So what's Japan? America's right hand man on bringing down China? I see many of the responses from the mainland Chinese members chastizing Taiwan like it's a little child. Berating it like it has no rights or no authority. And that sort of treatment is mirrored by their political officials and their usual rhetoric. They can keep on yapping because in the meanwhile Taiwan is more than capable of defending itself with the millitary it has. You can credit the media for portraying China as some large millitary power, but their conventional weapons consist mostly of outdated relics that can go as far back as the Korean War. They can talk heavy. They can try to strong arm political interests, but they've devoted most of their resources building up their capital infrastructure. For the next ten years, they are in no shape or form to wage a successful war unless they were to use nuclear weapons and bring other nations against them. I see China more as a totalitarian regime. As their middle class grows more wealthy and the economic disparities between classes become more apparent, it will look less and less Communist. The government is all about control. I think it's very admirable feat for them to bring stability to 1.2 billion people though it did come at the expense of tens of millions of lives from the purgings. Because of that sheer number they've had to rely on the group rather than the rights of the person. Why would China want an island roughly the size of Connecticut and a population around the size of Texas? They've invested so heavily on nationalism. They've made their people sacrifice their self interests towards "the glory of their motherland". They've played the nationalism card and losing territory now would mean the end of their control. Why should the majority of peasants on the mainland slave away on their farms when a bunch of rebels on an island choose to do what they want? "They're not acting in the self interests of China. They're being selfish and disobedient!" Taiwan and Tibet is an example that rebellion must be crushed. Anyone who thinks the "one country two systems" policy will allow Taiwan to retain its total freedom and autonomy are misguided to the fact that the Chinese government will only allow it to the point where they retain all the control. It's happened in Hong Kong. And it will happen in Taiwan. The majority of the Taiwanese don't believe in independence by the way. Most want the status quo they're enjoying now because in part, they do feel some sort of attachment to the Chinese cultural identity. And they also know prosperity is tied with a peaceful China. Others who have roots on Taiwan dating back to around 300 years, might not feel the same way. The point is that Taiwan is in a dilemma that China only wants to hasten. They will not accept compromise or losing their face. And they will only settle for the political guidelines they have already set out for all their people to see in order to show who's boss. Because they've ruled out independence on their minds they're only concerned on the when. It makes sense becuase their middle class is slowly catching up to the Taiwanese middle class. And the parallels would become defeaning. But why should a self governing island be forced into giving up their individual rights and vest their "group interests" on a mainland that regards them as a child, a weaker subculture, and selfish brat? This isn't about equality or "embracing their long lost brothers". It's about acquiring Park Place because you already own Boardwalk and want to build hotels and collect the rent. Taiwan is just another piece of land to them. The people deserve better. And cultural identity or no cultural identity, they should have a right to choose how they live.
posted by Timing From this statement, you basically believed that your opinions are facts. There was no proof of espionage by Li Wen Ho, and therefore no proof that China stole anything. Just as a person being not guilty doesn't mean he/she is really innocent, a person being accused of something doesn't mean it's really true. You should get the facts straight. You generalized all of China in earlier posts while in your statements above, you believed that different parts of China are not the same. This contradicts your ealier posts. You do have freedom of speech, but until you can separate opinions from facts and be well-informed about the topics/subjects, some of your comments seem ridiculous. I also like to tell you that your thoughts on China are one-sided. I suggest that you learn more about the social and political history and culture of China before spewing more unfounded comments.
