xul, ToadBrother, M.Dancer 's favourate China topic

[ToadBrother]

1. You bring this irrelevant topic again when you can not find any persuasive argument on the topic again.

I bring it up all the time because you're an obnoxious chauvinistic Chinese nationalist who, for some reason unfathomable to me, isn't actually living in China.

2. What you said is totally a baseless lie.

No, not baseless. Of course the Party knows the true number of those who died during the Great Leap Forward, but are too craven to admit it. This is why I suspect it's probably at the high end of the estimates.

3. The truth we can find is that on the other hand, European invaders slaughtered millions of native inhabitants. The indigenous population of the Americas plummeted from 100 million at the time of Columbus' arrival to just three million 150 years later. They executed an aboriginal every 10 minutes.

These are much more questionable estimates, and the larger portion were due to smallpox, which certainly beat the Europeans to many places in the Americas.

4. Thousands kids were killed in residential schools. That's what Canada did.

Terrible thing, that, but still not millions, and not millions due to the sheer incompetence, like Mao's Great Leap Forward, and to the political framework like the one he created that made regional party apparatchik too frightened to tell that vile man the truth about his ridiculously awful economic program.

Mao stands as the man who probably killed more people than any other single human being in history. Yes, he didn't do it intentionally like Hitler or Pol Pot, but if he had been more interested in what his people needed and less interested in making himself into some sort of new Chinese emperor, everyone would have been a lot further ahead.

The real hero of post-Imperial China is Deng Xiaoping. That's the guy whose face should be plastered all over the place. Not a nice guy, but a rather brilliant one, and more importantly pragmatic.

Edited August 19, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Michael Hardner]

The recent school attacks in China are done by people outside the schools that is beyond schools and teachers can affect. Those people and the people who unfairly treated them become selfish because western culture and western value invade.

Here in Canada we are facing more violence between kids that under directly educating by the schools and teachers and the education system for years.

The point, though, is how is it addressed and managed ? There's not much point in talking about the source of the violence, because that's different from what you started this thread with.

[Michael Hardner]

Actually, now I become think maybe democracy is the reason people becomes selfish.

Having a nation that is based on the right of the individual to pursue happiness is selfish ? I suppose, if you think so then having a population of slaves is akin to having a country of selfless and admirable people.

As they used to say, the poor get their reward in heaven.

What's the point of a country if not to allow people to pursue their lives as they would like ? To let them have a say ? Right, to serve the Emperor.

I had no idea, until I met you, that such obsequiousness was possible in a free person.

[bjre]

I don't think we need more police in schools. What we need are more teachers and more qualified teachers, smaller classrooms and a better education system that challenges the kids in fields they are interested in. I was absolutely bored through most of my school life. I had little motivation to learn what was put on me. And when I was inspired by a class, I still did not do that well, but those moments I still remember over all else and have helped me up to this day. I considered myself a failure most of my life because I never had done well in school. In contrast I did go to college when I was 30. Graduated one course with honors, and the other I was .2 off from honors.

The school classroom needs to be a garden of ideas and we need to make sure that when a kid is inspired by a certain thing, we should encourage the good behavior and help them. Tom wants to be an engineer or a scientists or an astronaut or a fireman... yes things change as time goes on and the kid might change focus as well to something else that is more to his liking and more suited for him. Sally wants to be a doctor or own/operate her own shop. Let's encourage them.

The kids are always told what they are doing wrong and rarely told when they are doing right. If we start with a better education system, we can actually reduce the number of crimes committed by these kids when they grow into adults. If we start early we can really take control of the future and make it much much better.

We have to give kids the ability to think for themselves but yet consider the collective that is the community. I don't see that happening. We have a school system that is breeding sheep. Kids feel better about themselves and then feel like they are making a difference if we help them to. We mold them in a better way a more sustainable way.

Parenting here also is key. We rely so much on the public system to educate and tell our kids what is needed when the parents should also be taking a daily interest in their kids lives in regards to education and aspirations. We rely on the education system to grade our kids accordingly. If my son is bad in school I want to know why. If he is failing courses, why is that happening? How can it be fixed. The kid cannot do it alone, so we really need to change the approach of it all.

I will also say that some children will/must be left behind. If we pass everyone when some don't deserve it, we encourage this kind of behavior and the kids do realize this early. Then they take advantage of it, knowing that they will be passed to the next grade every year without any reprocussions.

Kids are our future, why not properly invest in them so they can take control of it for the better.

/rant

If only more Canadians can have constructive ideas like this, Canada would become hopeful.

[M.Dancer]

I had no idea, until I met you, that such obsequiousness was possible in a free person.

I freed a thousand slaves I could have freed a thousand more if only they knew they were slaves.

