|
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.
|
# ? Mar 15, 2017 12:25 |
|
|
# ? Apr 27, 2024 01:58 |
|
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. 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. 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.
|
# ? Mar 15, 2017 16:32 |
|
Good user name/ post combo
|
# ? Mar 15, 2017 16:38 |
|
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. 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 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.
|
# ? Mar 15, 2017 18:01 |
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.
|
|
# ? Mar 15, 2017 18:07 |
|
Prince Albert was impotent and Disraeli impregnated Queen Victoria. Which means that basically all European royalty is now patrilineally descended from him. So "Judeo-Christian" is apt.
|
# ? Mar 15, 2017 18:14 |
|
Typo posted:Also in China it's literally codified law that you need the government's permission to reincarnate And people say Kafka isn't relatable in the modern world
|
# ? Mar 15, 2017 18:28 |
|
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. 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.
|
# ? Mar 15, 2017 18:31 |
|
Wasn't the US also one the last countries to drop support of south-african apartheid? Comparisons of the US with countries like China seems to encourage both US apologism and a kind of anti-west apologism, which sort of gets in the way of real analysis. You could have taken my post about how China sees itself, replaced 'han' with 'white', and had a plausibly sounding description of the US. But, if we're being honest, there are relative advantages for activism in the US compared with China, that basically comes down to there existing a 'space' for opposition in the US, that's seen as valid, whereas no such space exists in China. You're characterization of MLK's contemporary reputation is accurate, but we're talking relative terms, not absolute.
|
# ? Mar 16, 2017 04:35 |
|
I think you'll find Reagan did nothing wrong. Reagan hat gesagt, "I regret nothing"
|
# ? Mar 16, 2017 04:38 |
|
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, 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. mila kunis fucked around with this message at 05:40 on Mar 16, 2017 |
# ? Mar 16, 2017 05:35 |
|
Equality under the law and right to protest in the British Raj, jesus christ.
|
# ? Mar 16, 2017 05:37 |
|
Just in case anyone is interested, I think this article is relevant. Chinese Conceptions of "Rights" From Mencius to Mao - and Now I found it interesting and informative. 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 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.
|
# ? Mar 16, 2017 09:06 |
|
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. 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. 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? 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. 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? 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. This is what I was trying to get at, thank you.
|
# ? Mar 16, 2017 11:31 |
|
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? The difference is that Britain didn't have the money to support their imperial adventure anymore, whereas China currently has money to support theirs. That is the difference. In its entirety.
|
# ? Mar 16, 2017 15:25 |
|
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" icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 17:42 on Mar 16, 2017 |
# ? Mar 16, 2017 17:36 |
|
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? What if Mao was a gay black female Nazi party member? icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 17:43 on Mar 16, 2017 |
# ? Mar 16, 2017 17:39 |
|
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" 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.
|
# ? Mar 17, 2017 01:25 |
|
"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
|
# ? Mar 17, 2017 02:01 |
|
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. Not really no, unless you really think there's no difference in empirical rigor between fields like sociology and economics and "Liberalism cannot happen in China because Confucius said so" The way that 'culture' in the sense used in this sort of discussion is defined is basically as a magical factor that explains behavior not neatly explainable by social science, so it's explicitly unfalsifiable and unmeasurable in a way entirely different than those social sciences. 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 It's nonsense, and the reason that it's so insanely popular is because people are insanely racist and refuse to process the idea that nonwhite, nonwestern people could ever be the equals of we Anglo-Saxons icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 04:06 on Mar 17, 2017 |
# ? Mar 17, 2017 03:57 |
|
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 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
|
# ? Mar 17, 2017 04:12 |
|
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" There's a poo poo ton of Orientalism going on in this thread it's very creepy
|
# ? Mar 17, 2017 04:15 |
|
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.. Discussions like this tend to lead to people talking past each other because of the ambiguity of the word "Confucianism." Sometimes people use it narrowly to mean something like "the ideas expressed by Confucius in the Analects, understood as a system of analytic philosophy," while other use it so broadly that it practically means "East Asian culture."
