No fucking clue how or why he thought this would go over well. http://movies.yahoo.com/news/movies.ap.org/jackie-chans-china-comments-prompt-backlash-ap

QUOTE

Chan told a business forum in the southern Chinese province of Hainan that a free society may not be beneficial for China 's authoritarian mainland.

"I'm not sure if it's good to have freedom or not," Chan said Saturday. "I'm gradually beginning to feel that we Chinese need to be controlled. If we're not being controlled, we'll just do what we want."

He went on to say that freedoms in Hong Kong and Taiwan made those societies "chaotic."

Chan's comments drew applause from a predominantly Chinese audience of business leaders, but did not sit well with lawmakers in Taiwan and Hong Kong.

"He's insulted the Chinese people. Chinese people aren't pets," Hong Kong pro-democracy legislator Leung Kwok-hung told The Associated Press. "Chinese society needs a democratic system to protect human rights and rule of law."

So umm....freedom and democracy are chaotic and the Chinese people simply can't be trusted with either. Bad enough that Jackie said this dumb ass shit, even worse that the mainland Chinese in the audience fucking applauded it. Apparently some of them agree that the Chinese can't be trusted with freedom and power. I can't imagine ever applauding someone who said I can't be trusted to have a say in government, weird fucking mindset over there.

Anyway, not sure if this deserved a GC or Entertainment slot, mods feel free to move it if you think its more appropriate over there.

QUOTE (Ocean of Notions @ Apr 20 2009, 00.10)

As someone from mainland China who grew up in the West, I'd say I can't fully blame Mr. Chan for spouting that (rather unfortunate) statement. I can't say I feel the same or would recommend saying such a thing, but I think a lot of people don't quite understand the socio-cultural context in which Mr. Chan and his audience are coming from. I find that people in the West like to apply the Western ideas of "freedom" (it makes sense, of course) and democracy to the East, disregarding the differences between cultural and historical background. If/when democracy does come to the PRC, it will not exactly be the democratic system known in the West and it probably won't come about in the same ways. It will be on the terms of the Chinese people, not outsiders.

Eh...I find that repressive states use 'culture and history' to excuse all manner of barbarism. And hand-wringing relativists like to help them along in the process. These notions of democratic government, human rights, civil liberties, rule of law, and individual freedoms are western only in the sense that we popularized and exported them. They are in fact universal rights that peoples everywhere are entitled to. Countries and cultures that do not provide them are inferior to those that do. Those who ignore or suppress them drastically are in fact barbaric thugs and the free peoples of the world should not pretend otherwise.

A few hundred years back the 'dangers of freedom' and the presumed inadequacy of certain groups to exercise it was among the justifications to keep Africans in bondage. Variations of that line of thought kept kept suffrage from women til the 20th century in most places and played a role in justifying European colonialism. There is no such thing as a people for whom Democracy (and all the other shit I mentioned) is not ideal or could not work. Simply those who may not be ready YET. But all it really takes is a generation or less to ease those values into the mainstream. It can be done crash course, but that often has some fairly significant side effects for peoples unused to the practice of it.

I get that 5,000 years of authoritarian thug rule won't disappear overnight, but even China can and should inch towards that direction. I don't know what 'on the terms of the Chinese people' means, but if it includes all of the things that I mentioned, then I'm fine with any subtle cultural variations. But my 'cultural tolerance' does not extend to excusing uncivilized behavior and practices, things that China seems to specialize in. The Chinese people will just have to get over western criticism because almost all of it is warranted. Hell, all things considered they should be hearing ALOT more of it, but we like their cheap products and labor too much to raise the appropriate level of fuss.

QUOTE (gryphon strike @ Apr 20 2009, 04.40)

Err its not quite as simple as that mainland China is very heavily controlled even today and those mainlanders who aplauded probably did so in full knowledge that they were being filmed and anyone taking a democratic stance would be short a kidney or two etc rather quickly. Jackie also has family in mainland China I believe so I have to wonder was he speaking for himself or the chinese gov and they handed him a prewritten speech?

I can understand basic self (and/or family)-preservation or even a desire not to make waves, but if that's the case, then say nothing. Keep it to pleasantries, advocate nothing, avoid anything of substance. Do not fucking say 'Autocracy is good because the Chinese can't handle freedom'. I highly doubt this was at the behest of China. This is Jackie fucking Chan we're talking about, one of the biggest stars on the planet, beloved across West and East...China risks a PR disaster by pressuring or threatening him. They aren't that dumb. Also, its not like Jackie hasn't been a critic of China in the past either, nothing happened to his family then, I doubt it would now either.

