|
I think he meant that it's good for the central government to shuffle officials around like they do. It's a classic strategy aimed at preventing individuals from building up a strong regional power base, although of course it has other implications and official justifications. China has had a disastrous history with strong personal power, both in the warlord era and in the Communist era. Personal relationships and patronage networks are still a strong part of Chinese politics and they don't need to get any stronger. I think that it's an understandable and appropriate strategy for Beijing at the moment. At least I think that's what he meant.
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2012 10:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 15:01 |
|
|
e: ^^^ yeah that's about right. I was thinking of the Yuan Shikai era after Sun Yat-sens' government fell apart, and how that just the possibility of that scenario pretty much scares the crap out of Beijing now. Ronald Spiers posted:I disagree on your assessment that there is a wide consensus among Koreans over all issues except for the North Korea question. Actually, I think it is very disingenuous. Yes, the conservative Grand National Party favors a hard stance against North Korea as opposed to the liberal Democratic United Party which favors continued dialogue and further implementation of the "sunshine" policy toward the North. Also, I find your assessment that Korea is more homogeneous than China misleading. Yes, China has a number of "nationalities" or "ethnicities" as well as a variety of different and distinct regional cultures within the Han "nationality" itself. Korea however can easily be divided within regional and socioeconomic lines on a geographic map. The conservatives in Korea have a firm grip on the Seoul area as well as in the southeast(the Korean industrial heartland), whereas the liberals are favored in the less developed southwest(whose native residents are typically discriminated against by the rest of Korea, it actually resembles the same kind of racial and ethnic discrimination found in other countries) as well as the northeast(where Koreans stereotypically describe as the "countryside"). If anything, Korean politics kind of resembles American politics. The conservative Grand National Party's platform favors free-trade and neo-liberal ideology, many of its members publicly express their Christian faith, favors a strong military to confront N. Korea, and is very pro-business(the current president Lee Myung-bak was former CEO of Hyundai Engineering and Construction). The Democratic United Party tries to paint itself as the opposite of the Grand National Party, by being pro-labor and more friendly with the North. There is division in "homogeneous" Korea, which is often ignored by outsiders who are only familiar with Korea superficially. As I said, this is just not my idle musings (although I did live there for two years), the Hill Center at Yonsei (not Sogang as I said before) GSIS did a joint study with CSIS on the popularity of the 데모 in Korean politics and how it did not reflect a truly divergent set of opinions among the Korean population apart from the North Korea question. I'm aware of the Silla-Baekjae Gyeongsam/Jeolla divide, but it does not seem to factor into much of political beliefs that the study touched on. I read it about a year ago and when/if I find the audio/transcript I'll post it. e: I'm pretty sure I'm wrong on the study being done by Yonsei/CSIS, it was sometime in 2010. I'm not sure I'll be able to find it anytime soon. But the gist was that these folksy truisms (don't trust Jeolla people with money!!!) were just that--axioms and regional rivalries that didn't really affect much in the way of political opinion about trade or domestic policy, despite the theater the politicians would put on. menino fucked around with this message at 11:30 on Feb 21, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2012 11:17
|
|
|
menino posted:e: ^^^ yeah that's about right. I was thinking of the Yuan Shikai era after Sun Yat-sens' government fell apart, and how that just the possibility of that scenario pretty much scares the crap out of Beijing now. I didn't think of that particular example, but there are so many to choose from. The last century of Chinese history has undoubtedly blazed the message DO NOT LET INDIVIDUALS BUILD PERSONAL POWER NETWORKS into the minds of the party elite. The example I was thinking of was the Gang of Four and Mao returning to hijack the entire state because he felt like it. The current leadership (and their anointed successors) are still old enough to remember the Cultural Revolution and its effect on their youth. Obviously there will never be another Mao, but undermining the power base of powerful individuals will be a priority for the party for a long time I think. As an aside, these problems are not unique to China. Young states are often dominated by personal power structures more than the new institutions. China had a long rough patch but with the peaceful and orderly transfers of power of the last 30 years I think its institutions may finally be solidifying their dominance. It's hard to tell though with decision-making so opaque, and I'm not really an expert. I think this might be an interesting question for others in the thread: are the central government's institutions finally gaining dominance over personal patronage networks, at least at the highest levels of government?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2012 16:30
|
|
|
french lies posted:Seriously, don't continue this derail. Either take it to another thread or stop. I'd like to see a phased (but proper) introduction of democracy. I don't buy into the SuZhi crap primarily because understanding of politics or the mechanics of democracy is an arbitrary limit. I'd like to see the provinces granted full, regional democracy for local governments with the introduction of multi-party representation in the central government and eventual transfer to a multi-party democratic system. I do think that the biggest problem facing Chinese democracy will be keeping all the provinces a part of China. Big city chauvinism is already a huge problem and may become worse in a democratic system - by worse I mean the government will have bigger problems quashing resentment and calls to carve out new states.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2012 16:50
|
|
|
Hong XiuQuan posted:I do think that the biggest problem facing Chinese democracy will be keeping all the provinces a part of China. Big city chauvinism is already a huge problem and may become worse in a democratic system - by worse I mean the government will have bigger problems quashing resentment and calls to carve out new states. Yeah, China is such a big country that it's always close to busting apart at the seams. I honestly think this might actually be better for the Chinese people, but that will never, ever be allowed to happen. Fundamentally, I don't think we will see meaningful national-level democratic processes so long as there's any ability for the "wrong choice" to be made. Of course, China is already making huge strides in things like local transparency and the like, so the actual freedom of life and individual democratic influence at a local level will probably improve, but these will either be informal or else tightly imposed by the central government. But this is just my extremely vague opinion that predicts nothing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2012 19:19
|
|
|
