|
Pretty sure he just means the actual physical destruction of things around China.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 12:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 01:46 |
|
|
Yeah don't get me wrong, I'm not an apologist for Mao. I'm pretty much as anti-communist as a dude can get. And Maoism is the worst kind of communism in my opinion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 13:50
|
|
|
This is debatable but I see no real signs that the British or other European powers or Japan destroyed Chinese culture. They were mean to China, yeah, but they didn't cause massive social upheaval within Chinese society. Read more on the Cultural Revolution. It's definitely not just buildings and stuff. That said, I think some parts of Chinese culture are pretty salient and even the mighty Mao couldn't topple them. It blows my mind to think there was a brief point in Chinese history where education was not valued.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 13:57
|
|
|
Bloodnose posted:Yeah don't get me wrong, I'm not an apologist for Mao. I'm pretty much as anti-communist as a dude can get. And Maoism is the worst kind of communism in my opinion. Well then, that's alright then. Isn't it. hitension if that blows your mind then you will fart your corpus callosum out when you hear that Mao banned examinations because they were instruments of the bourgeoisie. Some teachers dream of a Chinese education system with no exams. It's happened once before; be careful what you wish for.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 14:06
|
|
|
Mao was right about everything during the Cultural Revolution. The current political class has repudiated it because they (Deng Xiao Ping et al) were mostly the victims of its excesses, so today you only hear about the negatives and the excesses while the positive aspects never get any airtime.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 14:45
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:...positive aspects never get any airtime. Several scholars have argued that backyard furnaces were the inspiration for both Scrapheap Challenge and Robotwars.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 14:47
|
|
|
goldboilermark posted:Don't hold your breath, buddy. Yeah, Ataturk is still going strong.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 14:50
|
|
|
GuestBob posted:Several scholars have argued that backyard furnaces were the inspiration for both Scrapheap Challenge and Robotwars. Mysteriously my opinion on Maoism just did a full turn.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 14:51
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:Mao was right about everything during the Cultural Revolution. The current political class has repudiated it because they (Deng Xiao Ping et al) were mostly the victims of its excesses, so today you only hear about the negatives and the excesses while the positive aspects never get any airtime. Did the trains run on time?  Not that I'm enamored with the current system either.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 14:52
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:Mao was right about everything during the Cultural Revolution. The current political class has repudiated it because they (Deng Xiao Ping et al) were mostly the victims of its excesses, so today you only hear about the negatives and the excesses while the positive aspects never get any airtime. Right in that the political class was moving away from his vision of China, but his vision of China never had a chance. Wrong about actually doing things about them. The actions of the people during the Cultural Revolution are totally understandable though. Just think about the Communist government today. If Mao were alive today and told the people to "bombard the headquarters" the leadership would be dragged out and subjected to kangaroo courts and torture again, because people loving hate the government. Hope has been beaten out of most of them but if Mao was around to tell them it was okay to do it, they would do it. I imagine that during the 1960s antipathy was just as strong if not stronger.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 15:47
|
|
|
hitension posted:This is debatable but I see no real signs that the British or other European powers or Japan destroyed Chinese culture. They were mean to China, yeah, but they didn't cause massive social upheaval within Chinese society. Wouldn't you at least say that the British played a major indirect role in destroying Chinese culture? I mean the Chinese didn't undergo spasms of violently rejecting their own culture for no reason at all. The major driving force was that China could not stand up to the aggressions and/or culture of imperialist nations (especially the UK). So the thought was that China's culture needed to be remade for the modern world, or at least remade so that they wouldn't be hosed with.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 16:21
|
|
|
Forget about the British and Japanese the real decline started during the latter quarter of the Qing dynasty. The imperial powers just accelerated the rot within. People forget the Manchu dynasty was basically a 2.0 version of the horse nomad steppe conqueror. It was never meant to hold territory and run an entire civilization for long periods.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 17:10
|
|
|
Fight the Qing, restore the Ming!