Originally posted by toughguy From this statement, you basically believed that your opinions are facts. There was no proof of espionage by Li Wen Ho, and therefore no proof that China stole anything. Just as a person being not guilty doesn't mean he/she is really innocent, a person being accused of something doesn't mean it's really true. You should get the facts straight. Actually in US law there has to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt to get a conviction so proof just doesn't work. He was indicted which means a grand jury was given probable cause that he committed a crime so he was not out making snow cones in the park. Those facts are pretty straight. I made one small albeit snide comment about Los Alamos and you're off on a rant on that alone. I apologize if that offended you but that doesn't whitewash anything else I've said. You generalized all of China in earlier posts while in your statements above, you believed that different parts of China are not the same. This contradicts your ealier posts. What does that contradict? Do you deny that Hong Kong is vastly different from the rest of China? They have their own system but conveniently for China they're still part of the "motherland". When I'm speaking of communism I'm hardly thinking of Hong Kong. If all of China were like Hong Kong there probably wouldn't even be a discussion here. You do have freedom of speech, but until you can separate opinions from facts and be well-informed about the topics/subjects, some of your comments seem ridiculous. What am I uninformed about? Is China not communist? Is it not one of if not the world's largest perperator of copyright infringement? Is it not one of the world's foremost violators of human rights? Do you not have a policy of forced abortions for women trying to have a second child? Do you deny that inmates are mysteriously executed in order to provide organs for the highest bidders? That you seem to be in denial about these straight facts is pretty ridiculous. Seems you're a little offended at my little Los Alamos jab and have chosen to play the "toughguy" while not really discussing the merits of anything. I also like to tell you that your thoughts on China are one-sided. I suggest that you learn more about the social and political history and culture of China before spewing more unfounded comments. Maybe you're just embarrassed to discuss real issues concerning China. It doesn't mean they're not true and it doesn't mean they don't exist even if you're upset that I've brought them up. Maybe you should learn more about the Chinese government before you attack me.
You just won't give up do you timing? FYI, no China is not a communist country. Communist is an outdated word. Political systems around the world nowadays can not simply be categorized into captalist/communist. It's a mixture of socialist, captalist, totalitarian and merit based techcrat (due to the long tradition of KE JU in chinese history) system. FYI, Chinese government calls it "early stage of socialist". And no, China is not the worst violator of human rights, try some African countries, or even some middle east countries like Saudi. Atually US doesn't fair much better in UN report. And even in US, your rights are not that secure if you are not a rich guy who can afford good lawyers. And FYI, standing in front of a grand jury doesn't even prove anything. In that case, the judge even apologized for the action of the U.S. government. Now you are certainly entitled to your own opinions, whatever these would be. And I am not going to ask you what's your experience with China/chinese, your education, where do you get most of your info about that country ect. Just hope you can give it a rest.
My attempt at a rational look at Taiwan: 1. Many of the arguements I have read about Taiwan's status as an independent entity seem to revolve around whether they 'deserve' independance. I think that this is purely a philosophical question, without any real answers, and is therefore not important. Many countries have been formed with less than wonderful credentials. Examples similar to Taiwan would seem to include Eritria's split from Ethiopia, Bangladesh's split from Pakistan, the United States' split from England, and on and on. 2. Taiwan's psudo-state status is the result of cold war tensions directly relating to the Korean War in the 50's. The PRC in the 50's was beginning to solidify it's status as the post WWII power in the reason, and part of that included consolidating all 'Chinese assets' in SE Asia. The US, on the other hand, took up the cause of Taiwan in order to stem 'communist agressions' in the area. If the US had their way, Taiwan would be a country recognised by the United Nations. This will never occur, however, as China posesses a perminant seat on the UN Security Council, and therefore can veto any vote of recognition. On the other hand, the United States has invested itself enough in an independant Taiwan, so that they would go to war with China to prevent the country from being forcibly integrated. I can, therefore, see no real conclusion to the issue short of the Taiwanese people voting in democratic elections to become part of the PRC. Rightly or wrongly, unless this occurs I can see no real resolution to the limbo that Taiwan finds itself in. In otherwords, China has been prevented from taking Taiwan by force thusfar because the United States has done everything it could prevent this from happening. On the other hand, the United States has been prevented from realizing it's goal of seeing Taiwan as a country recognised by the United Nations because China holds veto power over any such vote. 4. Finally, I can think of no two cultures in the civilised world more dissimilar that those of the United States and the PRC. Though we argue back and forth whether Communism in China is dead or not, I find it intresting how readily and easily the Chinese adopted the populist ideals of the Communist system. Conversly, the Soviet experience quickly degraded into a cynical shell of a system. I see connections to the core philosophies of communism back through the history of Chinese thought. The kings of the Shu Cheng are very similar in temperment to those of the ideal Chinese Maoist -- sort of a benevelant but stern father of the people. Conversly, the US, it seems to me, is the land of people who are almost fetishistic about self-control, self-determinism, and autonomy. The people of Europe who emigrated to the US primarly did so because they felt a need to take control of their own destiny. This seems to be the core value of American culture. I fear that this means that we Americans will constantly be befuddled and upset by the Chinese posters on this board, as they will be of us. Our cultures teach us early on to think in extremely different ways. Any way, I truly wish that this discussion could exist without the malace that is clearly evident in many of the posts here. There are not many places that I know of where I can find US-Chinese dialogue such as this where both sides are represented.