Harriet Tubman

[bjre]

I freed a thousand slaves I could have freed a thousand more if only they knew they were slaves.

Harriet Tubman

They freed Iraqis. How about the life in Iraq now, better than Saddam's time?

[M.Dancer]

They freed Iraqis. How about the life in Iraq now, better than Saddam's time?

Unquestionably.

[capricorn]

They freed Iraqis. How about the life in Iraq now, better than Saddam's time?

The chances of living, breathing Iraqis being fed into a shredder for dissent are now significantly reduced. So, yeah, life is better in Iraq.

[ToadBrother]

The chances of living, breathing Iraqis being fed into a shredder for dissent are now significantly reduced. So, yeah, life is better in Iraq.

That really wasn't a fate for the large majority of Iraqis. As bad as Saddam was, there wasn't chaos. While the situation is better than it was early on in the invasion, it's by no means as good as it was prior to the invasion.

The Elder Bush was right to reject turfing Hussein. Better than devil you know...

[M.Dancer]

That really wasn't a fate for the large majority of Iraqis. As bad as Saddam was, there wasn't chaos.

As long as you weren't a Kurd or a Shia...nothing like a ruthless republican Gaurd to keep order.

[ToadBrother]

As long as you weren't a Kurd or a Shia...nothing like a ruthless republican Gaurd to keep order.

The US took care of the Kurd problem, too late for many perhaps, but northern Iraq was effectively out of Saddam's hands for a decade. And I still don't think you can justify the notion that the average Shia was somehow at any greater risk.

[bloodyminded]

That really wasn't a fate for the large majority of Iraqis. As bad as Saddam was, there wasn't chaos. While the situation is better than it was early on in the invasion, it's by no means as good as it was prior to the invasion.

Of course you're right. The only argument (and not an entirely useless one) was the notion that things could now improve...an idea that war advocates have bafflingly abandoned, in their zeal to "win" the debate right now.

The fact is, as you say, while Saddam was a tyrant on a very serious scale, most Iraqis lives relatively ordinary lives, often not that alien from what Westerners like to see.

This isn't a defense of dictatorships....hell, I hate softer dicatorships than that one. But the caricature of pre-war Iraqis living as they are now, plus with the constant threat of the dictator killing them, is worse than useless, because it damages our understanding of the truth. (a quality which I hope is worthy in and of itself.)

Iraq is currently one of the most violent places on Earth. Religious extremism has risen sharply. Sectarian enclaves have been sprouting up where they weren't before (and, shamefully, this very sectarianism was actually part of "the surge" strategy).

If things get better in Iraq, especially to the point where they become a tourist trap (as Mark Steyn confidently predicted, in 2003, that they would be by 2004 ) then that's awesome. I'm not holding my breath.

[M.Dancer]

And I still don't think you can justify the notion that the average Shia was somehow at any greater risk.

I think the argument can be made.

http://www.forcedmigration.org/guides/fmo015/fmo015-2.htm

[bjre]

I think the argument can be made.

http://www.forcedmigration.org/guides/fmo015/fmo015-2.htm

Maybe westerners also free aboriginals so that most of them be killed in Americas.

Maybe westerners also free Africans by catching them from home and sell them to America.

And then, add some "research result" the make up history and say they killed each other before westerners come and free them.

How respectable. Westerners are just the god. They seems always enjoy forgetting they themselves killed each other inside Europe and outside Europe just for profit.

Why Saddam attacked Iran, isn't US ask him to do that and provide him WMD?

[M.Dancer]

Maybe westerners also free Africans by catching them from home and sell them to America.

You speak with great authority..probably because slavery was made illegal in China in 1910...they even made owning black slaves illegal..

http://www.globaltimes.cn/www/english/metro-beijing/lifestyle/education&careers/2010-03/510400.html

Yet slavery still exists

http://chinaview.wordpress.com/2007/06/17/modern-slavery-in-china-status-of-chinese-worker/

...for the record, the slaves caught in africa were for the most part caught by other africans and arabs...westerners are a distant 3rd....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery#Africa

[dre]

At this point westerners have been spoonfed so much propoganda that they have no objective means to judge pre-war Iraq in terms of how living there compared to other middle eastern countries. Westerners should stick to what they know... which celebrity is banging which other celebrity and who got booted off Survivor this week.

One thing for certain is that IF life for your average Iraqi IS improved it came with a horrible cost. Life definately isnt improved for the hundreds of thousands (over a million by many estimates) of people slaughtered by US forces, foreign terrorists, and sectarian violance. Pretty sure life sucks for them.

[M.Dancer]

At this point westerners have been spoonfed so much propoganda that they have no objective means to judge ....

One thing for certain ....

So in your mind, you can't be really be certain about that

[bjre]

Actually, now I become think maybe democracy is the reason people becomes selfish.

