Is China a disaster?

Tim Robbins

Most powerful and rich countries are post Christian or liberal Christian.
China bucks the wave. With a permanent veto on the UN security council, an economy at 10% the upcoming Olympics its geopolitical role simple cannot be ignored.

Some lovely people, but its government seems to have a callaous disregard for human rights. Darfur, Burma, support of North Korea, Tibet not to mention ridiculous labour laws and surpression of religious expression.

Somehow a government has evolved with a completly different value system then are own.

My questions are:
1. Can we objectively say it's value system is innately different to our own? Is that fair assesement?
2. If the answer to 1 is yes, might this be because we are post Christian / liberal Christian society? And can a post-Christian society thank Christianity for providing a humanistic moral code for the average citizen (doesn't read Kant) to follow?
3. Because of our ancestral Christian background can we even objectively comment on the Chinese Government?

One could argue that the Chinese regime is more Darwinian, more naturalistic and our critism is simple a construct that has absolutely no naturalistic grounding.

Your thoughts please.

Zombrex

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Somehow a government has evolved with a completly different value system then are own.

Well the somehow is because we in invented it (Communism) and exported it to them.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

One could argue that the Chinese regime is more Darwinian, more naturalistic and our critism is simple a construct that has absolutely no naturalistic grounding.

Are you taking the piss?

yawtin

The answer to your question is "NO".

There are two ways for you to learn about China. The hard way is to realy learn about China.

The easy way is to collect information from your media. Unfortunately, western media, including your most trusted BBC, Irish Times, etc, seem to have to follow a kind of "politically correct" reporting standard. And reporting China fairly is not politically correct for them.

When I say that, I am talking about them ignoring the thousands of China's supportors (which are mainly Chinese) in London, Paris and San Francisco; about not giving any space for the "Free Tibet " supporters (who are mainly white people who don't even know where Tibet is) and China's supporters to have a fair and square debate; and about deliberately cut their footages and mistranslate interviews to maximise the "evil China" image.

Yes China still have a long way to go to meet the WESTERN human right standard, which I agree many are great. But Rome was not built in one day, China is moving towards the right direction. If it is easy to get things right, why do so many irish people complain about the health service system here?

Chinese government supports reformation from top of the government down, because the 5000 years of Chinese history suggests the bottom-up method is often too distructive.

Some westernern orgs are blaming China for problem in Darfur, Burma, and North Korea, only because they have failed to influence these regions. China as a country supports people's baisic human right (have food, clean water and medicine) to be improved first, while too many Western Orgs are there for various agendas.

years ago when I was in China, I read an article about helping Sudan. A group of Chinese construction workers built a dam in 3 months for a Suan village, the locals were delighted. They said their was an Italian group of engineers in the village. these people spent 4 years there, all their consumptions were transported from Italy on a weekly basis, locals saw them sum-bathing all the time, but eventually they said it is an impossible task and left. That is just one exemple, did your media ever report anything like that about China?

China has supported poor countries in Africa since the 70s, why are people only worried about it now? is it because now they fear that China is supporting too many poor countries that the western world will be squeezed out of these countries now? Or is it because these countries can now use China as a bargaining power so it is not good for the colonizer's interests?

PDN

China is such a land of contradictions and diversity that it is hard to make generalisations.

There is repression of religious minorities, but it varies by region. I have seen people with their finger nails pulled out for holding unregistered church meetings in Henan Province, but others hold similar meetings quite openly in Shanghai.

I think China represents capitalism without the brakes on. Most countries have to temper capitalistic development with concern for workers' rights etc, because to neglect such things would get the government booted out at the next election. That, of course, is not much of a concern in a one party state. So you have incredible wealth coexisting side-by-side with grinding poverty.

I don't really buy into Tim's suggestion that the Christian/ post-Christian thing is an issue in dertermining values in China. Japan is an example of a fairly liberal democracy with similar values to most European democracies, but I don't think Japan could be described as Christian or post-Christian.

yawtin

Wicknight wrote: »

Well the somehow is because we in invented it (Communism) and exported it to them.

China is China not because of it is now leading be communists, but because of its 3000 years of recorded history


as for the Party, it is still called Communist Party but what they really want to be is "the People's Party".

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

I don't really buy into Tim's suggestion that the Christian/ post-Christian thing is an issue in dertermining values in China. Japan is an example of a fairly liberal democracy with similar values to most European democracies, but I don't think Japan could be described as Christian or post-Christian.

