China invasion of Taiwan POLL!

[romelus]

In the Ping-Pong stadiums there is a gigantic poster of Mao. Enough said.

which ping pong stadium? the one in the films you saw? the fact is finding a mao poster in the average chinese city could be the subject of scavenger hunts. this is no longer the 60s and the cultural revolution was over decades ago

Indeed, and I'm looking at you.

coming from someone who confidently talks about the civil war with evidence from the cultural revolution...

 

[Dann]

It is hard to find a Mao poster displayed nowadays in the city. However, posters, stamps, commemorative pins, old paper money and the infamous "little red book", can all be found in memorabilia shops.

When you go to rural areas, however, you'll still find people hanging an old, battered Mao poster in the shop or in their homes, sometimes right beside a poster of the Kitchen God. Maybe they're thinking: "I'm not taking any chances."

 

[romelus]

It is hard to find a Mao poster displayed nowadays in the city. However, posters, stamps, commemorative pins, old paper money and the infamous "little red book", can all be found in memorabilia shops.

When you go to rural areas, however, you'll still find people hanging an old, battered Mao poster in the shop or in their homes, sometimes right beside a poster of the Kitchen God. Maybe they're thinking: "I'm not taking any chances."

now there is someone who knows the modern china. the current government is expending precisely 0 effort in glorifying mao

 

[Mescalhead]

It is hard to find a Mao poster displayed nowadays in the city. However, posters, stamps, commemorative pins, can all be found in memorabilia shops.

So basically, Mao is now like the Chinese Elvis. God forbid he turns up in any sightings.

 

[IglooDame]

Note the huge grinning smiley at the end of that paragraph of mine you quoted. There are times when I say something and mean another.

You're correct, I completely missed the smiley.

Also, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan have one very noticeable thing in common. All have been under the US's "sphere of influence" since World War II, while China went through nightmarish, paranoid times from the 1950s to the 1970s. Of course the general mindset of the people will be different.

True, though that's the first time you've put it that way - presumably then Hong Kong's and Taiwan's collective psyche is now so different that they should be different countries?

The Far East psyche is very different from the West's. We're not so big on vague concepts like individuality, democracy, freedom of expression, human right, etc. What we want most is order, stability, freedom from want, and a favorable atmosphere to engage in livelihood and secure our children's future.

And who's defending the Communist Party? Don't mix me together with the government. What I said was that the Chinese are not very political. As long as any government can provide the goods, the majority of the population wouldn't even care if it's being run by a group of pandas.

I thought I recalled where you said that the Chinese government does follow the people's wishes, but I've looked through this and the EU boycott thread and could not find it, so I retract the "and Dann" part of that statement (in any case, I meant no offense).

 

[luiz]

There is not one positive thing Hitler did. And don't say he "built the Autobahn".

He invented central gardens in highways
So there.

 

[luiz]

Freedom of Press and General election is not something the average Chinese citizen wants. When they talk about how great America is or how great the UK is, they always talk about the science and the economy, but hardly about the right to vote or to print what they want. How many immigrants come to America or the UK where their priority is to vote, how many actually end up voting even if they have citizenship? Not having general elections or freedom of press is NOT a basis for tyranny.

They don't care because they are alienated(by the govt., of course).
Aren't you from Berkeley? I expected better.

 

[Marla_Singer]

There is not one positive thing Hitler did. And don't say he "built the Autobahn".

I'm sure he has kissed his mum at least once when he was a kid. That's a good thing.

What you say is very interesting. In Christianism, people are divided between good and evil. The good people will reach the sky when the evil one will burn in hell.

On the opposite, in confucianism, taoism and other kind of chinese philosophies, men aren't either good or evil, they do either good or evil things during their lifetime. One day my father told me : "We are all both guilty and victim". Think about it.

Therefore, there's a gap between considering Hitler's evil actions were so serious that all his good actions were futile, and considering Hitler has never done anything good.

Anyway, that's all about the US changing History into Mythology. As the ones who were fighting the Devil incarnate, Americans were Gods. So let's all agree on the obvious. Adolf Hitler did so evil things that every he did good is futile, but he has still done good things. I'm quite happy VW has been created... and it wouldn't be the case without Adolf Hitler.

 

[luiz]

look, it'll be perfectly clearly who's being ignorant here. just read on... i don't feel like hurling lukewarm insults like you've done again

Who's insulting who?

and no it's not apology of tyranny, it's just the facts

It's pure and shamefull apology of tyranny.

