|
hitension posted:Perhaps I'm naive for thinking it's overall good for women to work, but this statement is also naive. I think there are very few women that can choose to not work in the US. Be as harsh on Chinese as you want, the information is very helpful, but don't overestimate how great Western society must be just because it's different. The bracket thing is only done for women and minorities. If your name has nothing after it you are a Han male. There are lots of measures of how countries treat women. The number of days of paid maternity leave and the percentage of pay mandated by law, for example. One mentioned in Sinica(you're all listening, right?) was female suicide rates - China's is the highest in the world, and almost unique in being higher than that of men.
|
# ? Jun 6, 2012 15:18 |
|
|
# ? May 21, 2024 18:56 |
|
Throatwarbler posted:The bracket thing is only done for women and minorities. If your name has nothing after it you are a Han male. Are we talking about the same thing? Both of these list the "Male, Han" thing I'm talking about : http://www.dlxww.com/gb/daliandaily/2003-03/17/content_127915.htm http://news.qq.com/a/20080316/001295.htm For the second part, I prefer to learn about those measures rather than anecdotal evidence
|
# ? Jun 6, 2012 15:34 |
|
hitension posted:Are we talking about the same thing? Both of these list the "Male, Han" thing I'm talking about : Do you ever watch CCTV news? Whenever there's a list of officials, e.g. when they go through and list every single member of the NPC after each meeting, the one's that are not male and Han will have brackets after their names to indicate their status.
|
# ? Jun 6, 2012 15:41 |
|
I wouldn't want to give "one child policy" credit to Mao. It was seriously implemented from beginning of the 80s. The more strict 1 child policy was implemented later on. I was born in the year Mao/Zhou died. My mom could have had a 2nd child without penalty. My classmates I would say half of them have siblings. However the "One Child Office" was definitely not loving around later on. They will literally bulldozer your house if you are a farmer and you send your wife away in the middle of nowhere to secretly have a 2nd child. At the time there was no other way to penalize a farmer if every one is poor. (Nowadays they have changed to much more sensible policy of fine you base on your income.) I have a high school classmate, whose kid brother was maybe 5-7 year younger. His family was definitely penalized. His father lost his government job and his whole 3-generation family had to cramp in a tiny apartment (may have been a room). He is doing very well "inside the system" now btw. In the 80s the only way to get an apartment is wait for your 单位 (state owned company, I never knew how to translate this word) assign an apartment to you base on seniority. And yeah his family was hosed. whatever7 fucked around with this message at 19:03 on Jun 6, 2012 |
# ? Jun 6, 2012 15:45 |
|
Suicide rates are a notoriously unreliable proxy for some idea of public wellbeing. In the UK, for example, merely changing the gas supply reduced suicide rates by a third.
|
# ? Jun 6, 2012 15:50 |
|
Throatwarbler posted:Do you ever watch CCTV news? Whenever there's a list of officials, e.g. when they go through and list every single member of the NPC after each meeting, the one's that are not male and Han will have brackets after their names to indicate their status. Oh, I know what you mean now, thanks for this information! whatever7: 单位 is just danwei. You can say "work unit" if you really want to, but like hukou and some other words, if the audience doesn't know the Chinese word, they won't understand a translation without an appended explanation anyway.
|
# ? Jun 6, 2012 16:41 |
|
Throatwarbler posted:There are lots of measures of how countries treat women. The number of days of paid maternity leave and the percentage of pay mandated by law, for example. One mentioned in Sinica(you're all listening, right?) was female suicide rates - China's is the highest in the world, and almost unique in being higher than that of men. I think they said was right? It was the highest in the world? Maybe I've been in China too long and my ability to distinguish tense is going. Also those (女) labels are helpful to us foreigners. It's hard to tell a man's name from a woman's name at a glance unless they're really stereotypical. And I have to agree that Chinese people tend to have unrealistic ideas about America and the West. People assume I am rich because I am white, and they take it as an article of faith that everyone in America is rich. Unfortunately both ideas are quite wrong. Chinese people always seem to be confused and disappointed when I explain American politics as well. We have our own problems.