Having a nation that is based on the right of the individual to pursue happiness is selfish ? I suppose, if you think so then having a population of slaves is akin to having a country of selfless and admirable people.

As they used to say, the poor get their reward in heaven.

What's the point of a country if not to allow people to pursue their lives as they would like ? To let them have a say ? Right, to serve the Emperor.

No, I did not say that.

The idea that come to my mind recently is democracy maybe is the reason that makes people selfish.

I had no idea, until I met you, that such obsequiousness was possible in a free person.

It is unnecessary for you to met me if just for understand what I think.

I don't suggest to take away the right of the individual to pursue happiness.

I think it will be better not emphasis that.

The better thing to emphasis is thinking of others, care about others, help others, work hard to pursue happiness instead of pursue happiness with evil methods.

What most people think about pursue happiness is better with their own hands, and by selfless help from others, so that more wealth will be created, life will be improved fast.

When more people thinks more about pursue happiness by fighting through democracy, rob from others with laws, protest, and others, less wealth will be created.

Actually, now I become think maybe democracy is the reason people becomes selfish.

Because democracy ask everyone fight for themselves. If you don't fight for yourself, no one is suppose to help you. Just like if you don't apply for welfare when you need, the government don't give you anything. But when you forget to pay tax, government will charge you.

This value system will encourage people try to take more without pay hard work. Any hard work people who did not spend time in thinking and fighting for themselves (which create no value to society) becomes only losers.

Democracy makes government thinks more about himself instead of the people of the city:

Report: Next Toronto Mayor should receive $16,000 pay increase

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/295805

Toronto - A new consultant's report is suggesting that the next Mayor of Toronto should receive a pay increase of approximately 9.4 percent, or $16,000. The mayors of other cities, such as Edmonton, Ottawa and Montreal, all reportedly make more than Toronto's.

The next Toronto Mayoral election is in October and all of the candidates have pledged to freeze their pay as Mayor and reject a pay increase. However, a new consultants report is suggesting that the next Mayor of Toronto receive a 9.4 percent, or $16,000, raise, according to the Globe and Mail.

The Toronto Mayor currently earns $167,769.94 annually before benefits. The group says on Dec. 1, 2010, when the next Mayor is sworn in, that pay should be increased to $183,604.

Edited August 19, 2010 by bjre

[dre]

So in your mind, you can't be really be certain about that

Well its pretty easy to be certain that dead people dont have good lives . But beyond that, yeah... I admit that most of the information that gets to me as been filtered through one perspective or another. Weve been fed so many different narratives over the last twenty years that nobody can really be sure of anything. Theres the Saddam = Hitler narrative, the Iraq = Secular narrative, and also the narrative that in terms of things like womens rights Iraq was ahead of virtually the entire middle east. We cant even be sure if 100 thousand people died in operation: "OOPS! That didnt go so well!", or if a million people did, because we are bombarded with so much bullshit.

Then if youre going to talk about westerners making life better for people there by removing Saddam you also need to look at western complicity with Saddams reign and how he came into power, and more importantly how the small sunni minority became so powerfull in the first place, before we give ourselves a big pat on the back.

Of course gulping back the "West gloriously removing a Hitler like tyrant" narrative is a bit easier than having to sort through the sordid history of our involvement in Iraqi affairs, starting with the origional league of nations mandate, then the imposition of a Hashemite monarchy by the west, and Sir Percy Cox and his decision that the Sunni minority would wield most of the local power, and the land settlement act.

The west has been imposing and propping up tyranical and autocratic rule in Iraq since the 20's so forgive me for not giving us a big pat on the back in terms of our contribution to Iraqi society.

[ToadBrother]

Maybe westerners also free aboriginals so that most of them be killed in Americas.

Maybe westerners also free Africans by catching them from home and sell them to America.

And then, add some "research result" the make up history and say they killed each other before westerners come and free them.

How respectable. Westerners are just the god. They seems always enjoy forgetting they themselves killed each other inside Europe and outside Europe just for profit.

Why Saddam attacked Iran, isn't US ask him to do that and provide him WMD?

Pointing out the flaws in Western actions, some of them from a considerable time ago, does not abrogate China's own failings. In particular, I cannot think of anything the West has done, even during its darkest periods like the German genocide of the Jews, which approaches the sheer lethality of the Great Leap Forward. Mao wasn't certainly trying to kill lots of his people like Hitler was the Jews, but he was, while quite a clever political animal, an economic moron and pretty much the poster boy for modern autocratic absolutism, with all the evils that go along with that.