As for those who clapped along, I doubt many of them were doing it under any real or perceived duress. In my limited interaction with Chinese people (a few in college, several on the internet) it's been my experience that alot of them don't perceive the same problems with their state that much of the west does. In just about every discussion of China with a Chinese person (the Falun Gong guy at my train stop excepted) I've had, you can expect to hear several variations of 'Its not as bad as you think/not as bad as you make it out to be'. Many have asserted the rather delusional proposition that they're just as free as us westerners are. Naturally this is not coming from rural 2nd class citizens who have severely restricted rights and seem to exist for pseudo-slave labor, political dissidents, or other social undesirables. I guess if you aren't being thrown in prison yourself, its not quite 'oppression' yet. Further, they tend to take the mere mention of human rights as a personal offense, labeling it over-exaggerated, mean-spirited western propaganda. (more or less)

About the only thing I've found that does piss off most of them about their government is the wanton corruption that's found at all levels of it. That alone seems to be the issue on which they're willing to be realistically self-critical. (That, and complaints of basic government negligence or incompetence which we saw with regards to their recent earthquake and tainted milk problem) The rest just doesn't seem to concern them all that much. Or if it does, censorship mutes it and national pride prompts a kneejerk opposition to outsiders who voice it.

QUOTE (gryphon strike @ Apr 20 2009, 04.40)

Yes I know a stand has to be taken somewhere so how about those western countries with free trade deals with China ( like it was or ever will be such a thing ) cease those deals until such time as China has a democracy and proper human rights?

Business is too good, our own western economies would suffer substantially, and there's the very real possibility that such a move would prompt China to retreat even further and show even less regard for human rights and individual liberties then they already do. They'd probably suffer more from the exercise of such a threat, but that's a hammer that would hit both of us hard and the chances of anything positive coming from it are limited. Free trade has not translated into open government and it potentially never will, but I'm not seeing alot of positives from the stick approach. That quickly becomes a game of chicken and if China doesn't blink, what then?

QUOTE (Galactus @ Apr 20 2009, 06.21)

I think the issue is that for most people living their daily lives, China really isn't that much less free. Or rather, the freedoms that are restricted are those the vast majority of people wouldn't use in their daily lives. It is very, very easy to ignore the restriction of a freedom you have no interest in exercising.

Basically, unless you are politically active daily life for the middle-class in China is probably not that much different than in the west, and a good deal of the hurdles that ARE there are gleefully ignored. (from what I've heard, just about everyone knows how to get past the Great Firewall, and most censorship is kind of made obsolete by piracy)

Which doesen't mean that the chinese government isn't horrific: But to the vast majority of chinese people said horrificness (apart from corruption and general incompetence) happens to other people.

Yeah I suspect there's alot to that. Comfort has a way of breeding contentment and/or indifference. Not for everyone of course, but so long as you persecute those who would agitate for more and manage the PR (slander or censor) surrounding the persecution, you can keep the rest fat and happy. But even that comfortable middle class gets pissy if things stop being as comfortable.

As for political censorship generally, I don't really know how much gets through. But I suspect that its alot less then you suggest. The Press is obviously controlled. The government itself is slightly more open then in eras past, so you might see a bit of domestic criticism, but I doubt any of that extends to major foreign policy issues or any of the West's major grievances with the country. Once you account for controlled newspapers, TV stations, and radio, all you've really got left is the internet. How many really have access to it? Urban youth certainly, but how sizable of a share of the population is that? How many of them are tech savvy enough to bypass their 'Great Firewall'? Sure it ain't that hard, but think about how many active net users here can't do much more then browse and read/send e-mail.

I doubt a large percentage of Chinese net users are employing proxies. China routinely bans more and more sites. They've also recently mandated recording everyone who enters an internet cafe and tracking alot of their browsing. (I recall reading a story on this a while back, might have some of the details wrong) That's pretty comprehensive control and censorship for the overwhelming vast majority of the population. Sure its not full proof. If someone really wanted to break through, they could. But most won't. So I think we can fairly ask how much of their perception is tainted by lack of or improperly skewed information.

QUOTE (Usotsuki @ Apr 19 2009, 19.55)

EHK, you might find this interesting, it's a fairly similar argument being made by a very different person. link

Interesting article. But I can't quite understand the editorializing at the end. From the descriptions in the article, it seems that Hong Kong already has quite the welfare state even without a vote in favor and seems to thrive with it. Still, I don't think much can be extrapolated from Hong Kong's experience. It thrived because its relatively tiny and happened to be where East and West decided to conduct business for many years. There are only so many global slots open for a Hong Kong or Dubai. Not every place can be a global banking/financial center, so even the most investment friendly laws in existence won't necessarily create one.

QUOTE (Galactus @ Apr 20 2009, 07.00)

Depends. The Great Firewall IIRC works on banning individual sites. I know chinese boarders (from China) that has been able to access discussions similar to this rather easily. I doubt this board is big enough to get noticed and banned (although I the board-software hosting thingie might be)

Civfanatics, a much larger and more active board then this (and where I've had a few of my US/China internet cultural 'exchanges'), apparently isn't blocked and political discussions, including China whenever they hit the news, are common. If that's open, then this board most likely is too. As you say, we're probably much too small to be noticed.

