Historical Argument That Was In the Wrong Forum

[Henri Christophe]

This is all correct, but I don't really see how it supports what you're saying.

Okay maybe I was wrong about Lao Tsé and just Confucius is used as inspiration to communism in China.

 

[Patine]

Okay maybe I was wrong about Lao Tsé and just Confucius is used as inspiration to communism in China.

Just because modern CCP propaganda SAYS Confucius was an inspiration or ideological predecessor to Socialism with Chinese Characteristics doesn't mean it's at all true. All manners of atrocities have been claimed to be inspired, justified, or enjoined by Christian doctrine - ranging from the Crusades and the solidity of the Feudal System to more recent social and political injustices and military interventions (and, inexplicably, rampant, unrestrained, greed-driven corporatist culture) by many right-wing First World political parties and movements - all of which are anathema, antithesis, and antagonistic, utterly, to the Ministry of Christ. You take FAR too much as face value, I'm afraid.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Just because modern CCP propaganda SAYS Confucius was an inspiration or ideological predecessor to Socialism with Chinese Characteristics doesn't mean it's at all true. All manners of atrocities have been claimed to be inspired, justified, or enjoined by Christian doctrine - ranging from the Crusades and the solidity of the Feudal System to more recent social and political injustices and military interventions (and, inexplicably, rampant, unrestrained, greed-driven corporatist culture) by many right-wing First World political parties and movements - all of which are anathema, antithesis, and antagonistic, utterly, to the Ministry of Christ. You take FAR too much as face value, I'm afraid.

If christians made and make atrocities in name of Jesus, why CCP can't do propaganda in name of Confucius? At least CCP isn't doing terrible stuffs as the cristianity made in name of Jesus.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

? At least CCP isn't doing terrible stuffs as the cristianity made in name of Jesus.

Oh really? Tell that to uyghur people in China. To Tibetan people. And now to HK people.

 

[leif erikson]

Moderator Action: Justifying atrocities by citing other atrocities is not allowed.

 

[Patine]

If christians made and make atrocities in name of Jesus, why CCP can't do propaganda in name of Confucius? At least CCP isn't doing terrible stuffs as the cristianity made in name of Jesus.

That's not actually the point I was making, at all. Committing Un-Christian atrocities in the name of Christian doctrine is still completely Un-Christian, just like justifying Un-Confucian tyranny and government mismanagement in the name of Confucius is still completely Un-Confucian. You kind of misunderstood that point, or twisted it around.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

To Henri why are you so committed in defending a party that hates its own history and culture?

 

[Henri Christophe]

Oh really? Tell that to uyghur people in China. To Tibetan people. And now to HK people.

We already speak about this issue. I don't see Uyghur/Tibet problem different as Christians treaty the Native Americans (or Australian Aboriginals).
Also I don't think this is a communist problem of China, because if even China was a democracy (or other kind of governement) will still have issues with Uyghur/Tibet provinces. I don't know how the Chinese conquer Tibet/Uyghur provinces, I guess it was in empirial times, but let they free should be a signal of weakness.
Why USA don't let Lakota people free inside his territory? For the same reason China don't let free Tibet/Uyghurs.

To Henri why are you so committed in defending a party that hates its own history and culture?

I don't see the Comunist Party as hating his own culture and history. By opposite of that, CCP loves his own culture and identity and is trying to do a better comunism to China, the best possible.
Your conplains about Uyghur/Tibet situation isn't a communist problem, it should happens even if China was a democracy, a monarchy or any kind of governement.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

We already speak about this issue. I don't see Uyghur/Tibet problem different as Christians treaty the Native Americans (or Australian Aboriginals).
Also I don't think this is a communist problem of China, because if even China was a democracy (or other kind of governement) will still have issues with Uyghur/Tibet provinces. I don't know how the Chinese conquer Tibet/Uyghur provinces, I guess it was in empirial times, but let they free should be a signal of weakness.
Why USA don't let Lakota people free inside his territory? For the same reason China don't let free Tibet/Uyghurs.

WOW... your ignorance is... something.

Also Uyghur/Tibet =/= Native Americans
for one thing native Americans did NOT have unified "nations" Even before Europeans colonials came in there were never unified nations like France or Britian. sure there was iroquois confederacy but like the name says it was more of confederacy rather than solid nations while Ughur/Tibets did have their own nations before Chinese take over.
and two: none of native Americans in America today WANT separate nations because they see themselves as "Americans." Ask any native Americans today and they will say they are Americans. That is unlike people in Tibet and Uyghur who wants more self rule from China. Heck Tibet actually has a government in exile lead by Dalai Lama.
You admitted that you don't know about these people... well why don't you DO A FRICKEN THING CALLED RESEARCH!????? YOU KNOW WATCH 10 MINUTE YOUTUBE VIDEOS? THAT ISN'T SO HARD OR EXPENSIVE?!!!! Just like separation of Soviet Union the moment China turns into democracy like Korea and Japan, Tibet and Ughurs will declare independence from China because its people WANT it.

