[Wash Times] Beijing devoted to weakening 'enemy' U.S., defector says

Sorry, bigshot, YOU were the one who responded to me. Spelling or grammatical errors? Who cares? When you go around citing history as precedent - a history that you lack basic knowledge of - your argument will blow itself up.

 

You know, I had a friend from Shanghi and she said that although she would love to live HERE, she had no major problems with the Chinese government. She could become whatever she wanted, she said, and the only thing she disliked was how many hours she would go to school, when compared to our system where we have school sports after school. In all, the general public is too apathetic to care what they live under. As long as there is prosperity and security, they are happy sheep.

 

So are you claiming China has been colonizing other countries for the past century? That is what I am claiming yet you seem to be bent on proving that assertion wrong. Instead, you argue semantics.

How has my argument blown itself up? I don't see anybody refuting my point. Are you going to argue that China has been more aggressive and more intrusive than the US?

 

I would actually agree with you but the fact is we still have an embargo on Cuba, Iran, Sudan, North Korea and up until 9/11 on Pakistan. The primary reason for those has been because of repression and lack of democracy. Ironically the PRC seems to be the only country where we make the opposite argument. US trade policy in this regard seems to have more to do with economic benefit, to us, than about any consistent commitment to democracy. I would have more faith in our policy if we applied the same rationale to Cuba.

Sure we can trade with them and care about politics but as I said I would buy it more if we considered that same policy with countries like Cuba.

As for us opposing the PRC invading Taiwan what does that have to do with how much we care about the PRC's dedication to democracy or human rights? Unless of course you buy the argument that Taiwan is part of China and the CCP really is the government of all of China including Taiwan.

 

Well Sishir, if Jose, a 3rd or 4th generation of Mexican immigrant now calls himself descendent of colonists from early "movement" into this country, do you concede that Mexico at the time was conducting colonization of the United States?

By all accounts (China's own records or those of Western historians), the sporadic and inconsequential emmigration of Chinese nationals to some Southeast Asian islands during Cheng Ho's Seven Voyages can hardly be considered colonialism in the classic sense. First, Cheng Ho of Ming Dynasty did not extend China's sovereignty over the territories and their native people during his maritime explorations of these places. The missions of the expeditions, although still political, were largely commerical (trading) in nature. Second, the entourages sent overseas - usually including a princess of China to marry a local king, and the accompanying handmaidens and male servants - were part of the deal considered to be good-natured gestures on part of the Chinese Emperor to "placate" his tributaries. Third, Ming Dynasty was still under heavy influence of the intellectual introspection characteristics of the Confucianism, and to a lesser degree, xenophobia. It's really a stretch, to say the least, that Cheng Ho's Seven Voyages was an act of colonization of the Southeast Asia by China.

 

Wnes;

For lack of a better word I think a lot of what you describe has to do with historical spin. I agree with the facts you've stated but you've presented it with something more of a benign spin. While yes it is true that the Ming Emperor did have Admiral Cheng Ho give Chinese princesses to local kingdoms this wasn't some generous gesture of maganiminity but was actually a strategy to create a greater political and economic sphere of influence in the region not always with the voluntary consent of those kingdoms. Along with the handmaidens and retinue other Chinese were settled too. These Chinese maintained a high level of independence from the countries they were settled in and to a high degree maintained their own cultures and along with limited intermarriage. I will agree they weren't exactly colonists in the sense of English Colonists in the New World but they weren't mere immigrants either looking to settle and assimilate.

Following Cheng Ho there were also many other Chinese merchants and even pirates who came and established their own communities on their own and in places like Battam Chinese communities dominated for centuries. Again these weren't colonists deliberately sanctioned by the Ming and Ching Dynasties but could still be considered colonists who settled on their own accord without the consent of the locals like the Mormons or Sooners.

My point being that historically China has engaged in policies of conquest, subjugation and colonization of other people's and lands both with official imperial sanction and without. I think the original point of this tangent was that the Chinese unlike Europeans have not engaged in expansionists policies is wrong.

 

Well the PRC is taking steps to have free markets and a freer economy. All of the cases you site (Cuba, Iran, etc.) have closed economies. If these countries agreed to have free and open economies and some progress on human rights I think US policy would shift as well.

As far as Taiwan, you stated that with trade we don't care about politics. Well in that case we would let China run over Taiwan since China is our biggest trade partner. But we don't let that happen, we support the democratic nation.

 

LOL, I spin, you spin, we all spin like spin masters!

If you would allow me to spin one more time , upon some "deep reflection", I think both you and I have been confusing (or interchanging, in a benign sense) colonization with colonialism. For what I understand (although I did misuse the two words on more than one occasion), colonization alludes to emmigration en masse to a foreign land, usually benign, without the systemic input of a "government". Colonialism, on the other hand, involves the exertion and extension of one nation's sovereignty (usually richer or more militarily powerful) over another nation (poorer or militarily weaker). The similarity between the two is all colonialism contain elements of colonization in terms of mass i(e)mmigration.

Now if you have no problem with my "unscholarly interpretation" of these two terms, lets look again at the events in Cheng Ho's Seven Expeditions. Historically, Chinese Emperors sent princesses, often along with sizable entourages, to foreign kingdoms as a way of gifts, and in a larger sense, as a way of conducting "diplomacy" with Chinese Empires' neighbours (tributaries or not). In the process, large amounts of Chinese treasures were brought with the parties to boost the local economy, as in the Cheng Ho's Voyages. Whether the foreigners (the Chinese) meshed well with the locals (the islanders) later on should not be a criterion to judge the events themselves (you can blame the lack of culture awareness and over-emphasis on diversity ). The Ming Emperor certainly did not expect/demand the Chinese living there to propagate to outgrow the natives, and take over their land, did he?

Again with all that said, I do not dispute there were plenty of subjugation and conquest of foreign land in Chinese history. But to use the events of colonization during Cheng Ho's voyages to illustrate the China's colonialism is, IMHO, a "benign" stretch (or spin, if you will) on your part.

 

If (yes it's a big if) 1.3 billion Chinese decide to take over Taiwan, they will not ask for your permission, Mr. Clutch.

 

Exactly, and we shouldn't ask for theirs, Wnes.

 

What are you gonna do, sacrificing the lives of Americans to defend Chinese?

 

Taiwanese

 

Nay ...

 

Why don't you ask the Taiwanese what they consider themselves.

You have a dictatorial streak in you. No wonder you are so anti- US!

 

Are you on something?

 

Caffeine. While we are on personal questions, what does "wnes" stand for anyways?

 

Do you play bridge?

Hint: if you do and like to be in the seat of declarer, you'd get the idea of my moniker. Oh BTW, I love to meet any of you in online bridge games, Bridge Base Online, if you know what I am talking about. I once met someone named "RocketMan" (from USA), I thought he might be the poster "RockectMan Tex" here, but no.

 

west, north, east, south?

I haven't played bridge, but I play lots of online poker.

 

Well Mr. Clutch, I don't know if you are aware, there was a very heated debate on Taiwan/China not long ago. I spent a good amount of time last weekend reading that thread. If you are interested in this topic, I suggest you read it too if you haven't. We'd better not start this all over again.

One thing is for sure, if there were only Mainland China and Taiwan involved in the Taiwan Stait armed conflict, the impact would be limited to regional. But if US and/or other nation (presumably Japan) got in, the impact would be very likely global, and it wouldn't be pretty. I am not going to say it might be the end of the world, but it sure would be disastrous. So lets hope this will never happen.

 

Hehe, you've got it.