QUOTE (Galactus @ Apr 20 2009, 07.18)

Put it like this, there are chinese boarders on the Hearts of Iron boards. Hearts of Iron 2 is banned in China. Make of that what you will.

Heh...the entire Paradox board is run by a bunch of little commie-fascists anyway, so I'm sure they're welcomed with open arms in China. (no I'm not bitter about being banned)

Side note, what's the problem with HoI2? China weaker then they should be or something?

QUOTE (Horza @ Apr 20 2009, 07.34)

China's shown as it was at the time, divided between the Nationalists and the three main warlord factions with a small communist base and Xinjiang and Tibet as independent states - that doesn't jibe with One China and all that.

Man I would love to get my hands on a standard Chinese history textbook. Just to see what got ignored, glorified, and/or rewritten. It'd definitely be an interesting read. (translated of course)

QUOTE (Fatuous @ Apr 20 2009, 09.55)

Is the illusion of Freedom better than the concrete reality of a definite totalitarian state? These days are hardly the best of times for such a question though. What's the phrase, "the pot calling the kettle black" during these War on Terror times? My answer has been and always will be: Either have Democracy or not; Don't have "Democracy" and call it the true blue stuff. Especially when there's a clause that gives Authoritarian power to the Government in times of declared War but then never really declare a War since 1942.

So some bored college professor comes up with a set of criteria so vague it could be arguably applied to any state in existence? What a load of horseshit. We can still replace our leadership every 2-4 years. Neither the press nor the people get arrested for printing things the government doesn't like. You might get an FBI profile for being a political dissident, but you won't be imprisoned and tortured for that alone. Political protest typically isn't met with tanks and guns. Professors manage to teach all manner of crazy things on the universities without government repercussions. I did some googling on Chinese history textbooks and trust me, even our absolute worst shit doesn't come close to their self-interested political revision. (really the shit they're pushing approaches 'creationism in science class' levels of absurdity) I can read and/or advocate just about any political or ideological perspective out there without consequence. Enshrined civil liberties, rule of law (for the most part), substantive due process.

Are there injustices? Of course. Inadequacies? Absolutely. But to paint this as some 'Democracy in name only' farce is nonsense. Only with an appalling lack of perspective and willful self-delusion at every turn could someone say the 'illusion of freedom' with a straight face, ESPECIALLY when compared to the states that are generally considered 'not so free'.

QUOTE (TerraPrime @ Apr 20 2009, 11.04)

Still, I think expecting the same type of government as the U.S. and using that as the benchmark to evaluate the success of China is a bit ethnocentric, to say the least.

I don't think anyone's demanding or expecting the same type of government. But universal suffrage and regular elections for all levels of leadership should be an ABSOLUTE minimum for any state that wants to call itself just and civilized.

QUOTE (Galactus @ Apr 20 2009, 11.27)

IIRC it's not so much that they ignore it in historical research and even school textbooks, but rather "These aren't things for computer games."

Actually, they seem to ignore it in school textbooks as well. link

QUOTE

Most Chinese students finish high school convinced that their country has fought wars only in self-defense, never aggressively or in conquest, despite the People's Liberation Army's invasion of Tibet in 1950 and the ill-fated war with Vietnam in 1979, to take two examples.

Similarly, many believe that Japan was defeated largely as a result of Chinese resistance, not by the United States.

"The fundamental reason for the victory is that the Chinese Communist Party became the core power that united the nation," says one widely used textbook, referring to World War II.

But apparently its getting a little better.

QUOTE

Defenders of China's curriculum say that whatever its shortcomings, history education has vastly improved in recent years. There is more choice among textbooks, even if all textbooks are carefully screened by the government, and once taboo subjects, like the Chinese Nationalists' contribution during the war against Japan and even the Cultural Revolution are being mentioned, if only cursorily, in more and more textbooks.

Interesting read.

QUOTE (Ocean of Notions @ Apr 20 2009, 17.53)

Yes and no. Forgetting culture and context is a major mistake. I'm not surprised you think such a thing considering you're willing to use the word "barbarism". I don't mean this as an insult, it's just an observation. What does surprise me is that you think cultural relativists consider some cultures "inferior", which is most definitely not the case. The word "barbarism" itself implies inferiority. And the fact that one thinks any society run differently than their own is "inferior" also says something similar.

First off, I think barbarism is pretty appropriate. Secondly, you misread/misunderstood me. I wasn't knocking culturally relativists for judging some cultures inferior to others, I was attacking them for being unwilling to cast such judgments. Sometimes different is just different. Sometimes different is significantly worse (or better). When it is worse (or better), we shouldn't be afraid to acknowledge that fact, explain why or why not, and condemn when appropriate. Relativists will not do that. They live in a fairy tale world where there is no better, worse, superior, inferior, good or bad...just different. They go out of their way to avoid casting judgment. Too worried about offending and hurt feelings. Fact is, not all beliefs, traditions, practices, and indeed cultures are equally valid, effective, or good. Some are sinister, some abusive, some inferior, and we should not flinch from saying so. I used the term barbarism in part to reinforce that point, because I know how much handwringing relativists get up to when it comes to calling a spade a spade.