Now I have to say I am impressed Ottomaton if you are an Anglo-American, although I don't necessary totally agree. Just who is The kings of the Shu Cheng? I am embarassed I don't know.
i think he was referring to 'Shu1 Jing1' and to the mythical sage-kings: Yao2 (Yao-Ming the sage king??? ), Shun4, Yu3, etc. etc. it's just a probably with different romanisation systems. i do admire and long for the vision of a strong, vibrant, liberal, democratic China becoming a pillar of stability and harmony in East Asia and free world. It would make everyone happy to see a multi-polar world in which various superpowers (US, EU, China) compete to do good, carry out humanitarian missions, solve major regional crises, collaborate on space exploration, environmental causes, etc. etc. in such a world, i would imagine Taiwan would gladly join with China in any of a number of integration arrangements (EU, NAFTA, NATO, or even total unification). as would a number of other nations in Asia. right now, Taiwan is already doing far more than any other country in making China get to this point. we invest tens of billions in building your economy, middle class, and infrastructure. The cream of our business and science brain trust have been siphoned off to your coastal cities to sustain your new-found prosperity. Our liberal democracy acts as a touchstone for your political reforms. Our education system, mass media, bureaucracy, industrial policy, and preservation of historical/cultural artifacts all serve to guide future Chinese policies. The threat of our popular opinion and total independence prevents the degradation of 1C2S in Hong Kong and human rights violations in China proper. Through our cultural and political advances, more and more of your people are seeing just how perfect the chinese civilisation is designed for democracy, whereas just decades before, people were saying that chinese people can never rule themselves. And Taiwan will continue to contribute more and more each year. Because contrary to what you may have been taught, it is in Taiwan's best interests too (and the US's interest too), to see a stable, strong and free China. I am an ethnic Chinese. I've been educated since I was in kindergarten to sacrifice my life to rescue my mainland compatriots. Even though today I realise that saving my fellow Taiwanese people is more important, there isn't a day I don't hope that China will be a great and free country. it is your government which has educated you to believe that territory is the key to national greatness. they have taught you wrong. PEOPLE are the key to national greatness. Without Taiwan/Mongolia/Southeast Asia/Siberia/Korea, China has already come a long long way in the past 107 years. Who can deny that you will become a superpower? I have weighed the benefits that a forcefully-reunited Taiwan would bring to China versus the benefits of the status quo for both Taiwan and China, and frankly the two are better off separate. Today Taiwan is an independent country, no less independent than the People's Republic of China before 1970 (when it too was recognised by only a fraction of the world). Never has Chinese Army set foot on Taiwan. Never has the Chinese govt ruled Taiwan. We have our own government, own institutions, own passports, and regardless of how you bully us, the international community, and international media, our existence cannot be denied. You can pretend to be blind, but that doesn't change what's printed on the newspapers and on your computer cases, nor does it change what all diplomats know is true but dare not say. You are the emperor, and the One China fallacy is your new clothes. Taiwanese people built this island, raised it to first-world status, and Taiwanese people will keep the island for themselves as long as they please. When one day, China can convince the Taiwanese through IDEALS, VIRTUE and ECONOMICS alone to rejoin the mainland, I will be the first to hop on the bandwagon. Until then, it is the Taiwanese people's choice, and their choice alone. There. I've said my piece. I hope it isn't too offensive. And I hope that many can share my vision. And hey, GO YAO MING!!! GO ROCKETS!!! 2003 NBA CHAMPS! Lil (Self-determination is a principle endorsed by the UN itself, and supported by nearly all major powers, including China. However, the original sovereign countries in question rarely agree that this principle can be applied to their territorial claims. Such is the hypocrisy of international law.)