|
# ? Jun 6, 2012 18:09 |
|
hitension posted:but don't overestimate how great Western society must be just because it's different. I really appreciate that you speak so highly of the feminism in china, can we add this part in the Human Rights Report? I end up talking to school dropouts, stall owners, children of farmers in the dull countryside, who certainly don't represent the grad students, young professionals etc in major cities. Neither do they. http://www.chinawhisper.com/%E2%80%9Clady%E2%80%9D-class-is-hot-among-china-female-graduates My anecdotes may not be progressive, I may not fit in, I may overreact about this women talk, but staying in the metropolises doesn't assure you know the scruffy poor people. China remains a land where most people live in the countryside, most of its citizens have no access to higher education. Your major cities are not China. I won't be happier to see the the status of women reach such a point where not only female, but both genders are specified in the brackets following their names, where some women would not be accused of not feminine enough, where women don't have to follow the stereotype if they don't feel like to. Arglebargle III posted:Also those (女) labels are helpful to us foreigners. It's hard to tell a man's name from a woman's name at a glance unless they're really stereotypical. e.g http://news.xinhuanet.com/ziliao/2003-02/26/content_745480_11.htm Fox...and...Soup fucked around with this message at 05:33 on Jun 7, 2012 |
# ? Jun 7, 2012 03:32 |
|
Arglebargle III posted:I think they said was right? It was the highest in the world? Maybe I've been in China too long and my ability to distinguish tense is going. I always have to stifle a smirk when I am told by my coworkers that social welfare in America is "very good", and tell them to compare it to Western (not great but better) or Nothern Europe. I think the Chinese have definitely internalized the "bootstraps" thinking though. They always just assume it's because people in the US are "lazy" and don't want to work. Probably some Han-ism at work too, just kind of sickening that it looks so much like American-style Calvinism-lite.
|
# ? Jun 7, 2012 03:44 |
|
Fangz posted:Suicide rates are a notoriously unreliable proxy for some idea of public wellbeing. In the UK, for example, merely changing the gas supply reduced suicide rates by a third. Having a higher suicide rate for women than men when it is overwhelmingly the opposite in pretty much every other country tells you something about the status of women. quote:I always have to stifle a smirk when I am told by my coworkers that social welfare in America is "very good", and tell them to compare it to Western (not great but better) or Nothern Europe. Social welfare in America is very good compared to China. In America old and poor people get free healthcare instead of dying in the street like farm animals. Not bad! I doubt your friends were telling you that America is literally Sweden.
|
# ? Jun 7, 2012 04:45 |
|
Throatwarbler posted:Social welfare in America is very good compared to China. In America old and poor people get free healthcare instead of dying in the street like farm animals. Not bad! I doubt your friends were telling you that America is literally Sweden. They basically were. They said people didn't have to work if they didn't want to and could get a check forever.
