harvard? He got his MBA there. Look at his presidency, Iraq, Hurricane Katrina.. I “love and trust” Harvard graduates man. Shouldn’t you be placing trust on the person and his qualities rather than just some paper qualifications? Does an “A” on the transcript mean that that fellow would automatically be a good worker? Wow, stop your blind worship of credentialism.

April 21, 2007 @ 3:08 am | Comment

Arty,

“Because even with superior weapons, the eight allies realized that they can’t control China as a colony. It is far more profitable to sign a treaty and get what you can from it at that time. It will take Japan another 35 years to get ready for a full invasion.”

Wait, but let’s recall what you have said earlier on in case you have selective amnesia

Arty said, “Japan and the west want a revolution in China, so it will easiler for them to conquer. Where do you think the gun came from during the revolution?”

So accroding to a Phd holder, the foreign powers wanted to gain by signing an unequal treaty with a Manchu Court which was compliant to their wishes. Then the same Phd holder said that the foreign powers wanted a revolution so that they can conquer China more easily. Now i know why it is so hard to get a Phd. The man on the street can never can those Phd logic. Can you enlighten us how those things are possible simultaneously?

April 21, 2007 @ 3:20 am | Comment

Arty,

“Btw, Chinese consitution is crap when no one is respecting it or believes in a society ruled by law.”

Look, i was not saying that the PRC constitution was not crap. My point was, if the students are indeed revolutionaries intent on overthrowing the PRC, why did they still bother to refer to it during the protests? Using something and at the same thime overthrowing it? How? I am not trained in self-contradiction like you.

“A revolution (from Late Latin revolutio which means “a turn around”) is a significant change that usually occurs in a relatively short period of time. Not always violent.”

At last, a benevolent definition from the Phd holder. But there seems there is a problem with your definition. why? How about military coups? how about peasant rebellions? how about power struggle within the ruling elite? Bloodless coups? Everything can fit into your definition. All these are significant changes within a short period of time. Try harder working at it again.

“From the late 1980s a new body of scholarly work begun questioning the dominance of the third generation’s theories. The old theories were also dealt a significant blow by new revolutionary events that could not be easily explain by them. The Iranian and Nicaraguan Revolutions of 1979, the 1986 EDSA Revolution in the Philippines and the 1989 Autumn of Nations in Europe saw multi-class coalitions topple seemingly powerful regimes amidst popular demonstrations and mass strikes in nonviolent revolutions. Defining revolutions as mostly European violent state versus people and class struggles conflicts was no longer sufficient.”

To think a Phd student would put undying trust on Wikipedia.. Thats really hilarious. But besides that lets examine the examples in your quote. Iranian, Nicaraguan revolutions… Aren’t they all violent attempts to topple the exisiting political systems and replace it with new systems? You mean Ayatollah Komeini invite the Shah peacefully out of Iran? You mean the Sandinistas came to power peacefully and left Somoza’s regime intact? Didn’t they impose a Leftist regime in place of the right wing regime of Somoza.

In Philippines, Marcos was out because of a housewife like Corazon only? You mean Marcos bowed out without the military’s swing against him under Fidel Ramos and Juan Ponce Enrile?

And in Eastern Europe, you mean Solidarity and Chapter 77 wanted to work for changes within the communist systems? How about the blood shed in Romania in overthrowing the communist dictator Nicolae Ceauşescu and his subsequent execution by the people by a firing squad?

All these made me wonder if you and i stayed on the same planet Earth? Are you from Mars? hello….

April 21, 2007 @ 3:40 am | Comment

Arty,

“And from your tone, it seems that once you have a degree in certain fields, you can stop learning. Acutally, I think that’s the biggest difference between a good scientist and a bad scientist.”

Wow, how humble this sounds but lets review what you have said because you really have selective amnesia:

“Btw, after my B.A. and B.S. degrees, I earned a master and then a Ph.D. in a REAL SCIENCE field. Currently working in a place that if you open US News and the World Report ranking of the best graduate schools in science, you don’t have to look far to find it (let’s say it is in the top 10).”

