Happy Birthday, PRC!

Check out these delightful videos. No one can fault them for a lack of creativty. Where else but China?

______________

Richard Burger is the author of Behind the Red Door: Sex in China, an exploration of China's sexual revolution and its clash with traditional Chinese values.

The Discussion: 62 Comments

Who said Chinese are not Creative? Even copying require some creativity to do it well.
The momento some Chinese brands start to use such pool of creativity they have we are going to get some surprises.

September 24, 2009 @ 1:42 pm | Comment

I thought the truck horn one was really cute!

September 24, 2009 @ 2:05 pm | Comment

Overall, I’m Satisfied with the Chinese Communist Party

Soon, on Oct 1, China will have seen its 60th year since the Communist regime was established in 1949. In Chinese tradition, 60th birthday is a big deal for a person. I remember when my father had his 60th birthday, every related family member traveled all across the country and the world to his house to celebrate him and to have a big feast. When I was little, I remember my grandfather’s 60th birthday – he was a farmer in the village, and his 60th invited 200 guests, 20 tables of diners, 200 dishes. We even killed our beloved dog for a dish because of the occasion, the dog cried when he saw his masters sharpening the knife that morning, because he was a loyal dog and had been with the family for decades, he was sad to go on that day, but he was also proud.

For a country, the sentiments are similar. 60 is a big number, an important milestone, a celebration-worthy date. My opinion is that overall, these 60 years have been a good 60 years. Before 1949, the Chinese Communist Party established a series of very correct theories, such as the theory of New Democratic Revolution, the theory of Democratic Dicatorship, the theory of People’s War, the theory of Guerrilla War. The Communists won China because of their correct theories and the correct applications of those theories.

After the revolution, the main problem became how to build the socialist country. We lacked a set of systematic theories, and we weren’t’ sure how to proceed on many issues, so we had to try different ideas, try different things, different approaches, different policies. In Deng Xiaoping’s words, we were “advancing across the river by feeling the rocks below”.

Of course, since you are moving by feeling the rocks, you will not immediately and easily find your way. Even today, the Communist Party is still feeling the rocks – some old problems have been solved, but new problems keep emerging. Or better solutions keep emerging for solving some old problems. Everything is still in exploration. This is like software programming, you solve some old bugs, and new bugs are discovered, and this cycle will continue forever.

But no matter what bugs were discovered, what mistakes were made. We can be sure of one thing, that is, on fundamental issues, the Chinese Communist Party has been doing well, this is a historical certainty. In other words, no matter how many bugs, this program compiles without error, does what it does, and is constantly being improved and maintained.

Does that mean we should not admit those bugs, we should not take accountability for those bugs? Of course it does not. One of the reasons why the Chinese Communist Party is so resilient, so energetic, so adaptable, so competent, so well-organized, is its ability to confront and admit and adjust to its mistakes. The Chinese Communist Party was blamed for two majors things in its early days: Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution. But as early as the 80′s, they already admitted their mistakes in both the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution. Like Jesus Christ says, “when a child makes a mistake, even God will forgive him.” So I think we should adopt a forgiving and lenient attitude towards the Chinese Communist Party, especially given the positive things they’ve accomplished.

What will the next 60 years bring to China, to the Chinese people, to the Chinese Communist Party? I don’t know. But we’ll continue to advance across the river by feeling the rocks, continue to reform, continue to improve. So far, self-evidently, I am satisfied with the Chinese Communist Party, as are the majority of the Chinese people. If the Chinese Communist Party is a CEO hired 60 years ago to turn China around, then today, if it is a Board Meeting, then I believe most shareholders today, after taking a look at Company China’s stock price, annual revenue, market share, earnings ratio, business expansion, etc will for sure approve of the CEO’s job, will for sure increase his bonus, and will for sure renew his contract for another 60 years.

As Mao Zedong said: “the road ahead has many twists and turns, but the future is bright.”

September 24, 2009 @ 2:09 pm | Comment

Geeh math. Can you write posts with less than 30000 lines?

September 24, 2009 @ 2:20 pm | Comment

From http://tinyurl.com/nacstp

“On relations with China:

We engage with a hope that Beijing becomes a responsible stakeholder, but we must take steps in the event that it goes in a different direction. See, we all hope to see a China that is stable and peaceful and prosperous. Optimism that yes, it will be.

Asia is at its best when it is not dominated by a single power. In seeking Asia’s continued peace and prosperity, we should seek, as we did in Europe, an Asia whole and free. Free from domination by any one power…

On China’s relations with Taiwan, and other controversial issues:

We simply cannot turn a blind eye to Chinese policies and actions that could undermine international peace and security. Here, China has some one thousand missiles aimed at Taiwan and no serious observer though believes that it poses a serious threat to Beijing. Those same Chinese forces make our friends in Japan and Australia kind of nervous.

China provides support for some of the most questionable regimes, from Sudan to Burma to Zimbabwe. China’s military buildup, it raises concern from Delhi to Tokyo because it’s taking place in the absence of really any discernable threat to it. China, along with Russia, has repeatedly undermined efforts to impose tougher sanctions on Iran for its defiance of the international community in pursuing its nuclear program. And the Chinese food and safety, uh food and product safety record, of course it’s raised alarms from East Asia and Europe to the U.S. and domestic instance of unrest. From the protest of Uighurs and Tibetans to Chinese workers throughout the country rightfully makes a lot of people nervous.

On human rights and democracy in China:

The more politically open and just China is, the more Chinese citizens of every ethnic group will be able to settle disputes in court rather than on the streets. The more open it is, the less we’ll be concerned about its military buildup and its intentions. The more transparent China is, the more likely it is that they will find a true and lasting friendship based on shared values as well as interests. And I’m not talking about a U.S.-led democracy crusade. [We’re] not going to impose our values on other countries. We don’t seek to do that. But the ideas of freedom and liberty and respect for human rights, it’s not just a U.S. idea. They’re very much more than that. They’re enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and many other international covenants and treaties.