In the short-medium term, I'm less concerned with whether or not the Chinese get to vote for their president than weakening/eliminating the influence of party ideology in settings like universities and the media. I'm not under any illusions that the Chinese would suddenly start thinking like westerners and see eye-to-eye with us on everything tomorrow if the Central "Publicity" Department were eliminated, but I have to think that a powerful China would be easier to get along with if people weren't being force-fed single views on certain issues. Unlike the government, I think that China is cohesive enough to not completely fall to pieces with freer media and universities. These things could only improve the "suzhi" that the Chinese supposedly lack for democracy, and would in most cases be good for everyone else too. I mean, if China attacked Vietnam tomorrow over the Spratley Islands or whatever they're fighting over lately, I believe that while maybe not everybody would be completely gung-ho about it, you would be extremely unlikely to see any kind of anti-war protests,* which I find a bit scary. Things might be otherwise if territorial integrity wasn't practically pushed as the state religion in schools, newspapers, etc. Hopefully my point is somewhat coherent, even if I haven't exactly laid out a clear roadmap. *Okay, anti-war protests have not exactly done a lot to deter the US from taking military action, but I just find the idea of a country that could go to war with no significant/visible opposition disconcerting. I don't know, maybe I need to read more Southern Metropolis Daily and less Global Times to balance myself out. I guess I just enjoy getting pissed off.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2012 21:58
|
|
|
french lies posted:Do you think democracy is feasible in China, considering the scope and size of the country? Yes? Obviously a democratic system would need to be tailored to China, but the idea of some one-size-fits-all 'western' democratic system is already a strawman employed by the CCP. Of course it's going to be different in China- China itself is ringed by Asian democracies employing vastly different designs. The suzhi argument is one step removed from outright racism, at the very most. Honestly, the idea that Chinese people are somehow inherently unable to deal with democracy, due to some unspecified mix of nature and race and culture, would sound racist as hell coming from a foreigner... for good reason! edit: crap, hadnt refreshed this page since this morning as it turns out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2012 23:51
|
|
|
Electro-Boogie Jack posted:
Taiwan (and to a limited extent, Hong Kong) is possibly the greatest foil for China to look at in terms of a model for democracy. Heck, China could even look at Singapore and their magical racial harmony under a pseudo-democratic pseudo-authoritarian state. And all the mentioned governments have majority Chinese populations, and I would argue they are more culturally Chinese than the Chinese!
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2012 03:30
|
|
|
Electro-Boogie Jack posted:Yes? Obviously a democratic system would need to be tailored to China, but the idea of some one-size-fits-all 'western' democratic system is already a strawman employed by the CCP. Of course it's going to be different in China- China itself is ringed by Asian democracies employing vastly different designs. OK, look, the Chinese have already done a lot of thinking about this. In the early part of the 20th century, it was clear to the sophisticated and forward-thinking intellectual class that China's cultural emphasis on education and government officials had produced that much of the Imperial System was bankrupt, and it wasn't obvious to anyone that the replacement would be a system modelled after the Marxist school of western thought. Particularly interesting and important are the works of people like Liang Qichao (most importantly), but also of Hu Shih and Chen Duxiu, whose leadership of the May 4th movement insisted that China was a perfectly good place for Western-style liberalism and democratic values to take root. In particular, they siezed on the writings of Pragmatist philosopher and educator John Dewey to format and create a kind of democratic idealism they felt appropriate for the China they knew and loved. The argument about suzhi feels, to me, like a rehash of the same argument that was elaborated at the start of the twentieth century in everything from Rickshaw to Diary of a Madman, about to what degree Chinese social orgnizaton and priorities are compatible with traditional Western democratic methods and ideas, or even with individualism as conceived by Western liberalism. There are two very productive strains of argument you're not exploring -- the first is the May 4th and Xinhai one, the second is explored by contemporary scholars writing on the topic of Confucian Democracy. Why dismiss the whole thing out of hand as an unproductive argument?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2012 03:48
|
|
|
I am a little bit confused, why exactly are some people under the impression that democracy cant work or rather should not be implemented in China? I can understand superficially why the people in power would not want democracy as that may lead to them losing power but I can't see a legitimate reason for democracy not to be the end goal for China. And if that was the case, what is the alternative for China? Perhaps I am biased since I have always taken for granted the freedoms permitted by a democracy but what are the alternatives that benefit the people and actually give them freedom.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2012 03:56
|
|
|
french lies posted:Seriously, don't continue this derail. Either take it to another thread or stop. The people in the villages would elect the first Chinese Santorum who promised to blow up Japan. Just talk to some of them and see. Remember how they got riotous over the mere shadow of an implication of a slight by Japan regarding the Fishing islands? Also, it's useful to remember just how power is distributed commercially and in the government in China (and always has been): who you know. It doesn't matter what all those org charts in the OP say, or what the contract says, or even who you are or where you came from. If you know the right person and are buddy-buddy with them, the entire world will bend to your desires. This the full blossoming of a problem that is just beginning to bud with such horrible results in the U.S. (rich people networks, lobbyists, etc.) and it undermines any attempt at creating the social institutions that democracy would need. Besides the problem of the rural villagers being fickle nationalists, the cities are just personal power networks which would be marshaled into voting machines for the person with the most money and connections. Democracy is not impossible in China, but it is impossible to implement a western style democracy at the current time without very unstable results. Who knows who would claw to power? Probably someone not as friendly to the west, Japan, (or even the Chinese people), and certainly not anyone as cool headed as the current leadership. Barto fucked around with this message at 04:08 on Feb 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2012 03:59
|
|
|