Enough said. I still don’t understand how your paper qualifications has got to do with the validity of our debate unless some Phd holder think otherwise.

April 21, 2007 @ 3:55 am | Comment

To think a Phd student would put undying trust on Wikipedia.. Thats really hilarious. But besides that lets examine the examples in your quote. Iranian, Nicaraguan revolutions… Aren’t they all violent attempts to topple the exisiting political systems and replace it with new systems? You mean Ayatollah Komeini invite the Shah peacefully out of Iran?…

As Iran for example, the conflict is extremely small, it is even smaller than the Tiananmen square massarce. The only difference is the winner side.

Wow, how humble this sounds but lets review what you have said because you really have selective amnesia:

It only means I can accept my mistake, okay okay, sp you are always right :). Now go out and enjoy the weekend.

So from all the example you have quoted, are the people living in those countries better off today or worse off? I think that’s the question.

April 22, 2007 @ 2:50 am | Comment

Arty,

Aim of students in Tiananmen: End corruption, more democracy. respect of rights under the PRC’s constitution

Aim of the clerics, radicals and anti-monarchists in Iran: overthrow of the Shah, end the Pahlavi Dynasty that was or perceived to be the client of America and Israel.

See the difference? Violence occurred when scores of protestors were killed by the Shah’s security forces, but the most brutal violence occured when Khomeini’s new theocratic regime started to execute and purge possible “counter-revolutionaries”

“So from all the example you have quoted, are the people living in those countries better off today or worse off? I think that’s the question.”

Better off or worse off is a valued-judgment. Even figures like GDP (if you study economics..) does not reflect the whole picture of what constitutes “quality of life”. And your arguments worked on hindsight, numerous assumptions and a long series of “what-ifs” and ceteris paribus.

To answer your question of “better off” or “worse off”, let me quote the late PRC premier Zhou Enlai as he wrapped up this topic very well.

When asked about what he tought of the historical effects of the 1789 French Revolution, Premier Zhou simply remarked, “Too soon to tell.”

And what makes you think that people in North Korea, Zimbabwe, Myanmar would think of whether in the long term they would be better or worse off? Given their current situation, anything is better than the status quo they have in their countries. John Maynard Keynes’ quote is my final answer to your question.

On his views of short run and long run, Keynes said, “In the long run, we are all dead.”

April 22, 2007 @ 3:24 am | Comment

Arty,

To further illustrate my point on better or worse, let me use your example of GDP in one of your posts.

As we all know, China’s GDP per capita today is a far cry from that of the 70s. Today it stood at $7,598 per head, far from around its approx. $300 in the 1970s.

So can we say they are better off? Not necessary. Did you include things like pollution that is the costs of rapid growth? How about those in the countryside? Does it mean that their GDP per capita increased as much as those in the coastal cities? Do labourers benefit as much as the businessmen in the cities? Income gap?

You seem to have a simple idea of “better off” or “worse off”. I am surprised that such questions never occurred to you. Anyone who bothers to think critically would not have overlooked all these considerations.

April 22, 2007 @ 3:38 am | Comment

Arty,

So you’re a scientologist?

Well when I told you that you sound like a North Korea brainwahsed I explained to you the reason. I said it’s because the US is not anti China, they are anti communist, but the communists dont want the Chinese people to know that so they make the people think that America is against them but America is against the rise of a huge communist dictatorship because they are absolute atheist propaganda mind controllers and genocidal.

April 22, 2007 @ 5:41 am | Comment

sp,

Even if you look at human development index, China look pretty good data from 1975 to 2006. The gap has dramatically narrow in the last 30 years. I never mention GDP, or do I?
Now, if you look at South Africa…Zimbabwe…something clearly is wrong there. Well, you can say that HDI is crap also but we have to have some sort of measurements somehow. However, let’s say HDI is right, yes, China is better off, and South Africa and Zimbabwe is worse off because even if the sitution improves in the future when human race are gone it will still take them years to make up the drops. You maybe gone but your children and grand-children will suffer. Just look at Cuban, a decision made by populist, even today, their children and gread-children are suffering from it. I know this personally because one of my co-worker pretty much risked his life coming to the US.