On China-U.S. economic relations:

Our economic interdependence drives our relationship with China. I see a future of more trade with China and more American high tech goods in China. But in order for that to happen, we need China to improve its rule of law, and protect our intellectual property. We need to avoid protectionism and China’s flirtation with state assisted national champions. On our part we should be more open to Chinese investment where our national security interests are not threatened. In the end though, our economic relationship will truly thrive when Chinese citizens and foreign corporations can hold the Chinese government accountable when their actions are unjust.”

Hhhhmmm…… Ah yes! Happy Birthday!!! ;-)

September 24, 2009 @ 2:28 pm | Comment

And yes. It was Palin!!! ;-)

September 24, 2009 @ 2:28 pm | Comment

Well… not as long as 30000 lines, but long enough. If interested in getting more, look here

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/13940/13940-8.txt
THE PROBLEM OF CHINA, BY BERTRAND RUSSELL
First published 1922


Chapter IX
CHINESE AND WESTERN CIVILIZATION CONTRASTED

There is at present in China, as we have seen in previous chapters, a
close contact between our civilization and that which is native to the
Celestial Empire. It is still a doubtful question whether this contact
will breed a new civilization better than either of its parents, or
whether it will merely destroy the native culture and replace it by that
of America. Contacts between different civilizations have often in the
past proved to be landmarks in human progress. Greece learnt from Egypt,
Rome from Greece, the Arabs from the Roman Empire, mediæval Europe from
the Arabs, and Renaissance Europe from the Byzantines. In many of these
cases, the pupils proved better than their masters. In the case of
China, if we regard the Chinese as the pupils, this may be the case
again. In fact, we have quite as much to learn from them as they from
us, but there is far less chance of our learning it. If I treat the
Chinese as our pupils, rather than vice versa, it is only because I fear
we are unteachable.

I propose in this chapter to deal with the purely cultural aspects of
the questions raised by the contact of China with the West. In the three
following chapters, I shall deal with questions concerning the internal
condition of China, returning finally, in a concluding chapter, to the
hopes for the future which are permissible in the present difficult
situation.

With the exception of Spain and America in the sixteenth century, I
cannot think of any instance of two civilizations coming into contact
after such a long period of separate development as has marked those of
China and Europe. Considering this extraordinary separateness, it is
surprising that mutual understanding between Europeans and Chinese is
not more difficult. In order to make this point clear, it will be worth
while to dwell for a moment on the historical origins of the two
civilizations.

Western Europe and America have a practically homogeneous mental life,
which I should trace to three sources: (1) Greek culture; (2) Jewish
religion and ethics; (3) modern industrialism, which itself is an
outcome of modern science. We may take Plato, the Old Testament, and
Galileo as representing these three elements, which have remained
singularly separable down to the present day. From the Greeks we derive
literature and the arts, philosophy and pure mathematics; also the more
urbane portions of our social outlook. From the Jews we derive fanatical
belief, which its friends call “faith”; moral fervour, with the
conception of sin; religious intolerance, and some part of our
nationalism. From science, as applied in industrialism, we derive power
and the sense of power, the belief that we are as gods, and may justly
be, the arbiters of life and death for unscientific races. We derive
also the empirical method, by which almost all real knowledge has been
acquired. These three elements, I think, account for most of our
mentality.

No one of these three elements has had any appreciable part in the
development of China, except that Greece indirectly influenced Chinese
painting, sculpture, and music.[93] China belongs, in the dawn of its
history, to the great river empires, of which Egypt and Babylonia
contributed to our origins, by the influence which they had upon the
Greeks and Jews. Just as these civilizations were rendered possible by
the rich alluvial soil of the Nile, the Euphrates, and the Tigris, so
the original civilization of China was rendered possible by the Yellow
River. Even in the time of Confucius, the Chinese Empire did not stretch
far either to south or north of the Yellow River. But in spite of this
similarity in physical and economic circumstances, there was very little
in common between the mental outlook of the Chinese and that of the
Egyptians and Babylonians. Lao-Tze[94] and Confucius, who both belong to
the sixth century B.C., have already the characteristics which we should
regard as distinctive of the modern Chinese. People who attribute
everything to economic causes would be hard put to it to account for the
differences between the ancient Chinese and the ancient Egyptians and
Babylonians. For my part, I have no alternative theory to offer. I do
not think science can, at present, account wholly for national
character. Climate and economic circumstances account for part, but not
the whole. Probably a great deal depends upon the character of dominant
individuals who happen to emerge at a formative period, such as Moses,
Mahomet, and Confucius.

The oldest known Chinese sage is Lao-Tze, the founder of Taoism. “Lao
Tze” is not really a proper name, but means merely “the old
philosopher.” He was (according to tradition) an older contemporary of
Confucius, and his philosophy is to my mind far more interesting. He
held that every person, every animal, and every thing has a certain way
or manner of behaving which is natural to him, or her, or it, and that
we ought to conform to this way ourselves and encourage others to
conform to it. “Tao” means “way,” but used in a more or less mystical
sense, as in the text: “I am the Way and the Truth and the Life.” I
think he fancied that death was due to departing from the “way,” and
that if we all lived strictly according to nature we should be immortal,
like the heavenly bodies. In later times Taoism degenerated into mere
magic, and was largely concerned with the search for the elixir of life.
But I think the hope of escaping from death was an element in Taoist
philosophy from the first.