Moderator Action: Yelling through caps is not civil discussion. leif

 

[Henri Christophe]

WOW... your ignorance is... something.

Also Uyghur/Tibet =/= Native Americans
for one thing native Americans did NOT have unified "nations" Even before Europeans colonials came in there were never unified nations like France or Britian. sure there was iroquois confederacy but like the name says it was more of confederacy rather than solid nations while Ughur/Tibets did have their own nations before Chinese take over.
and two: none of native Americans in America today WANT separate nations because they see themselves as "Americans." Ask any native Americans today and they will say they are Americans. That is unlike people in Tibet and Uyghur who wants more self rule from China. Heck Tibet actually has a government in exile lead by Dalai Lama.
You admitted that you don't know about these people... well why don't you DO A FRICKEN THING CALLED RESEARCH!????? YOU KNOW WATCH 10 MINUTE YOUTUBE VIDEOS? THAT ISN'T SO HARD OR EXPENSIVE?!!!! Just like separation of Soviet Union the moment China turns into democracy like Korea and Japan, Tibet and Ughurs will declare independence from China because its people WANT it.

I need to disagree with you, the Lakota's want independence too

also the Navajos can have their independence too

Maybe some natives americans don't want more be independent because know it is impossible to fight against a military powerhouse as USA, but that don't means if one day USA become weaker this nations would like to rise in the power.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

Maybe some natives americans don't want more be independent because know it is impossible to fight against a military powerhouse as USA, but that don't means if one day USA become weaker this nations would like to rise in the power.

? they don't want independence. Where did the video said they want their own Lakota nation? They want more rights to their lands like how Maoris want more rights on their lands in NZ... and yet hardly any Maoris want to be independent from NZ!
And you failed to mention about Tibet/Uyghurs.

 

[Henri Christophe]

About Lakota independece there is this article in Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Lakotah_proposal
It says:
The Republic of Lakotah or Lakotah is a proposed independent republic in North America for the Lakota people and other people. Proposed in 2007 by activist Russell Means, the suggested territory would be enclaved by the borders of the United States, covering thousands of square miles in North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming, and Montana. These proposed borders are those of the 1851 Treaty of Fort Laramie between the United States government and the Lakota. These lands are now occupied by Indian reservations and non-Native settlements. None of the existing Lakota tribal governments support the proposed republic, and they were not consulted about the proposal

About Maoris in New Zeland I think is very different, in this case they are very intermixed with the population, and even the white population do the Haka dance in their games, what is a kind of support of Maori ancient heritage.
Also there is Maoris in coat of arms of New Zealand, making they very more integrated.

About Tibet/Uyghur, I still believe it will not change the situation if China isn't more communist. It is a problem of emperial behaviour the China had before, as all other coountries also had. If USA wants to demand the freedom of Tibet/Uyghur provinces, it should also alllow their own separatist moviments rise as Lakota Republic.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

About Lakota independece there is this article in Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Lakotah_proposal
It says:
The Republic of Lakotah or Lakotah is a proposed independent republic in North America for the Lakota people and other people. Proposed in 2007 by activist Russell Means, the suggested territory would be enclaved by the borders of the United States, covering thousands of square miles in North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming, and Montana. These proposed borders are those of the 1851 Treaty of Fort Laramie between the United States government and the Lakota. These lands are now occupied by Indian reservations and non-Native settlements. None of the existing Lakota tribal governments support the proposed republic, and they were not consulted about the proposal

"None of the existing Lakota tribal governments supported the proposed republic, and they were not consulted about the proposal."
looks like it has just as amount of support of people who wants independent Texas or independent California.

About Tibet/Uyghur, I still believe it will not change the situation if China isn't more communist. It is a problem of emperial behaviour the China had before, as all other coountries also had. If USA wants to demand the freedom of Tibet/Uyghur provinces, it should also alllow their own separatist moviments rise as Lakota Republic.

And while Uyghur was taken much earlier ... in Qing dynasty that dose not mean it shouldn't be independent. After all Mongol was taken by Qing and yet it is independent state today.

 

[Plotinus]

Also I don't think this is a communist problem of China, because if even China was a democracy (or other kind of governement) will still have issues with Uyghur/Tibet provinces. I don't know how the Chinese conquer Tibet/Uyghur provinces, I guess it was in empirial times, but let they free should be a signal of weakness.

It was in 1950. Under the communists.