As I said, the person the Chinese should be praising, putting up banners of and so is Deng Xiaoping, the mastermind of the current economic system, who was smart enough to see that Mao's path would lead into the ground. I can't defend everything Deng did, but he was what Mao had never been; a pragmatist who was willing to bypass ideology to put China in a position of economic strength. Mao should be ridiculed as one of the most loathsome and inept men in history, ruthless, politically brilliant, but ultimately a holy fool who bought into his own cult of personality and nearly brought his country to ruin in the process.

[M.Dancer]

Then if youre going to talk about westerners making life better for people there by removing Saddam you also need to look at western complicity with Saddams reign and how he came into power,

As unobjectively as possible, tell me how Saddam came to power.

[ToadBrother]

Democracy makes government thinks more about himself instead of the people of the city:

Democracy allows the people to throw out incompetent mass killers like Mao. I bet those millions who starved to death during the Great Leap Forward could have used the vote, if not to turf that vile little monster Mao, then at least the intellectually castrated local bureaucrats who were more afraid of displeasing that pathetic freak than saving the skins of the people they were responsible for.

Go back to China. If you loathe democracy that much, then get the hell out of it.

[bjre]

Democracy allows the people to throw out incompetent mass killers like Mao.

Mao is not a mass killer.

There are many mass killer among westerners.

I don't remember if I have heard that Hitler was elected.

I bet those millions who starved to death during the Great Leap Forward could have used the vote, if not to turf that vile little monster Mao, then at least the intellectually castrated local bureaucrats who were more afraid of displeasing that pathetic freak than saving the skins of the people they were responsible for.

If there were so many starved to death at that time, that would be one of every 10 or one of every 100, there would be dead body everywhere. No one actually see that. The lie were made up by westerners.

Go back to China. If you loathe democracy that much, then get the hell out of it.

That is not an argument. I am not loathe democracy. I think current western "democracy" is a lie. And even if it becomes true, there are still problems. Make people more selfish is just one of them.

Edited August 19, 2010 by bjre

[dre]

As unobjectively as possible, tell me how Saddam came to power.

Well the British granted Iraq a sort of pseudo independance in the 1930's under Rashid Ali, but then they invaded the place (again) because they were worried about their access to Iraqi oil. They reimposed the Hashemite monarchy (again), and the people suffered under that until about 1960 when the Iraqi army toppled the monarchy. The Arab Socialist Baath party (remember the Sunni minority had a disproportionate share of power land and wealth in Iraq thanx to the British) was one of the groups competing to fill the power vacuum, and they siezed power in 1968 under Ahmed Hasan Al-Bakir. Saddam took power from him a few years later.

After that the US and Britain supported and empowered Saddam for decades and fought a bloody war by proxy through Saddam against Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

If fact the ONLY reason that the US and Brits are not still supporting him TODAY was Saddam invaded another nation that was an important oil producer for the west... partly because of a "mistake" by secretary of State James Baker.

If Saddam has not invaded Kuwait the US and Brits would STILL be supporting his regime today, and you would have been fed a whole different set of propoganda.

[M.Dancer]

Mao is not a mass killer..

Not any more anyway...

The book opens with the sentence "Mao Tse-tung, who for decades held absolute power over the lives of one-quarter of the world's population, was responsible for well over 70 million deaths in peacetime, more than any other twentieth century leader." Chang and Halliday claim that he was willing for half of China to die to achieve military-nuclear superpowerdom. Estimates of the numbers of deaths during this period vary, though Chang and Halliday's estimate is one of the highest. Sinologist Stuart Schram, in a review of the book, noted that "the exact figure... has been estimated by well-informed writers at between 40 and 70 million".[6]

China scholars agree that the famine during the Great Leap Forward caused tens of millions of deaths. Chang and Halliday argue that this period accounts for roughly half of the 70 million total. An official estimate by Hu Yaobang in 1980 put the death toll at 20 million, whereas Philip Short in his 2000 book Mao: A Life found 20 to 30 million to be the most credible number. Chang and Halliday's figure is 37.67 million, which historian Stuart Schram indicated that he believes "may well be the most accurate."[7] Yang Jisheng, a Communist party member and former reporter for Xinhua, puts the number of famine deaths at 36 million.[8]

Professor R. J. Rummel published updated figures on worldwide democide in 2005, stating that he believed Chang and Halliday's estimates to be mostly correct and that he had revised his figures for China under Mao accordingly.[9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao:_The_Unknown_Story#Number_of_deaths_under_Mao

And of course, like many tryrants, he was a sex addict...

Salisbury writes soberly in staccato prose that "from the mid-1960s to the early 1970s" -- the height of the bloody purges of the Cultural Revolution -- "Mao's quarters sometimes swarmed with young women." The Great Helmsman staged nude water ballets in his swimming pool. "Art ensembles" and "dancing partners" were standing by wherever he went. One of Mao's doctors referred to him bluntly as "a sex maniac."

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,975036-1,00.html#ixzz0x4sjYIvu