1. cultural revolution is YEARS AFTER the civil war. we were talking about the civil war

2. cultural revolution was originally used for internal power fighting. not because the people threatened to revolt. again this is years after china had been established, and not related to the civil war

3. you fail to present any evidence that the majority didn't support either side in the civil war

1-So what? If they were not communist in the Cultural Revolution, they certainly were not in the civil war.
2-Cultural Revolution was used in order to create a marxist mentality among the population. Mao was putting in practice the old marxist theory of "enlightning" the prolerians and peasants. Mao believed that the Great Leap Forward failed because the people was not acting like true marxists.
3-And what evidence did YOU present? I at least provided a reliable link proving that there is no Freedom of Press in China.

you need to do research on the civil war itself. you are obviously getting the two mixed up

No I'm not. Don't treat me like an idiot. I have significant knowlegde of both events.

remember what i said, most of them prefer the status quo. less than 5% of them want actual separation. they don't oppose unification, they just have a wait and see attitude

They are alienated by the government and social condition. People who make 200 dollars a year can't possibly have a political opinion.
Democracy is an end in itself. Do you think the average chinese peasant likes the fact that his life is worthless to the Politburo? Do you think that the chinese like the fact that they can't read an impartial newspaper? Do you think that anyone likes to live in a country where you can be arrested by your opinions?
What you're doing is classical apology of tyranny. Listen to you. This is what you're saying: "the people don't want to rule over theirselves".

this is pure ignorance. and i bet it's just your own opinion. i know people in taiwan, a lot of them also have close relatives in china (it hasn't even been one generation yet). it's more akin to both north korean and south koreans considering themselves koreans, than your american immigrant example

Is that your best argument? You know people from Taiwan? Woah, I'm not very impressed.

Do you think they like beign constantly threatned with invasion?
If they wanted to be part of communist China then why they they flee in the first place?(like you said, it hasn't been one generation yet?

 

[luiz]

Anyway, that's all about the US changing History into Mythology. As those who were fighting the Devil incarnate, they were Gods. So let's all agree on the obvious. Adolf Hitler did so evil things that every he did good is futile, but he has still done good things. I'm quite happy VW has been created... and it wouldn't be the case with Adolf Hitler.

test_speciman is Austrian...

But I agree with you, of course Hitler did good things. Like protecting that Jewish cemetery in Verdun, like you mentioned in another thread. However every good he might habe done is overshadowed by the millions of deads. The EXACT same thing is true for Mao tse-tung.

 

[stratego]

They don't care because they are alienated(by the govt., of course).

Ok, now explain to me why immigrants who come to America don't vote either. And also explain why such a large percent of the population in Democratic nations don't vote either, are they alienated by their government?

Aren't you from Berkeley? I expected better.

Yes, I am from Berkeley, but knowing better doesn't mean agreeing with you. The Chinese government doesn't operate in isolation. They still listen to what the people wants and does their best to provide it. Not having general elections doesn't necessary mean that they are worse at understanding what the public wants.

 

[IglooDame]

Yes, I am from Berkeley, but knowing better doesn't mean agreeing with you. The Chinese government doesn't operate in isolation. They still listen to what the people wants and does their best to provide it. Not having general elections doesn't necessary mean that they are worse at understanding what the public wants.

Ah, it must have been you I was thinking of earlier in the thread, not Dann.

When one does not have a free press, the government does not have as good an understanding of what the people want, or do you think that they're running Zogby polls in a population that may fear government reprisals against "counterrevolutionary" responses?

Not having general elections DOES mean that that the government has considerably less incentive to actually do what the public wants - for instead of being bad enough to have 51% of the voters go out and vote for someone else before they lose their job, they have to be bad enough to have a significant percentage of the population willing to risk their lives in removing them from office. I don't know of any mainstream Republicans willing to take up arms to remove a Democratic president or vice versa, yet we keep switching parties every four or eight years.

 

[luiz]

Ok, now explain to me why immigrants who come to America don't vote either. And also explain why such a large percent of the population in Democratic nations don't vote either, are they alienated by their government?

They bring the alienation to the New World. The communist party is alienating them for decades, don't expect 'em to suddenly become interested in politics as soon as they set foot in the US.

And BTW, what's your point: that chinses people don't want to rule over theirselves? That they need an absolutist government to tell them what to do? That's exactly what you're saying.

Yes, I am from Berkeley, but knowing better doesn't mean agreeing with you. The Chinese government doesn't operate in isolation. They still listen to what the people wants and does their best to provide it. Not having general elections doesn't necessary mean that they are worse at understanding what the public wants.