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 17:15
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:I've heard a great deal about how Mao was a lovely person but this is new. I figured that the decline of Chinese culture began when they were conquered by the British/Dutch and then conquered again by the Japanese and THEN Mao came around and further hosed it. It was Mao. The Japanese mucked things up, but their own culture is basically mutated Song dynasty Chinese culture so... The British and Dutch didn't do anything like what Mao did.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 17:22
|
|
|
The Japanese borrowed heavily from the Tang Dynasty.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 17:29
|
|
|
Modus Operandi posted:Forget about the British and Japanese the real decline started during the latter quarter of the Qing dynasty. The imperial powers just accelerated the rot within. People forget the Manchu dynasty was basically a 2.0 version of the horse nomad steppe conqueror. It was never meant to hold territory and run an entire civilization for long periods. I wouldn't blame it on something inherent to Manchu culture. They did a pretty drat good job of running their empire for the first 150 years or so so it's not like they were inherently unsuited to ruling a settled state. Almost every dynasty to rule China, be it Han or a 'conquest dynasty', underwent the same process of internal rot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 17:39
|
|
|
You guys understand that the Manchus aren't the Mongols and didn't live on the "steppes"? The Manchus had already ruled as a Sinicized kingdom in Beijing back in the 10th Century. The Manchu kingdom in the 17th Century was entirely organized along Chinese lines. The Manchu army that conquered China was mostly made up of Han Chinese.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 17:43
|
|
|
I'm curious, do Chinese academics (abroad, unorthodox, whatever) pay any attention to Pol Pot's sponsorship by Mao and the inspiration of the Year Zero programs by the Cultural Revolution after his time training in China? I've often thought, since reading about it years ago, that the smelting doorknobs tales were a fantastic allegory for the stupidity and incompetence that lead to the infamous administration of Democratic Kampuchea.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 17:44
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:You guys understand that the Manchus aren't the Mongols and didn't live on the "steppes"? The Manchus had already ruled as a Sinicized kingdom in Beijing back in the 10th Century. The Manchu kingdom in the 17th Century was entirely organized along Chinese lines. The Manchu army that conquered China was mostly made up of Han Chinese. Was the Qing even that markedly different from previous administrators of the empire? I mean they kept the civil examination system and pretty much all of the cultural institutions. Crameltonian posted:I wouldn't blame it on something inherent to Manchu culture. They did a pretty drat good job of running their empire for the first 150 years or so so it's not like they were inherently unsuited to ruling a settled state. Almost every dynasty to rule China, be it Han or a 'conquest dynasty', underwent the same process of internal rot. I think what was different this time was that the Qing had to respond to highly competitive external pressures that were capable of toppling them and eating them up if they could not respond adequately.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 17:47
|
|
|
I have seen accounts which warn against overemphasising how sinified the Qing were because that arguably plays into a Sinocentric attitude of 'Chinese culture is so amazing and inherently superior that anyone who conquers China will automatically be absorbed into it'. The most convincing argument I've seen was that the Qing borrowed a lot of Chinese imagery and techniques to rule China but they also did the same in Tibet, in Mongolia etc. Basically they kept together a multi-ethnic empire by presenting themselves as all things to all people, although over time they may have taken on more Chinese aspects as the 'China proper' was the richest and most important part of the empire. And yeah, the Qing were already on the way down by the time the Europeans showed up in force but there's no contesting that they were completely blindsided by them. They almost certainly would have hobbled on for a while longer and maybe could have reformed if they weren't weakened so much by the endless concessions forced upon them. It's hard to put the blame for what happened to Chinese culture on any one source, but what the Europeans did to China in the 19thC was at least the starting point. It really screwed up the traditional Chinese world view and suddenly assumptions and ideas that had been more or less unquestioned for centuries were left without a foundation/
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 18:03
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:You guys understand that the Manchus aren't the Mongols and didn't live on the "steppes"? The Manchus had already ruled as a Sinicized kingdom in Beijing back in the 10th Century. The Manchu kingdom in the 17th Century was entirely organized along Chinese lines. The Manchu army that conquered China was mostly made up of Han Chinese.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 18:20
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:You guys understand that the Manchus aren't the Mongols and didn't live on the "steppes"? The Manchus had already ruled as a Sinicized kingdom in Beijing back in the 10th Century. The Manchu kingdom in the 17th Century was entirely organized along Chinese lines. The Manchu army that conquered China was mostly made up of Han Chinese. I was going to call you out for calling the Khitan "Manchu" but then I figured you must've meant the Jin Dynasty (which was however solidly 12-13th century). Vladimir Putin posted:Was the Qing even that markedly different from previous administrators of the empire? I mean they kept the civil examination system and pretty much all of the cultural institutions. They introduced much of the fashion associated with China in the West from the 19th century onwards, including the long hair braids and the "chinese dress". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queue_%28hairstyle%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheongsam PoontifexMacksimus fucked around with this message at 18:29 on Mar 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 18:23