Lao-Tze’s book, or rather the book attributed to him, is very short, but
his ideas were developed by his disciple Chuang-Tze, who is more
interesting than his master. The philosophy which both advocated was one
of freedom. They thought ill of government, and of all interferences
with Nature. They complained of the hurry of modern life, which they
contrasted with the calm existence of those whom they called “the pure
men of old.” There is a flavour of mysticism in the doctrine of the Tao,
because in spite of the multiplicity of living things the Tao is in some
sense one, so that if all live according to it there will be no strife
in the world. But both sages have already the Chinese characteristics of
humour, restraint, and under-statement. Their humour is illustrated by
Chuang-Tze’s account of Po-Lo who “understood the management of
horses,” and trained them till five out of every ten died.[95] Their
restraint and under-statement are evident when they are compared with
Western mystics. Both characteristics belong to all Chinese literature
and art, and to the conversation of cultivated Chinese in the present
day. All classes in China are fond of laughter, and never miss a chance
of a joke. In the educated classes, the humour is sly and delicate, so
that Europeans often fail to see it, which adds to the enjoyment of the
Chinese. Their habit of under-statement is remarkable. I met one day in
Peking a middle-aged man who told me he was academically interested in
the theory of politics; being new to the country, I took his statement
at its face value, but I afterwards discovered that he had been governor
of a province, and had been for many years a very prominent politician.
In Chinese poetry there is an apparent absence of passion which is due
to the same practice of under-statement. They consider that a wise man
should always remain calm, and though they have their passionate moments
(being in fact a very excitable race), they do not wish to perpetuate
them in art, because they think ill of them. Our romantic movement,
which led people to like vehemence, has, so far as I know, no analogue
in their literature. Their old music, some of which is very beautiful,
makes so little noise that one can only just hear it. In art they aim at
being exquisite, and in life at being reasonable. There is no admiration
for the ruthless strong man, or for the unrestrained expression of
passion. After the more blatant life of the West, one misses at first
all the effects at which they are aiming; but gradually the beauty and
dignity of their existence become visible, so that the foreigners who
have lived longest in China are those who love the Chinese best.

The Taoists, though they survive as magicians, were entirely ousted from
the favour of the educated classes by Confucianism. I must confess that
I am unable to appreciate the merits of Confucius. His writings are
largely occupied with trivial points of etiquette, and his main concern
is to teach people how to behave correctly on various occasions. When
one compares him, however, with the traditional religious teachers of
some other ages and races, one must admit that he has great merits, even
if they are mainly negative. His system, as developed by his followers,
is one of pure ethics, without religious dogma; it has not given rise to
a powerful priesthood, and it has not led to persecution. It certainly
has succeeded in producing a whole nation possessed of exquisite manners
and perfect courtesy. Nor is Chinese courtesy merely conventional; it is
quite as reliable in situations for which no precedent has been
provided. And it is not confined to one class; it exists even in the
humblest coolie. It is humiliating to watch the brutal insolence of
white men received by the Chinese with a quiet dignity which cannot
demean itself to answer rudeness with rudeness. Europeans often regard
this as weakness, but it is really strength, the strength by which the
Chinese have hitherto conquered all their conquerors.

There is one, and only one, important foreign element in the traditional
civilization of China, and that is Buddhism. Buddhism came to China from
India in the early centuries of the Christian era, and acquired a
definite place in the religion of the country. We, with the intolerant
outlook which we have taken over from the Jews, imagine that if a man
adopts one religion he cannot adopt another. The dogmas of Christianity
and Mohammedanism, in their orthodox forms, are so framed that no man
can accept both. But in China this incompatibility does not exist; a man
may be both a Buddhist and a Confucian, because nothing in either is
incompatible with the other. In Japan, similarly, most people are both
Buddhists and Shintoists. Nevertheless there is a temperamental
difference between Buddhism and Confucianism, which will cause any
individual to lay stress on one or other even if he accepts both.
Buddhism is a religion in the sense in which we understand the word. It
has mystic doctrines and a way of salvation and a future life. It has a
message to the world intended to cure the despair which it regards as
natural to those who have no religious faith. It assumes an instinctive
pessimism only to be cured by some gospel. Confucianism has nothing of
all this. It assumes people fundamentally at peace with the world,
wanting only instruction as to how to live, not encouragement to live at
all. And its ethical instruction is not based upon any metaphysical or
religious dogma; it is purely mundane. The result of the co-existence of
these two religions in China has been that the more religious and
contemplative natures turned to Buddhism, while the active
administrative type was content with Confucianism, which was always the
official teaching, in which candidates for the civil service were
examined. The result is that for many ages the Government of China has
been in the hands of literary sceptics, whose administration has been
lacking in those qualities of energy and destructiveness which Western
nations demand of their rulers. In fact, they have conformed very
closely to the maxims of Chuang-Tze. The result has been that the
population has been happy except where civil war brought misery; that
subject nations have been allowed autonomy; and that foreign nations
have had no need to fear China, in spite of its immense population and
resources.

Comparing the civilization of China with that of Europe, one finds in
China most of what was to be found in Greece, but nothing of the other
two elements of our civilization, namely Judaism and science. China is
practically destitute of religion, not only in the upper classes, but
throughout the population. There is a very definite ethical code, but it
is not fierce or persecuting, and does not contain the notion “sin.”
Except quite recently, through European influence, there has been no
science and no industrialism.

What will be the outcome of the contact of this ancient civilization
with the West? I am not thinking of the political or economic outcome,
but of the effect on the Chinese mental outlook. It is difficult to
dissociate the two questions altogether, because of course the cultural
contact with the West must be affected by the nature of the political
and economic contact. Nevertheless, I wish to consider the cultural
question as far as I can in isolation.

There is, in China, a great eagerness to acquire Western learning, not
simply in order to acquire national strength and be able to resist
Western aggression, but because a very large number of people consider
learning a good thing in itself. It is traditional in China to place a
high value on knowledge, but in old days the knowledge sought was only
of the classical literature. Nowadays it is generally realized that
Western knowledge is more useful. Many students go every year to
universities in Europe, and still more to America, to learn science or
economics or law or political theory. These men, when they return to
China, mostly become teachers or civil servants or journalists or
politicians. They are rapidly modernizing the Chinese outlook,
especially in the educated classes.