I expected better. By this I don't mean that I expected you to agree with me. I mean that I expected a Berkeley student to have at leats some commitment to democracy. After all you're the first to scream histerically against the Patriot Act, but apparently you have no problems with a country WITHOUT FREE ELECTIONS OR FREEDOM OF PRESS.

Edit:
Mental Note: Next time stratego complains about Bush destroying democracy in the US I will remind him that he does not think that free elections or freedom of press are necessary.

 

[Marla_Singer]

test_speciman is Austrian...

But I agree with you, of course Hitler did good things. Like protecting that Jewish cemetery in Verdun, like you mentioned in another thread. However every good he might habe done is overshadowed by the millions of deads. The EXACT same thing is true for Mao tse-tung.

Sorry about the US changing History into Mythology thing . It didn't really have a place in my post... I've simply mentionned it because many people have already burned their wings in such a process.

 

[The Yankee]

@The Yankee
Interesting articles regarding Hongkong. I think this is why they provided that 50-year transition period: The current crop of Hongkong people are still so used to an individualistic, liberal way of life (An HK person will say: "Ngo hai Hongkong yun." instead of: "I'm Chinese.") that any attempt to make them toe the line immediately will cause some chafing. But 50 years is just about enough to produce an 3rd generation of people schooled and raised in the Chinese way...

Thank you! *takes a bow* And these were just what I dug up in five minutes from CNN....I'm sure I could find a lot more if I put energy into it. It was something to overwhelmingly refute Marla's claim that everything is hunky-dory in Hong Kong.

And you're right about the lifestyle the um.....Hong Kongese(?) are used to...as it was only seven years ago, they were under British rule and not subject to Communist China's whims. However, if Beijing somehow keeps on the same track, without liberalizing (which is underway in small steps already), then yes...Hong Kong will be fully integrated in politics and lifestyle in 50 years.

 

[romelus]

It's pure and shamefull apology of tyranny.

how is correcting your grossly inaccurate portrait of history an apology of tyranny?

1-So what? If they were not communist in the Cultural Revolution, they certainly were not in the civil war.

so your "evidence" is irrelevant, and you only stated it because you don't have any real evidence aside from opinion.

2-Cultural Revolution was used in order to create a marxist mentality among the population. Mao was putting in practice the old marxist theory of "enlightning" the prolerians and peasants. Mao believed that the Great Leap Forward failed because the people was not acting like true marxists.

the absolute origin of the cultural revolution is that mao wanted to eliminate certain powerful individuals in the party.

it's also irrelevant to the civil war topic. so you don't have to respond here

3-And what evidence did YOU present? I at least provided a reliable link proving that there is no Freedom of Press in China.

1. your freedom of press link doesn't have the slightest relevance to the civil war half a century ago. since you are resorting to that, i guess you really don't have any evidence aside from opinion

2. here is my evidence.

a. the biggest reason the rural population supported mao's army was because of the land reform policy promised to the peasants. for thousands of years in chinese history, land was always owned by landlords, never by the people actually working the land. the peasants were ecstatic about the prospect of taking land from the landlords

b. the nationalist government (which was strictly autocratic and not democratic at that time, by the way) realized their urban support was declining and tried in vain to pass some reforms. however, it was too little too late. inflation was so bad that prices increased 150 times in just a few years. people took bicycle loads of money just to do grocery shopping. corruption was rampant.

c. the nationalists started the civil war with a much larger army and superior weapons. while the communist army was much smaller and inferior in weaponry. however by the end of the war the communist army swelled (mostly due to peasants enlisting) while the nationalist army crumbled. without overwhelming popular support, the small red army with inferior equipment would never have been able to overrun the larger and superior enemy.

No I'm not. Don't treat me like an idiot. I have significant knowlegde of both events.

very good. then you can just remember to not make statements that you cannot back up with relevant evidence. and once again the current freedom of press index is not relevant to the civil war 50+ years ago

They are alienated by the government and social condition. People who make 200 dollars a year can't possibly have a political opinion.

are you implying poor people are stupid?

and by the way, people in taiwan make a lot more than $200 a year

and by the way, the opinion poll i mentioned was about the taiwan sentiment

and by the way, that means less than 5% of taiwanese want actually separation right now

maybe you should read before you write. because like you said, you are not an idiot

Democracy is an end in itself. Do you think the average chinese peasant likes the fact that his life is worthless to the Politburo? Do you think that the chinese like the fact that they can't read an impartial newspaper? Do you think that anyone likes to live in a country where you can be arrested by your opinions?
What you're doing is classical apology of tyranny. Listen to you. This is what you're saying: "the people don't want to rule over theirselves".