Also, for the love of god can we try to accurately represent what I actually said? I did not say, suggest, or imply that any society run differently is inferior. I did say that on these specific points (democracy/human rights/yada yada), China's practices and behavior (if you want to call that 'culture', then by all means do so) are inferior and very often barbaric. They are not simply 'different' on these points, they are different, wrong, and bad. There are 'different' cultures where women have few, if any rights, get stoned for fucking anyone not their husband, and must submit to rape on demand. These customs are not wrong simply by my standards, they are universally wrong, discriminatory, abusive, oppressive, backwater, and yes, barbaric. I have absolutely NO problem saying as much and neither should you or anyone else. Something that deserves to be condemned, SHOULD be condemned. So yes, barbarism implies inferiority and on these specific points, I'm not implying inferiority, I'm outright stating it.

QUOTE (Ocean of Notions @ Apr 20 2009, 17.53)

See, you and I agree there. It greatly annoys me when people disparage the practices of a society as "uncivilized". Often times their own society don't seem to live up to their own criteria of so-called "civilization". I find the usage of such terms to be over generalizing, over simplifying, culturally insensitive and often times ignorant. Yes, the PRC government has done some despicable things. I don't agree with a lot of what they've done, what they're doing and how they're organized. But I'm not going to overlook the fact that there are socio-political intricacies present that can't be summed up with a few admirable sounding slogans calling for "freedom". It just isn't as simple as that.

Culturally insensitive is one of those terms that annoys the shit out of me. What is the inherent value of cultural sensitivity? I understand that it can be useful politically and that it may be undiplomatic to behave otherwise. Also that cultural insensitivity is often the result of ignorance, indifference, and outright bigotry. But cultures are not entitled to nor do they deserve that sensitivity simply for existing. They do not and should not get a free pass from condemnation and criticism when warranted. And certain cultures (or more accurately, specific cultural practices) are by any fair, objective measure absolutely repugnant. In those instances, sensitivity be damned, they don't deserve it. What they do deserve and warrant is condemnation and criticism, even if its insensitive to the point of insulting.

I am generalizing of course, but not oversimplifying. I could give you page after page of justification and argument for my 'culturally insensitive' label, but I think we're all informed enough of China's record to make that a waste of time. Just rest assured that my culturally insensitivity is very healthy, informed, and (IMO) justified.

QUOTE (Ocean of Notions @ Apr 20 2009, 17.53)

For one, the PRC government was established in 1949. This government was built on a nation that has been repeatedly ruled by totalitarian regimes. We cannot use the government of the United States, founded in 1776, on a rather clean slate (comparatively) as model for change. It's just not going to work. We have to examine China on an individual basis.

This I agree with. Our path will not work for them. The circumstances are drastically different. But in certain respects, the end goal is or should be similar. At the very least meaningful democratic representation for all citizens should be goal of every state. But what you suggest are the reasons WHY China is the way it is. Which is informative and useful. But that should never be used to excuse or justify China continuing as is. Much like the post-colonial thug-states in parts of Africa; colonialism is a huge reason for why they are in that state, but it does not excuse or justify continued thuggish behavior. We can (and should) answer the Why question while still making value judgments of the present reality.

QUOTE (Ocean of Notions @ Apr 20 2009, 17.53)

The last time I was in the PRC, most people I ran into knew exactly how fucked up the government is. But what they disliked even more than their fucked up government was outsiders, who rarely have a good understanding of the situation, trying to tell Chinese people how they should run their country.

Most people don't take well to outside criticism. I get that. You'll get that everywhere. See what happens when a Euro or Canadian starts smack-talking American foreign policy. Fireworks galore. But that shouldn't stop or dissuade the critics. If something warrants criticism, it should receive it. I can't speak to how well informed the average Chinese person is to the behavior of their government. I do know that their textbooks minimize or completely ignore their own human rights abuses and that calling much of their school-taught history revisionist would be the understatement of the century. That most major information sources are either state run or tightly controlled. That propaganda is popular. And that in any discussion human rights and basic civil liberties will be downplayed to the extreme. They may have a general sense that their government is fucked up, but I don't think many of them grasp just how fucked up.

It may just be that the well informed outsider, divorced from the selective history, controlled news, targeted propaganda, and basic national pride may in fact have a better understanding of certain aspects of the situation then they do.

QUOTE (The Humble Asskicker @ Apr 20 2009, 18.31)

Unless you profess a believe in an infallible deity, what else is there but relativism? Politics is not like math, where there is clear proof in a formula, or like hard science where there is evidence from which to derive a theory. With the vice and virtues of politics, we don't even know what we are measuring to indicate either way. Are we using individual happiness as a standard? National happiness (quantity? quality?)? Productivity? Equality? Degree of liberty? How all of these factors are best balanced as they inevitably clash?