The traditional civilization of China had become unprogressive, and had
ceased to produce much of value in the way of art and literature. This
was not due, I think, to any decadence in the race, but merely to lack
of new material. The influx of Western knowledge provides just the
stimulus that was needed. Chinese students are able and extraordinarily
keen. Higher education suffers from lack of funds and absence of
libraries, but does not suffer from any lack of the finest human
material. Although Chinese civilization has hitherto been deficient in
science, it never contained anything hostile to science, and therefore
the spread of scientific knowledge encounters no such obstacles as the
Church put in its way in Europe. I have no doubt that if the Chinese
could get a stable government and sufficient funds, they would, within
the next thirty years, begin to produce remarkable work in science. It
is quite likely that they might outstrip us, because they come with
fresh zest and with all the ardour of a renaissance. In fact, the
enthusiasm for learning in Young China reminds one constantly of the
renaissance spirit in fifteenth-century Italy.

It is very remarkable, as distinguishing the Chinese from the Japanese,
that the things they wish to learn from us are not those that bring
wealth or military strength, but rather those that have either an
ethical and social value, or a purely intellectual interest. They are
not by any means uncritical of our civilization. Some of them told me
that they were less critical before 1914, but that the war made them
think there must be imperfections in the Western manner of life. The
habit of looking to the West for wisdom was, however, very strong, and
some of the younger ones thought that Bolshevism could give what they
were looking for. That hope also must be suffering disappointment, and
before long they will realize that they must work out their own
salvation by means of a new synthesis. The Japanese adopted our faults
and kept their own, but it is possible to hope that the Chinese will
make the opposite selection, keeping their own merits and adopting ours.

The distinctive merit of our civilization, I should say, is the
scientific method; the distinctive merit of the Chinese is a just
conception of the ends of life. It is these two that one must hope to
see gradually uniting.

Lao-Tze describes the operation of Tao as “production without
possession, action without self-assertion, development without
domination.” I think one could derive from these words a conception of
the ends of life as reflective Chinese see them, and it must be admitted
that they are very different from the ends which most white men set
before themselves. Possession, self-assertion, domination, are eagerly
sought, both nationally and individually. They have been erected into a
philosophy by Nietzsche, and Nietzsche’s disciples are not confined to
Germany.

But, it will be said, you have been comparing Western practice with
Chinese theory; if you had compared Western theory with Chinese
practice, the balance would have come out quite differently. There is,
of course, a great deal of truth in this. Possession, which is one of
the three things that Lao-Tze wishes us to forego, is certainly dear to
the heart of the average Chinaman. As a race, they are tenacious of
money–not perhaps more so than the French, but certainly more than the
English or the Americans. Their politics are corrupt, and their powerful
men make money in disgraceful ways. All this it is impossible to deny.

Nevertheless, as regards the other two evils, self-assertion and
domination, I notice a definite superiority to ourselves in Chinese
practice. There is much less desire than among the white races to
tyrannize over other people. The weakness of China internationally is
quite as much due to this virtue as to the vices of corruption and so on
which are usually assigned as the sole reason. If any nation in the
world could ever be “too proud to fight,” that nation would be China.
The natural Chinese attitude is one of tolerance and friendliness,
showing courtesy and expecting it in return. If the Chinese chose, they
could be the most powerful nation in the world. But they only desire
freedom, not domination. It is not improbable that other nations may
compel them to fight for their freedom, and if so, they may lose their
virtues and acquire a taste for empire. But at present, though they have
been an imperial race for 2,000 years, their love of empire is
extraordinarily slight.

Although there have been many wars in China, the natural outlook of the
Chinese is very pacifistic. I do not know of any other country where a
poet would have chosen, as Po-Chui did in one of the poems translated by
Mr. Waley, called by him _The Old Man with the Broken Arm_, to make a
hero of a recruit who maimed himself to escape military service. Their
pacifism is rooted in their contemplative outlook, and in the fact that
they do not desire to change whatever they see. They take a pleasure–as
their pictures show–in observing characteristic manifestations of
different kinds of life, and they have no wish to reduce everything to a
preconceived pattern. They have not the ideal of progress which
dominates the Western nations, and affords a rationalization of our
active impulses. Progress is, of course, a very modern ideal even with
us; it is part of what we owe to science and industrialism. The
cultivated conservative Chinese of the present day talk exactly as their
earliest sages write. If one points out to them that this shows how
little progress there has been, they will say: “Why seek progress when
you already enjoy what is excellent?” At first, this point of view seems
to a European unduly indolent; but gradually doubts as to one’s own
wisdom grow up, and one begins to think that much of what we call
progress is only restless change, bringing us no nearer to any desirable
goal.

It is interesting to contrast what the Chinese have sought in the West
with what the West has sought in China. The Chinese in the West seek
knowledge, in the hope–which I fear is usually vain–that knowledge may
prove a gateway to wisdom. White men have gone to China with three
motives: to fight, to make money, and to convert the Chinese to our
religion. The last of these motives has the merit of being idealistic,
and has inspired many heroic lives. But the soldier, the merchant, and
the missionary are alike concerned to stamp our civilization upon the
world; they are all three, in a certain sense, pugnacious. The Chinese
have no wish to convert us to Confucianism; they say “religions are
many, but reason is one,” and with that they are content to let us go
our way. They are good merchants, but their methods are quite different
from those of European merchants in China, who are perpetually seeking
concessions, monopolies, railways, and mines, and endeavouring to get
their claims supported by gunboats. The Chinese are not, as a rule, good
soldiers, because the causes for which they are asked to fight are not
worth fighting for, and they know it. But that is only a proof of their
reasonableness.

