Who lost China's Internet?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I forgot to mention the fact that people are sentenced to death for bringing Bibles of all things into the country.

I suppose misrepresentation is the order of the day after you ran out of bad things to say, eh? Shameful.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Adam Smith
Alinestra:
I disagree with this statement. What happened at Tiananmen is not even remotely comparable in motive or scope to what happened at say Kent State. I think The more relevant comparison is to earlier cycles in Chinese history.

That seems to be a myth that many Westerners believe.

Originally posted by Adam Smith
I agree with this. I think the reelvant comparison is not to the US or other western countries, but to earlier cycles of Chinese history. Chinese dynasties begin their reign with the promise and realization of reform. The whole system gradually becomes more unwieldy under the burden of trying to govern so many people. Chinese dyasties eventually became repressive or corrupt, and collapsed under their own weight, to be supplanted by a new round of reformers.

The regimes (dynasties) became more oppressive as time wore on. The Tang government is widely held to be the most open, and the Ming least. (With the exception of the ultra-repressive Yuan dynasty). The Qing government was initially more open - after the dust had settled down - but became more oppresive quickly.

[Adam Smith]

UR:

That seems to be a myth that many Westerners believe.

Are you saying that Kent State is comparable to Tiananmen? Given the number of people killed and the question of motive I don't see how you can defend that statement.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by Adam Smith
UR:

Are you saying that Kent State is comparable to Tiananmen? Given the number of people killed and the question of motive I don't see how you can defend that statement.

The number of people killed is of course different.

The motives, however, are highly similar.

[KrazyHorse]

From what I know, Kent State mainly happened because a group of twitchy "soldiers" got a crappy order, got themselves into a bad situation and panicked. Tienanmen was a very different affair.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
From what I know, Kent State mainly happened because a group of twitchy "soldiers" got a crappy order, got themselves into a bad situation and panicked. Tienanmen was a very different affair.

Acknowledged.

Anyway I don't see how this is relevant to the discussion. Boycotting will only fuel more Tiananmen Massascres. The poorer the people, the more likely they'll demonstrate. The more desperate the government, the crazier things it will do.

[KrazyHorse]

I don't think there should be an out-and-out boycott, but I certainly don't think that we should have a completely open trading relationship with them either.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I don't think there should be an out-and-out boycott, but I certainly don't think that we should have a completely open trading relationship with them either.

okay....
which restrictions would you like then? i might end up agreeing with you.

[KrazyHorse]

I don't know...

Charge a higher import duty than on the more democratic countries, put a cap on imports, put potentially military resources on a "no-no" list (the last one is probably already in effect). Make future improvements in human rights a potentially profitable endeavor by promising to reduce tariffs if certain conditions are met...

This is basically the same sort of trading arrangement I think we should have with most of the world, with the specifics being dependent on which country we're talking about.

[Urban Ranger]

That is going to be difficult for a number of reasons.

Firstly, there's the WTO.

Secondly, this human rights business is nebulous and controversial. Whose definition of human rights is it going to be? Who gave you power to interfere in another country's sovereignty? On what basis do you make such criticisms - against some ideal utopia, or against your own country?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Adam Smith
Are you saying that Kent State is comparable to Tiananmen? Given the number of people killed and the question of motive I don't see how you can defend that statement.

I have a friend who was in Beijing during the whole thing, and his account is completely different from what you can see on Western (mainly US) media. Given that he has no motives to lie, and that Western media often has an axe to grind against the PRC, I would certainly give his account more credibility. [Just take the Washington Post's own spin of accusing Li Peng as behind the bugging of Jiang Jimang's airplane for example - that's just as silly as saying Kennedy's assassinated by the CIA]

Furthermore, I have a French documentary showing many of the events. It has more similarity to my friend's account than the CNN one, which seem to be the, *cough* authoritative *cough* version upon which lots of people rely.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


I have a friend who was in Beijing during the whole thing, and his account is completely different from what you can see on Western (mainly US) media. Given that he has no motives to lie, and that Western media often has an axe to grind against the PRC, I would certainly give his account more credibility. [Just take the Washington Post's own spin of accusing Li Peng as behind the bugging of Jiang Jimang's airplane for example - that's just as silly as saying Kennedy's assassinated by the CIA]

Furthermore, I have a French documentary showing many of the events. It has more similarity to my friend's account than the CNN one, which seem to be the, *cough* authoritative *cough* version upon which lots of people rely.

Sorry, UR but I've got a German documentary that says Tiannanmen was far worse than what the US media reported. But China and the US were on much friendlier terms at the time so it is not surprising that they would try to soften it a bit. Haven't you read the official document yet? Oh yeah, you don't rely on truthful or even real evidence to make your biased and racist conclusions.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
That is going to be difficult for a number of reasons.

Firstly, there's the WTO.

Secondly, this human rights business is nebulous and controversial. Whose definition of human rights is it going to be? Who gave you power to interfere in another country's sovereignty? On what basis do you make such criticisms - against some ideal utopia, or against your own country?

Yay! UR won't talk about the US anymore!