here is what i said "most of them prefer the status quo. less than 5% of them want actual separation. they don't oppose unification, they just have a wait and see attitude"

this is fact, backed up by poll numbers in taiwan. nowhere in it do i see "the people don't want to rule over themselves"

i don't think anyone else reading sees it either

Is that your best argument? You know people from Taiwan? Woah, I'm not very impressed.

i talk to them at length about this issue. it's much more than your only claim to fame, which happens to be that you did a paper on mao's economy. which unfortunately doesn't have much to do with either the civil war, or the current taiwan situation

Do you think they like beign constantly threatned with invasion?
If they wanted to be part of communist China then why they they flee in the first place?(like you said, it hasn't been one generation yet?

of course not. but apparently their bond to their blood relatives is so strong, that they are willing to wait and see if the chinese government makes further reforms. i call that true love and strength on the part of the taiwanese people, not being meek in front of threats.

and the people that fled were mainly nationalist government officials and workers, and some nationalist soldiers. no large numbers of ordinary civilians or peasants fled with them - your significant knowledge of the chinese civil war needs to be more significant to cover this common knowledge

by the way, you conveniently forgot to respond to the "mao poster everywhere" syndrome, i take it first hand evidence is just too strong when compared to uninformed hearsay and opinion

 

[stratego]

They bring the alienation to the New World. The communist party is alienating them for decades, don't expect 'em to suddenly become interested in politics as soon as they set foot in the US.

If the right to vote is what so many Chinese citizens want, then they would immediately get involved once given the chance. Actually explain to me why so many eligible American voters don't vote.

And BTW, what's your point: that chinses people don't want to rule over theirselves? That they need an absolutist government to tell them what to do? That's exactly what you're saying.

No, what I'm saying is that the current Chinese regime is doing a good job given China's current condition. But what you're saying is that the Chinese are not capable of running a country unless they follow the western style of government. Boo hoo you get to vote and you think you're better than anyone else. Look at China's standing with the world now, and look at Brazil's and tell me which government is doing a better job.

I expected better. By this I don't mean that I expected you to agree with me. I mean that I expected a Berkeley student to have at leats some commitment to democracy. After all you're the first to scream histerically against the Patriot Act, but apparently you have no problems with a country WITHOUT FREE ELECTIONS OR FREEDOM OF PRESS.

Berkeley students do not believe democracy is black and white as you seem to believe. It's possible to have a more "totalitarian" government that tailors more to the people's needs than a supposedly "Democratic" one. I consider Europe to be more Democratic than America, but I consider American leadership to be better than the Europeans.

Edit:
Mental Note: Next time stratego complains about Bush destroying democracy in the US I will remind him that he does not think that free elections or freedom of press are necessary.

There's more to Bush than him destroying democracy. He's sending America backwards in the process. If he becomes a dictator and makes America prosperous, than more power to him, but if he becomes a dictator and puts America into further shame, than we need to do something about it.

 

[stratego]

Not having general elections DOES mean that that the government has considerably less incentive to actually do what the public wants

That I agree with. But I'm taking the stance than not all totalitarian governments are tyrants. And in my opinion the CCP are not tyrants.

 

[luiz]

how is correcting your grossly inaccurate portrait of history an apology of tyranny?

Defendin the CPP is apology of tyranny.

so your "evidence" is irrelevant, and you only stated it because you don't have any real evidence aside from opinion.

You provided NOTHING more then an opinion. Where's a reliable link? I can't see one.

the absolute origin of the cultural revolution is that mao wanted to eliminate certain powerful individuals in the party.

it's also irrelevant to the civil war topic. so you don't have to respond here

Mao also wanted to eliminate opposition(what bring us back to the inhuman monster thing). But that's NOT the goal of the Cultural Revolution, and is the PROOF that you know little of the subject.
During the CR thousands of young chinese went to the rural areas carrying Mao's "Litte Red Book" to indoctrinate the peasants.

1. your freedom of press link doesn't have the slightest relevance to the civil war half a century ago. since you are resorting to that, i guess you really don't have any evidence aside from opinion

There is NO civil war topic!
The topic is: Is China a dictatorship? Does China have rights over Taiwan?