But I don't want to be a fool and underestimate the intelligence of those who have already demonstrated themselves to be very smart, and so I imagine you have already considered all of this, EHK. So please explain to me why Totalitarianism, as instituted and practiced by the Chinese, is inferior to the semi-democracy popularly espoused by Western countries, and Japan?

Can you argue that the US, beset as it is with a less extreme disproportion but still rocked with numerous economic difficulties, would handle things more satisfactorily? How would you consider a satisfactory outcome (a more socialist, ease the suffering of the greatest number approach, or a more capitalist, somehow hope that a billion people can ride on the coattails of the few successful businessmen, or something in between)?

Can't a guy spout off about universal truths and values without someone coming in here to deconstruct the shit and make me work? Yeah I was expecting this. And considering philosophers since Plato have been mulling over some variation of the question, I hope you'll excuse whatever imperfect answer I come up with. My problem with relativism, moral relativism in particular, is that it offers no answers. In fact under most interpretations it generally asserts that there are no answers. It promotes no virtues nor any framework by which one can determine virtue. In fact most relativists would assert that neither of those exist outside of an individual or cultural context. All it offers is deconstruction to the point of elimination. It is a fundamentally nihilist philosophy that discounts the possibility of objective value judgments. In short, it offers nothing and fucks up everything.

Even on issues where virtually the entire world is in agreement, relativism accepts no universal or independent, objective truths. The classic example, that the Holocaust was wrong, would find agreement by the vast majority of peoples in every far corner in the world. But the true relativist could not make that statement without qualification. (by contemporary western standards, by most global cultural standards, by my personal morality, etc, the holocaust was wrong) What value is there to a philosophy that can't even make an unequivocal statement on the Holocaust? (or slavery, or rape for that matter) What value is there to a philosophy that seems to exist for the sole purpose of fucking up every other philosophy and offers nothing tangible in return? Indeed the relativist would declare that the entire notion of objective value is a false premise to begin with. While relativism has uses as an analytic tool in some contexts, as a moral philosophy it is at best useless, at worst destructive.

Whether fallacy or not, I prefer a moral philosophy that permits the possibility of right and wrong, just and unjust. That suggests or at least permits a framework by which rightness and justness might be identified, established, and/or improved. Those are useful. They provide meaningful contributions to the further progress of societies and humanity as a whole. They do not toss a frag grenade into the mess and declare notions of virtue, morality, progress, justice and everything else subjective or relative and call it a day. Again, I fail to see the value of relativism as a moral philosophy besides its insistence that value and all the other shit doesn't exist outside of a personal/social/cultural context. That's great and all, but where do you go from there? Nowhere.

Except that we do go somewhere. Because despite its rather successful infiltration into Western society, the world does not operate on relativist terms. People, societies and governments make value judgments. They identify and promote good while vilifying and condemning evil or injustice, all without agonizing too strenuously over whether their conceptions of good and evil are purely cultural constructs or not. So when I declare China in some respects to be barbaric and inferior, I can list off a variety of compelling reasons and justifications, supported by evidence, for why that is the case. Naturally these criticisms flow from premises and preconceptions that are influenced in no small part by my own background, education, and cultural context. While some of them may be up for debate and disagreement is possible on the nitty-gritty details of the main ones, I accept that at their fundamental core that certain of these premises are right, just, and good.

Why? Because they serve the goal of maximizing individual liberty, individual and by extension national self-determination (aka, meaningful representation in government), and protection of the individual and their basic, essential rights and freedoms. The relativist would likely tell me that there is no inherent value to any of that. But I find it desirable anyway, can provide reasons for why its desirable (which the relativist would assert have no inherent value either), and like most of the world, ignore the relativist. Relativism merely deconstructs to the point where there are no (beyond cultural/social/individual) premises left by which to judge, no objective process by which to analyze, nor anything to analyze or judge in the first place. So whether handed down by god, inherent in natural laws of the universe, or cobbled together via tribal tradition piled upon tradition, I accept that there are premises, objectively determinable, universal laws and morality, and that we can and should cast value judgments where appropriate. We can debate which premises and goals are good or bad, useful or not, beneficial or detrimental and to what extent for all of them. But with relativism carried to its natural extent, all premises are false and there simply is nothing to debate. I can universally assert that there is no society on earth where such a philosophy is useful or desirable. (Relatvist: Value laden terms like useful and desirable are entirely dependent upon ones cultural constructs and the premises one creates from them. EHK: Fuck off and get a job you dirty hippy)

I feel like I've answered nothing. Yet I'm sick of typing. If you take away anything from this it should be the fundamental, universal, inalienable, self-evident, indisputable truth that relativism sucks.