Barto posted:The people in the villages would elect the first Chinese Santorum who promised to blow up Japan. Just talk to some of them and see. Remember how they got riotous over the mere shadow of an implication of a slight by Japan regarding the Fishing islands? Yeah I agree with this, or at least that this is exactly what the leadership fears. I wrote a research paper about the Diaoyutai question since 1978 and it's clear that the government has basically done its utmost to nip these protests in the bud since Tian'anmen, before which they encouraged it a lot more than they do now. Which is somewhat ironic given that the CCP has hung its hat on using nationalism and growth to justify its existence. However, they are very wary of any large scale protest no matter where its directed as they think it will inevitably turn against the government. One article that I remember referring to a lot was "Riots and Remeberence", which was a pretty good rundown of the history until 2005: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2242/is_1673_286/ai_n14817143/
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2012 04:53
|
|
|
BrotherAdso posted:Why dismiss the whole thing out of hand as an unproductive argument? Because suzhi arguments are racist nonsense. If you want to talk about different conceptions of the self in relation to society or how 'western' democracy would work in China, then talk about that! Suzhi sounds a lot like American Civil War era slavery advocates saying that 'negroes are naturally developed for the position of slave, and are unable to hold any higher station in life.' It isn't being used as an opening to discussions of what Chinese democracy would look like, but rather as a rejection of the idea that Chinese are capable anything other than paternal, authoritarian government- an idea that has already been well refuted and shouldn't need consideration to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2012 05:13
|
|
|
Kind of unrelated to the thread topic at hand but I'm quite interested in modern Chinese history, especially in geopolitical terms... Thus far I've only managed to take a brief course and go through a few books, but I'd like to know more. I can't help but notice Jung Chang's book is in the comedy section... I admittedly didn't comb through the sources in it in any depth, mostly just focusing on the text itself, but why is this book so derided? A quick google search tells me that there are serious issues with the factual interpretations within it, but are there any specific points someone could elaborate on for me? Secondly, I read through Li Zhi-Sui's Private Life of Chairman Mao and I was wondering if this was similarly considered, as it seems to be largely the one man's account.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2012 06:59
|
|
|
Electro-Boogie Jack posted:Because suzhi arguments are racist nonsense. If you want to talk about different conceptions of the self in relation to society or how 'western' democracy would work in China, then talk about that! Suzhi sounds a lot like American Civil War era slavery advocates saying that 'negroes are naturally developed for the position of slave, and are unable to hold any higher station in life.' It isn't being used as an opening to discussions of what Chinese democracy would look like, but rather as a rejection of the idea that Chinese are capable anything other than paternal, authoritarian government- an idea that has already been well refuted and shouldn't need consideration to begin with. Don't attack something for what it isn't. Racism is about race; the suzhi arguments are about the state of social institutions in China and the possibility for them to develop in rural vs. urban areas. The reason cities have grown is because of the huge number of rural workers who went and settled there (by which I mean they now have a hukou), and no one is suggesting that their children are not now better citizens for democracy than the ones in rural areas BECAUSE OF THEIR RACE. It's a question of background, social norms, and economic factors Additionally, the suzhi arguments are almost always made by and coming from Chinese intellectuals, and usually not pro-western Chinese intellectuals. And let's not even ignore the fact that rural areas are very pro-central government anti-local government- so even they would not necessarily disagree with many of the tenets of the suzhi arguments albeit put in politer terms. I think you need to stop using western ideas to understand a Chinese argument made in China about Chinese people that we are all viewing as outsiders- not as participants.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2012 07:29
|
|
|
Yeah it's not racism. It's most definitely classism, though. If you really want to make it about American stuff, you could sort of sort of maybe talk about the growing social divide in the Civil War era between urban and rural peoples. Maybe. Suzhi is a pretty lovely term, honestly. It's monstrously vague. A western argument would be about, say, the cultural values system and things like civic/social consciousness needed to support a democracy (well, maybe those examples are almost as vague). But instead it's just about "suzhi" which is "quality" or "character", and paints things like it's an inborn trait or something. It's a term that was used in a eugenics context not too long ago, after all. It all comes down to a lack of faith in the disgusting rabble of poors you see in any anti-democratic society. How real are these concerns? Unknown. Honestly, they're not utterly without merit. It's worth consideration. But then again, to play advocate, revolutionary era America wasn't that much better. Literacy was about even with what China claims (70-99% for 1700s US), education rates were worse, there were plenty of weirdo religious fanatics, the keeping of slaves was an accepted part of society, and genocide of natives was pretty A-OK, too. Of course, this still leaves that big intangible of culture and social/civic values. Arguably, the Cultural Revolution and ensuing crises, as well as the sudden and highly unequal development of the past few decades, has had a terribly destructive effect on Chinese society. I think famous China blogger Han Han touched on this in his rather infamous post on democracy made some argument about not turning your high-beams off or something. Dunno how convinced I am by this, though. Of course, American democracy has been commandeered many times throughout our history, too. See stuff like the political machines of the Boss Tweed era. But then, that same era led to anti-immigrants talking about how filthy foreign papists with no native democratic values were easily manipulated by the political machines to fill out the voter rolls and connive elections away from Real Americans. Basically the same argument we're getting here, but with the uniquely American racial/immigrant spin. Honestly, I see democracy as a distraction from the bigger and more immediate issue in China, which is the actual abuse and exploitation of the common people and minorities by the state and by the powerful. I do believe in democracy, but at the same time basic human rights and civil protections come first. The Western democracy straw man is being debated but meanwhile, the local or possibly even central government is disappearing citizens and torturing them in secret prisons and other such heinous poo poo. If anything, the new American experience shows that a democracy is no proof against such abuses (although obviously they are far less prevalent). But maybe the civic "suzhi" of our own citizens is also in decline. Regardless, I see democracy as something to think about for the future. The more immediate problem is stuff like basic civil rights, a real legal system, and some sort of handle on the rampant corruption and abuses of power. I know central government has been working on this, with their massive task-force style regional crackdown initiatives and such, but honestly there are deeper social and institutional issues at work here. Cultural problems, too. How to fix? Absolutely no idea. I don't even know how to fix our own society, let alone one I barely understand. Also, not trying to destroy minority cultures in a fit of separatist paranoia would be nice, but I doubt that will ever happen, either. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 08:17 on Feb 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2012 08:10