I think the tolerance of the Chinese is in excess of anything that
Europeans can imagine from their experience at home. We imagine
ourselves tolerant, because we are more so than our ancestors. But we
still practise political and social persecution, and what is more, we
are firmly persuaded that our civilization and our way of life are
immeasurably better than any other, so that when we come across a nation
like the Chinese, we are convinced that the kindest thing we can do to
them is to make them like ourselves. I believe this to be a profound
mistake. It seemed to me that the average Chinaman, even if he is
miserably poor, is happier than the average Englishman, and is happier
because the nation is built upon a more humane and civilized outlook
than our own. Restlessness and pugnacity not only cause obvious evils,
but fill our lives with discontent, incapacitate us for the enjoyment of
beauty, and make us almost incapable of the contemplative virtues. In
this respect we have grown rapidly worse during the last hundred years.
I do not deny that the Chinese go too far in the other direction; but
for that very reason I think contact between East and West is likely to
be fruitful to both parties. They may learn from us the indispensable
minimum of practical efficiency, and we may learn from them something of
that contemplative wisdom which has enabled them to persist while all
the other nations of antiquity have perished.

When I went to China, I went to teach; but every day that I stayed I
thought less of what I had to teach them and more of what I had to learn
from them. Among Europeans who had lived a long time in China, I found
this attitude not uncommon; but among those whose stay is short, or who
go only to make money, it is sadly rare. It is rare because the Chinese
do not excel in the things we really value–military prowess and
industrial enterprise. But those who value wisdom or beauty, or even the
simple enjoyment of life, will find more of these things in China than
in the distracted and turbulent West, and will be happy to live where
such things are valued. I wish I could hope that China, in return for
our scientific knowledge, may give us something of her large tolerance
and contemplative peace of mind.”

Happy birthday again!!! ;-)

September 24, 2009 @ 2:53 pm | Comment

10 years of Stalinism, 15 years of Maoism, a decade of capitalist revisionism, and 20 years of post-Tiananmen massacre nationalism.

September 24, 2009 @ 5:25 pm | Comment

200 years of massacre the native, 150 years of conduct slavery and 100 years of colonization. Nothing creative from this bunch of civilize arselicker huh?

September 24, 2009 @ 5:54 pm | Comment

@Michael
“10 years of Stalinism, 15 years of Maoism, a decade of capitalist revisionism, and 20 years of post-Tiananmen massacre nationalism.”

Yes…., yes…, we know already. But please can we be a little more original and constructive this time?

Come on! Even Mrs Palin was able to do it! ;-)

September 24, 2009 @ 6:41 pm | Comment

Brevity beats 432 lines of cut-and-paste originality.

September 24, 2009 @ 8:36 pm | Comment

@Michael
You miss the irony. The long cut and paste was addressed to our dear @math. ;-)

September 24, 2009 @ 9:54 pm | Comment

Math said:

“We even killed our beloved dog for a dish because of the occasion, the dog cried when he saw his masters sharpening the knife that morning, because he was a loyal dog and had been with the family for decades, he was sad to go on that day, but he was also proud.”

—————————————-

Few times in my life have I felt like laughing and crying at the same time, now I’m really doing both…

September 25, 2009 @ 1:59 am | Comment

Poet, thanks for calling out that classic Math line. Who else would write of their dog feeling proud that it was about to be killed and eaten by its owners? This is Math at his finest.

September 25, 2009 @ 2:14 am | Comment

@Michael
“10 years of Stalinism, 15 years of Maoism, a decade of capitalist revisionism, and 20 years of post-Tiananmen massacre nationalism.”

10+15+10+20=55, less than 60 by 5. Did you finish primary school?

September 25, 2009 @ 3:43 am | Comment

And actually, the first few years under Mao showed great promise. Then, Mao ruined the party by tightening the ideological screws. What a pity.

September 25, 2009 @ 4:46 am | Comment

Who said Chinese are not Creative? Even copying require some creativity to do it well.

China produces more resident patents per $ of R&D spent than America or any European country outside of Russia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_patents

hope that Beijing becomes a responsible stakeholder

Unlike her own country, which never was a responsible stakeholder.

Asia is at its best when it is not dominated by a single power.

Except “Asia” has never been dominated by one, or even two or three, powers for its entire history.

China has some one thousand missiles aimed at Taiwan and no serious observer though believes that it poses a serious threat to Beijing. Those same Chinese forces make our friends in Japan and Australia kind of nervous.

America has 5,000 nuclear tipped MIRV’ed ICBMs pointed at all of China’s urban and military centers, as well as a military budget that dwarfs the entirety of the rest of the world’s combined. That makes Muslims, Latin Americans, Southeast Asians, Africans and North Koreans nervous.

China provides support for some of the most questionable regimes, from Sudan to Burma to Zimbabwe.

America provides support for some of the most questionable regimes, from Saudi Arabia to Egypt to Haiti.

China’s military buildup, it raises concern from Delhi to Tokyo because it’s taking place in the absence of really any discernable threat to it.

America’s military buildup, it raises concern from Tehran to Mecca because it’s taking place in the absence of really any discernible threat to it.

America, along with Britain, has repeatedly undermined efforts to impose tougher sanctions on Israel for its defiance of the international community in pursuing its nuclear program. And the American asset and economic, uh financial and product safety record, of course it’s raised alarms from East Asia and Europe to the U.S. and domestic instance of unrest. From the protest of Iroquois and Hawaii Natives to African American workers throughout the country rightfully makes a lot of people nervous.

[We’re] not going to impose our values on other countries. We don’t seek to do that.

I laughed.

September 25, 2009 @ 5:35 am | Comment

My mistake, more resident filings than any EU country.

September 25, 2009 @ 5:41 am | Comment

Merp, I believe the Chinese are very creative. In fact, I know it. The number of patents, however, doesn’t equate to creativity. Now, if you rattled off a list of impressive Chinese inventions over the past 100 years, you’d have a strong argument. I also get the feeling you’re a one-trick pony, reflexively countering any criticism of China with the standard fenqing, “But in America…” Not very creative of you, I must say.

September 25, 2009 @ 5:52 am | Comment

The number of patents, however, doesn’t equate to creativity.

Neither does the number of inventions. How many races of human has China liquidated for profit (and thus research and development funding) in the last 100 years? Where is China’s French Indochina, Dutch East Indies, British India?