Snow,

Clearly you don’t get my sarcasm. No, I am not in scientology. Organized religions are for the weak minded indiviuals. I am not atheist either. We, Americans, don’t really care what kind of government China was, is, or will be. We are against it now because it is competing with us in the internaitonal arena. Do we ever give a crap about China 30 years ago? No. It is our national interest that we care about, and whoever challenges it, we are against it. He has nastiest thing to say about Castro and even Che. Btw, I know some migrants from South Africa, too, you don’t want to know what they think about today’s South Africa government and Mandela (of course, that’s their personal opinions, not necessary right).

April 23, 2007 @ 3:58 am | Comment

Arty,

Again lets review what you have said in case you again suffered from selective amnesia

“If we have a record of GDP, I bet you will see the GDP take a dive soon after revolution ended since GDP always fall. I can even give you a current even as an example.”

The academia should be very ashamed of having a Phd like you who often refuse to acknowledge and take responsibility for their claims.

Yes, GDP is a measurement and i don’t deny that. But it seems that YOU SOLELY RELY ON IT as an indicator of improvement. You certainly don’t understand the problems China is facoing today. While overall GDP has grown, the income between the haves and have-nots have widened dramatically. The development of the coastal areas stood in contrast with the abject poverty in the countryside. Look at the plight of the coal mine workers, many of those who died in the coal mines were actually poor peasants who were forced to move to the cities and mines to engage in wage labour to get more money becaus eof the poverty in the countryside.

An while development has accelerated to an unprecedented scale, the ruthless pursuit of development means that the rich get much richer while those at the bottom got a worse deal. You don’t have to look far. Look at the recent case of the old couple with their autistic son who won the court case against developers to acquire their house. The developers still moved in with bulldozers and start demolishing their house even though they were inside.

And look at the massive pollution. The Qingzang glaciers are melting at an horifying rate. The air quality in Beijing, Lanzhou, and the Pearl Delta River is infamous. Smog and smoke are part and parcel of daily lives. Desertfication was occuring at an alarmingly rate in Northern China.

Does GDP and HDI reflects such factors? No. But do they matter to the “quality of life”? Certainly.

Your Phd somehow is only good for show, not for some simple logical thinking. And you lack academic integrity, refusing to acknowledge your claims time and again.

April 24, 2007 @ 2:11 am | Comment

Arty,

“Now, if you look at South Africa…Zimbabwe…something clearly is wrong there. Well, you can say that HDI is crap also but we have to have some sort of measurements somehow. However, let’s say HDI is right, yes, China is better off, and South Africa and Zimbabwe is worse off because even if the sitution improves in the future when human race are gone it will still take them years to make up the drops. You maybe gone but your children and grand-children will suffer. Just look at Cuban, a decision made by populist, even today, their children and gread-children are suffering from it. I know this personally because one of my co-worker pretty much risked his life coming to the US.”

You have been schemingly diverting attention. South Africa was mentioned in our above debates when i talked about Mandela, about his couragement to put an end to Aparthied and seek justice for his people when you dismissed that sudden attempts to change society as futile or even harmful. You insinuated that even if the current situation is bad, we should wait for changes to come, apparently you want the people to wait for Aparthied to end, and naively think that oppression will end without pressure, direct action and resistance from those being oppressed. Then you refuted my point but pointing out that South Africa’s HDI HAS WORSENED SINCE THE END OF APARTHEID, and suggested that Mandela should even stay in jail longer for the sake our South Africa. Thats was the context of our argument.

You shamelessly try to divert attention from your ludicrous suggestion that bringing an end to Apartheid and racism actually does South Africa no good. That was your argument. And you have now turned the tables all of a sudden. NOW stop being a coward. Answer this question: Since you said South Africa’s HDI (assuming that your calim that HDI reflects everything about standard of living) has declined since the Apartheid, do you think that therefore Apartheid should last until today?