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


That seems to be a myth that many Westerners believe.

This seems to be a myth only UR believes. I don't have to argue it. It's so obvious.

The regimes (dynasties) became more oppressive as time wore on. The Tang government is widely held to be the most open, and the Ming least. (With the exception of the ultra-repressive Yuan dynasty). The Qing government was initially more open - after the dust had settled down - but became more oppresive quickly.

On world scale, China's regimes have been highly repressive since the Chin, where the emperor happily threw lives away to assert his power (kind of like Mao) and support his quest for immortality. True, the Tang was the most open, but I wouldn't say anything bad about the local officials or the emperor for that matter. Plus, corruption was ramport with teh merit based testing for government officials. Actually China's politics and economy haven't changed too much since the Chin. The names have changed, but the systems had remained the same. Not until Deng XiaoPing's economic reform was there any significant change. This was an extremely positive step for China to break out of its cycle and move toward democracy. Sino-US relations improved dramatically as well. However, the emperor based system was still there. Deng clearly had sweeping power over the country, even though he was no longer president. You can see a similar role for Jiang. Look at Bush's recent visit to China. Bush as a modern western leader was comfortable dealing with reporters and the public, while Jiang, still a symbol of the old regime, was flustered and uncomfortable in the public light. However, Jiang was no where near as reclusive as Deng, and I'd imagine that Hu will be even less so. All this speaks toward a gradual and positive change for China's poltical system away from tyranical totalitism to a republican democracy, though starkly different from the US. The framework is there in China's constitution.

Sorry, UR, I know your not used to such lengthy arguments. Please feel free to post one line responses, if it makes you feel better.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
I suppose misrepresentation is the order of the day after you ran out of bad things to say, eh? Shameful.

Everything that I've posted to this thread regarding the freedoms allowed in China has been true, UR.

[DaShi]

DinoDoc,

I've given some more thought to your position. China is not the bastion of freedom, and your decision to boycott is your way of protesting what you feel is wrong. I may disagree with the effectiveness of this method, but I agree with your message.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by DaShi
your decision to boycott is your way of protesting what you feel is wrong.

Not exactly. I've stated my opinion on embargos earlier in this thread.

[DaShi]

So you just don't like the Chinese period?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by DaShi
So you just don't like the Chinese period?

I believe that you're assuming too much in this instance, DaShi.

[DaShi]

Then why are you boycotting Chinese products?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by DaShi
Then why are you boycotting Chinese products?

You seem to be confusing me with Sikander (sp).

[DaShi]

Probably, all of you look alike to me.

[ranskaldan]

So, DinoDoc, what is your view?

(krazyhorse) Charge a higher import duty than on the more democratic countries, put a cap on imports, put potentially military resources on a "no-no" list (the last one is probably already in effect). Make future improvements in human rights a potentially profitable endeavor by promising to reduce tariffs if certain conditions are met...

This is basically the same sort of trading arrangement I think we should have with most of the world, with the specifics being dependent on which country we're talking about.

All in all I'm for full and open trading relationships, but what you're advocating isn't too bad either. It sends a message to the Communist government without sacrificing the lives and happiness of the Chinese people.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DaShi
This seems to be a myth only UR believes. I don't have to argue it. It's so obvious.

What's obvious?

That's just such an excellent argument by the way, just like when people quote some anonymous expert.

Originally posted by DaShi
On world scale, China's regimes have been highly repressive since the Chin, where the emperor happily threw lives away to assert his power (kind of like Mao) and support his quest for immortality.

You meant Qin? That would take some evidence on your part, esp. with regards to *cough*world scale *cough*. You're talking about a time when barbarian hordes running amok in Europe.

Originally posted by DaShi
True, the Tang was the most open, but I wouldn't say anything bad about the local officials or the emperor for that matter. Plus, corruption was ramport with teh merit based testing for government officials.

Tang wasn't a period with large scale public exams. Corruption was present but was under control for long periods of time, and with a central government that brought stability to the country. Compare this with warlords killing each other in Europe.

Originally posted by DaShi
Actually China's politics and economy haven't changed too much since the Chin. The names have changed, but the systems had remained the same.

That seems to be an indication of your lack of knowledge. You might have a point if you said "the tax system" and the "form of government." But that's only valid up to Qing.

Originally posted by DaShi
Not until Deng XiaoPing's economic reform was there any significant change. This was an extremely positive step for China to break out of its cycle and move toward democracy.

Yes, democracy, a word without much meaning.

Originally posted by DaShi
Sino-US relations improved dramatically as well.

I wouldn't say dramatically. There were lots of reversals in the 30 years since Nixon's historical visit to China.

Originally posted by DaShi
However, the emperor based system was still there. Deng clearly had sweeping power over the country, even though he was no longer president. You can see a similar role for Jiang. Look at Bush's recent visit to China. Bush as a modern western leader was comfortable dealing with reporters and the public, while Jiang, still a symbol of the old regime, was flustered and uncomfortable in the public light.

That's probably a problem of your perception there.