|
|
|
Crameltonian posted:
I always liked George Macartney's description of China at the time. He was Britain's first envoy to China and his account is a really accurate assessment. I highly suggest people read more things written during this period. It gives a pretty incredible look into the mindset of Imperial Britain. Every report written had the sole purpose of sizing up a culture for potential conquest and exploitation. quote:The Empire of China is an old, crazy, first-rate Man of War, which a fortunate succession of and vigilant officers have contrived to keep afloat for these hundred and fifty years past, and to overawe their neighbours merely by her bulk and appearance. But whenever an insufficient man happens to have the command on deck, adieu to the discipline and safety of the ship. She may, perhaps, not sink outright; she may drift some time as a wreck, and will then be dashed to pieces on the shore; but she can never be rebuilt on the old bottom
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 18:35
|
|
|
Crameltonian posted:And yeah, the Qing were already on the way down by the time the Europeans showed up in force but there's no contesting that they were completely blindsided by them. They almost certainly would have hobbled on for a while longer and maybe could have reformed if they weren't weakened so much by the endless concessions forced upon them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 19:02
|
|
|
pentyne posted:Forcing nearly a billion people to follow a ideology without personally adhering to its beliefs himself? Mao himself destroyed the Great Wall of China with hammer and sickle.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 21:47
|
|
|
We hear a lot about Tibet in the west, but not about any other parts, and it seems that a lot of the rest of the country isn't thrilled with being assimilated into Han China either. Xianjing and Inner Mongolia? I'd been used to treating China sans-Tibet as this monolithic entity that is all very Chinese, but it seems that isn't the case. Discounting ROC since it's a different kind of situation. Koramei fucked around with this message at 06:51 on Jan 16, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 22:05
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:I've heard a great deal about how Mao was a lovely person but this is new. I figured that the decline of Chinese culture began when they were conquered by the British/Dutch and then conquered again by the Japanese and THEN Mao came around and further hosed it. Two words: Cultural Revolution. Smash down the old ways (IE ways of thinking that weren't subservient to ol' Zedong) and kill any traditional intellectuals who might... argue. Edit: Derp, didn't see that there was another page
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 23:03
|
|
|
Koramei posted:I hope this isn't a particularly contentious question, but, for purposes of sizing up, judging, and annoying my Chinese friends- which parts of China would, if able, leave the country? We hear a lot about Tibet in the west, but not about any other parts, and it seems that a lot of the rest of the country isn't thrilled with being assimilated into Han China either. Xianjing and Inner Mongolia? I'd been used to treating China sans-Tibet as this monolithic entity that is all very Chinese, but it seems that isn't the case. If you want to keep your friends and not have them nursing hidden grudges against you, I suggest you just don't go there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2013 01:33
|
|
|
Edit: Once again this isn't the China megathread.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2013 02:06
|
|
|
That's an impossible question because countries (and even parts of countries) are not homogenous groups. What percent of any country would break off, given the opportunity? Catalonia? Quebec? Texas?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2013 02:28
|
|
|
hitension posted:That's an impossible question because countries (and even parts of countries) are not homogenous groups. Well yeah, especially prevalent in China because of its tendency to assimilate rather than integrate, so there's a large population of Han everywhere. But a significant enough population in Tibet sees its self as rightfully independent, despite Han integration over the past 60 years; how much is this the case for other parts of the country too? What parts of China are not traditionally Chinese, or have a significant enough independence movement to be noted. Would the Uyghurs call themselves Chinese or Uyghur? Mongols living in Inner Mongolia? Manchu (is that even an ethnic group anymore)? I've seen it mentioned briefly in this thread and elsewhere and I'd like to hear it expanded on by people that know what they're talking about, since China is so often treated as a single unified thing but in reality it really isn't. It isn't an impossible question, plenty of people would be willing to talk about the possibilities of independence for all of those places you mentioned, and in fact I have read discussion on literally all of those on these very forums, just in threads that are more appropriate for them. This is the China thread, so it seemed like the right place. I'm not looking for a definitive answer, just people's opinions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2013 02:44
|
|
|
I wrote my master's thesis on separatism in west China so I might know a thing or two! There are big Uyghur and Tibetan groups that are actively trying to break away from China, but otherwise there isn't much, unless you count Taiwan, but that's sort of another issue. There is a very tiny movement for Hong Kong independence as well, but it's not taken seriously at all. The assimilation and population shifts into Tibet and Xinjiang are somewhat of an issue for the Uyghur and Tibetan independence movements, but not a huge one. Sure, Urumqi is majority Han now, but a lot of the biggest cities in ex-Soviet states are/were majority Russian when they got their independence. The Russians either moved back to Russia or stayed and became an overclass. The same could work for Han in Uyghurstan. The odds of either Tibetans or Uyghurs successfully breaking away as long as the CCP stands are zero though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2013 03:28