April 24, 2007 @ 2:20 am | Comment

Arty,

“Just look at Cuban, a decision made by populist, even today, their children and gread-children are suffering from it. I know this personally because one of my co-worker pretty much risked his life coming to the US.”

Yes, i will agree about the current situation about Cuba. The communism in Cuba is causing pains and on hindsight, most sane people would agree that Castro was a disaster for Cuba.

But we are all saying because we have the benefit of hindsight. You and I would never understand the pain that the Cuban people were living under Batista and those powerful neo-colonial US interests. Castro at that time offer them social change and overthroeing of Batista and getting Yankee imperialism out. They would never foresee what it would be like under a communist regime led by Castro. On hindsight, we know that Castro was actually another dictator under a different regime. But do those Cuban people see that back then? All they saw was a ruthless dictator who condoned foreign economic exploitation and they have had enough of it. Thats makes them turn to Castro.

And you always sit in the comfort of your home, pontificating to the rest of the world that they should not have done this and that etc etc. Actually, thats alright. But you do it with hindsight when people in history did not have the benefit of such hindsight.

If your claims are valuable, our world would be peaceful without no history of bloodshed and violence and suffering. Because you assume that people then could have hindsight like you.

I can see that Phd have trained you in a number of things: self-contradiction, pure speculation, making comments without thinking that you have the benefit of hindsight and based your arguments on endless strings of “what-ifs”.

This idiom is very suitable for you -马后炮-

April 24, 2007 @ 2:41 am | Comment

Arty,

“Do we ever give a crap about China 30 years ago? No.”

Another historical inaccuracy. If thats the case, pls explain a number of things:

1) Why did Nixon pursued detente with Mao in 1972?
2) Why did Carter broke ties with Taiwan in 1979?

and even earlier than 30years ago:

1) McCarthyism that followed after the percieved “loss” of China to communism
2) Administrations from Truman to Johnson had supported the anti-communist KMT regime in Taiwan, from using the 7th fleet to patrol the Taiwan Straits, John Dulles even threatened nuclear strike against Red China in the First Taiwan Straits crisis

the list goes on…

Seems that the US did give alot of “crap” about China. Pick up college history textbooks, Mr Phd.

April 24, 2007 @ 2:53 am | Comment

Too much semantics-parsing by half.

April 24, 2007 @ 3:37 am | Comment

The academia should be very ashamed of having a Phd like you who often refuse to acknowledge and take responsibility for their claims.

Yes, I am, but I simply didn’t flip up the thread. Okay okay I said it. But I said it online not on a paper, only you care 🙂

Does GDP and HDI reflects such factors? No. But do they matter to the “quality of life”? Certainly.

So quality of life improved in China right? And equality Gini index is only 4 points behind US. I would say not bad.

NOW stop being a coward. Answer this question: Since you said South Africa’s HDI (assuming that your calim that HDI reflects everything about standard of living) has declined since the Apartheid, do you think that therefore Apartheid should last until today?

Yes, it should, not until the african government can take care of itself. Btw, I did not say Apartheid is right, but it should last longer. I don’t see why you think this is a hard one for me to answer. It ended to fast and lack of far sight.

Another historical inaccuracy. If thats the case, pls explain a number of things:

1) Why did Nixon pursued detente with Mao in 1972?
2) Why did Carter broke ties with Taiwan in 1979?

I will give you this one. However, you know general American don’t even care about China until recently. At least not in the tone of how China can over take us in world domination?

Btw, don’t get too mad, it is just online discussion.

self-contradiction, pure speculation, making comments without thinking that you have the benefit of hindsight and based your arguments on endless strings of “what-ifs”.

Yea, that’s what make US Ph.D. much better, and recognzied all over the world. 🙂 Creates doubts and contradition, the origin of all knowledge. How do you know that I am not just doing an experiment on you to see how much I can piss you off.