|
|
|
That's a pretty good post but I have one point I want to bring up. Are human rights the result of a (good) democratic government or vice versa?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2012 16:12
|
|
|
rscott posted:That's a pretty good post but I have one point I want to bring up. Are human rights the result of a (good) democratic government or vice versa? Neither, human rights exist despite a democratic government (this can depend on what you view as human rights). Take a lot at Turkey and it's history of Coup's by the military who defend what they believe are secular human rights, against a democratic government. You could also look at the United States which most people in this forum would say has fallen under a democratic government that's taking away peoples rights. Most things that we consider human rights exist despite democratic government.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2012 17:14
|
|
|
Barto posted:It's a question of background, social norms, and economic factors None of these factors are unique to China. The particular combination of them might be, but every country on earth is different, so why is it that we hear suzhi in relation to China? Over time suzhi arguments get vaguer and vaguer until eventually it's just 'yeah, Chinese people, they just can't deal.' I'd call that racism, but like Cream_Filling said, it's pretty undeniably classism. Is China the only country on earth with some uneducated people in the countryside? Is China the only country with some people that act like assholes? No? Then lets drop suzhi and actually discuss whatever it is people want to use suzhi as a proxy for. I'd put in that all the talk about democracy would be sidelined if the Communist Party would just embrace the rule of law. China would be a radically different country if it was run according to the laws that are already on the books, instead of by a party obsessed with control over everything else.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2012 17:19
|
|
|
french lies posted:Seriously, don't continue this derail. Either take it to another thread or stop. I really don't buy the suzhi argument. Consider the events that took place in Wukan last December. Rural peasants protesting against corrupt local officials revolted, expelling local CCP officials and police. The protestors elected representatives, and remained remarkably peaceful, despite one of them being abducted and tortured to death by police. The entire episode ended with a peaceful agreement to resolve the villagers grievances. The villagers don't seem too much like people of low "moral, spiritual, and intellectual quality" to me, unless you define such qualities to consist solely of access to Gucchi and Prada stores. Although since it was mentioned, I am curious whether the majority of "angry youth" (fenching) hail from the urban middle class, or the rural lower classes. Before democratization here in Taiwan, you heard the same arguments from the ruling KMT elite: that most people were too unsophisticated to handle democracy, that they needed a long period of tutalige (under the benevolent gaze of the KMT elites, of course) before full democracy could be instituted. Somehow, that day never seemed to come as long as said individuals were in charge - as late as the early 90s hardliners were still waving their hands arguing that full democracy would / was bringing chaos. And yes, while the early years had chaos in abundance, people adapted, the country changed, and as democracy became entrenched, things stabilized. Less than two months ago we had a presidential election complete with televised debates, vigorous campaigning, and full suffrage. The world didn't end, the losers congratulated the winners, and the winners didn't have the losers arrested and shot. What I'm trying to get at is, the best way to develop democracy is by its actual practice, not some form of paternal tutalege by elites who are usually more interested in preserving their monopoly on power.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2012 17:32
|
|
|
Electro-Boogie Jack posted:None of these factors are unique to China. The particular combination of them might be, but every country on earth is different, so why is it that we hear suzhi in relation to China? Over time suzhi arguments get vaguer and vaguer until eventually it's just 'yeah, Chinese people, they just can't deal.' I'd call that racism, but like Cream_Filling said, it's pretty undeniably classism. Is China the only country on earth with some uneducated people in the countryside? Is China the only country with some people that act like assholes? No? Then lets drop suzhi and actually discuss whatever it is people want to use suzhi as a proxy for. Look, man, I addressed all your points in my post. You can't just snip one sentence and repeat what you already said. Of course it's a classist argument, it's one class of people (city dwellers) vs. another (rural inhabitants): that is by definition a question of class. But they are the SAME people. As soon as a rural person is urbanized they stand on the other side of the argument and are accepted there: how could that even possibly be racism? Is it some kind of hosed up white guilt thing you're injecting into this because we're talking about this in English? This has nothing to do with colonialism, imperialism, or white people- don't think you're the center of the world. No one is saying governmental reactions to the issue are good, but saying that the problem is imaginary racism is cuckooland bleating. The problem exists, it's a problem involving two groups of Chinese people (of not different races), and pretending "these obstacles to democracy are just racist excuses" (???) is not only delusional, it is wrong. Here is how you could frame your argument reasonably: "The Chinese government argues that the problem of suzhi makes it impossible to implement democracy in China currently; additionally, many Chinese intellectuals concur. I do not agree because it would be possible to use policies A, B, and C to overcome obstacles D, E, and F." Now wouldn't that be a lovely post? Also, this is probably not something most westerners would be cognizant of, however in Chinese argumentation/philosophy there are several sets of key words (as opposed to western styles of philosophical discourse in which new words are created for new concepts) and these key words will not change, instead they will be reinterpreted as new arguments evolve; one could think of it as emptying and refilling of words, allowing the historically minded Chinese to hearken back to older ideas and concepts even as they move forward with an idea. This is quite evident throughout Chinese discourse. The point is, "su" is exactly one of those words. Some people have been translating it as "human quality", but this doesn't really appreciate or address the history and baggage of the word or the fact it is flexible. Each person making their individual argument will imbue this sort of word with their own viewpoint- so it's rather pointless to address the entire concept as a whole, because the word is a sum of arguments and