Gluten Freeman posted:

You're confusing the Dalai Lama with the Panchen Lama here -- it was Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, the 11th Panchen Lama who was kidnapped when he was 6. He'd be about 27 now. According to the Chinese government he "is being educated, living a normal life, growing up healthily and does not wish to be disturbed," which is certainly a disturbing statement.

The Dalai Lama is still alive and his next incarnation won't be found until he dies, which will hopefully be a little way off in the future.

Shbobdb posted:

Choosing the Dalai and Panchen Lama was the prerogative of the Emperor for a looong time. Especially during the Qing, which is when most fenfen irredentists plant their flag.

What's more interesting is that that is the kind of political legitimacy the government is going back to.

Crazy Joe Wilson posted:

Neurolimal posted:

My bad. Point is that if they're willing to publically do that and receive zero reprecussions, there really isnt any display non-violence can perform that would save Tibet.

quote:

In 2007, the Chinese government passed a decree, to take effect September 1, that each of these people who plan to be reborn must complete an application and submit it to several government agencies for approval.

Crazy Joe Wilson posted:

One factor not really mentioned yet is that for all their faults, the United States and Great Britain ascribed to certain western liberal values such as rule of law, individual rights, right to protest, equality before the law, etc, not to mention that they have a long history of Judeo-Christian practice and thinking.

Typo posted:

Also in China it's literally codified law that you need the government's permission to reincarnate

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Religious_Affairs_Bureau_Order_No._5

Crazy Joe Wilson posted:

One factor not really mentioned yet is that for all their faults, the United States and Great Britain ascribed to certain western liberal values such as rule of law, individual rights, right to protest, equality before the law, etc, not to mention that they have a long history of Judeo-Christian practice and thinking. China under the Communists didn't have that, and the population at large doesn't value those things nearly as much (Of course, it has to be admitted that China's program of extreme nationalism tends to make those other issues take a backseat in their country, I'm not saying there aren't Chinese nationals who protest for these things, merely that as a society at large, those things are not held up as important, either symbolically or legally). Therefore, when non-violent protests started under folks like Ghandi or Martin Luther King Jr., even if the leaders and a large chunk of the population might've wanted to wipe them out, those protest leaders could use those traditions and values to argue their case and convince the population at large of their rightness. Read Martin Luther King Jr.'s Letter from Birmingham Jail, he does exactly this, putting the Civil Rights Movement in the context of Christian struggle for righteousness. Had The United States at large ignored the Civil Rights movement, they would have had to admit to themselves that they don't really place importance on those values that they say they do, including the Constitution's and Declaration's promise of equality.

Crazy Joe Wilson posted:

One factor not really mentioned yet is that for all their faults, the United States and Great Britain ascribed to certain western liberal values such as rule of law, individual rights, right to protest, equality before the law, etc,

quote:

Concerns about socioeconomic justice are not peculiarly Chinese, of course. T.H. Marshall, in his classic work on the rise of citizenship in Western Europe, pointed to “social citizenship” – or the collective right to economic welfare and social security – as the highest expression of citizenship. In Marshall’s evolutionary account, a minimalist civil citizenship – or the guarantee of individual rights to property, personal liberty and legal justice – appeared in 18th century Europe, while the 19th century saw the emergence of a more developed sense of political citizenship – or the right to participate in the exercise of government power. Only in the 20th century, however, did a claim to full social citizenship (as embodied in the modern welfare state) become widespread across Europe. Samuel Fleischacker, in his recent history of distributive justice, traces the acknowledgment of “a right of all people to a certain socioeconomic status” back to the eighteenth century, to the writings of Rousseau, Smith, Kant and Babeuf.12 According to Fleischacker, however, “for most of human history practically no one held, even as an ideal, the view that everyone should have their basic needs satisfied.”13 While Fleischacker may well be correct in his critique of early Western thought, his argument entirely overlooks the Confucian tradition. An abiding concern with distributive justice has marked Chinese political thought for more than two millennia.14 Contrary to the scenario that Marshall outlines for Western Europe, in China an appreciation of “social citizenship” predated political citizenship by many centuries.15