April 24, 2007 @ 5:33 am | Comment

Arty,

I think i don’t have much to say to you already, i mean, what’s there to say with someone lack of integrity and worse still, thinks that APARTHEID SHOULD LAST LONGER FOR THE GOOD FOR THE BLACKS. I mean, what’s there to discuss with someone with a mind of a KKK member, Neo-Nazi or a surrogate of Hitler?

“So quality of life improved in China right? And equality Gini index is only 4 points behind US. I would say not bad.”

Still avoiding questions about labour conditions, property rights, rule of law, wide income gap between haves and have-nots. Because all a Phd like you can do is to quote numbers and belive it entirely. Critical thinking seems to be sth that Phd training did not equip you with.

“Yes, it should, not until the african government can take care of itself. Btw, I did not say Apartheid is right, but it should last longer. I don’t see why you think this is a hard one for me to answer. It ended to fast and lack of far sight.”

Hmm, for yours truly, Apartheid shd last longer, colonialism shd last longer, racism shd last longer, oppression shd last longer, segregation of schools and in public facilities shd last longer in America’s deep South, Dynastic rule in China shd last longer… How can you say you don’t think sth is right and on the other hand say you thing it shd last longer? Its as hilarious as saying, i don’t think Nazism is right but it shd last longer… You are really good at cracking jokes.

“Yea, that’s what make US Ph.D. much better, and recognzied all over the world. 🙂 Creates doubts and contradition, the origin of all knowledge. How do you know that I am not just doing an experiment on you to see how much I can piss you off.”

I am not pissed but i think rather shocked and apalled that an academic is without ethics and integrity. Now i seriously doubt whether you really have a Phd only you are only fantazing in your dreams that you have one.

If i am an experiment, that shows that you are probably not a Phd holder. After all, in an experiment setting, you have already violated the participant’s rights and interests. I think you should read up the APA’s code of conduct… Oops what’s APA? It does not really matter to you because you are without ethics or you are simple a fake telling people you have a Phd. Your lousy knowledge of history told me that you probably failed all your history tests in high school and that is even more likely to suggest that you are a fake.

April 24, 2007 @ 11:45 am | Comment

Arty,

“I will give you this one. However, you know general American don’t even care about China until recently. At least not in the tone of how China can over take us in world domination?

Btw, don’t get too mad, it is just online discussion.”

You conveniently leave out the fact that i mentioned McCathyism (but i think a history nut like you is probably looking at wikipedia and wondering what the hell is that or you are probably wondering if McCathyism is sth edile :P)
Its was a big hysteria and witchhunting for “un-American” activities that ruin many lives of Americans. That happened with the Soviet atomic test and the “loss” of China to communism in 1949.

In the 1960 presidential race between Kennedy and Nixon, the phrase “Kinmen and Matsu” was repeated so many times, with each candidate accusing the other that he would not be resolute enough to defend them (in case you are still clicking on wikipedia on those terms, Kinmen and Matsu are offshore islands held by Taiwan close to mainland China and saw combat during the First and Second Taiwan Straits crisis, i know you are probably thinking whether “kinmen and matsu” is a Chinese dish but i assured you they are not :P).

And the Vietnam War was fought when Johnson convinced his people that it was a war to prevent the Red China, using North Vietnam as her proxy, to knock down all the non-communist countries in the Asia-Pacific region. Although we now know that was untrue, but apparently in the initial stage, the Congress and the people bought that argument.

I guess in order not to embarrass your self further, pls catch up your reading by buying some simple, basic high school history textbooks before you return to this discussion thread, i hope ae not infuriated… Ooops… 🙂

April 24, 2007 @ 12:03 pm | Comment

“APARTHEID SHOULD LAST LONGER FOR THE GOOD FOR THE BLACKS. I mean, what’s there to discuss with someone with a mind of a KKK member, Neo-Nazi or a surrogate of Hitler?”

You said it not me. Maybe I am but I won’t call my self Neo-Nazi. I will call it Neo-conservative :).

Still avoiding questions about labour conditions, property rights, rule of law, wide income gap between haves and have-nots. Because all a Phd like you can do is to quote numbers and belive it entirely.