QUOTE (Ocean of Notions @ Apr 21 2009, 13.44)

The philosophy from which I view the world is a middle ground. I recognize the fact that my opinions are embedded in a cultural framework and so are the opinions of everyone else. However, that /does not/ mean that I do not cast judgment. It means that when I do cast judgment, I keep in mind the bigger picture. Recognizing cultural and historical differences is required for finding a viable solution to complex and culturally loaded problems. No, cultures don't deserve this or that merely because they exist. However, cultural sensitivity is extremely important if you wish to operate on an international and multicultural level. Those who dismiss it often times forget that the same "insensitive" points-of-view can be applied to their own culture. If we just speak on a practical level, how are we suppose to get anything done if no one refuses to recognize the validity of the other side?

We're not in Congress and I'm not a foreign diplomat. 'We' don't need to get anything done. Nor do we have to horsetrade on matters of principle, morality, justice or righteousness. I do not have to, nor should I recognize the validity of the other side if I don't believe the other side has validity. There is nothing valid about undemocratic government. About different rules applying to different sets of citizens. (I understand that every society has this as a de facto reality, but the official laws and practices of every society should be towards equal laws, treatment, recognition, and practices, which Western societies do to a much more significant degree then China or many others) About gross and extensive violation of civil liberties. About suspension or suppression of fundamental individual liberties. About unjustified gross human rights abuses.

Yes cultural understanding is useful for seeking a solution and for basic diplomacy with other peoples and nations. But again, it is not and should not be used as an excuse. It is merely explanatory, not exculpatory. And I welcome them to apply their 'insensitivity' to my culture and every other. Where valid, I'll try to acknowledge it. Where weak, simplistic, exaggerated, invalid, or wrong I'll argue and dispute it. That is the way it should be. The many peoples, societies, and cultures bringing their preconceptions to a global market place of ideas to be trounced and/or defended on their own merits, with the worst ones being harshly eviscerated and left in the dustbin of history. A sort of relentless, unforgiving global-cultural peer review.

QUOTE (Ocean of Notions @ Apr 21 2009, 13.44)

How can you expect the Chinese people who look at what you have and want it (and want to work for it) if you cannot look at what they have and understand where they come from? That's just pure hypocrisy. Stubbornly proclaiming that you're right and they're wrong won't help anyone achieve democracy. Instead, they will resent you for your /willing/ ignorance and ethnocentricity. China has experienced enough western colonialism to still feel smarted by the humiliation and the wrongs that were committed against them. You can't expect them to look at countries that have screwed them in the past 200 hundred years and all of a sudden cheer for a different side. Most Chinese I've run into would rather deal with their own shitty government then go back to a China controlled by outsiders.

The ironic thing being that the China I propose actually empowers those people to a greater degree then they've every seen in their entire history. China right now may not be controlled by outsiders, but it most certainly is not controlled by the Chinese people. If they cannot acknowledge that it is better to have a direct, substantial say in government than none simply because the suggestion comes from the west, then their stubbornness does them a great disservice. There is nothing colonial about 'Hey, here's a better idea, give it a try'. Nor pointing out and condemning injustice, oppression, and brutality (since barbarism is considered too loaded of a term) when it occurs.

QUOTE (Ocean of Notions @ Apr 21 2009, 13.44)

As for how much the average Chinese people understand that about their history, you'd be surprised. You have to remember that a good number of middle age Chinese were alive during the history of which you speak. My parents and my relatives lived through the Cultural Revolution, the Great Leap Forward, etc. My father was thrilled when Mao died. He couldn't be happier despite the fact that he had to publicly mourn. When I was in China last year, every other cab driver we ended up chatting with spoke of government corruption with disgust and understanding. Despite all this, you also have to realize that the average Chinese are also extremely nationalistic. Every culture's understanding of history is skewed towards their side.

Corruption. Kind of coincides with what I said in my early post. The kind of thing that most Chinese citizens are likely to personally experience or at least hear stories about. The things that make a direct, measurable impact on daily life. A general 'incompetence of government' objection common in every state, culture, and people that have such problems to a significant degree. Shit that gets the west riled up like amorally supporting a genocidal regime in Sudan, 2nd class/slave labor status (minor exageration) of rural citizens, cultural annihilation of Tibet, lack of due process or real rule of law, suppression/abuse/imprisonment of political dissidents or social undesirables, etc, etc fall into the hear no/see no evil category and are thus either diminished or ignored. And this isn't even touching on China's worst atrocities during earlier periods. Nearly every Chinese person I've discussed human rights with treat it as an overblown western exaggeration that may or may not be part of a sinister western plot to attack and discredit China. No I don't think all or even most of them 'get it'. I think that they, probably like most people throughout the world, 'get' only what they want to.

