|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 7, 2024 00:28 |
|
|
To reference an earlier discussion point in the thread regarding becoming Han Chinese is relatively 'easy' in China. Hypothetical speculation however, could whites ever be seen as Han Chinese under that logic if they spoke Chinese and did all the other Chinese things that gets you accepted... After say, a hundred years past by from now and somewhere like Canada got annexed (I'm Canadian, so as to not offend anyone I picked my own country!  ) would the Chinese popular cultural consciousness see Chinese speaking Chinese culturally engaged Canadians as Chinese?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2012 01:37
|
|
|
Pro-PRC Laowai posted:That carrier will never ever see action. For all intents and purposes it's a training carrier for now. Pretty much this. When during WWII a Admiral suggest they could keep Malta for sure if they were willing to sacrifice a couple of Battleships his higher up responded saying "It takes only a year to build a battleship, but a hundred for a Naval tradition." China needs that carrier to build up the doctrine and knowhow experiences to build up their carrier force to something approaching combat readiness. Eventually that carrier can be used probably in combat ops once they got a cadre of experienced naval aviation pilots if their intended new ones aren't out of drydock yet for whatever they need a carrier sailing somewhere what for. I imagine once they got some credible air arm up and going and they're sure that "this time" they can go 90 days without a fire they'll use it for good will tours and to help "stabilize" any hot spots particular to Chinese interests similar to 19th century American gunboat diplomacy in South America. Then once they got additional CV's up and running Laoning will go back to active training services unless they really need it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2013 11:32
|
|
|
Does anyone have a good source for a map of all the prefectures of china, and all the counties of china and also named in some english transliteration on the map?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2015 02:46
|
|
|
Sadly this doesn't have it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:Can't you just zoom in on Google Maps? What are you looking for? This but with words.  Any words would do, I'd even take the hanzi so long as I could copy and paste it to see how it sounds. Basically I have a mod project to add some 300-400 provinces to EU4's map of China; I intend to merge most of these but at least it'd be a good starting point and I'd like to have reasonably accurate names of the area's. Worst case I've been using google maps and zooming in to the closest village/town/city I could find in the zone and using that but it isn't ideal. Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 20:14 on Mar 16, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
McDowell posted:This one is what you're looking for That the wrong link? I only see provinces. whatever7 posted:A map with all county names would be too large for a browser to handle. You have to do it yourself. I'm trying to work out the interface; that google maps dotted line poo poo for administrative divisions is stupidly hard to see though. White on yellow, really?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2015 03:11
|
|
|
V for Vegas posted:The wikipedia pages for each of the provinces gives you a prefecture level map that has around 10 - 20 prefectures for each of the 30 odd provinces. I don't think you're going to get maps of all 3000 counties. Yup! I see it now, this works! Thanks. Jeoh posted:You could probably combine those in an SVG if you really want to. I'm not enough of a maps guy I think to really feel the need to do that since this works for what I'm doing.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2015 14:10
|
|
|
WarpedNaba posted:Gotta wonder what the Party claims to have accomplished on the global stage after the economic reforms, counter world bank or not. Does annexing Tibet count? Or is that already in the 'Always part of our property and any indication that it had to be taken back is filthy hurtful-feelings-generation by [INFERRED FOREIGN POWER]' bin? Generally? Restoring the honor of their country and reversing the century of humiliation.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2015 14:12
|
|
|
Chickenwalker posted:they're also untrustworthy on a personal and cultural level too. Really dude? Can we not go there?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2015 17:18
|
|
|
goldboilermark posted:You live in Shenzhen. Is Shenzhen really popular for foreigners to work at? I know a Russian dude who also works there or did. It was interesting as he remarked he felt safer walking the streets of Shenzhen at night than he did walking Moscow's by day.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2015 14:58