What do you want me to say about this? Of course, these are problems for China. Heck they could be problems for the US, too. Go read a book named “Reefer Madness” or “Fast Food Nation” and you will realize not only China has such trouble. Oh btw, the author is far left, you will like him. Both are excellent books.

“segregation of schools and in public facilities shd last longer in America’s deep South”

Clearly you never heard of a phenomenon called volunteer RE-segation in the US.

If i am an experiment, that shows that you are probably not a Phd holder. After all, in an experiment setting, you have already violated the participant’s rights and interests. I think you should read up the APA’s code of conduct…

No, I only took the NIH Investigator Training Module entitled “Protection of Human Research Subject:…” and read Research on Human Speciemens per my Institutional Review Board policy. I think by replying to my message, you are already consent to it. Well, since I am not up-setting you, no harm no fault.

Now i seriously doubt whether you really have a Phd only you are only fantazing in your dreams that you have one.

Yes, I am dreaming.

April 24, 2007 @ 12:14 pm | Comment

kinmen and matsu

Trust me, I know. My father was one of the commander in Matsu who won the Kinmen award and off he went.

And let me tell you all those action direct at China at that time were all because US is trying stop Soviet Union expansion with USSR at the head, not China. I mean the whole point of Nixon open up to China is to keep Soviet at bay. If you think treating China like a puppet is not treating it like crap, be my guest.

Still avoiding questions about labour conditions, property rights, rule of law, wide income gap between haves and have-nots. Because all a Phd like you can do is to quote numbers and belive it entirely.

I think I already answer this question, I told you to read on Kruznet’s theory on inequality and Amartya Kumar Sen theory on economics. However, a society never get to the end because stupid people looses patience and decide to do stupid things to destablize an entire society, so the nation never develops.

April 24, 2007 @ 1:33 pm | Comment

Arty,

Haha, so you are a neo-con.. No wonder… Now i get it.. i know why your arguments are so flimsy and naive… because it is all peppered with Bushism and Bushinomics.

And now i know why you sympathised with Apartheid.. after all, Reagan was against sanctions against the white supremacist regime when Congress voted for sanctions.

“Clearly you never heard of a phenomenon called volunteer RE-segation in the US.”

There are handfuls of Maoists and Neo-Nazis running about even up till today… so does this make them relevant in today’s world? No. Re-segregation cannot hope to jump out of its coffin and revive itself as a national norm because it was an oppressive relic of the past.

“No, I only took the NIH Investigator Training Module entitled “Protection of Human Research Subject:…” and read Research on Human Speciemens per my Institutional Review Board policy. I think by replying to my message, you are already consent to it. Well, since I am not up-setting you, no harm no fault.”

That’s too presumptous on your part. I think you are just a scumbag. But what can we expect when someone like you can make Nelson Mandela the butt of your racist joke?

“Trust me, I know. My father was one of the commander in Matsu who won the Kinmen award and off he went.

And let me tell you all those action direct at China at that time were all because US is trying stop Soviet Union expansion with USSR at the head, not China. I mean the whole point of Nixon open up to China is to keep Soviet at bay. If you think treating China like a puppet is not treating it like crap, be my guest.”

Yes. But you change the context of the argument again. When you mean crap in your earlier post, you meant that America didn’t give China a damn ie its not significant. When i proved otherwise, you know that all was lost on your side and your change the context again. I have never see someone as shameless as you.

“I think I already answer this question, I told you to read on Kruznet’s theory on inequality and Amartya Kumar Sen theory on economics. However, a society never get to the end because stupid people looses patience and decide to do stupid things to destablize an entire society, so the nation never develops.”

You did not. You keep parroting GDP, Gini coefficient etc but i have been talking about how such figures, taken alone, cannot tell the whole story.

And your point about stupid people losing patience and decide to do things to destabilize an entire society etc.. Let me ask you this question: So in your opinion, was George Washington, one of those stupid people, who loses patience with the autocratic British colonial rulers and decide to “destabilize” the society together with the other Founding Fathers by launching the American Revolution and War of Independence? I guess, using your yardstick, George Washington ought to be labeled as a stupid lad who loses patience with colonialism and the Founding Fathers would inevitably screw up America by declaring independence.