|
|
|
Okay, in my view Tibet and Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia are conquered territories currently undergoing a bog-standard settlement policy. Tibet and Xinjiang have active separatist movements and they will fail barring a total political collapse of the Chinese state. The sad thing about Tibet and Xinjiang is that there's really nothing to discuss. The separatist movements will fail, the settlement policies will succeed, and in 50-100 years these areas will have a large Han majority. The frustrating thing about them is that you can't discuss it in China. Chinese people are taught from their first history lesson that China is the innocent victim of imperialist powers. The concept of China as an imperialist state is a complete non-starter. Even with friends who you can talk politics with safely this is something to just not bring up. It will only end in hurt feelings. I recently had some guy talking to me about the "moral challenge" of America towards its Amerindian people. I wanted to tell him that in America it's basically over, there's not much left to do because their population is so small and guilt over 100-year-old atrocities is too diffuse, but that China still has a chance to avoid the "moral challenge" of what they're doing in Tibet and Xinjiang. Maybe when China has freedom of speech sometime in the future, intellectuals will have the freedom to wring their hands over the conquest and forced assimilation of Xinjiang and Tibet, but by then it will be too late. The hilarious thing about Xinjiang is that its name literally means "New Frontier". You couldn't come up with something more blatantly imperialist if you tried. But the Han Chinese response would be, "Xinjiang is China! They get to have more children and they get extra points on the Gaokao! So unfair!" To give some perspective, most Han are shockingly ignorant about minorities living in their own communities. It's likely that most have no clue whatsoever that Xinjiang people have their own culture much less aspirations to statehood. It's not like news about bloody riots in Xinjiang and self-immolations in Tibet actually reach the Chinese people. So, yeah. When I see Free Tibet people in the West I just sigh. There's nothing to discuss, the cause is lost, and the Chinese aren't going to realize what they've done until it's too late. Worse, when Free Tibet protestors make contact with mainland Chinese they only generate bewildered rage. They don't even understand the message.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2013 04:03
|
|
|
More people in the west should get on the bandwagon. As soon as the Chinese see unequivically that the movement is widely supported by AMERICANS in AMUURRICA they'll realize the error of their ways and there will be widespread public support on the Chinese street to just voluntarily give up 30% of the country to obviously AMERICAN backed seperatists. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2013 04:25
|
|
|
Oh good morning.Attack in restive Xinjiang area kills four and injures eight posted:A Chinese government official says four people were killed and eight more were injured in an attack in China’s restive western region of Xinjiang while the national legislature is meeting to install new leadership.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2013 04:28
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:The frustrating thing about them is that you can't discuss it in China. Chinese people are taught from their first history lesson that China is the innocent victim of imperialist powers. The concept of China as an imperialist state is a complete non-starter. Even with friends who you can talk politics with safely this is something to just not bring up. It will only end in hurt feelings. First Nations issues still exist in North America. An Indian Casino is not really an effective way as repatriation and concilation. Sure the Chiefs get good money but rest of the people are still pretty much broken  The issues are still there but most people prefer to turn a blind eye. And the authorities involved in the situation turn bitter because the system is systematically stacked against the First Nations people. People naturally get uncomfortable and defensive when they are confronted with issues which goes against their world view. Yes, USA is seen as the "gold standard" of the freeworld and individual rights, but when you tell some people in the states about the horrors US has subjected to the world you get  Certainly it is not as physically brutal as other countries (nor does it need to be!), but its record is not clean. You don't even have to turn the clock all the way back a 100 years. Its current foreign policy, monetary policy, fundamentalist religious baggage, military spending and arms export industry shits on the rest of the world. Heck, the "American Dream", the abysmal urban planning, lack of public transpiration, aspiration of owning a car/SUV automobile has catastrophic consequences when the Chinese want to perfectly emulate that. drat, typing that just makes me want to go eat a hamburger in Burger King. Arglebargle III posted:I recently had some guy talking to me about the "moral challenge" of America towards its Amerindian people. I wanted to tell him that in America it's basically over, there's not much left to do because their population is so small and guilt over 100-year-old atrocities is too diffuse, but that China still has a chance to avoid the "moral challenge" of what they're doing in Tibet and Xinjiang. Maybe when China has freedom of speech sometime in the future, intellectuals will have the freedom to wring their hands over the conquest and forced assimilation of Xinjiang and Tibet, but by then it will be too late. This is the cynic in me, the "moral challenge", is just a political bargaining chip for international relations. Everyone can appreciate the sentiment and intention of peace/democracy/trade. But when the benefits outweigh political damage, governments, even elected ones will certainly try to smash and grab whatever they can. Setting up standing armies and longterm assimilation is just too costly and time consuming. Opening up foreign markets and benefiting the 10% is way more appealing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2013 07:19