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Yeah so imagine for one second what happens to the CCP if it loses that war. Read Susan L Shirk's "China: Fragile Superpower" and also read I think its her TED Talk on the subject? CCP losing a war with the US could very well be lethal to their governance, but so to would allowing Taiwanese independence to do so unchallenged (in their view). The Chinese government has a lot of think-tanks working for them that ponder this question every day of how to respond without having to fight a shooting war while also maintaining their legitimacy. This is because in the past, Mao could have let it slide because the military's loyalty to him was unquestionable; the current leadership since 1989 has to routinely raise the military budget to maintain their political loyalty to the party.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2015 16:12
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Allowing Taiwanese independence to lose a war with the US would probably reflect badly on the CCP, yes. This doesn't make sense. What's your question again? I was under the impression it was "Why would China risk a war with the US it may very well lose (Knowing that losing would result in Bad Things?)"; the gist of it is that not going to war would also result in Bad Things. Whether either result is true or isn't relevant when the issue is considering their perceptions.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:As long as we're fantasizing about the CCP being humiliated remember that Taiwan has been preparing to fight this war for 65 years and counting. America might barely have to intervene. I'd like to point out that NATO had been preparing for a similar amount of time versus the former Warsaw Pact and still expected to likely be driven to the Weser at best and these were two similarly sized and economically powerful power blocs for most of it. The problem with defence in modern mechanized war that precision munitions and saturation bombardment results in a lot of your preparations to be blown up before they've managed to do a lot of damage mainly because by virtue of being preprepared they're also well known to the enemy. To put this in perspective the Soviet defences around the Kursk salient were still breached, the question would be whether the Taiwanese could hold off for long enough for the Americans to arrive or whether their own reserves can be thrown in at the sufficiently depleted enemy forces before the PLA can consolidate their positions and reinforce.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Sure, but amphibious operations are way different from rolling across dry land. They're really quite difficult in the best conditions. In 1950 sure, not in 2015. The tools favour the well prepared attacker considerably more so than the defender. Essentially you wouldn't be able to contest them at the beach like the Germans did. Helicopters help in a lot of ways, the PLAN is still missing some considerable capabilities that carriers will eventually solve but establishing a landing and eventually taking the island is well within the capabilities of the PLA, what's in contention is how costly the ROC can make it and how long they could hold for. Without American intervention the possibility of successfully defending themselves indefinitely is zero.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Uh, the ROC can make it super costly, considering the terrain. It's the whole reason Taiwan in particular was able to be held while other islands weren't practical to hold out on. Plus the US is currently in the habit of providing air cover to Taiwan, which would really put a crimp in the PLA ability to seize the island. It isn't in dispute that the ROC would need US air cover to have a fighting chance, what was being suggested was "could Taiwan hold off the PLA on its own", and that's obviously no. They would collapse eventually, even with the best case estimations.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2015 03:04
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:On a long enough timescale anything can be conquered... Good. Discussion over. quote:It's what you said though because your command of the English language is almost as dispiriting as your level of analysis. I still don't understand what you're trying to say. I'd suggest actually elaborating on what you're trying to say we can actually discuss it; you got this sort of sarcastic thing going where its impossible to divine what you're trying to claim and I would rather I understand your point before proceeding than to discuss what I interpret you as saying. Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 15:06 on Apr 16, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2015 15:02
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:I wonder if grunts in the PLA would think twice about participating in a bloodbath against fellow ethnic Chinese. I mean for that level of casualties to be acceptable Taiwan would have to do something absolutely monstrous. 1921 to 1949 didn't see this already happen? Ukrainians shooting other Ukrainians and/or Russians? I hear something like that also happened in the mid 1860's not sure what though. Militaries take some phenomenal collapse in discipline and morale for the whole "No way man, those are our fraternity over there!" To work.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2015 02:42
|
|
|
WarpedNaba posted:Yeah, kinda hard for discipline and morale to collapse when it ain't there. "It will only take one sure kick for the whole rotten structure to come tumbling down."