|
# ? Jun 7, 2012 04:58 |
|
Fox...and...Soup posted:...both genders are specified in the brackets following their names... GuestBob (江豚) hitension posted:For the second part, I prefer to learn about those measures rather than anecdotal evidence. I am sure that Chinese people enjoy many favourable government measures, along with democracy, the rule of law and free speech. The maternity leave period is 98 days I believe, with shorter paid leave available to those who abort the fetus. I know that many companies in China side-step maternity leave laws by not hiring women in the first place; also, ugly people. In other words, I wouldn't put too much stock by the official laws and regulations because, well, they are often bullshit. Much better to read academic research. Li Yinhe has written several pieces on the rights of rural women and there are studies of migrant workers and prostitutes which highlight a number of issues related to gender, status and the rural/urban divide. Here's something from the popular press: http://english.hebei.gov.cn/2010-03/10/content_9573554.htm But there are plenty of out there on this topic. Also, today is the first day of the Gaokao examination. GuestBob fucked around with this message at 06:37 on Jun 7, 2012 |
# ? Jun 7, 2012 06:22 |
|
@Fox and Soup: What you just said is basically the same thing I said in my post, where I acknowledged that the people I met are not the norm. I also don't think "well, it's not great but attitudes there are better than in Korea or Japan in my experience, which is interesting because Korea and Japan has a higher income/standard of living but their mindset has not progressed" is exactly high praise for China... I'm just going to repeat what I said before-- anecdotes are useless and it's impossible to measure what a huge, diverse population wants. Rural, poor uneducated women are hosed everywhere and it's not unique to China. Also at least half of China's population lives in cities now. (source) That means that there are more migrant workers rather than more glamorous urbanites, but it's not correct to say that the average Chinese person lives on a farm. @Guestbob: "In other words, I wouldn't put too much stock by the official laws and regulations because, well, they are often bullshit. Much better to read academic research." Who said I was putting stock in the official laws and regulations? I was talking about academic research in the very post you quoted. I also know that there are companies that will ignore maternity laws. Hell, it's legal to list the required gender and hukou when seeking applicants which is even worse. I never said anything about maternity laws in China so I don't know why asking for a scientific measure prompted that comment. Every country has problems but if the only way anyone is willing to talk about them is from the point of view that that country (in this case China) is uniquely and utterly horrible then it's just useless. edit: vvv Well, that shows me for not reading the article carefully. I still think that rural villages are becoming less and less representative of China on the whole (what is 1.4 billion people on the whole, anyway?) due to migration... hitension fucked around with this message at 14:29 on Jun 7, 2012 |
# ? Jun 7, 2012 13:30 |
|
hitension posted:Your article is about Guizhou -- Shanghai might not represent the whole population, but does Guizhou? We might as well get an article about West Virginia coal miners and use it as a model for everyone in America. No, the article is about the village of Houfangzi in the Southeast of Hebei province, which isn't exactly a million miles from Beijing. This isn't West Virginia coal miners. This is booming China's backyard. The picture at the bottom of the article is from Guizhou, so maybe that's where you are getting confused. [edit] For above. Can I suggest a book which people might like to read: East Asian Sexualities: Modernity, Gender & New Sexual Cultures. Published by Zed Books, this contains a whole range of essays on topics closely related to what we are all discussing here. It has a range of contributors and chapters with enticing titles like: "Sexualised Labour? 'White Collar Beauties' in Provincial China" (Liu Jieyu). Liu Jieyu posted:The high participation rate of women's employment in socialist China has sometimes misled scholars in believing that Chinese women enjoy gender equality at work. However, quantity does not equal quality. Western and Chinese feminist schoilars have demonstrated that in the Maoist era, owing to the absence of a revolution in the domestic sphere, women workers suffer from a double burden (Honig and Hershatter 1988; Wolf 1985). The rather stark conclusion is that women in China cannot escape their assigned gender role within the public sphere and that the consequences for trying to do so are comparatively severe. Even the envied, "middle class" office girl is often the object of (uncomfortable) gendered expectations from her co-workers, superiors and business clients. No-one is suggesting that "my country is the worst rarggle barrggle!" without some evidence and argument to back it up. GuestBob fucked around with this message at 15:02 on Jun 7, 2012 |
# ? Jun 7, 2012 14:15 |
|
I should not post while angry, sorry
Fox...and...Soup fucked around with this message at 06:30 on Jun 8, 2012 |
# ? Jun 7, 2012 15:03 |
|
GuestBob posted:No, the article is about the village of Houfangzi in the Southeast of Hebei province, which isn't exactly a million miles from Beijing. It's funny how people build cultural conceptions of geography. The West Virginia border is a 90 minute drive from D.C. Driving from Beijing to SE Hebei takes about exactly as long as driving from D.C. to the West Virginia panhandle. West Virginia coal miners are in the Northeast Conurbation's back yard just as much as rural Hebei is in Beijing-Tianjin's backyard. Physical proximity is a weird thing to focus on. I'm not really sure what point you were trying to make with the houfangzi article about that women and education. I'm kind of confused now.
