For me it will be more interesting to see, what he will actually do, when there is a big challenge inside China or foreign policy wise and I’m especially curious about his approach to Taiwan.

Naturally, I would be suspicious of anyone who prioritizes PRC power projection or thinks it will help better the lives of the Chinese people, but even if I wasn’t suspicious of that, I frankly don’t believe anyone who regards “any means necessary” an acceptable method for China to attain the goal of primacy a reformist in the proper sense of the word.

You’re going to have to explain this one. All I have been proposing is an ends-based, utilitarian, political philosophy. What means-based restrictions do you think are necessary before one can be properly qualified as a reformist?

[E]ven if the indemnities and 19th century war losses are to blame, the real question isn’t how to “make up for it”, but rather, how to move forward no matter what happened in the past.

Exactly.

Then Mongols went west and sacked Baghdad, killed everybody in the city, and burned down everything including libraries and hospitals. They practically ended the Islamic golden age, and indirectly triggered the rise of the West later (the West had nobody to copycat from).

Song was lucky when it was their time to face the Mongol onslaught because the Mongols became kinder by their standard. Even then, the musical element of ancient Chinese poetry was mostly lost during that time.

Sure the fact that the bulk of Eurasia was controlled by one empire allowed many positive developments later, but make no mistake about it, even the killing of Native Americans can’t be compared to what they did.

@Handler, you raised a lot of points. Pick a couple and I will debate you. W.r.t slavery, if we take out serfs and indentured servants, how many were real slaves that are comparable to plantation slaves? I wouldn’t use Wikipedia as a source because in this topic the citations include a couple of wacky books. The important question is how prevalent the practice was. Just because it was recorded in the Chinese history (e.g. Tang) doesn’t mean it’s a common practice — much like rhinos were reported in the history records or even Tang poetry doesn’t mean there were many rhinos in China back then.

Besides, moral authority is something you can’t control, or plan for. One can claim moral authority, but a claim alone is rather pointless. Moral authority is something others have to recognize in you, and give you credit for. Just like with any “authority”, it’s only present if you have other people’s respect for it. And if it is “moral authority” that China seeks, sometimes she has a peculiar way of going about it. Lately, that seems to be in the form of funny naval maps, and questionable choice of artwork in passports.

This makes a lot more sense. What I was getting at was that if Handler chooses to judge a nation by her history, then Handler should logically assign no one any moral authority at all, which means China shouldn’t even waste time trying to convince people like Handler and people who share his/her type of thinking that they are right. Instead, they can be dealt with via a policy of carrots and sticks.

That being said, SKC does raise a very important point in that China’s most recent foreign policy is either nonsensical or being spun in a very disadvantageous way. If it’s the former, it needs to change. If it’s the latter, China, perhaps, should look into joint business ventures with Art Sulzburger or Donald Graham.

Besides, moral authority is something you can’t control, or plan for. One can claim moral authority, but a claim alone is rather pointless. Moral authority is something others have to recognize in you, and give you credit for. Just like with any “authority”, it’s only present if you have other people’s respect for it. And if it is “moral authority” that China seeks, sometimes she has a peculiar way of going about it. Lately, that seems to be in the form of funny naval maps, and questionable choice of artwork in passports.

“But I think we would be wise to bury the hatchet regarding history as a source moral authority, lest we launch into a massive equivocation round including the United States, where the same government has been in continuous operation since the 18th century.”

Why would you choose to do that as a response to me pointing out that Chinese civilization hardly has the moral authority jxie imputed? Weird.

“I’m surprised you don’t read me as a Chinese reformist. I’m not sure what distinction you see.”

I’m surprised you see yourself as one. Naturally, I would be suspicious of anyone who prioritizes PRC power projection or thinks it will help better the lives of the Chinese people, but even if I wasn’t suspicious of that, I frankly don’t believe anyone who regards “any means necessary” an acceptable method for China to attain the goal of primacy a reformist in the proper sense of the word.

I’m surprised you don’t read me as a Chinese reformist. I’m not sure what distinction you see.

But I think we would be wise to bury the hatchet regarding history as a source moral authority, lest we launch into a massive equivocation round including the United States, where the same government has been in continuous operation since the 18th century.

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

http://books.google.co.kr/books?id=UmxhQgAACAAJ&dq=islam%27s+black+slaves&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Xh26UOPcDIiPiAfk4IDgBA&redir_esc=y