|
# ? Mar 17, 2017 04:17 |
|
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.. Like the other poster said, what do you even mean by 'Confucianism'? If it's "here's a snippet of text from the Analects, therefore the modern Japanese high school system in TYOOL 2017 is exactly the way it is and not otherwise, QED" hopefully you can see that's a hilariously insufficient explanation. Again you're defining 'culture' as a thing that explains behavior you can't explain via other more empirical means, which is explicitly unscientific nonsense It's not that culture is (always) irrelevant (as you can tell from my posting I lean much more towards it being irrelevant than not, but I'm open to it if it can be convincingly demonstrated), it's that the way culture is used as an explanation very often has no credible mechanism of action and is unfalsifiable. A more humanistic approach like the stuff in JSTOR you linked is much better and more valid but most of the time in these discussions it's like I said above about here's a thing Confucius said therefore East Asia in TYOOL 2017 is like so QED icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 04:50 on Mar 17, 2017 |
# ? Mar 17, 2017 04:27 |
|
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? Why not? Plenty of other countries came up with some idea of at least theoretical racial equality without the benefit of the US Declaration of Independence or Constitution. Hell, most countries didn't have anything like Jim Crow in the first place. As some others have pointed out, you're lauding the cultural principles of the US for finally getting rid of racial segregation and voter discrimination, while ignoring the fact that many other countries didn't have anything like that in the first place. You're crediting the Declaration of Independence and Constitution for things like Loving v. Virginia or Brown v. Board of Education, while ignoring the fact that most other countries didn't need decisions like those because they never had a Pace v. Alabama or Plessy v. Ferguson - which, by the way, those founding documents and cultural principles did nothing to stop.
|
# ? Mar 17, 2017 16:09 |
|
|
# ? Apr 27, 2024 01:58 |
|
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. How do you explain the timing of the civil rights bill getting passed when your explanation is a vaguely defined 6,000 year old value system and a constitution and declaration that had been in place for more than a century? It's awfully strange that it was only after the United States was competing with communism for the hearts and minds of Asia and Africa that they suddenly discovered that denying the basic humanity of black Americans was actually incompatible with the country's founding values, wouldn't you say? A very small subset of young and affluent white people in the post war university system were inspired by the sheer magnitude of the racial injustice on display and recognized the disparity between America's self-stated values and its actual behavior. But these students were a minority and their actions lead to an instant political backlash that continues to shape the politics of the country a full half century later. The idea that some white sense of commitment to Jeffersonian ideals was the key factor here, as opposed to the realpolitik necessities of the Cold War, is blind naivety at its worst. Indeed the passage of the Civil Right Bill lead directly to a 50 year backlash that completely reshaped American politics. If the civil rights bill had required the support of a majority of Americans and their belief in justice then it would not have passed. And indeed the motivations for passing it were not widespread electoral support but rather massive behind-the-scenes vote whipping and bribery but Lyndon Johnson, with the motivation being to avoid greater racial strife down the line and to remove one of the Soviet Union's most effective propaganda arguments. The idea that this was largely a matter of Americans recognizing the need to live in closer alignment with some Jeffersonian values about equality is mostly just a very self-serving myth. One statistic to drive this home. In 1964 when the Civil Rights bill was passed less than one in five Americans supported interracial marriage. In fact it was only in the 1990s that more than 50% of Americans actually registered support for interracial marriages. How exactly you square that with your belief that a commitment to racial equality was the driving force behind civil rights? 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? This is a silly hypothetical but if you really want to go down this path I think you should think it through more carefully. It seems at least as plausible to suggest America's founding values are a fundamental cause of contemporary racism. By combining massive and persistent material inequality and a history of racial segregation and oppression with an ideology that declares that everyone is free and therefore everyone receives the station in life that they deserve the United States makes racism necessary. If black people are not seen to be inherently inferior due either to culture or heredity then the just-world ideology that is so distinctive to American culture would be untenable.
|
# ? Mar 17, 2017 20:36 |