viewpoints, and just how we are to discuss it depends on whose utterance of it we are talking about. This might be a difficult conversation to have here- but what I want to point out is that there's a very real danger of super-simplification of the idea and the arguments surrounding it to the point that its real position in Chinese discourse is misunderstood. My personal feeling regarding this word is that in a general sense, it is not an immutable state, but rather a measure of how well one acts- something that by definition can be improved- and is not discriminatory but rather a sort of measurement. Of course, this definition will change and shift depending on its use. I just want to point out that Chinese really doesn't have the sort of politically correct language or loaded terms that English does, at least not in the same way or the way some here seem to suggest it does. But in this case, what the CCP means by it is "Those yokels can't even read the newspaper, why should we let them decide who gets to run the economy?" (they have a point) Edit: I also figured I should add something here. If you care about the people in China in any genuine way (not just as a rhetorical exercise for democracy or whatnot), then there are many, many problems that need to be adequately resolved before democracy could be approached- indeed, most Chinese people don't care about democracy as much as they do about these much more immediate problems that stand in the way of it: for instance, the hukou problem, dialect heritage & education issues, housing prices, job stability, pollution, judicial reform, local government corruption (most people are extremely OK with the central government) etc. As to whether the best governmental system to quickly overcome these issues is the current one, a democratic one, a Turkish system, or something else, is an open question. The answer to that question requires a careful evaluation of policies and options and how to achieve each goal, as well as evaluating what the CCP has done and whether similar goals could have been achieved under a similar system. Considering that similar problems exist in the west currently (and to a much more severe extent during the same economic stage that China is currently in), I believe that this question does not have a foregone conclusion and that many of the issues which concern Chinese people the most might benefit more from different systems of government in each specific case, thus requiring a balanced and objective approach to the entire range of issues in our discussion. Barto fucked around with this message at 18:55 on Feb 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2012 18:23
|
|
|
You think maybe a lot of Chinese people have terrible/uninformed opinions because the government restricts open debate, the free dissemination of information and provokes nationalist jingoism for its own benefit, and not because they're just stupid poopyheads? There is a spectrum between "All decisions are made by an unelected self perpetuating bureaucratic oligarchy" and "All decisions are made by direct national referendum". It's possible to move along that spectrum closer to where the west is without going all the way to one end. french lies says he doesn't want a generalized discussion on the nature of capitalism and then goes off and immediately start us off on a generalized discussion on the nature of democracy.  Here have some Chinese democracy.  People in Hong Kong protesting a court ruling that allows migrant domestic workers (often Filipino) to apply for permanent residency. quote:He also warned that migrant workers’ command of English could put local workers at a disadvantage. “In the service sector, local workers will be at a disadvantage if migrant workers enter the job market,” he said. Yes, he is unironically suggesting the Filipinos need to be kept out because their English is too good and locals can't compete. This and that other protest against mainlanders should be pretty conclusive evidence that Hong Kongers are more
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2012 18:58
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:french lies says he doesn't want a generalized discussion on the nature of capitalism and then goes off and immediately start us off on a generalized discussion on the nature of democracy. Solis posted:Kind of unrelated to the thread topic at hand but I'm quite interested in modern Chinese history, especially in geopolitical terms... Thus far I've only managed to take a brief course and go through a few books, but I'd like to know more. One example is the battle of Luding Bridge. IIRC Chang claims that no fighting actually took place here, citing an unnamed old woman. However, journalists were later unable to find this witness, though they did find someone else who gave an account saying fighting did take place. So who's right? I think there's a natural distrust in the West of China and the CCP in particular, and it's gotten to where you can claim almost anything and not get challenged on it. I mean, look at how much traction the FLG has gotten with its claims of large-scale organ harvesting, despite the fact that outside journalists have found nothing to corroborate it. From what I can see, both Li Zhisui and Jung Chang have profited immensely from their lurid and controversial allegations about Mao, which doesn't automatically discredit them but does raise some serious questions about their motives. I'm open for a longer discussion on this, and I'd welcome input from someone who's read the academic rebuttal of Chang's book.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2012 20:32
|
|
|
french lies posted:Sorry, but it was very obviously a sweatshop debate and not a China debate. And I disagree that a discussion about suzhi equates to a generalized discussion on the nature of democracy. The biggest problem with Li's book is that a lot of what he claims is anecdotal and can't be substantiated, so some dismiss parts as voyeuristic trash from someone with a grudge. I'd probably take parts of it with a pinch of salt, but do read it because it does feel like it gives an insight into Mao and his personal assessments of Mao's character fit in with the historical record. I particularly like his bouts with Jiang Qing and if I remember correctly (haven't read it in years) he doesn't exactly idolize Liu ShaoQi either, which is a plus. Chang, however, is incomparably ludicrous. She dresses the book in an academic cloak but she treats Mao as singularly demonic and her diatribes are laughable. Li makes no such pretensions and while his book is questionable and lurid, he treats Mao as a man with strengths and weaknesses.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2012 20:54
|
|
|