2. here is my evidence.

a. the biggest reason the rural population supported mao's army was because of the land reform policy promised to the peasants. for thousands of years in chinese history, land was always owned by landlords, never by the people actually working the land. the peasants were ecstatic about the prospect of taking land from the landlords

b. the nationalist government (which was strictly autocratic and not democratic at that time, by the way) realized their urban support was declining and tried in vain to pass some reforms. however, it was too little too late. inflation was so bad that prices increased 150 times in just a few years. people took bicycle loads of money just to do grocery shopping. corruption was rampant.

c. the nationalists started the civil war with a much larger army and superior weapons. while the communist army was much smaller and inferior in weaponry. however by the end of the war the communist army swelled (mostly due to peasants enlisting) while the nationalist army crumbled. without overwhelming popular support, the small red army with inferior equipment would never have been able to overrun the larger and superior enemy.

Claims are not evidence. I don't believe what you say. Prove me wrong

very good. then you can just remember to not make statements that you cannot back up with relevant evidence. and once again the current freedom of press index is not relevant to the civil war 50+ years ago

THE SITUATION 50 YEARS AGO MATTERS LITTLE TO DO TOPIC!
IS CHINA A DICTATORSHIP TODAY?
(And you're also wrong about the Civil War, but that's OT)

are you implying poor people are stupid?

and by the way, people in taiwan make a lot more than $200 a year

and by the way, the opinion poll i mentioned was about the taiwan sentiment

and by the way, that means less than 5% of taiwanese want actually separation right now

Stupid is differen then alienated. Very poor people are alienated, not stupid.
The ones who make U$200 a year are the chinese peasants, not the Taiwanese.
The Taiwanese are not alienated, and they don't want unification.

here is what i said "most of them prefer the status quo. less than 5% of them want actual separation. they don't oppose unification, they just have a wait and see attitude"

this is fact, backed up by poll numbers in taiwan. nowhere in it do i see "the people don't want to rule over themselves"

i don't think anyone else reading sees it either

Perhaps you should read the platform of the democratically elected president of Taiwan.

i talk to them at length about this issue. it's much more than your only claim to fame, which happens to be that you did a paper on mao's economy. which unfortunately doesn't have much to do with either the civil war, or the current taiwan situation

My paper on Maoist economics has nothing to do with the current situation. It has to do with Mao, that we were discussing earlier.

of course not. but apparently their bond to their blood relatives is so strong, that they are willing to wait and see if the chinese government makes further reforms. i call that true love and strength on the part of the taiwanese people, not being meek in front of threats.

and the people that fled were mainly nationalist government officials and workers, and some nationalist soldiers. no large numbers of ordinary civilians or peasants fled with them - your significant knowledge of the chinese civil war needs to be more significant to cover this common knowledge

by the way, you conveniently forgot to respond to the "mao poster everywhere" syndrome, i take it first hand evidence is just too strong when compared to uninformed hearsay and opinion

Mao posters ARE everywhere. Even in Ping-Pong stadiums.
Last week a brazilian Ping-Pong player was defeated by a chinese one in China, and in the stadium there was a gigantic Mao poster.
In the chinese embassy over here they an enormous Mao poster. And so on.

 

[luiz]

If the right to vote is what so many Chinese citizens want, then they would immediately get involved once given the chance. Actually explain to me why so many eligible American voters don't vote.

Do you think they don't want to vote?
If they don't care about Democracy then what were those people doing in Tiananmen 15 yeasr ago?

No, what I'm saying is that the current Chinese regime is doing a good job given China's current condition. But what you're saying is that the Chinese are not capable of running a country unless they follow the western style of government. Boo hoo you get to vote and you think you're better than anyone else. Look at China's standing with the world now, and look at Brazil's and tell me which government is doing a better job.

A good job?
The country with the highest number of political prisioners and the least Freedom of Press is doing a good job?

And don't talk about what you don't know. You obviously no nothing about Brazil. Brazil is extremely better off then China.
Brazilian per capita income: U$ 7.700
Chinese per capita income: U$1.100
So the average brazilian is 7 times richer then the average chinese.

Berkeley students do not believe democracy is black and white as you seem to believe. It's possible to have a more "totalitarian" government that tailors more to the people's needs than a supposedly "Democratic" one. I consider Europe to be more Democratic than America, but I consider American leadership to be better than the Europeans.

Democracy is an end in itself, and I shouldn't have to tell you this.
Freedom of Press and Free and general election are the most basic rights of any half-decent nation.

If Berkeley students don't see it that way, then they are a bunch of stalinist-wannabes.

There's more to Bush than him destroying democracy. He's sending America backwards in the process. If he becomes a dictator and makes America prosperous, than more power to him, but if he becomes a dictator and puts America into further shame, than we need to do something about it.

Ah, so you're OK with dictators who do a good job in the economy?

So I guess you're a supporter of Augusto Pinochet, right?