April 24, 2007 @ 7:32 pm | Comment

Haha, so you are a neo-con..

Yea, and guess who control the white house.

Yes. But you change the context of the argument again. When you mean crap in your earlier post, you meant that America didn’t give China a damn ie its not significant. When i proved otherwise, you know that all was lost on your side and your change the context again. I have never see someone as shameless as you.

Okay, I lost. You win. I maybe shameless but I do admit my defeat.

So in your opinion, was George Washington, one of those stupid people, who loses patience with the autocratic British colonial rulers and decide to “destabilize” the society together with the other Founding Fathers by launching the American Revolution and War of Independence?

I will keep this short. American revolutio were bunch of rich land owners that didn’t want to pay taxes. George Washington has his greatness (a person who did not want to be king); however, don’t forget he was still a slave owner (who thought there is nothing wrong with them) and even broke law trying to keep his slaves enslaved. And Canada didn’t break away from the British at that time, and they have higher standard of living than us. After the revolution, the social structure really didn’t change. The wealth of US society were created through enslavement. None of the rich land owners died other than the poor peasants that the hired. The only difference was that the money that slave made for the land owners went directly to their pocket. George Washington, in theory, was really smart becuase he figure out how to increase his profit from slavery by quite a bit.

April 25, 2007 @ 2:24 am | Comment

@Sp: Note well this old adage – “Never wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and the pig likes it.”

April 25, 2007 @ 8:28 am | Comment

nausicaa,

You are right,thanks for the advice. I should stop wrestling with an Orwellian pig 🙂

April 25, 2007 @ 10:39 am | Comment

Arty,

Yea, a lame-duck is occupying the white hse. John Bolton, Rumsfeld and other hardline neo-cons all got boot out. And Wolfowitz, who claimed to preach to the World Bank and fighting for his own job because of his nepotistic actions. Gonzales is going to fighting for his job too. After that shrub leave office, he is gonna leave the Iraqi mess behind for others to pick up.

Well, i saw the American Revolution as a first step to the America we see today. The separation of powers, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution laid the foundation of a liberal society. Its a progress and of course a conservative reactionary like you would want to be stuck in history.

Anyway, this will be my final post in this thread. After all, even if i spend a whole decade here talking to someone with a racist and reactionary mind, die-hard conservative and sympathetic to colonialism, white supremacy and racial segregation, it would not be fruitful. I shan’t waste my precious time on an Orwellian pig. But i think its clear to all those who have been reading this thread as to who is the one who lacks integrity and leaves many questions unanswered and most importantly sympathetic to racism, oppression and colonialism. And the one who always have selective amnesia and lacks the courage to acknowledge what he had said or claimed.

Lastly, i would pray for those people under your charge. After all, how good can it be for them to meet a person who brandish his Phd ard and thinks that three alphabets entitles him to the monopoly of truth.

Regards
sp

April 25, 2007 @ 10:54 am | Comment

And the one who always have selective amnesia and lacks the courage to acknowledge what he had said or claimed.

I did say you are right, didn’t I? I remeber of saying that at least at two spots. Who has selective amnesia.

brandish his Phd ard and thinks that three alphabets entitles him to the monopoly of truth.

Again, I did say you are right, didn’t I? So I don’t know why you think that I think I am entitle to the monopoly of truth. Part of Ph.D. training is to question your own thought. I am just debating with you. Btw, you are the one calling me racist, nazi (then I said neo-con is more like it), scumbag, Orwellian pig, etc. Did I name calling you (since I have selective memory, maybe I did)? I don’t know you and you don’t know me. However, for someone keep up the name calling. I highly doubt that you have MORE integrity than I am (note, I say MORE). Did your great professors never tell you try not to calling other people names?

P.S. As an interesting side note, pig is one of species that human actually can get xenograft from it. Maybe we are not so far from it.

Sincerely,

Arty

April 26, 2007 @ 2:48 am | Comment