Barto posted:Look, man, I addressed all your points in my post. You can't just snip one sentence and repeat what you already said. It seemed to me that the center of your argument is that suzhi isn't racist, but instead predicated on backgrounds, social norms, and economic factors- am I wrong? That's why I quoted that part. Barto posted:Of course it's a classist argument, it's one class of people (city dwellers) vs. another (rural inhabitants): that is by definition a question of class. But they are the SAME people. As soon as a rural person is urbanized they stand on the other side of the argument and are accepted there: how could that even possibly be racism? Great job explaining why it's classism I guess? Race comes into it when suzhi arguments start to fray and people start getting really non-specific about why the suzhi of Chinese people isn't up to par- and actually come to think of it, I don't think the suzhi of Chinese people from the countryside is always even mentioned, rather than the suzhi of Chinese people as a whole. Either way if you really aren't seeing it then lets drop the racism and just address it as classist nonsense, ok?  Barto posted:Is it some kind of hosed up white guilt thing you're injecting into this because we're talking about this in English? This has nothing to do with colonialism, imperialism, or white people- don't think you're the center of the world. Haha, what is this? Has anyone 'injected' anything like that? I don't think you're normally supposed to build strawmen and knock them down quite so obviously. Barto posted:The problem exists, it's a problem involving two groups of Chinese people (of not different races), and pretending "these obstacles to democracy are just racist excuses" (???) is not only delusional, it is wrong. See here we're getting real vague again. The problem exists? What is the problem? Is it a background problem, a socio-economic problem, something else? If so, we should talk about it in those terms. I'm pretty sure the reason we aren't talking about it in those terms is because then it would be debunked, so instead the discussion is centered around suzhi. Also I'm pretty sure that quote isn't mine, so (???) right back at ya bud. Barto posted:Here is how you could frame your argument reasonably: That post would be truly exquisite! Barto posted:Each person making their individual argument will imbue this sort of word with their own viewpoint- so it's rather pointless to address the entire concept as a whole, because the word is a sum of arguments and viewpoints, and just how we are to discuss it depends on whose utterance of it we are talking about. This might be a difficult conversation to have here- but what I want to point out is that there's a very real danger of super-simplification of the idea and the arguments surrounding it to the point that its real position in Chinese discourse is misunderstood. This is a part of why I don't like suzhi! In my experience it is either a deliberately vague pile of concepts (many of which are quite insulting to Chinese people!), or you finally manage to untangle it and you end up with arguments that don't stand up on their own. Barto posted:But in this case, what the CCP means by it is They have a point, but not a very good one IMO. I guess that's where the CCP and I differ. I don't think suzhi is ever a very satisfying argument, and given the sources that employ it either directly or in coded language (CCP-controlled media outlets and 'anti-western' academics) I suspect it is that way by design.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2012 21:22
|
|
|
Just got done adding a heap of literature recommendations to the OP. These are from Brennanite. For those who complained that there was too little on women's history, your pleas have been heard: Brennanite posted:
And some really interesting books on religion which I'll probably never have time to read. Brennanite posted:
By way of the Sinica podcast, I also picked up a recommendation for this amazing blog post by Patrick Chovanec. It's a primer on the China leadership transition, written in very concise and understandable prose. Maybe a good companion piece for the BrotherAdso post in the OP? Either way, you should read it pronto if you're interested in the coming transition in the fall.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2012 00:06
|
|
|
Solis posted:Secondly, I read through Li Zhi-Sui's Private Life of Chairman Mao and I was wondering if this was similarly considered, as it seems to be largely the one man's account. Just from reading Wikipedia about the controversy over the book it seems like there are enough red flags there that the book should be taken with a big grain of salt. If Li really complained that the publisher inserted sensational material that wasn't in his original manuscript, that seems pretty damning. You have to remember the environment it was published in - people in America would be more likely to buy a book that reinforced their preconceptions about Communist leaders. People seem to focus on the more lurid things in the book, at least when they talk about it. I actually visited the Mao museum in Shaoshan recently. It's hardly an unbiased account of his life of course, but some sort of innocuous things that I doubt anyone would bother to fudge don't jibe with what I have heard is in Li's book. Mao was by all accounts an avid swimmer until his late middle age, which sort of contrasts with the picture of a guy who never gets out of bed. The reconstruction of Mao's bedroom there did kind of give the impression that Mao was a bit of a slob on the home front - sort of a goony bachelor actually. His bed was half-covered in stacks of books that no doubt could have been organized and placed elsewhere with the resources of an entire nation. Some of the political recollections seem pretty fishy too. Would Li really have access to the highest-level party meetings as he says he did? Or was he just fabricating a plausible account based on his acquaintance with the people involved and period sources? Anyway, I haven't read it but it seems pretty murky. Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 05:57 on Feb 23, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2012 05:54
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:I actually visited the Mao museum in Shaoshan recently. It's hardly an unbiased account of his life of course, but some sort of innocuous things that I doubt anyone would bother to fudge don't jibe with what I have heard is in Li's book. Mao was by all accounts an avid swimmer until his late middle age, which sort of contrasts with the picture of a guy who never gets out of bed. The reconstruction of Mao's bedroom there did kind of give the impression that Mao was a bit of a slob on the home front - sort of a goony bachelor actually. His bed was half-covered in stacks of books that no doubt could have been organized and placed elsewhere with the resources of an entire nation. Li never said Mao "never gets out of bed". He pointed out that in Mao's later years he'd rarely leave the bedroom, which I don't think is contrasted by anything you may have seen in ShaoShan. Li specifically talks of Mao being quite energetic and there are many passages on his insistance on swimming in some ridiculous conditions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2012 11:48
|
|
|
Just a quick heads-up about romanization: I see some of you hyphenating and/or double capitalizing connected syllables, like Li Zhi-Sui or Wang LiJun. These are both holdovers from the now-antiquated Wade-Giles system, and do not feature in the current Hanyu Pinyin system of transcription. In Hanyu Pinyin (which is the correct system to use since both of them are mainlanders), these names would be written Li Zhisui and Wang Lijun. Where it gets confusing is with Taiwanese names and especially those of overseas Chinese. For example, the name of the current president of Taiwan is generally transcribed as Ma Ying-jeou (no double capitalization), not Ma Yingjiu. Taiwan uses a mish-mash of different transcription systems, like Tongyong Pinyin, which I have never been able to wrap my head around. And who knows how Cai became romanized as Chua, as it is in the case of Cai Mei'er aka Amy Chua. For simplicity's sake, I'd recommend that we stick to whatever Wikipedia gives main billing, and try to avoid double capitalization, hyphenation for mainlanders and antiquated spellings where they've fallen out of fashion (Mao Tse-tung vs. Mao Zedong).