Yes that's interesting. I wonder what Japan's reaction to it is especially considering the situation in Tibet. I must do more research on this.

However, I am still curious if differences between:

1. our values systems
2. our governmental organisation and operation

can in some respects be attributed to theological differences (past and present) in our cultures.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Yes that's interesting. I wonder what Japan's reaction to it is especially considering the situation in Tibet. I must do more research on this.

I sometimes think Japan must feel like a school bully who watches his victim grow up to become a Mafia don.

I bet the Rape of Nanking doesn't look like it was such a good idea now.

Zillah

We really need to draw a very distinct difference between China and the Chinese Government.

PDN wrote: »

I bet the Rape of Nanking doesn't look like it was such a good idea now.

Bloody hell, way to drastically over simplify the post WW2 legacy of a formerly aggressive Empire that has since become an exemplary modern democracy.

Yes I'm sure the Rape of Nanking doesn't look like a good idea because China got powerful rather than a people emerged from the Jingoistic fugue of a militaristic regime.

pH

Interesting that Tibet is brought up again and again, by no means am I saying that what China is doing there is right or perfect, but life in Tibet under the Dalai Lama was no picnic before China took over.

"Most of us in the West have a Shangri-La view of the old Tibet, but that is hardly the case. Old Tibet was not a state based on peace and harmony, but of oppression and torture. We enjoy the religious freedom we have, and therefore should not hypocritically support a sectarian state of Tibet, especially when it is a state that allowed slavery and torture."
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/stories/2008/04/08/newatted0408.html

I wonder if these "free Tibet" Olympic protesters know what they're campaigning for?

Ekancone

Tim Robbins wrote: »

One could argue that the Chinese regime is more Darwinian, more naturalistic and our critism is simple a construct that has absolutely no naturalistic grounding.

Quite possibly the most idiotic comment I was ever witnessed on boards.ie.

Tim Robbins

daithifleming wrote: »

Quite possibly the most idiotic comment I was ever witnessed on boards.ie.

Quite possibly the most vacuous attempt at a rebuttal I have ever come across on boards.ie.

Ekancone

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Quite possibly the most vacuous attempt at a rebuttal I have ever come across on boards.ie.

Quite possibly the most darwinian rebuttal, i'd imagine.











Whatever the **** that means...

Dades

Move on gents, before someone says something they're regret!

pH

Here's a recent post from pharyngula which addresses this notion. It's mainly addressed at the Hitler=Social Darwinism idiocy, but equally applies to the claim that there's anything remotely 'Darwinian' about China.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/the_simple_falsehood_at_the_he.php

So let's be clear here, for millennia we've had selective breeding, genocides and ethnic cleansing. We've had specific sub groups treated as slaves and lesser humans. We've had attempts to wipe races and tribes off the face of the earth, we've had farmers and breeders artificially selecting populations. None of this has anything to do with Darwin's insight into natural selection.

So unless the Chinese have a new policy, I don't know about where they're leaving their population control to 'natural' selection then claiming there's anything 'Darwinian' about them is nonsense.

An Fear Aniar

I think the ruling classes in China are very much the same as the ruling classes anywhere. Ordinary Chinese people are probably very much the same as ordinary Irish people - they just want a quiet life with as little hassle as possible and a good future for their children. Any of the Chinese I've met have been grand people.

Compared to what Europeans have done, the Chinese have been quite restrained.

I don't know much about Chinese religions - was it Confusionism or something?



.

stereoroid

Yesterday's documentary on Tibet was riveting stuff, with colour footage from before the Chinese takeover. As noted above, it was a loony feudal theocracy, with people forced to pay obeisance to a ruling class of monks and aristocrats. Over 60 religious festivals a year, with peasants forced to participate in races and wrestling matches, or prostrate themselves all the way around Lhasa. :mad:

So we had coercion of the people (by class and religion) before the Chinese moved in, and coercion of the people after, with guns. To me the question is: would Tibet have changed by itself, as a Western influence crept in? TV, Rock music, McDonalds... Tibetan Idol? They now have a fairly progressive Dalai Lama, and if he took over again, I think it's unlikely that he (or his successors) would drag Tibet back in to the Middle Ages. Either way, it should be up to the people to decide what they want, what they would have without coercion from any outside influences.

Tim Robbins

daithifleming wrote: »

Quite possibly the most darwinian rebuttal, i'd imagine.

:-)