|
# ? Jun 7, 2012 16:29 |
|
Arglebargle III posted:Physical proximity is a weird thing to focus on. I'm not really sure what point you were trying to make with the houfangzi article about that women and education. I'm kind of confused now. The article looks at the rural/urban divide in attitudes towards gender, highlighting differences by focusing on two women who, for a variety of reasons, no longer fit into that environment because they transgress their expected gender roles. The article suggests that in rural China women have a much more limited role and have to negotiate their involvement in public life (the factory owner) and even the "business" of the domestic sphere (Wang's desire to financially aid her family). I repeated hitension's thing about West Virginia because he suggested that the article was not representative because it talked about Guizhou. It does not. Past that, ignore the geography chat (also, my Chinese geography is apparently better than my US geography).
|
# ? Jun 7, 2012 23:55 |
|
I checked the Global Gender Gap Report 2011 (Read it online) published by World Economic Forum, which supplies detailed and explicit information in four critical areas of inequality between men and women around the globe: 1. Economic participation and opportunity 2. Educational attainment 3. Health and survival 4. Political empowerment As we can see from the image above, China with the Gender Gap Index(GGI) of 0.6866 got a better equality than its Confucius neighborhoods Japan and Korea, even reached a highlight in Asia area. But I am not here to applaud how great the feminism is in China, revealing the deep-rooting prejudices beneath the false best equality is my point. First, how China has gained its first? We analyze the detail rankings in the four fundamental area, Japan and Korea are in the reference group as they both share the similar Confucius culture to China. (Sorry about the format, can I add tables in a post?) (Rank/Score) Overall Economic Educational H&S Political China 61/0.6866 50/0.6825 85/0.9815 133/0.9327 57/0.1496 Japan 98/0.6514 100/0.5673 80/0.9862 1/0.9796 101/0.0724 Korea 107/0.6281 117/0.4934 97/0.9481 78/0.9736 90/0.0972 Generally speaking, China wins economically educationally and politically. The only area in which China is a total loser is the Health and survival. In what extent china loses in H&S? Does is matter? Second, what is H&S about? The status of Chinese women in this category is as great as we think? "This category attempts to provide an overview of the differences between women’s and men’s health. To do this, we use two variables. The first variable included in this subindex is the sex ratio at birth. This variable aims specifically to capture the phenomenon of “missing women” prevalent in many countries with a strong son preference. Second, we use the gap between women’s and men’s healthy life expectancy, calculated by the World Health Organization. This measure provides an estimate of the number of years that women and men can expect to live in good health by taking into account the years lost to violence, disease, malnutrition or other relevant factors."------World Economic Forum We jump to China page for detailed information: -------------------------Rank-------Score-------Sample average----- Female-----Male--------F/M ratio Health and Survival-------133 -------0.933----------0.956 Sex ratio at birth (F/M)---135--------0.88-----------0.92--------------(null)---------(null)---------0.88 Healthy life expectancy---74---------1.05-----------1.04----------------68-----------65----------1.05 Q:WOW, China ranks so low in H&S section, how many areas have they measured? A:135 in total. Q:What? 133 out of 135! And the highest sex ratio at birth in the whole world! How does that happen? A:Well, parents don't like girls, so they go to the doctor's as soon as the baby developed the certain organ. If no penis is detected, the baby die of abortion. BTW, its illegal to know the gender of the baby before the mother gives birth to it. Go to the underground clinic if you have already got girls and never want any girl in you family. Q:They are so brutal! The ratio means nearly 114 boys are given birth to if 100 girls are born. Chinese women must be lazy and ugly so nobody wants them. A:..... Fox...and...Soup fucked around with this message at 11:41 on Jun 8, 2012 |
# ? Jun 8, 2012 04:49 |
|
Third, are Chinese women lazy? they do both workwork and housework? They are not lazy,detailed information about work are indicated in the following tables, Brazil Russia and India are in reference group because they share a similar economic situation. Country-----Female-----Male-----Ratio-----Rank China----------74---------85-------0.88-------34 Brazil----------64---------85-------0.75-------74 Russia---------69---------76-------0.91-------17 India-----------35---------85-------0.42------123 Table.1. Labor force participation Country-----Female-----Male-----Ratio-----Rank China----------17---------83-------0.20-------90 Brazil----------36---------64-------0.56-------29 Russia---------37---------63-------0.59-------24 India-----------3----------97-------0.03------123 Table.2.Legislators, senior officials and managers Though Chinese women hold the largest labor force participation in BRICS, the percentage of whom achieve higher position remains scarce. The economic is still less-dominated by women with so many working women compared to other similar economic bodies. I think this can explain Chinese women's situation very well. For somewhat reason, no information about Chinese women's maternity, paternity and additional shared leaves can be obtained from this report. So I better omit this part as well. Housework is still work though not being paid, in China Women Remain Devoted to Housework Despite Rising Social Status
|
# ? Jun 8, 2012 06:02 |
|
Wow, who would call Chinese women lazy? I don't know if you are responding to something or just starting with rhetorical questions. I don't know anyone who would call Chinese women lazy.