Be warned that if anyone tries to take me up on this, you’re wading into my territory. Being creative means making a lot out of what you have. Resource poor, plagued with natural disasters and famines, China still managed to be the only non-Western power in the world to have a large nation still intact despite Cold War pressures.

I also get the feeling you’re a one-trick pony, reflexively countering any criticism of China with the standard fenqing, “But in America…” Not very creative of you, I must say.

Yes, very creative is copy-pasting anti-Chinese rants from Sarah Palin.

Does China advocate celibacy and anti-abortionism just to have her daughter bear an illegitimate child? No, Mrs. Palin.

September 25, 2009 @ 6:08 am | Comment

Oh I forgot the big one, Congo Free State.

September 25, 2009 @ 6:12 am | Comment

Oh my god. From a discussion of inventions to Western genocide. How did that happen?

Do you think I am a fan of Sarah Palin? Do you have any idea of my political outlook, my views on abortion, etc.?

Merp, you are right on the verge of getting banned. Let me briefly explain why: No matter what the topic, you respond with both fists swinging, slamming away at America. You can criticize America if you choose, but you can’t always be foaming at the mouth and attacking every commenter, even for the most innocuous statement like, “The number of patents, however, doesn’t equate to creativity.” Your response to that was, I’m afraid, insane, and I won’t tolerate insanity. It indicates that no matter how polite or tolerant we are toward you, you’ll keep snapping like a pit bull on crack. I really don’t want that here. Perhaps you could give it some nuance and flair, the way Math does, you know, a touch of humor? But more comments like the last one will not be published here. Thanks for your understanding.

And by the way, everyone, guess what country Merp is posting from? Drumroll, please: Yes, the United States of America! Land of genocidal barbarians and imperialist swine. How did I guess?

September 25, 2009 @ 6:21 am | Comment

No matter what the topic, you respond with both fists swinging, slamming away at America.

AGAIN, this is of no fault of my own. Posters here CONSTANTLY frame the discussion in the perspective of China vs. America, *specifically* because this blog is about China and America.

If you want me to expand upon the argument and talk China vs. India, or Russia vs. America, or China vs. British Raj, feel free to actually leave the debate open by deleting ecodelta’s provocative posts. I’ll even do China vs. Brazil vs. India vs. America vs. Europe vs. Russia if you want.

I’m pretty sure you dislike Mrs. Palin, which is why I’m surprised you had no reaction to ecodelta’s blantant anti-China troll post.

Quoting a dumbass like that in place of an original Amero-centric criticism of China is Shit-stirring 101. I expect you to be consistent with your banning policy.

September 25, 2009 @ 6:27 am | Comment

I don’t react to every comment, merp. And ecodelta has been a commenter here for years and has proven to be polite and willing to discuss things rationally. No matter how much you might disagree, there is no excuse for your rudeness. And it’s toward everyone. I made a simple remark that the number of patents doesn’t equate to creativity – not for China or the US or anyone. Your deranged response: “How many races of human has China liquidated for profit (and thus research and development funding) in the last 100 years?” I am not tolerating that kind of classic fenqing response. I’ve been pretty generous, running all your comments, but now i’ve give you fair warning. You are a guest here, and you have to be more courteous and less inflammatory. Thanks.

September 25, 2009 @ 6:33 am | Comment

Your response to that was, I’m afraid, insane

Insane, or perhaps you just don’t have the historical perspective? Here is an explanation (it should not be necessary).

Inventions are a product of research and development spending. It takes money and resources to create a scientific base. You have to feed researchers and procure raw materials for them, but most importantly they need free time. Starting from the so-called “Age of Discovery” and the ensuing wealth that flowed into European coffers, a boom in agriculture (overseas colonies run by slaves and also indentured servants) i.e colony and imperialism inflated Europe’s populations and economies.

They funneled that excess into expansions of all sorts, military, scientific, cultural. After all, why should 50% of England’s population farm when India can do it for them at riflepoint? And thus, millions of people were freed up to create urban cultures and yes, these coveted inventions. Now we have The Industrial Revolution (not counting China’s proto-industrialization of the 1200s, interrupted by Jurchen raids on the Song Dynasty).

China did not have millions upon millions of slaves to create a similar effect in the past 100 years. Nor can you bring up “dynastic autocracy” as a counterargument- Qing China, save some sensationalist tall tales, was really no more cruel than monarchic Europe or even their “democratic” colonies.

I reacted negatively to your comment because honestly, that “what has China invented in the last 100 years?” quip is something you often find on stormfront.

September 25, 2009 @ 6:34 am | Comment

@merp
Wow, which one of my posts is most provocative?

The one about creativity, about constructive criticism, about Palin or about Russell?

Or just all of them?

September 25, 2009 @ 6:41 am | Comment

1. You insinuating Chinese are not creative
2. You using Sarah Palin as a proxy for stale and hackneyed anti-Chinese jabs

I mean, all I do is copy paste and then change a few words around to alter the target of a post, but I guess that’s not humorous. It’s only humorous when you criticize countries America says are “bad”.

And if you use emoticons ;)

September 25, 2009 @ 6:44 am | Comment

Okay, if you had made this same argument without instantly – and I mean instantly – fuming about Western genocide you’d be more welcome. Which isn’t to say I think you’re right, but you’re entitled to your opinion and to express it here. And this is not stormfront. I happen to love China, and I suspect you still haven’t explored this blog. And I don’t think you can trace the creativity of Silicon Valley and Xerox PARC and Madison Avenue to slavery, but if you want to cling to that…. And yeah, colonialism is bad and the West did bad things. Sometimes i wonder why I offer comments here.

September 25, 2009 @ 6:44 am | Comment

@merp
You can list my posts and give them a provocative value from one to ten.
You can even go beyond the scale if you want : -P

September 25, 2009 @ 6:48 am | Comment

And I don’t think you can trace the creativity of Silicon Valley and Xerox PARC and Madison Avenue to slavery, but if you want to cling to that

Yes, you can. And you can trace the Great Depression and World War 2 and Mughal India and Qing China to it as well.