In the U.S., by comparison with both ancient China and modern Europe, a commitment to social citizenship has been notably weak. American political philosophers, in pondering the primary function of government, have historically emphasized the protection of individual freedoms (or what Marshall regarded as the lowest form of citizenship). This view, which prizes strict limits on state intervention, has pervaded popular political sentiment in the U.S. as well. The political theorist Louis Hartz characterized the American Way of Life as “a nationalist articulation of Locke which usually does not know that Locke himself is involved.”16 Fundamental to Locke’s political philosophy was an emphasis upon natural rights as both prior -- and superior -- to laws enacted by the state. Locke’s understanding of natural law stressed individual inalienable rights (to life, liberty and property). In his conception, the role of government was a limited one; the state simply guaranteed the social order necessary to permit the exercise of individuals’ natural rights. Rebellion was justifiable, but only if government violated the “social contract” either by failing to ensure public order or by aggrandizing its powers vis a vis society.17 Locke’s views were consistent with mainstream European political thought in his day, which saw the state’s responsibilities as highly circumscribed. By contrast, Chinese statecraft since the times of Mencius has envisioned a more proactive role for government – which was expected to promote economic welfare and security. Such expectations carried important practical consequences. As R. Bin Wong observes in his comparison of European and Chinese state formation, “When we turn to issues of material welfare, we find a [Chinese] tradition of intervention in subsistence issues that dwarfs European government efforts to address the insecurities of agrarian economies.”18 The idea that good governance rests upon guaranteeing the livelihood of ordinary people has been a hallmark of Chinese political philosophy and practice from Mencius to Mao – and beyond. It is reflected not only in government pronouncements and policies, but also in grassroots protests -- an issue to which I shall return later in this paper.

[...]

To neglect the people’s livelihood was to invite rebellion: “When the hungry go without food . . . the people become unruly.”25 The most important virtue of a ruler was benevolence (ren) or sympathy with the plight of the people. If a sovereign failed to provide for the well-being of his people, rebellion was the natural reaction. As Benjamin Schwartz noted, “it is made amply clear in the Analects and particularly in the Mencius, that the moral behavior of the masses is dependent upon their economic welfare.”26

The differences between the Chinese and other imperial systems (European as well as Japanese) were significant, but so too were the differences with many modern republican political systems. Compare Mencius’ view of rebellion with that of Thomas Jefferson, for example. Both Mencius and Jefferson stress the granting or withholding of popular support, but to very different ends. Jefferson’s understanding of revolution drew not on the Book of History but on Locke’s Second Treatise. n Jefferson’s stirring speeches, rebellion was both natural and justifiable – but as a check on political tyranny, not as a reaction to socioeconomic injustice. A child of the Enlightenment, Jefferson viewed periodic armed rebellion as essential in sustaining democratic freedoms. As he put it, “What country can preserve its liberties if the rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take up arms . . . . The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."28 For Thomas Jefferson, tyranny, not poverty, was the root cause of periodic rightful rebellion.

Helsing posted:

Americans have a remarkable capability to convince themselves that 20th century segregation somehow vindicates the country rather than being an incredibly brutal and long lasting example of its hypocrisy. Contrary to what you're suggesting here the majority of people, especially white Americans, never supported Martin Luther King when he was actually alive and leading protest marches. The Letter from Birmingham Jail that you mention specifically attacks mainstream Liberal opinion for it's indifference to the massive injustices of racial relations throughout the country. It took the murder of a President by a man widely perceived as a right-wing nutcase (the official story developed by the Warren commission is that Oswald was a pro-Castro communist but most of the public viewed the assassination as an act of right-wing terrorism) to get a civil rights bill passed and that civil rights bill instantly began generating a backlash. By the time Johnston ran for election in 1964 a major political backlash was already underway, emboldened by the rapid rise to national prominence of segregationist politicians like George Wallace. Within less than a decade Nixon gained power by directly appealing to white opposition to civil rights and integration. He unleashed the full power of the federal government on civil rights and on the black population. Meanwhile Martin Luther King was largely isolated and something of a political pariah by the time he was assassinated. This retrospective idea that he was convincing the majority of northern whites that their commitment to constitutionalism and rule of law obliged them to grant greater freedoms to blacks is totally against the historical record. The pro-rule of law types were overwhelmingly opposed to King, who was seen as a destabilizing trouble maker who was trying to push things along too quickly and thus causing instability.

The reason that the United States came around on segregation - and this is something that presidents like Truman and Eisenhower were explicit about - was the extreme liabilities of supporting segregation at home while competing with communism abroad, especially in the global south. The United States had to recast itself as a liberal anti-imperial empire, a vast global force championing a progressive alternative to communism.

Americans didn't suddenly wake up in the 1960s and go "oh poo poo, our timeless western commitment to the rule of law is really incompatible with segregation!" The handful of privileged and idealistic university kids who went south to help organize during the civil rights era were not typical and their actions generated a massive white backlash that dominated politics for more than thirty years afterward (and arguably still dominates today). It was the practical necessity of American foreign relations.