Yes, I am a white boy. Basically, it is the most important pre-confucian texts (excluding the I Ching, which is important in a different way, as an oracle.) The book primarly teaches the lesson that kings remain kings only from what is known as the 'mandate of heaven'. Kings have an obligation to govern in the best intrest of the people, else they will be removed from power by heaven. In other words, the Shu Ching promotes a good ruler as one who acts like a strong parent figure, or a shepherd tending his flock. It is the basis for the whole Confucian system of governance, and all other Chinese philosophy up until Daoism and Buddahism. Of course, I'm sure there's probably a whole lot more to it than that but, alas, that's all I remember.
Well, I see. You are referring to the Four Readings and Five Classicals. These were produced when China was a loosely culture based weak empire. But the whole country was ruled under many governments. (Can we say HK, TW, ML?) Through war and peace, and intellectually free, they knew better. BTW, in these readings, it encourages gentalmen to chase hot chicks too. (birds chipping on the river island, hot chicks aught to be chased by gentalman).
From my uninformed viewpoint, I'd suggest that perhaps while the goal of both Confucius and the Legalists was the unification of all of China, that doesn't necessarily mean that their goal was somehow morally superior, as your statement about '...they knew better.' would seem to imply. (I don't mean to say that they're wrong, either.) What I hope to convey is that perhaps, as when Indian Budhism reached China and was recreated throught the eyes of Daoism, perhaps PRC Communism is simply a modern version of either Legalsim or Confucius, right or wrong. In fact, while attempting to refresh my memory, I came across this quote which, when viewed in respect to the intigration of Taiwan into China, shows that different philosophies might unify China and Taiwan through diseperate means which might be unacceptable when considered accross the board. This draws up a dichotomy between the legalistic method of coersion to unify the countries, and the Confucian method of proving one's moral worth. It seems, here, that many people argue for the legalist tactics, which I find intresting considering that they are held in lower esteem that Confucius.
¶Ô²»Æð£¬ÎÒ¾õµÃÕâ¸ö»°ÌâʵÔÚûÓбØÒª¼ÌÐøÏÂÈ¥ÁË¡£ÓÐÈËÌìÉú¾ÍÓÐȨÀû¶ÔËùÓÐÈËÖ¸ÊÖ»½Å£¬Äã±ç½â²»À´µÄ£¬Ä¸¼¦ÓÀÔ¶²»ÖªµÀ³´µ°µÄ×Ìζ£»ºÁÎÞÒÉÎÊ£¬ÃÀ¹úºÜ¶àÊÂÇ鶼×öµÃ±È±ðÈËÀ´µÃºÃ£¬ÊÀ½çҲȷʵÐèÒªÃÀ¹ú¡£ÓÐÈËËûÌìÕæµÃ¾õµÃ×Ô¼º¾ÍÊǾÈÊÀÖ÷£¬Ò²ÊÇËæËûÐËȤµÄÊÂÇ飬·´ÕýËû×¢ÒâÁ¦ÈÝÒ×»ÁÉ¢£¬»¹ÓкܶàÄ°ÉúµÄ¶«Î÷ÐèÒªËû¶¨Ãû¶¨ÐÔ¡£ËÈÃËûȷʵÏеÃÎÞÁĵúÜÄØ¡£ Ôڰ׳չú¶ÈÀïµÄÎÒÃÇÊÇÎÞ·¨ÖªµÀ×Ô¼ºµ½µ×Óжà°×³ÕµÄ£¬ÔÚ±çÂÛ½á¹û¶¼ÒѾȷ¶¨µÄÇé¿öÏ£¬¼Ù¶¨µÄÉϵÛÁ¯ÃõµÄ¸©ÊÓÖÚÉú£¬ËæËûµÄ±ã°É¡£·´ÕýÎÒ²»ÏàÐÅÉϵۡ£ÉϵÛÖ»ÏàÐÅÃÀ¹ú¡£ дÖÐÎÄ£¬ÊǸøÖйúÈË¿´µÄ£¬´ó¼Ò¶¼ÐªÐª°É£¬·¸µÃ×ÅÊÜËûÃǽÌÓýô£¿
LIl: We do share the same vision. I do think some of your thinking are influenced by intellectual movements fanned by Progressive Party (hope that's the right name). I have no problem admitting there is a current governing political entity in Taiwan, reminiscent of prior national government of China, which has the same initial goal of making China a better nation. If you listen carefully, baseline of the current Chinese government is for TW to admit the sovereign and territorial claim by a mythical "ONE CHINA". I do think keeping the status quo is probally the best solution at this stage. But the grassroot independence