The creativity of Silicon Valley is a direct result of America having a lot of money. How they acquired that is uh, debatable.

September 25, 2009 @ 6:49 am | Comment

@merp
What do you think about my copy paste from Rusell?

Would like to know your opinion

September 25, 2009 @ 6:54 am | Comment

@merp
Maybe you didn’t notice, but I tried to strike a balance with both posts, Palin’s and Russell’s

September 25, 2009 @ 6:57 am | Comment

At first I dismissed it because I assumed it was some pseudo “Masonic” anti-China garbage because any “Western scholar” that brings up “Chinese civilization” and is not dead tends to be critical or utterly ignorant about the subject matter.

Reading it now.

September 25, 2009 @ 6:59 am | Comment

A lot of American wealth was made through family businesses and a lot of creativity that had nothing whatever to do with slavery or imperialism or any other evil influence. That’s not to excuse today’s corporate greed, which I rail against all the time. America’s free-market spirit led to some great things in terms of new products and a higher standard of living, and also to some dreadful things, like today’s economic mess. Slavery, however, which was used mainly for agriculture and ended nearly a century and a half ago, was not a key factor in America’s becoming the world’s most powerful nation, a phenomenon that began after World War I and was completely solidified in the wake of World War II, mainly because Japan and Germany had made a shell out of much of the rest of the world, with the US almost entire unscathed. To say America is what it is today because of slavery is false. Slavery was a blight on America, and a lot of Americans gave their lives to end it.

But we’re not going to get anywhere – you have made up your mind, you’re dogmatic, and, of course, you’re living in the land you denounce so readily. Your comments are being held for review, so don’t be upset if they don’t show up right away. If you show you’re here in good faith I’ll take you off the list. Thanks.

September 25, 2009 @ 7:02 am | Comment

merp: At first I dismissed it because I assumed it was some pseudo “Masonic” anti-China garbage because any “Western scholar” that brings up “Chinese civilization” and is not dead tends to be critical or utterly ignorant about the subject matter.

This is exactly my point. You come in here fully wired with pre-configured notions and prejudices. At least you admit it.

September 25, 2009 @ 7:04 am | Comment

@Nero
Russell is very much dead. A pity

September 25, 2009 @ 7:05 am | Comment

Oops @merp, damned autocompletition

September 25, 2009 @ 7:07 am | Comment

At least you admit it.

Indeed. At least I admit, though some others are loathe to do so.

Slavery, however, which was used mainly for agriculture and ended nearly a century and a half ago, was not a key factor in America’s becoming the world’s most powerful nation

It was key to making America *and* Europe powerful. Food from colony and slavery was absolutely essential to the ascendancy of Western civilization. It wasn’t just black slavery either, but helot and even Athenian slavery and after that Roman, Viking, Frankish and Carolingian enslavement.

But that’s getting a bit off topic. Cutting to the chase, the Iraq War has a lot to do with this “civilizational” quality.

September 25, 2009 @ 7:09 am | Comment

Two points I disagree with Russell on (maybe more but I forget):

Han China provides excellent warriors when there is a just moral imperative (i.e survival, defense, protection of life), otherwise he might be right about the soldiers

Chinese people are not exactly materialistic, he must have spent too much time in Guangdong ;)

As for corruption, Chinese society does not lend itself to corruption (see: Singapore and Hong Kong) but Communism and foreign rule certainly does. No worse than any other polity at the same level of development, though.

September 25, 2009 @ 7:40 am | Comment

@merp
Agree with you about soldierly characteristics.

Not so sure about corruption. But the lack of efficiency Russell blamed to corruption may be due to lack of passion for over-efficiency so typical in late western cultures. But over-efficiency has its evils too.
If you have time to read the rest of Russel’s book you may find it interesting. Some of its observations, made in 1922, were prescient IMHO.

About Palin. Don’t take it as rash criticism. It is just what someone thinks about CH. When you know the way another thinks about you, it be useful to find best way to engage in a productive way.
By the way, I don’t think she made that speech. Someone else did it. But that does not matter, what matters is what was being said.

Not sure if you are Chinese. I am curious. I found the recourse to “tu quoque” argument too often in China defenders. Wonder if that is an usual discussion argument in CH. In western mindset it is counterproductive.

It is too late here. Must go now. Good night.

September 25, 2009 @ 8:35 am | Comment

Tu quoque wouldn’t necessary if “China experts” didn’t use criticisms of China to either hide or deflect their own problems.

September 25, 2009 @ 9:09 am | Comment

Is there any Latin term that describes the kind of fallacy where if I criticize America then I am in a similar position to criticize China? I found this too often in Western mugger. Wonder if that is an usual discussion argument in the West? In China mindset it is uncouth and rude. Especially if one who did it is merely a hypocrite and have the habit calling for a ban of comment all the time.

Good morning, i have just finish my breakfast and i am ready.

September 25, 2009 @ 9:44 am | Comment

Not sure what Ran is talking about. I mention I am critical of America because some keep saying, “America does it too! America is worst.” And I acknowledge that America has done some awful things and I criticize it all the time. That is an important point to make when people falsely imply that we let America off the hook while only putting blame and criticism on China. That is false. That is nonsense.

Especially if one who did it is merely a hypocrite and have the habit calling for a ban of comment all the time.

I have many, many commenters here. I never call for a ban on commenters – if so, there would be n blog. I do ask commenters to be courteous and civil, and if they refuse, they may be banned, though that almost never happens. If you follow this thread, you’ll see how this works. i asked merp to watch himself and he was cooperative. He was not banned. You have to strive to be banned, and even then, you’re always given a second chance. I want commenters and invite disagreement. I don’t, however, tolerate rudeness to other commenters or outbursts of rage intended to throw the threads off track. While imperfect, this system has worked pretty well in keep the threads here going.

September 25, 2009 @ 9:57 am | Comment

@ran
It is not a question of rudeness but of logical argumentation.
Suppose that we were discussing an engineering problem, if you address only your opponent, your perception about him and your prejudices against him… are you really addressing the problem?