|
# ? Jun 8, 2012 09:15 |
|
Arglebargle III posted:Wow, who would call Chinese women lazy? I don't know if you are responding to something or just starting with rhetorical questions. I don't know anyone who would call Chinese women lazy. I think that might have been a joke. Alot of places where I have worked in China, there is a bloke in charge of the department (or such) but all of the most useful people tend to be women. Even in the UK, half of the administrative work in many departments of Scottish Universities seems to be completed by a lone woman in her late forties, normally called Morag. This latter phenomenon occurs for different reasons though. GuestBob fucked around with this message at 09:34 on Jun 8, 2012 |
# ? Jun 8, 2012 09:22 |
|
Isn't that chart saying women in Russia have a higher employment ratio? Fake edit: Hah, it's because fewer Russian men work. Fascinating. Also at only 3% of Indian legislators, senior officials and managers are women... and that's ranked #123, meaning there are some ~70 countries (assuming the report is comprehensive) that are ranked worse. Can we just say the world is hosed?
|
# ? Jun 8, 2012 14:37 |
|
hitension posted:Also at only 3% of Indian legislators, senior officials and managers are women... and that's ranked #123, meaning there are some ~70 countries (assuming the report is comprehensive) that are ranked worse. Can we just say the world is hosed? Unless that's a decreasing number, no, you would say exactly the opposite.
|
# ? Jun 8, 2012 15:43 |
|
computer parts posted:Unless that's a decreasing number, no, you would say exactly the opposite. Break out the party hats and squeakers.
|
# ? Jun 8, 2012 15:58 |
|
Note that the full report also says China has better gender income equality than the US....
|
# ? Jun 8, 2012 16:18 |
|
http://politics.caijing.com.cn/2012-06-08/111883328.html Changsha plans to build the world's tallest building, 220 storeys, 838 meters in 7 months. Will be done by the end of the year.
|
# ? Jun 9, 2012 03:35 |
|
Throatwarbler posted:http://politics.caijing.com.cn/2012-06-08/111883328.html I can't read Chinese, so I'm missing a lot of details here. Are they going to build a 220 Storey tower in 6 months? Considering it took 5 years to build the Burj Khalifa, this estimate seems a tad optimistic.
|
# ? Jun 9, 2012 03:43 |
|
Abilifier posted:I can't read Chinese, so I'm missing a lot of details here. Are they going to build a 220 Storey tower in 6 months? Considering it took 5 years to build the Burj Khalifa, this estimate seems a tad optimistic. Yes. The article notes that a lot of Chinese commentators are also skeptical. The company that is building it is the same one that did the "6 storey hotel in 10 hours" videos you might have seen on youtube, so a lot of it might be pre-fabricated or some poo poo like that. I guess we'll find out in 6 months.
|
# ? Jun 9, 2012 03:46 |
|
Abilifier posted:I can't read Chinese, so I'm missing a lot of details here. Are they going to build a 220 Storey tower in 6 months? Considering it took 5 years to build the Burj Khalifa, this estimate seems a tad optimistic. Won't be the tallest once the Kingdom Tower in Saudi Arabia gets done.