More precisely, Tibet had been conquered by the Chinese in previous centuries but became independent with the end of the last Chinese imperial dynasty in 1911. The purpose of the communist invasion of 1950 was to reconquer it. So you really can't claim that the communists simply inherited Tibet from their imperial predecessors.

 

[Patine]

Also I don't think this is a communist problem of China, because if even China was a democracy (or other kind of governement) will still have issues with Uyghur/Tibet provinces. I don't know how the Chinese conquer Tibet/Uyghur provinces, I guess it was in empirial times, but let they free should be a signal of weakness.

The CCP conquered them with the stroke of a pen of unequal and cheating treaties under duress after all the fighting and doomed defenses were done, like the Indigenous peoples of the U.S., Canada, New Zealand, and Australia in the end. Treaties that worked 100% by the laws and conventions of the conquerors and ignored those of the conquered.

We already speak about this issue. I don't see Uyghur/Tibet problem different as Christians treaty the Native Americans (or Australian Aboriginals).

You mean, "Colonials," did this. I've already pointed out that this is utterly Un-Christian behaviour passed off for ulterior motive as, "Christian," just like the CCP's faux-Confucianism.

About Lakota independece there is this article in Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Lakotah_proposal
It says:
The Republic of Lakotah or Lakotah is a proposed independent republic in North America for the Lakota people and other people. Proposed in 2007 by activist Russell Means, the suggested territory would be enclaved by the borders of the United States, covering thousands of square miles in North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming, and Montana. These proposed borders are those of the 1851 Treaty of Fort Laramie between the United States government and the Lakota. These lands are now occupied by Indian reservations and non-Native settlements. None of the existing Lakota tribal governments support the proposed republic, and they were not consulted about the proposal

About Maoris in New Zeland I think is very different, in this case they are very intermixed with the population, and even the white population do the Haka dance in their games, what is a kind of support of Maori ancient heritage.
Also there is Maoris in coat of arms of New Zealand, making they very more integrated.

About Tibet/Uyghur, I still believe it will not change the situation if China isn't more communist. It is a problem of emperial behaviour the China had before, as all other coountries also had. If USA wants to demand the freedom of Tibet/Uyghur provinces, it should also alllow their own separatist moviments rise as Lakota Republic.

The Republic of Lakotah is the brain child of Russell Means, a member of the Libertarian Party of the United States who happens to have a tribal membership in the Dakota Tribe and ran for the Libertarian Presidential nomination in 1988. There's not much more to the idea, and not a lot of support.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

@Henri Christophe why are you not answering?

 

[Henri Christophe]

@Henri Christophe why are you not answering?

For the same reason you didn't answer me in Brazilian Alternative Leader thread, I don't have nothing new to add to this discussion.

I still loving China and believe CCP is a model to the world, but I already said that before.
And if the Western want too free Tibet/Uyghurs province it should first start to free it's own domestical civilizations as Lakotas/Navajos.
Even Brazil have their own indigenous tribes to give they more freedom.

 

[Patine]

For the same reason you didn't answer me in Brazilian Alternative Leader thread, I don't have nothing new to add to this discussion.

I still loving China and believe CCP is a model to the world, but I already said that before.
And if the Western want too free Tibet/Uyghurs province it should first start to free it's own domestical civilizations as Lakotas/Navajos.
Even Brazil have their own indigenous tribes to give they more freedom.

You also haven't addressed your taking misuse, twisting, wrongful labelling, and ulterior motive of religious doctrines and ideologies to justify horrid actions and oppressions completely contrary to those belief systems' viewpoints at the face value of those making wrongful such claims. This I find personally egregious.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

I still loving China and believe CCP is a model to the world, but I already said that before.
And if the Western want too free Tibet/Uyghurs province it should first start to free it's own domestical civilizations as Lakotas/Navajos.
Even Brazil have their own indigenous tribes to give they more freedom

Didn't I said they are not the same or even similar? Heck Tibet even had a nation till 20th century while native Americans never had united nations.
You are using False equivalence fallocy my friend.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fal... is a logical,"comparing apples and oranges."

 

[Henri Christophe]

Didn't I said they are not the same or even similar? Heck Tibet even had a nation till 20th century while native Americans never had united nations.
You are using False equivalence fallocy my friend.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence#:~:text=False equivalence is a logical,"comparing apples and oranges."

Don't matter how amazing and old the Tibet civilization was, other civilizations of the world (as Lakotas) also deserve to be free.
At least Tibet and Uyghurs are provinces in China with some grade of autonomus power, meanwhile Lakotas don't have even a state of United States to claim soverign.
The unique Native American States of USA, Oklahoma, have more white population then indigenous. And when they try to break the Oklahoma state in two (one of more native americans and other with more white americans) it was dennied by US governement.