I know this is a rather long-winded post to address such a simple point but there's honestly something really sickening watching people turning one of the blackest marks on American liberalism into some kind of fairy tale about how committed Americans are to rule of law, unlike those totalitarian collectivist Asians.

tekz posted:

LMFAO. The British were brutal loving killers. Non violence in India ultimately only 'worked' because they were bankrupted by WW2. They'd have gone on cheerfully beating down salt marches till eternity (or more realistically, till a violent insurgency developed) if it wasn't for Hitler.

Equality under the law and right to protest in the British Raj, jesus christ.

NikkolasKing posted:

And there's a lot more, including the author noting they aren't trying to say Chinese people don't care about freedom and that Americans don't care about their material well-being. Just trying to note we are culturally very different.

Crazy Joe Wilson posted:

I'm well aware the British were pretty brutal in India, causing mass famines that killed millions (And I just finished showing a documentary about that to my classes), as all Imperialists typically are, but do you really not believe there is a difference in the way Britain handled India compared to how China would handle India, if they were colonizers instead? Not one difference? And if there would be a difference, what would say that is and what would cause it?

Crazy Joe Wilson posted:

I'm well aware the British were pretty brutal in India, causing mass famines that killed millions (And I just finished showing a documentary about that to my classes), as all Imperialists typically are, but do you really not believe there is a difference in the way Britain handled India compared to how China would handle India, if they were colonizers instead? Not one difference? And if there would be a difference, what would say that is and what would cause it?

icantfindaname posted:

The problem with using "culture" as an argument isn't in noticing that there are differences in political philosophy and social organization between countries. The problem is in asserting that those differences arise from essential characteristics of the Blut and Boden of a particular ethnicity. And the fact that it's a meaningless, tautological argument, IE "Chinese people act the way they do because that's the way that Chinese people act"

It's by definition unable to establish causes for effects. It's untestable and unfalsifiable, you're saying that nonwhite people act the way they do because that's just how their brains work. It's extremely telling that the huge variety of political ideology and traditions within Europe and its offshoots are completely ignored in favor of a racist, tautological "5000 yearrrrs Judeo-Christian Culturrrrrrrr"

Crazy Joe Wilson posted:

Except no one here is equating culture with biology or brain patterns except you. No one said "The reason America has Enlightenment ideas is because it's white", so assuming that is setting up a straw man and trying to make culture = race. Furthermore your argument that it is untestable and unfalsifiable could easily be turned against any argument based no history, since any historical argument, since it cannot be replicated in a vacuum, ultimately comes down to conjecture and theory, not provable data.

icantfindaname posted:

At least when you do this with Islam it has an established legal and logical tradition to go through to try to find points of incompatibility with European ideas, China and Japan/Confucianism doesn't and so it's literally just the mentality, something that exists entirely inside the minds of Asian people and which is explicitly unmeasurable, being cited as the direct cause of complex socio-political-economic phenomena with a 100% straight face

blowfish posted:

"if we export a white ameribaby to china he will grow up to be the only liberal and pro freedom man in a country full of inferior orientals"
- nice strawman

NikkolasKing posted:

Can you expand on what you mean here? Confucianism has had a pretty tangible effect on Chinese and Japanese government, culture, education, etc..

I really need to get money so I can subscribe to JSTOR though... I have a huge list of things I want to read on this topic.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt7pf43

NikkolasKing posted:

Can you expand on what you mean here? Confucianism has had a pretty tangible effect on Chinese and Japanese government, culture, education, etc..

I really need to get money so I can subscribe to JSTOR though... I have a huge list of things I want to read on this topic.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt7pf43

Crazy Joe Wilson posted:

Let's imagine this for a second. Let's say the United States did not have the ideas contained within the Declaration of Independence, or the Constitution. Do you think the Civil Rights Movement would have gone the same way, with the same eventual success? Solely because of Cold War politics?

Crazy Joe Wilson posted:

While this is mostly true, it doesn't refute the fact that whether or not Americans were committed or actually following through on those values stated in the Declaration of Independence, those values were still there and still stated, which allowed MLK jr. to use it in his argumentation for why segregation had to go. Yes, a majority of whites did not support the Civil Rights movement, but enough did change was made possible. There's always more than one reason for why something happened, yes obviously the Cold War had a major part to play, but realpolitik is not the sole reason (And not to mention it is a very pessimistic way to view things) and trying to dismiss a difference in values (Yes, countries can have different values, only the most crazy relativist would say otherwise), no matter how covered up or maligned those values may be in one of the countries is simply bad history.

quote:

Let's imagine this for a second. Let's say the United States did not have the ideas contained within the Declaration of Independence, or the Constitution. Do you think the Civil Rights Movement would have gone the same way, with the same eventual success? Solely because of Cold War politics?