|
# ? Jun 9, 2012 04:41 |
|
Electro-Boogie Jack posted:*Tibet megapost* In other news, the new Sinica is now out and it happens to be about one of the most interesting China-related topics: Moral decay in Chinese society. There's a lot to say about this, but at a basic level I agree with Jeremy Goldkorn's assessment. It's ridiculous to expect Chinese people to act as shining beacons of altruism when the values incarnated by the most powerful and successful people in the country - the ruling class and other elites in its orbit - are those of selfishness and looking out for your own. Ascension in the Chinese political system is decided almost purely by party and faction loyalty, while success in business hinges upon personal guanxi or otherwise cordial relations with the state. The CCP is pretty bald-facedly hypocritical in expecting the people they govern to act any differently.
|
# ? Jun 11, 2012 09:54 |
|
french lies posted:Thanks for this good and informative post, even if it could have used some more pictures. I'm including it in the OP. I do have to admit I felt kind of bad for you when I noticed nobody had quoted it at all. I'm not sure why you or anyone should expect the Chinese people to be a shiny example of altruism in any case.
|
# ? Jun 12, 2012 07:07 |
|
french lies posted:Thanks for this good and informative post, even if it could have used some more pictures. I'm including it in the OP. I do have to admit I felt kind of bad for you when I noticed nobody had quoted it at all. Thanks! I was thinking about fleshing out parts of it (and yes, adding more pictures). You'll probably notice if I repost it!
|
# ? Jun 12, 2012 15:40 |
|
Electro-Boogie Jack posted:Thanks! I was thinking about fleshing out parts of it (and yes, adding more pictures). You'll probably notice if I repost it! No one is quoting it because it says right there in the OP: No Tibet stuff, so SA doesn't get blocked. Are we going to let 100 flowers bloom now?
|
# ? Jun 12, 2012 15:58 |
|
Throatwarbler posted:No one is quoting it because it says right there in the OP: No Tibet stuff, so SA doesn't get blocked. Does the OP say that? Didn't remember that, and word searching for Tibet on the first page doesn't pull it up. Anyway, doesn't seem to me like English-language references to Tibet on an English-only comedy site will get SA blocked, but if people are worried I'll pull the post down. Otherwise I'd like to add some more to it some time in the next week or so.
|
# ? Jun 12, 2012 17:42 |
|
I'm arguing with some people who are claiming that there is *not* or *unlikely* to be a 'reformist' faction within the CCP; this seems on the face of it a preposterous proposition that contradicts basic PoliSci 101, any thoughts as to how I should respond? I think Susan Shirk's book mentions or alludes to it but I haven't been able to look through it yet. On a semi related note one person had said he hoped one day soon "the chinese people will have had enough" regarding dissidents, which I felt was naive thinking considering how disastrous popular uprisings had been for China in the past (Taiping anyone?). Would my reasoning be somewhat accurate in my supposition that a solid majority probably are fine with the government so long as it stays good on its promise to bring them jobs/economic growth and that the 'police excesses' are highly unlikely to; individually nor accumulatively going to result spontaneously in another 1911? And that the things that *may* result in it are Tom Clancyesque levels of contrived stupidity that the central gov't would never do/let happen in real life**? **Large portions of the decision making process in Bear and the Dragon come to mind.