movement by progressive party doesn't help the course. As to the people's will, history and legality aside, demographical change is a big problem. Older taiwanese who in majority have connection to mailand wouldn't support independence, whereas, younger ones who rarely set foot in mainland, tend to think Taiwan is theirs and only theirs and even has always been only theirs and mainland has nothing to do with them. So, speaking of people, people change. Yes, PLA never set foot in TW, thanks to the Korea war and post WWII politics. But both Mao and Chang agree they are two sides engaging in a civil war. They traded gernades across mainland shoreline and island off it under TW control just to remind themselves accasionally. Mao strategically wouldn't want to snap those island and Chang strategicall wouldn't give up. Until recently, TW leads talk about give them up, thanks again to the independence movement. TW does contribute a lot economically, and in some degree keeps the pressure on mainland government not to be outdone. But I wouldn't take TW's democracy as a model. If you notice, governments across the streit are more similar than disalike. Even the stock markets are similar. Markets in China today reflects exactly market in TW years ago. Same problems. We are all chinese, who to blame? No wonder these Taiwan writers' stock secret books sell in China. But we do take the bad with the good, tax evation, second merriage, bad accent etc. Taiwan business man in mainland, especially in early days aren't exactly most noble. And I hate those jargans like MM. It would be nice one day TW rejoins China through IDEALS, VIRTUE and ECONOMICS, but unfortunately history and legality shouldn't be totally ignored either. And as far as human civilizations advanced, international politics is still composed by nations as basic units and power as ultimate solution. As to why China wouldn't give up TW (I agree people are the most important part, but that doesn't mean china should just let TW go), you only need to get a map, notice how close TW is to the mainland shoreline, and look around countries around TW, or, read Macarthy's diary. China was never an ocean power, and won't be in some far future. So... I wouldn't imagine U.S. ever agree give up Hawaii no matter how much people there want independence. I can't believe I trolled for so long, but I do enjoy nice discusion. Now onto the sole super power Rockets again.
ÁíÍâÎÒҲ˵һµã£¬Ä³Ð©ÃÀ¹úÈ˺ܵ¥´¿£¨Ì¨ÍåºÜ¶àÈËÒ²ÊÇÈç´Ë£©£¬ÀíÏ뻯¡£ ²»Ïó¾¹ý¡°ÎÄ»¯¸ïÃü'µÄÎÒÃÇÀ´µÃÄÇô¸´ÔÓ¡£ ¼ÇµÃÓÐÒ»´Î¼ûÒ»ÀÏÃÀ¿¹ÒéºËÐÄÀ´·Ã£¬±³ÐÄÉÏд×Å¡±Öйú´ÓÎ÷²Ø¹ö³öÈ¥¡° ÎÊÖ®£¬ÃÀÖÝÊÇÄãÃÇÄãÃÇÃÀ¹úÈ˵ĵØô£¿ ÀÏÃÀת¹ýÉí£¬±³Ðı³Ãæд×Å¡±ÃÀ¹ú´ÓÃÀÖݹö³öÈ¥¡°
Ottomaton: I don't have a moral judgement. I just feel their contributions are probablly unparelled by any later saints in Chinese history. Sorry if I gave the wrong impression.
napster: I can tell you chinese like South Korea more than North Korea. And I know how poor the North Korea is. This is a article I have read about North Korea. http://www.hi-pda.com/cgi-bin/ut/topic_show.cgi?id=54200&h=1&bpg=4&age=0 Sorry it is in chinese, but I can tell you the article is written by some chinese traveling in North Korea. It show me the real North Korea. And I only interested in peace between two Korea. and I think South Korea will combine North Korea later(N be part of S). I like there is only one Korea. BTW: Why related China to North Korea? Do we have army in that country?