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2012 12:31
|
|
|
Hong XiuQuan posted:Li never said Mao "never gets out of bed". He pointed out that in Mao's later years he'd rarely leave the bedroom, which I don't think is contrasted by anything you may have seen in ShaoShan. Ah well that makes more sense. Mao had a pretty big bedroom with chairs and side tables and bookshelves; he probably could have entertained guests without leaving the bedroom if he wanted.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2012 13:49
|
|
|
french lies posted:And who knows how Cai became romanized as Chua, as it is in the case of Cai Mei'er aka Amy Chua.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2012 14:31
|
|
|
Cefte posted:Because the family were probably south-east Asian Hokkien speakers. Fie on your prescriptivism, Professor 孔法谎! Since we're on the topic of romanization, is anyone here in support of pinyin as the official writing system in China? I remember having a debate about this (which I lost badly, btw) with an LFer who supported abolishing characters. His case rested mostly on the fact that characters suppress the literacy of the poor, whereas I tried to argue that pinyin is impractical, drawing out old chestnuts like the Lion-eating poet in the Stone Den et.c. Now, I've since revised my position on this, and if I'm not supportive of them, I have become more sympathetic to the arguments of those who want to abolish characters. But I'm really more interested in what you guys think. Does the cultural significance of characters, and their place in Chinese history, excuse a possible suppressing effect on literacy? Are arguments by Westerners to abolish characters cultural imperialism, even if they are motivated by a genuine concern for the rural poor of China?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2012 15:22
|
|
|
At risk of repeating the argument you had~ Do we have any reason to believe characters are actually harder to learn than a roman alphabet? It is my impression that the time it takes for spelling bees and the like to be phased out in the US and for character tests to be phased out in China are about the same (about 10 years old). And 7 year olds from both countries can basically write enough for communication, although with lots of mistakes of course. Certainly there needs to be more education in China in general but I'm not sure that characters are to blame. I feel like the challenge of characters is seriously overestimated, especially considering there's the simplified set. Not to mention the ability to guess the meaning/pronunciation of characters based on radicals. I guess that depends on how you define "literacy" too. I've met college graduates that couldn't read words like 拙 but are still essentially functionally literate. I think Korean and Vietnamese show us it is certainly possible to go from a language which used characters to a language using a phonetic alphabet. But what are the gains? At any rate I invested a lot of time in learning characters because characters are awesome and I personally would not like to see them go for selfish reasons! 