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2015 03:46
|
|
|
Xtronoc posted:Well, they couldn't pass compulsory "national education" in schools, so the only resort is to send kids to the mainland to be brainwashed instead. It sounds reasonable to me to want students to have a broader cultural understanding of the national as a whole and to break down parochial provincialism. I wouldn't object to having mandatory cross-provincial schooling in Canada if the government were to foot the bill. Zohar posted:For what it's worth, generally Chinese historians actually like the idea of the Asiatic mode of production because it's a good way of arguing for a multilinear scheme of development where Asia (and China especially) has a distinct course from the West, which coincides with the CCP's official ideology. The criticism of the theory by Western scholars as being inherently orientalist or racist was never really an object of concern in China itself, as far as I know (nor among Japanese Marxists), though I don't know much about Chinese historiography since the 90s. There's a really good book Adam Smith in Beijing that goes into this. Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 16:40 on Apr 23, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2015 16:38
|
|
|
tsa posted:No that really doesn't sound like a reasonable proposal at all. It's the same principle as foreign exchange students; those are arguably good ideas in that they promote understanding and multiculturalism; having an internal version for when your country is almost the size of a continent in of itself with very varied internal cultures the same argument applies. It's been remarked on multiple occasions there's some degree of contempt between Mainlanders and Hong Kongers, Cantonese and Han, etc, the more people travel and interact with others the better.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
Ceciltron posted:The last thing any country needs is forced "cultural exchange" programs between regions in order to foster "harmony". That's an obviously lazy and knee jerk counter argument and you should know better.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
Ceciltron posted:Except my whole point is the same. Replace the quotation-marked parts with appropriately adjusted regional buzzwords and it's what you get. At the end of the day, the differences aren't ones that will simply vanish with a free trip to a place. Regional animosities and enmities are the result of inequality and deliberate policies of favoritism - feel good "exchanges" don't serve any purpose than to assuage guilt. Your argument in that post basically boils down to "Because its bad"; it's not an substantiated argument and it doesn't assert any facts, logic, or evidence to support the position that the negatives of cultural exchanges outweigh the good. That's why it's lazy. The assertion in this post your making is different, because there's at least an arguable assertion, "Don't serve any purpose other than to assuage guilt", I still find this unconvincing, I believe that cultural exchanges are just one of a variety of perfectly legitimate social engineering tools the state has at its disposal to implement its intended policy. One obvious one being "Make Hong Konger's identify more with a common national identity" which again, perfectly legitimate and every nation easily has that obligation to carry out.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
Ceciltron posted:Cultural Exchanges are to you what the attempted extinction of cultures by central governments are to others. As an Anglophone in Quebec that is the target of such policies I can only roll my eyes at the hyperbole. quote:Do you justify limiting the language of TV stations and education system? Guangzhou lucked out with its Cantonese programming because of its proximity to Hong Kong but schools in Guangzhou do not teach Cantonese at all. Lots of Wu dialects and other languages got wiped out for the sake of "standard mandarin". There are virtually no modern nation-states that didn't have some sort of '-ization' policy to assimilate ethnic groups within their borders; France is as mentioned the most successful (Frenchmen went from 50% of France in 1848 to something like 90% by 1914 iirc); however I'm not arguing in support of such policies since obviously that was the case in the 18th and 19th centuries probably isn't ethically right in the 21st century; but I do think some forms of assimilation are ethically okay, trying to get Francophones and Anglophones to abide by a common "Canadian" identity. So if your asking am I in support of banning the use of local dialects in local TV channels, schools, and newspapers? No. But I *do* believe it is the legitimate prerogative of the central government to *have* and maintain mandarin channels, public schools and newspapers; as a social engineering policy tool; and that absolutely privately owned local dialect 'things' should exist and be allowed to operate unhindered from social engineering policies. In so far as what the government is obligated or has the legitimate right to do certain things, I feel is pretty clear. Whether it ought to do other things, is where I think things can get more nuanced. I feel the central government probably should be actively supporting the intelligentsia for local cultures as a means of thwarting latent separatist movements and to co-opt them to support its policies. *Should* fund and support local language channels and so on; in fact I'd be shocked if it weren't since that would be losing some very important avenues of influencing the populace of those cultures. States, governments, and nations have a certain contract of responsibilities, powers, obligations, rights, and so on that all comes together to mean "sovereignty" that lends to a certain sort of ethical give and take and lack any inherent ethical good or ill but are nevertheless, only existing for the purpose to be used; sure I can agree how they are used is certainly important, and certainly I can agree CCP is probably using such tools wrongly, but objecting to their right to use those tools is basically just tantamount to uncritically advocating anarchism without a deeper nuanced look into the philosophical concept of the social contract between the populace and state. MrNemo posted:So if these exchange programmes are designed to encourage integration and shared experiences between different parts of China, how many Beijing kids are getting sent to Hong Kong to learn about their culture and way of life? How many Shanghai kids are being sent out to Tibet or Xinjiang? For the record, I absolutely support it working in 'reverse', Beijing kids going to Hong Kong/Tibet etc. Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 19:05 on Apr 24, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