|
# ? Jun 13, 2012 04:40 |
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Would my reasoning be somewhat accurate in my supposition that a solid majority probably are fine with the government so long as it stays good on its promise to bring them jobs/economic growth and that the 'police excesses' are highly unlikely to; individually nor accumulatively going to result spontaneously in another 1911? Prior to 1911 China was in a complete state of disarray and the Qing remnants/warlords were not just brutal but hilariously corrupt even by those old 19th-20th century standards. You're right that nothing dramatic will happen in regards to new popular uprisings. Things are just not at that level of chaos in China. Chinese people tend to put up with a lot before things go south because culturally speaking mass disharmony is the worst thing ever because it was always a herald for periods of death and destruction. I know some people will criticize me for this but I don't even think the original Tianamen demonstrations had any real weight to create a mass uprising even if they were left to go on. It would have probably fizzled because the ideologies being preached were too high minded and impractical for your average poor Chinese person at the time. Plus the student leadership was not strong enough to lead a new government reformation. All the stuff you see about the Uighurs, Tibetans, and whatever abstract grievances are a small drop in the pool which most Han won't champion any of those causes. Those are probably the most popularized dissidents which have little actual traction in broader Chinese society. However, industrial pollution issues and rural unemployment/lifestyle issues has the real possibility of upending the apple cart. It's still unlikely to happen though because China is now 50/50 urban/rural and that number will probably be even more skewed in the urban direction in the next decade. Modus Operandi fucked around with this message at 05:31 on Jun 13, 2012 |
# ? Jun 13, 2012 05:27 |
|
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/12/us-usa-iran-sanctions-idUSBRE85A19E20120612pquote:(Reuters) - The United States extended exemptions from its tough, new sanctions on Iran's oil trade to seven more economies on Monday, leaving China the last remaining major importer exposed to possible penalties at the end of the month. So what exactly is the US trying to say here? Seems like pretty provocative move by the US aimed towards China. Is this some attempt to get China to cooperate on sanctions against Iran, if so how does a selective sanction like this get anything accomplished?
|
# ? Jun 13, 2012 06:06 |
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I'm arguing with some people who are claiming that there is *not* or *unlikely* to be a 'reformist' faction within the CCP; this seems on the face of it a preposterous proposition that contradicts basic PoliSci 101, any thoughts as to how I should respond? I think Susan Shirk's book mentions or alludes to it but I haven't been able to look through it yet. Hu Yaobang was a reformist. Wu "Teletubbie" sound like a reformist. How can he claim there is no reformist if you can't prove Wu is not a reformist (who is not given enough power). People like that I would just troll him with the "ramnant red guard" or "little red guard" name calling and call it a day. He doesn't sound like he is willing to make conversation. There was a giant global nationalist independence movement in early 20th century. You can't compare it to current political climate. If you want to compare current China to an older period, the middle Qing dynasty is a proper point you can compare it to. Please don't mention silly Tom Clancy novels. whatever7 fucked around with this message at 14:56 on Jun 13, 2012 |
# ? Jun 13, 2012 14:53 |
|
whatever7 posted:There was a giant global nationalist independence movement in early 20th century. You can't compare it to current political climate. If you want to compare current China to an older period, the middle Qing dynasty is a proper point you can compare it to.
|
# ? Jun 14, 2012 07:51 |
|
|
# ? May 21, 2024 18:56 |
|
french lies posted:That's an interesting point of comparison. What do you mean by middle Qing here? Qianlong? First Opium War? I would compare KangXi to Deng era and Qianlong to the current ear. Kangxi set the tone for the Qing Dynasty. He was also militarily more active, which was comparable to Deng. Unfortunately Kangxi made the policy to "close the door" to the outside world, which was exactly the opposite of what Deng did. Current decade the Chinese society is clearly more prosperous, yet with more internal conflict. There aren't enough voice call for reform since the upper elites are enjoying the fruit of economic progress after China became the new "world factory". Qing Dynasty last for 260 years. The "Communist" Dynasty may last alot shorter due to technology speeding things up. OTOH, you can argue there isn't any obvious iceberg coming up in the next 30 years to sink the giant ship of Chinese Technocracy. The 3rd world poor countries in fact has gotten worse compare to 20 years ago. The next generation leader Xi Jinping was picked by the conservative 3rd generation leaders (Jiang). So he could very well gently caress things up much sooner and bring the country to the declining phrase of the dynasty. I hang out in a main land photography forum all the time. When people referred to the Beijing government, they usually use the term "土共" (Redneck Communist). But that term easily brought in the censor police. So it was changed to "天朝" (Heavenly Dynasty) sarcastically. But that word was also too sensitive. So people start called it "Late Qing" or just "TC".
|
# ? Jun 15, 2012 00:41 |