You guys are pretty cool! And already your thinking is light-years ahead of the official CCP party line. With Yao Ming coming to America, and even more NBA games being telecast in China, maybe eventually everyone will be as reasonable and cosmopolitan in outlook in China. Hehe, who would have thought that in the end, it was the NBA that did what all those years of propaganda (ala Voice of America) could not! Then again, maybe we'll just start seeing little Chinese boys running around with baggy shorts, tattoos (with f***-up Chinese characters), Afros and dreadlocks, listening to Shaq rapping... ...shudder...
Lil, it looks like you do feel some Chinese in your heart. I am sorry for throwing some harsh words on you in one of my previous posts. My problem with some of the people in taiwan is that they helps other people to contain China. Your former president even wrote a book about breaking China into seven pieces. If that really happens, do you think U.S. still need taiwan? Your current vice president publicly praise the Japanese actions in WWII. The Japanese killed 20~30 million Chinese in WWII. They were no better than the Nazies. So, it is like praising the Nazies in Isreal. What do you expect? Right now is a critical moment for China and taiwan. We should do whatever we can to prevent a war between the two sides, i.e. Chinese killing Chinese. But your current president is pushing for the war to happen. When the war happens, I am sure the Americans will drop some food from the air to the Chinese people to show their humanity. For China to become strong, vibrant, and democratic, we need to work together now, and to avoid a war. We need you guys now instead of in the future. If you guys try everything possible to contain China now and later want to join China, I don't see why China needs taiwan when China is strong and democratic. After all, taiwan is only a small island full of people.
napster, I agree north korea has a very bad human rights record. I also agree China is making progress. What I want to point out is that you are still focussing on the issues that your media bring up. If you live in China for a period of time, you will know China has lots of big problems, like lack of water, over population, heavy pollution, unemployment, etc. Human rights violations is only one of them and it is solvable. Other problems are much more severe and is threatening people's normal lives. Using the same population density of Shanghai, Houston should contain 40 million people. When that happens, can you still water your lawn, or do you still have a lawn? Do you still have energy left fighting against forced birth control? Another example is women's rights in Saudi Arabia. Did you hear much of that before Septermber 11? Saudi's dictatorship is even worse than that of China, but U.S. seldom criticized that before 911. How about the king of Jordan? Is he a good friend of Geroge W? How can that be if democracy is so important to U.S.? Whenever a U.S. citizen dies, the media will show his/her family story. Very touching. I think media should do that. My problem is the U.S. carpet bombing in Vietnam killed millions of Vietnamese civilians. Well it is only a number to you guys. You don't need to tell the family stories of each one of them. I can assure you their familly stories are even more touching because the family ties are very strong under bad conditions. It seems to me the current U.S. standard is that killing civilians from the air is ok because they are unintentional even though the chances of that happening is really high. The pilots and the American audience also feel much better. If we don't see the victims, we don't bother.
I come to this forum to read about the Rockets. I welcome all of our brothers and sisters from all over the world. Every world citizen has the right to believe their country is the best and it does not behoove us to disparage others. Let's Talk Rockets or move this to the Hangout.
already been suggested, for some reason the admins left it here.. Guys, I do really appreciate all your views on the different sides of the Tiawan and China issues...I'm glad yall have been able to tone down the bad comments in favor of more rational discussion. The world is too small to allow the past to overly influence the future. Our future will stay bright as long as we look for and find the things that we have in common instead of dwelling on what we don't. Please, if you want to continue this discussion (which I encourage) lets start a new thread over in the Hangout.