By the way, breakfast time here. Want a cup of tea? Just preparing it

September 25, 2009 @ 2:03 pm | Comment

ecodelta
Logical argumentation is more likely a western philosophical concept, and we are still struggle to learn it, meanwhile, we prefer to use the term rude to illustrate your view. We have our way to address problem and seeking for opponent is not one of it. Is my explanation clear enough?

I ate and drank already. Thanks for the invitation.

September 25, 2009 @ 3:22 pm | Comment

Richard,
What a surprise! I am trying to present my thought in a logical argumentation approach and you can’t get it?

I am exactly doing the same thing by asking you all to watch yourself so what is the problem? I find merp comment make sense and not rude (logic), I like it and wonder why you are not.

September 25, 2009 @ 3:34 pm | Comment

@ran
“Logical argumentation is more likely a western philosophical concept, and we are still struggle to learn it,”
“What a surprise! I am trying to present my thought in a logical argumentation approach and you can’t get it?”

Aren’t you running into a contradiction here?

“seeking for opponent is not one of it”
Maybe something is lost in the translation. I am not using opponent in a negative
way. I do not equate to enemy or someone to fight against, but someone with whom to exchange information, mindset and worldviews.

“…and you can’t get it?”
Maybe you should try harder… but not ruder please.

“I ate and drank already. Thanks for the invitation.”
You are welcome. Maybe next time.

September 25, 2009 @ 4:20 pm | Comment

Going back to the delightful videos…. pretty nice :-)

September 25, 2009 @ 5:29 pm | Comment

“Aren’t you running into a contradiction here?”
Of course I am, glad you know it. Is there a rule I can’t contradict myself?

“Maybe something is lost in the translation…..”
No worry, I perfectly comprehend your view. However, we can’t expect all civilization and culture to have the same maturity life, sometimes we have to learn from mistake, our own mistake. Advice and view remain as advice and view. Btw, do you like “Father and Son”?

“but not ruder please.”
Do I sound rude? Then I say sorry.

“Maybe next time.”
Sure.

September 25, 2009 @ 6:07 pm | Comment

“I found the recourse to “tu quoque” argument too often in China defenders.”

Indeed. They’ve been teaching that one at party HQ

September 26, 2009 @ 11:22 am | Comment

“They’ve been teaching that one at party HQ”

In any case, we don’t learn it at home or from school but I can’t say for sure the aggressor kind, still wondering where they learn their tricks, is it in their gene?

September 26, 2009 @ 12:21 pm | Comment

@ran
“..Btw, do you like “Father and Son”?”

Cannot locate. Can you provide more info.

September 26, 2009 @ 5:28 pm | Comment

Hhhhhmmm………… This one?

Father and Son
Author: Edmund Gosse

“THIS book is the record of a struggle between two temperaments,
two consciences and almost two epochs. It ended, as was
inevitable, in disruption.”

September 26, 2009 @ 5:33 pm | Comment

Indeed. They’ve been teaching that one at party HQ

Then what does England teach in their corporate media? Blame-everyone-else-preemptively-to-cover-up-my-crimes fallacy?

See Diego Garcia.

September 27, 2009 @ 2:29 am | Comment

@stuart
“Indeed. They’ve been teaching that one at party HQ”
“Then what does England teach in their corporate media? Blame-everyone-else-preemptively-to-cover-up-my-crimes fallacy?”

Certainly they teach it as sole argumentation strategy to use.

It goes like this

You are wrong because you, your countrymen, your ancestor…. whatever, have done this and that… or I have been told they did it… or I they did it anyway… and even if they didn’t do…. it its the same… they did it after all.

To ask them to realize that whatever someone did does not have any relation whatsoever with the issue at and…. is expecting too much for them.

They have it somehow hard coded in the neural network

It goes like this on an d on. But they refined it a bit

Instead of:
A makes criticism P.
A is also guilty of P
Therefore, P is dismissed.

They apply the following
A makes criticism P.
A is guilty of A B C D E F G H I J K L M N… X Y Z
Therefore, P is dismissed.

And even then they fail to realize they must first probe that A is guilty of anything in the first place.

September 27, 2009 @ 4:34 am | Comment

…first prove…

should I say

September 27, 2009 @ 4:36 am | Comment

Rather it goes like this:

A is guilty of ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ1234567890áíóúñѪ

A accuses B of C

C says “well, you know, there’s that whole ABDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ1234567890áíóúñѪ you’re doing

A says LALALALALALA, I CAN’T HEAR YOU, TU QUOQUE TU QUOQUE! HELP! INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY!

September 27, 2009 @ 8:12 am | Comment

I always wonder, how can Americans live so comfortably and at ease after 100+ years of endless campaigns of murder and rape and pillage and enslavement against almost every corner of every developing country. As descendants of the biggest mafioso in human history, do you not have a sense of shame?

Even though I live in America, even though I live in a big luxurious house. I feel very uncomfortable, and have trouble falling asleep at night when I think of the skeletons of the millions of Natives liquidated to make way for the American expansion and occupation of this North American land. As a Chinese, as a member of a 5000-year old civilization built on culture, civility, and modesty, I will always feel uncomfortable living on this guilt-ridden land dominated by the crime that is the United States of America.

September 27, 2009 @ 10:00 am | Comment

I am really sick of this thread. Let’s end it.

September 27, 2009 @ 11:52 pm | Comment

“A says … TU QUOQUE”

A is right. End of.

September 28, 2009 @ 8:49 am | Comment

A is certainly right, via end of. The last two post prove it.

September 28, 2009 @ 1:20 pm | Comment

“A says LALALALALALA, I CAN’T HEAR YOU, TU QUOQUE TU QUOQUE! HELP! INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY!”

Wow! The poor guy just got a seizure. Too much logic for a such excitable mind ;-)

September 28, 2009 @ 6:15 pm | Comment

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.