hitension fucked around with this message at 15:53 on Feb 23, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2012 15:50
|
|
|
hitension posted:At risk of repeating the argument you had~ Take a popular show in China right now, 北京爱情故事. Now take all the subtitles for the show (Chinese shows always have subtitles) and translate it into pinyin How much of it is still legible to an average Chinese person? Probably not as much as you'd think- the characters are pretty important. If you get rid of them, humor, literature, colloquialisms, etc. will all have to be destroyed and reinvented: it basically amounts to linguistic genocide. It would change the language in huge ways totally apart from cultural issues. Additionally, people with different dialects can all enjoy Chinese television and media now via subtitles, but if you don't have the characters, language issues will immediately and severely come to the fore.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2012 15:54
|
|
|
I'm just going to put this article in here http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/worldview/can-the-chinese-consumer-save-the-world/article2347212/ give this discussion we had earlier in the thread about China's consumer culture. While it isn't a scientific or economic study, it does go to my point of artificial consumerism being pushed in China.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2012 15:55
|
|
|
Barto posted:Probably not as much as you'd think- the characters are pretty important. If you get rid of them, humor, literature, colloquialisms, etc. will all have to be destroyed and reinvented: it basically amounts to linguistic genocide. It would change the language in huge ways totally apart from cultural issues.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2012 16:10
|
|
|
french lies posted:Right. Here's where I play devil's advocate and ask you: which are these colloquialisms, specifically, that would not get through in pinyin subtitles? And are these slight subtleties really worth suppressing the literacy of the poor? Does a dirt-poor peasant who can barely read signs really care about whatever word games are used in bourgeois popular culture? If there's enough money for nine years of education, then there's enough money for them to learn Chinese characters. Furthermore, they all learn pinyin by the first grade, if they need to write something, they can use pinyin and everyone will be able to read it (insofar as pinyin is readable by itself). Of course, they can't read, but if you're a sustenance farmer and that's the reason you don't have time to go to school- then it won't be helpful to you if the entire world is in pinyin because you still wouldn't have had time to learn the words. Characters are essential, you would have to destroy so much for so little a return, that no one takes the idea seriously in China- in fact they're considering moving back to traditional characters gradually. But if you want a specific example, as of a few hours ago I have a good example for you. Today I participated in a linguistic study by the Chinese Second Language department at Taiwan Normal University, the test is given to both foreigners and native speakers asking them to listen to sentences and repeat them. The tester was chatting with me afterwards, and mentioned that my score was exactly the same as a native speaker- and that I had made the same mistake. What was the mistake that both myself and native Chinese speakers tend to make? Names. We chatted about it for a bit, and it's basically that names in Chinese are not easy to hear and then repeat accurately unless you know or see the characters, so during the test this portion would always produce a bunch of funny results as people stumbled to repeat names (native speakers!). I've seen this a bunch in real life too- when people introduce themselves, if they don't specify what characters, embarrassing mistakes from others often result (unless the name is common like 小王，雅婷，辛夷，or something like that). Names, man, if take away the characters that's not some middle class issue- that's a huge problem. And there are dozens more just like it. I've lived in Taiwan/China for about six years now, and I wrote my master's thesis, all 100,000 words of it, in Chinese. That poo poo ain't happening in pinyin. Another point is, the 1.3 billion people in China are not all speakers of Mandarin. For the ones that are picking up the characters is not as difficult because it is their language- for the others it is a problem. However the issues of dialects vs. languages is not the same as that of characters vs. a roman alphabet. It isn't fair to ask hundreds of millions of people to give up their language and change the way they communicate for the dubious benefit of others who aren't even really speakers of the same language. The only real issue here is getting enough funding to rural areas for 9 years of education. Once that happens, literacy will be widespread and the problem will be moot. Destroying the characters will probably hinder that more than it would help. Barto fucked around with this message at 16:30 on Feb 23, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2012 16:27
|
|
|
Barto posted:I've lived in Taiwan/China for about six years now, and I wrote my master's thesis, all 100,000 words of it, in Chinese. That poo poo ain't happening in pinyin. Of course, the argument is moot anyway because it'll never, ever happen. And for me personally, characters are why I started learning Chinese so obviously I'd be sad to see them go. But I still think it's a really interesting discussion to have on a theoretical level, and that it shouldn't be dismissed off-hand like this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2012 16:47
|
|
|
french lies posted:How do you know, have you tried? I've read longer texts in pinyin and it was completely understandable to me, even when broaching more complex and academic subjects. And the problem of naming could be solved quite easily by annotating with characters, something akin to what's done in Korean. Characters would not be abolished completely, but relegated to the situations where they are necessary. Basically, I think you're hugely exaggerating the difficulties of transitioning to a full pinyin system. The problem with names is a hearing issue. But even if you annotate it with pinyin, how can you sort out the names of 1.3 billion people with just pinyin? It's difficult now even with characters. How about scientific texts? Specifically chemistry and physics. Chemical elements are suddenly a lot more difficult to deal with... Also, I am quite certain -quite certain- it's impossible to write an academic Chinese thesis/journal article as they are written now in pinyin. It would be such a huge mess, I don't even dare to think about it. I consume a lot of media in Chinese, I read a book or two a week and watch all the popular shows. They just really wouldn't work without characters- and the show I just mentioned is something that even people in the sticks love watching (and many can watch despite dialectical differences because of the characters!). I guess it's theoretically possible to get rid of characters, but I can't see any real advantage to it. And why is it always western people who suggest this? I mean...I know characters used to be a big deal for me way back when I started studying, but now they're just as natural as anything and I don't even notice them- I just use them. I think foreigners blow it out of proportion because of their own learning difficulties. I asked my friend (currently doing Chinese language learning research) if it would be a problem for them if there were no characters, this is their local take on it in any case: Would it be a problem?: 會 會非常不方便XD 就無法分彆同音字 尤其在聊MSN的時候 再加上 漢拼無法展現中文的詞 例如我的名字 lilirong xihuan chi pingguo 就有可能是李力融洗貛吃蘋果 Would it change how people write?: 嗯會壓 這樣只能寫橫的 不能寫直的 也會影響文學吧 還有我們的春聯也是直的 Is it a bad idea?: 是阿 會增加辨識困難 還有 有的時候漢拼連在一起 反而難分 huanjing 你猜我要說什麼 Me: 环境? 湖安靜! Summary: Yeah, it's a problem. Yes, it would change how people write. Is it a good idea? They don't think so. Barto fucked around with this message at 18:03 on Feb 23, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2012 17:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 15:01 |
|
|
Barto posted:Also, I am quite certain -quite certain- it's impossible to write an academic Chinese thesis/journal article as they are written now in pinyin. It would be such a huge mess, I don't even dare to think about it. Wouldn't the effect be to demand a multiplication of particles for disambiguation in words? To be teleological about it, a kind of re-treading of what happened in Mandarin with the n++gram shift as finals were consolidated and homophones proliferated?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2012 17:25
|
|