|
|
|
I can't speak to the entirety of his views, but I think what he was saying is Native Americans are and have been irreparably displaced and hosed at this point and everything going forward is some program to ameliorate (or ignore) that whereas China has a chance to end the fuckery and not make the same mistake we did. The same could be said of Israel, but that's an even thornier topic demographically. That's what I got out of it anyway. Not knowing much about a region like Tibet (except that, according to diaspora Chinese friends the people are very happy because of all the economic gains thanks to the Chinese!) I have no idea if that perception of the fuckery being reversible is accurate, though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2013 07:36
|
|
|
Too much land, too many resources, too few inhabitants, too juicy a target. It's not like the national leaders will go to war. Like most wars, it's the disenfranchised, the poor who get enlisted to do all the dirty fighting and killing. The local leaders/colloborators get bribed with benefits and opportunities. Rest of us are lead to believe in more economic benefits, invest in IPO's of state mining companies or whatever bullshit. The Chinese who don't drink the jingoistic coolaid see too many local problems and bull poo poo to care about Tibetans. It's the mentality of keeping their heads down, don't rock the boat, secure a job and secure a house. The reason why they get uptight about Tibet is that they don't like foreigners acting all high and mighty dictating their foreign policy. "Free Speech and media is a Western concept"  Actually, it means that they are already screwed over by the political system and are too tired to careOh, maybe we can enjoy bottled Natural Tibetan spring water, and benefit the plastic recycling industry in order to be environmentally friendly  During the Olympics I got a lot of flak for even bringing up Tibet. Even mentioning modern history and how China deals with its history got people stirred up. It was really unsettling when people are normally against China's treatment of activists/intellectuals/Hong Kong being China's playground. People never gave a drat about Tibetans beforehand and don't even consider them, Chinese. But come Olympic time, it's "they were part of the Yuan Dynasty" and the mentality was "we love the games in our backyard, so we will in turn love everything about China" There was a very ballsy university student/activist called Christina Chan. She was raising the Tibetan flag in front of torch bearers, trying to be on talk shows but was ostracized. All the student associations and groups banned her and rejected her, paparazzi was following her and filming her private life. Instead of focusing or even rationally arguing with her, most of the city turned onto her. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christina_Chan Worst part, was when she bought a ticket to fly from Macau to Australia, she was denied an entry visa and turned away. It was just a small highlight in the news but nobody flipped out. Immigration officials in the
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2013 08:15
|
|
|
caberham posted:First Nations issues still exist in North America. An Indian Casino is not really an effective way as repatriation and conciliation. Sure the Chiefs get good money but rest of the people are still pretty much broken Yeah, I'm approaching this from a pragmatic point of view. There's no political will to do anything about First Nations issues. It's not within the realm of things that can be seriously discussed in the U.S. for the reasons I said: they're a really insignificant portion of the modern population, and blame has become too diffuse. Ask some random Irish-German white guy whose ancestors came over in the 1880-1920 waves and he will feel no responsibility for the native american populations' plight. And although people in SA's social stratum tend to take white guilt as a given, it's arguable how responsible some random guy is for those atrocities. Everyone can admit that we benefit from the American colonists and later 18th and 19th century U.S. wars of expansion across the continent, but the line from that to making costly concessions to those victims' descendants is hard to draw for virtually everyone. Can we do more? Sure. If you go to a reservation and shake your head sagely and say, "I can't do anything about it," people there will rightly be angry at you, because you can do something. You can help personally. The government could legislate something. But we as a nation aren't going to. For 98% of people Native American policy is something they learn about in history class and never encounter again for the rest of their lives. China has the opportunity to end forced assimilation policies while Tibet and Uighur cultures exist as more than impoverished enclaves. They have an opportunity to say, "What we are doing is wrong." and stop doing it, instead of waiting 100 years and then saying, "What our great grandfathers did was wrong, but we're not responsible." Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 08:23 on Mar 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2013 08:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 01:46 |
|
|
You can simply take the flat position that interior imperialism against indigenous minorities is something that shouldn't happen. I don't think America as a nation as much of a leg to stand-on, but I don't see Americans as hypocritical for saying both past and current treatments of Native Americans are wrong and China shouldn't colonize Tibet. In the case of the United States, its terrible policy towards Native Americans neatly dovetails with its other horrific policies towards the rest of the population that isn't rich.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2013 08:40
|
|