How are u posted:Wait they just paper over the Taiping rebellion like that? That was like the biggest orgy of death and misery of the 19th century I don't think so, I've conversed with a bunch of Chinese nationals studying at Concordia about politics and history and Taiping comes up often as a big thing; particularly why the Falun Gong are stamped out as soon as it started creeping people out.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2015 21:17
|
|
|
Franks Happy Place posted:China has a long and storied history of violent exercise/"physical improvement" cults. Taiping, Yellow Turbans, Boxers, the list goes on. Right, I was implying that I found it unlikely that the rebellion would be papered over.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:I would guess there are multiple conflicting narratives chosen selectively by the government based on circumstances. The classical Marxist line to glorify socialism, the anti-religion/cult line to criticize the Fulan Gong and religious groups in China, maybe one emphasizing the impact imperialism had on weakening the state to bludgeon the USA, etc On the other hand it also wouldn't surprise me if it was a particularly bad textbook at some back waters highschool. I know an American who, while in highschool in Georgia (USA) that her history teacher said the reason why the United States used the atomic bombs on Japan was because the United States was losing the war. In short don't assume malice when negligence is more likely.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
Imperialist Dog posted:Gah I have to stop browsing the Post before bed, now I am too angry to sleep If something similar happened at a local university in Montreal preventing the Black Watch from joining social activities for the same stated reasons I'd be pretty outraged.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2015 16:08
|
|
|
Ceciltron posted:This is stupid. It is not the same, your comparisons are ridiculous. First off, the PLA are not a local force - they're imported as a show of force. The black watch are a local regiment and have been ilocal to their area for a long time. The Canadian armed forces could be construed as an 'imported show of force' within Quebec by hard nationalists, its easily comparable. Viewing the PLA as the loving SS is the ridiculous comparison.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:Yeah, they're more like enforcers of an authoritarian regime rather than enforcers of a totalitarian regime. I'm going to assume you believe this is equally the case for all militaries? They'd still be there and doing those things even if the PRC had democratic elections.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
Bloodnose posted:But the Canadian Armed Forces include people from Quebec, and Quebec has the opportunity to be represented in the military (if they aren't in fact). And I don't know the actual situation but I'd be surprised if the Canadian Armed Forces didn't have activities in French to include Quebeckers. If you look at the example of Austria-Hungary policies if they were allowed wouldn't they end up serving in Manchuria or the border of Mongolia? Regardless, some googling seems to imply that this is more of a legal grey area that Beijing hasn't bothered or gotten around to clear up because of HK's special status; do you have a source that can explain fully as to why that is the case as some sort of deliberate policy to segregate HK'ers? So you do not object to US troops being stationed on Okinawa?
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2015 01:56
|
|
|
Bloodnose posted:The official explanation is that the mainland's military service law does not apply to Hong Kong. This is generally seen as A Good Thing, because the law refers ostensibly to conscription, although China in practice has as much conscription as the US does, a de facto all volunteer force. There have been some senior officers, particularly on the central military commission that have expressed a desire to see Hong Kongers serve in the PLA; sometimes couched in the same type of weird language we see in the US whenever the topic of being more inclusive comes up ("Can city boy Hong Kong kids serve in the Inner Mongolia along with tough country boys?!  "); also party membership I'm pretty sure is only a requirement for advancement ala in the Soviet system. Heck, there are even Tibetans in the PLA (And if we looked, probably every other recognized ethnic group), so that argument wouldn't be consistent with the current practice imho.So between the the choice of which intention is the actual one; "We can't trust Hong Kongers (But we can trust Tibetans, Muslims, Mongolians, etc)" and  my bet is on the latter as being the most probable.Never attribute to malice which could be just as easily attributed to negligence.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:I'm surprised that this isn't getting more attention considering it could be interpreted as an act of war. If China was a small third world easily invaded country, sure.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