QUOTE (Ocean of Notions @ Apr 21 2009, 13.44)

It's true that Eastern cultures are much more accepting of strong leaders. The Chinese culture is all about self-sacrifice for the greater good. America's individualism is looked at with disgust. A friend of mine was in Russia a couple of years ago. The old Russian woman she stayed with would speak of how things were better under Stalin. My father, who enjoys spontaneously spouting anti-establishment (of the PRC, obviously) remarks (much to everyone's annoyance) speak of how things actually got done and progressed under absolute leaders like Deng Xiao Ping. Despite looks, PRC's current government is rather decentralized. The central authority is having great difficulties controlling the corruption of regional governments. When Deng was alive, he was the absolute authority. Now, there's no one with that power.

The fundamental desire for a strong leader to set things right I think exists in all peoples and cultures to varying degrees. Some have overcome that through strong institutions and traditions of individuality. And I do wonder how much of this yearning for the worst historical butchers stems from state mandated ignorance of reality, simple willful self-delusion, or both. And how much is simple human weakness. The desire to cede to someone else the absolute power to 'find the answers and solutions' because you can't be asked to make or influence such choices yourself. Security concerns trumping liberty and good sense.

After Mao and his immediate successors, Deng certainly doesn't look that bad. He was a vast improvement, brought major reforms, unlike much of the leadership that preceded him, was not a blind ideologue, but he was still to a great extent a thug. Autocracy didn't significantly diminish, rule of law didn't suddenly appear, political and social repression continued, his China supported the Khmer Rouge, invaded Vietnam, and had that little fiasco at Tienanmen Square.

Back to the original topic, Jackie Chan claims he was taken out of context: link

Original comments:

QUOTE

"I'm not sure if it's good to have freedom or not," Chan said Saturday, adding freedoms in his native Hong Kong and Taiwan made those societies "chaotic." Taiwan, which split from China in 1949, is democratic and Hong Kong , a separately ruled Chinese territory, enjoys some free elections.

"I'm gradually beginning to feel that we Chinese need to be controlled. If we're not being controlled, we'll just do what we want," he said.

Response:

QUOTE

Solon So, the chief executive of Chan's company JC Group and his main spokesman, told The Associated Press in a phone interview Tuesday the actor was referring to freedom in the entertainment industry and not Chinese society at large.

Chan was speaking at a panel discussion about Asian entertainment industries and was asked to discuss movie censorship in China.

"Some people with ulterior motives deliberately misinterpreted what he was saying," So said.

Unless there's some drastic mistranslation, I'm not sure I'm buying it. Asked about censorship in the context of entertainment and you respond with 'I'm not sure if freedom is good, freedom made Hong Kong and Taiwan chaotic, maybe we Chinese need to be controlled or we'll *GASP* do what we want.' ??? How are those comments not intended to extend beyond entertainment? Why are they good or acceptable even if limited to the context of entertainment? What historic and thriving film industry could he have been referring to when he included Taiwan into the mix?

Many in Hong Kong and China are outraged. This response in particular gave me a chuckle.

QUOTE

A Facebook group set up by Hong Kong users calling for Chan to be exiled to North Korea had drawn more than 2,600 members by Tuesday.

QUOTE (EHK for Darwin @ Apr 22 2009, 13.28)

his China supported the Khmer Rouge, invaded Vietnam...

To be fair, so did the United States.

QUOTE (Roose Bolton's Pet Leech @ Apr 21 2009, 22.20)

To be fair, so did the United States.

The US never supported the Khmer Rouge. We supported a third faction.

QUOTE (Ocean of Notions @ Apr 21 2009, 23.06)

How can you claim to draw valid opinions when you admit to purposefully ignoring half the information? I suppose you're right. Since your opinions don't actually matter, you can say whatever you want, disregarding whomever you want. But at the same time, don't you see the ridiculousness of your own claim?

What exactly am I ignoring? I'm simply saying that there's no need for me to be polite or conciliatory simply for sake of pleasantness because I'm not the Secretary of State or the Ambassador to China. What is ridiculous about my claims? China is undemocratic, that is a bad thing. Their government is repressive and abusive, also bad. And I don't need to compromise my views on these things simply to make other peoples or cultures feel better.

QUOTE (Ocean of Notions @ Apr 21 2009, 23.06)

You don't seem to understand. Like I said, they'd rather deal with their own shitty government than outsiders.

Ummm...except I'm not suggesting they deal with outsiders, I'm suggesting that they move towards elected self-government and deal with themselves, rather then continuing to be the victims of oligarchic fiat. I get the reasons why they're stubbornly resistant to anything that can be perceived as remotely foreign, but that doesn't make their reaction any less silly. Its like continuing smoking even though you know the health effects simply because the information came from somewhere else. Yes, be loud and proud about your defiance of foreign colonialists!!...and get cancer and die.

QUOTE (Ocean of Notions @ Apr 21 2009, 23.06)

That is incredibly insulting and belittling. This is why many Chinese people resent western criticism. You seem to be suffering from the same problem, "getting" only what you want to. Don't even pretend it's not true, there is most definitely an intellectual war waged between western and eastern factions. The Cold War may be over, but that doesn't mean things are sunshine and rainbows. Everyone is using information and public sentiment to further their political agenda.