Originally posted by DaShi
However, Jiang was no where near as reclusive as Deng, and I'd imagine that Hu will be even less so.

Deng was so old when he eventually took power what do you expect of him?

Originally posted by DaShi
All this speaks toward a gradual a
nd positive change for China's poltical system away from tyranical totalitism to a republican democracy, though starkly different from the US. The framework is there in China's constitution.

What a lovely use of empty words.

Originally posted by DaShi
Sorry, UR, I know your not used to such lengthy arguments. Please feel free to post one line responses, if it makes you feel better.

I am not used to a typical US political speech type "argument" that is spectacularly devoid of substance. Lots of generalities without much one can put a finger on. Oh, of course it can't do without words such as "democracy" and "freedom."

Not that I expected much.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Everything that I've posted to this thread regarding the freedoms allowed in China has been true, UR.

Like the point I have quoted?

[mindseye]

I have a friend who was in Beijing during the whole thing, and his account is completely different from what you can see on Western (mainly US) media

You are relying on the words of one person? And he saw everything going on all over town that terrible morning?

Much of what I've read about Tiananmen (including accounts from numerous Chinese witnesses) paints a picture bloodier than the standard US media portrayal, which is usually centered on the students in the quare (most of the casualties were workers manning blockades some distance from Tiananmen). UR, you should read what John King Fairbank has to say about it. You might also ask around next time you are in Beijing, quite a few saw the PLA in action that day.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Like the point I have quoted?

Yes.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


What's obvious?

That's just such an excellent argument by the way, just like when people quote some anonymous expert.

Wow! You can't see it, can you?

You meant Qin? That would take some evidence on your part, esp. with regards to *cough*world scale *cough*. You're talking about a time when barbarian hordes running amok in Europe.

I thought you didn't believe in evidence. You never used it before.

Tang wasn't a period with large scale public exams. Corruption was present but was under control for long periods of time, and with a central government that brought stability to the country. Compare this with warlords killing each other in Europe.

Living in America gave you a massive inferiority complex. Don't make me take you to school again.

That seems to be an indication of your lack of knowledge. You might have a point if you said "the tax system" and the "form of government." But that's only valid up to Qing.

Wrong again. Just because it isn't obvious, doesn't mean there aren't similarities, but that's too difficult for you to understand. I'm afraid I can't explain it any simpler. Sorry.

Yes, democracy, a word without much meaning.

I think a lot of words don't have meanings to you.

I wouldn't say dramatically. There were lots of reversals in the 30 years since Nixon's historical visit to China.

Can you read?

That's probably a problem of your perception there.

That's my argument. But you can't give a good counter argument, can you? Lose again boy.

Deng was so old when he eventually took power what do you expect of him?

So was Reagan. Poor defense, when you don't know what your defending. Strange how you take these things personal. But that's what makes you fun.

What a lovely use of empty words.

More words you don't understand. I thought you went to college. But considering that you have the debating skills of a 5 year old, I'm surprised.

I am not used to a typical US political speech type "argument" that is spectacularly devoid of substance. Lots of generalities without much one can put a finger on. Oh, of course it can't do without words such as "democracy" and "freedom."

Not that I expected much.

Please, point out one argument of substance that you ever posted. You may not agree with me, but you can't defend yourself. I know it is a bully mentality for me to pick on you because you are weak. But the fact that you don't know it makes me laugh.

Please, show us all how to properly make an argument. Yes, I calling you out.

Or maybe you'll just disappear for awhile again.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Transcend
What do you think is more dangerous:

1. An open and prosperous China where its leadership has constantly to make comprise in order to appease the population and the world;

or

2. A China full of ignorant and nationalistic masses who blindly support their government because they feel rejected by the rest of the world; and a China who has thousands of ICBMs pointed to the United States?

Sikander, what you are doing here is trying to create the second scenario, a LOSE-LOSE situation for everyone involved.

Wow, I never thought I had so much power. Note how my choice to boycott Chinese goods (started after Tienamen) has not affected China's trade with Europe, Japan or for that matter the rest of the citizens of my country the U.S. I am perfectly willing to lift my personal embargo when China seems to be moving in the right direction again (ie stops exporting nuclear technology, ballistic missles and other weapon systems to states which are likely to destabalize a region or are currently in a state of undeclared war with the U.S., and when China also starts to treat it's own people with the sort of respect that all people deserve).

I feel that too often people try to get things done by trying to force a policy on everyone in the country using the government. There are a lot of things people can do for themselves which don't require using persuasion + coercion on the rest of the citizenry. I don't do business with China. You can do whatever you please. If China finds that they are losing enough business from people like me to worry them, then they can try to address our grievances. If there are enough people for engagement, mindless consumers and apologists to keep their economy humming along, then there is little incentive provided by outsiders to do much of anything. Whether outside pressure has any tangible effect or not, it is the people of China who will have the final say, regardless of who thinks they 'really' run the country.

[DaShi]

But aren't you trying to force your policy (or values in this case) on the Chinese people by boycotting? The effectiveness of your personal boycott is a nonissue. I'm interested in the reasoning behind it.