BCR posted:I took away its a investor class combining with a the CCP authoritarian party to gently caress over the majority. The communist party of china, as the old vanguard party has never been of the people, Mao hosed it all up with the Great Leap and needing the Cultural revolution to purge people who said "you're a big loving goon who doesn't wash, fucks young girls, and you've had no clue since the long march which was all about you being carried around on a litter" While there's a veritable mountain of evidence to criticize Mao there's no need to throw in fabrications by Jung Chang.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
Ceciltron posted:I, for one, am not troubled by the idea of Mao deserving all the bad press he can get, the fucker. You should be on general principle of having historiography be written as the end of a process of exhaustive detailed research keeping your biases in check; otherwise you distort history to caricature and hearsay instead of evidence. "Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it." If the causes of the Great Leap Forward and to a lesser extent the Cultural Revolution and how they relate to Mao aren't properly studied because certain authors instead insist on peddling their own personal head canon as only tangentially or circumstantially backed up by their research, well, that's a problem isn't it? At a minimum whatever legitimate research or insights Chang might have had are now going to be eclipsed by the parts where she goes off her rocker. Suppose she did research say, the casualty figures correctly, well now anyone on the internet can say "Because she made up facts here, how can we trust her research here or here?" There's solid reasons why you shouldn't just blindly accept distortions of historical figures, even ones who did arguably evil acts because it does legitimate harm in the long term. Semi related to the "I don't like you personally but agree you have a valid point even if you're an rear end in a top hat." principle. Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 19:45 on Jun 25, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
Chickenwalker posted:Didn't his doctor do a tell-all as well that said basically the same things about being a dirty old lech? Reading about Mao from people who were around him I always saw parallels with mob bosses. Not too bright, prone to anger, cult of personality, could off you at any time for the slightest affront. That biography is also controversial and in doubt, In the biography by Philip Short Mao was known to have slept around quite a bit, from what I vaguely remember as its been a while they were like groupies, school teachers, functionaries, adult (though still young) working women; remember that this was a dude whose face could spark a crowd of thousands wanting to just see him, but the allegations of being a pedo-panda are unwarranted. But your characterization doesn't really seem reasonable if you look at the commonly accepted facts; remember this is a person who was astoundingly successful in military command and politics. He didn't rules lawyer his way into power; but who quite ably maneuvered himself into power by convincing the Party Congress that they needed him in power. To whatever extent he's a peasant bumkin from the boonies is far eclipsed by a considerable and demonstrably true shrewd intelligence. Mozi posted:China’s Stock Market Plunges To what extent does a stock market collapse in China harm the average person?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2015 14:36
|
|
|
Forums Terrorist posted:In 20 years everyone will be dead after some damned fool thing in the baltics starts ww3 and the nukes fly Balkans. 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2015 15:19
|
|
|
A land invasion, even with significant preparation and planning to confiscate civilian craft would not succeed; the PLA has had from all accounts hasn't had tunnel vision vis a vis Taiwan. There was Russia, Vietnam, India, many other strategic concerns over the decades and the sane course of actions was to prepare for a broader array of contingencies then just "reclaim the homeland". You'd need dedicated amphibious landing craft, light and heavy lift for armor, plus logistical lift capacity once a beach head is secured to supply tens of thousands of soldiers and their equipment; I imagine it'd be wise to have airlift capacity as well for when you get deeper. Taking airfields is a valid tactic but it'd likely be done with helicopter gunships. Overlord basically becomes the go to example of the scale involved, maybe it's possible they can do some similar things, maybe have a pipeline for fuel going from the mainland to the Island but eeeeeh. But a blockade is probably well within the capabilities of the PLAN, papers from the Iraq wars looking at the naval side of things implies very strongly that China can very easily disrupt Taiwan's ocean lines of communication and commerce; even a few hundred to a few thousand mines can be very effective.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:I recently made an essay regarding the South China Sea controversy for my summer college class: A decent editorial maybe but seems way to opinionated for an essay. You also seem to miss the importance the Succession of States Theory does have in international relations. That the PRC is the successor to the 1911 ROC isn't in doubt, and the ROC being the successor to the Qing dynasty also isn't in doubt. The ROC did continue to abide by the treaties the Qing signed and so on. You also have the problems that a military build up brings that the military build up prior to WWI brings.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 7, 2024 00:28 |
|
|
angel opportunity posted:Couldn't you actually argue that Taiwan is the successor to the Qing? But you couldn't argue that the PRC isn't though, (Because similarly no one disputes that the USSR was the successor state to the Russian Empire); then it becomes a matter of which country is the legitimate representative for the Chinese people (the point of the UNSC seat) and this has only one conclusive answer as of 1979, see Kissenger's reasoning to have Nixon go to China.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2015 19:33
|
|