Except my political agenda is democratic government, free choice and expression, protection of civil liberties, rule of law, due process, and preservation and protection of basic human rights. I can't for the life of me understand why a rational, well-informed individual would be against those things. So when they are, I look for culprits. Not 'getting it' is a catch-all generalization for the many culprits (censorship, propaganda, politicized education, culture, etc) that have been raised and discussed throughout the thread.

I am not ignoring or selectively applying information to further that agenda, though I will freely admit to not having perfect information and in some cases, quite limited information. Still, there's enough to form an impression. Which is that the Chinese I've encountered either don't care about human rights violations or don't know the full extent of them, and view any outside discussion of them as an assault on their national pride that's exaggerated by Western propaganda and may be part of western bigotry or conspiracy.

They can resent and feel offended all they like, that makes the criticism of their government's record no less true. And their refusal to acknowledge it and significant downplaying on it certainly indicates that they just don't get it. The problem isn't Western insult and belittlement, the criticism is mostly warranted and true. The problem is Chinese pride and nationalism (plus potentially government control of information) clouding judgment and reaction. Perhaps I haven't talked to enough of them. But your reaction and reference to other Chinese reactions seems to confirm my impressions.

QUOTE (Ocean of Notions @ Apr 21 2009, 23.06)

And the insults keep flying. One minute, you think it's unfair to believe that the Chinese people are too inferior to govern themselves and now you're implying they're weak. Good job. Let me tell you why people like Cubans, the Chinese, Russians, etc. both hate and love their brutal dictators. Before these brutal dictators came along, the common people had nothing. During the first few years of tyrannical rule, the peasant majority was given a voice and, more importantly, food. We can't imagine that here in the United States because American society was never structured in the same way. American culture is embedded with ideas of making something of nothing, making yourself someone when you were no one. In more traditional societies, social status was immutable and it actually did affect your every day life. These brutal dictators may have ended up being real bastards, but at that time, they did give the common people more than they could ever have imagined. That is why, despite it all, those people are still idolized. Do you honestly think those people didn't realize what was going on in their country? How stupid do you really think they are? Like I said before, they're not going to show their discontent with an outsider. They're especially going to appear proud in the face of someone who shows so little respect and speak with such lofty disapproval.

Seriously, stop it. You're not gonna get much meaningful discussion done constantly harping on perceived offenses and scouring every dark corner for insult. My comments were stated generally and they do apply generally. A significant faction of Americans have idolized and romanticized no-nonsense, power-abusing, strongman Presidents for years. Many Brits do the same with Churchill and the French with De Gaulle. Strongmen everywhere are to some extent venerated. I wasn't suggesting that its Chinese nature, I was suggesting that it may well be human nature. And IMO, weakness since its premised on surrendering individual power and potentially freedom to some 'savior' who might be better suited to solve their problems for them. I view it as a willful and knowing abrogating of responsibility for ones own (and their country's own) security and welfare. Apply the appropriate Ben Franklin quote.

Maybe in the grand scheme of things its better then what came before. But bread and circuses is no substitute for having a direct, democratic say in how one is governed. (which can and often is used to provide the necessary 'bread and circuses' as well) Nor do the hospitals and schools mean much to the tens of millions butchered and oppressed through these autocratic, often ideological 'reforms'.

And why the fuck shouldn't we express disapproval, lofty or otherwise, when warranted? Why should respect be given when it is not earned or deserved? Why do so many demand that we tip toe around the obvious for fear of offending? What purpose does that serve but to preclude serious discussion and self-censor valid outrage? If there is something unjust or horrific, then it should be condemned and criticized. And if certain peoples take said criticism badly, that's on them. Don't blame the messenger when the message is correct.

QUOTE (Horza @ Apr 21 2009, 23.18)

But when people complain, it is usually about those crooked bosses, reporters, mayors, or bureaucrats-not about the system or its rulers. Principled protests against the system and its repression certainly do exist, as with the daring 'Charter 08' petition for civil liberties signed by more than 300 intellectuals late last year. But that is not the norm. Ten years ago, when the Asian financial crisis drove China’s unemployment rate above 10 percent, demonstrations broke out across the country. 'But the laid-off workers were almost always fighting for their rights-unemployment benefits that they believed were stolen by local officials-rather than fighting against the central government policies that led to the job loss,' Andy Rothman of CLSA wrote recently. Perhaps these workers are missing the big picture, but for now they generally act as if they expect the national system to protect them against lapses at the local level.

Hmmm...reminds me of medieval peasants or merchants who would continually condemn the king's 'bad advisors' for their sorry state, but almost always fall short of condemning the king or the concept of monarchy itself. A rather myopic world view which constantly seeks flaws and abuses of the system without actually questioning the system itself.