Comments on Niv Horesh "Understanding China’s rise", 14/03/2016
While I have apparently seen signs of China adopting some of of revival of Confucianism, I am not sure what the core concepts of the so called New Confucianism.
Yes, Confucianism played an important role for about 2000 years in the Chinese history. But there were also many crises over that period, typified by inter dynastic changes as well as intra dynastic upheavals. Those also included, from period to period, multi states at times.
The Chinese Communists, as well as the May Fourth movement, for a long period were probably against Confucianism.
Is the New Confucianism new stage in terms of reconciling the traditional Confucianism with the current Chinese Communism (Confucianism with Chinese characteristics)?
Or is the New Confucianism a blind of a number of main ancient Chinese philosophies with Confucianism as the core, then all that subject to the current Chinese Communism?
Or is the current Chinese leadership using Confucianism to present a historically and relatively prosperous, well governed Eastern (Chinese) image to facilitate its narratives of China’s rise, a return to its ancient place of a more advanced country?
Showing posts with label Chinese history. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Chinese history. Show all posts
2016-03-15
2012-08-14
Relativity in creating fictions
Comments on John Lee "Knock down this great wall of lies" 14/08/2012, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/knock-down-this-great-wall-of-lies/comments-e6frgd0x-1226449575760
Though John has a point, he has unfortunately stretched the facts, argument and logic too far.
While it is true that there were many wars throughout China's history, is there any country in the world with a very long history that has not seen/experienced many wars?
If leaving ideologies, human rights and other things aside for the moment, in terms of China's strengths and weaknesses in the past 200 years or so, the period China under CCP has been arguably the strongest. Does John disagree with that?
In terms expansionism or not, has China conquered any other country even under the CCP rule? Or has it invaded and occupied any other countries for a long period over the past 200 years or so, including under the CCP rule?
Further, again leaving the ideologies aside, does what the CCP say in terms of China's history over the last 200 years or so facts or fiction?
On the other hand, John seems to create his own fictions here. He seems very good at practicing what Mao's saying - oppose whatever the enemies support and support whatever the enemies oppose, even though he criticise Mao a lot.
As a result, his view is too much distorted and has become fictions itself in terms of China.
In that he is misleading his readers.
Though John has a point, he has unfortunately stretched the facts, argument and logic too far.
While it is true that there were many wars throughout China's history, is there any country in the world with a very long history that has not seen/experienced many wars?
If leaving ideologies, human rights and other things aside for the moment, in terms of China's strengths and weaknesses in the past 200 years or so, the period China under CCP has been arguably the strongest. Does John disagree with that?
In terms expansionism or not, has China conquered any other country even under the CCP rule? Or has it invaded and occupied any other countries for a long period over the past 200 years or so, including under the CCP rule?
Further, again leaving the ideologies aside, does what the CCP say in terms of China's history over the last 200 years or so facts or fiction?
On the other hand, John seems to create his own fictions here. He seems very good at practicing what Mao's saying - oppose whatever the enemies support and support whatever the enemies oppose, even though he criticise Mao a lot.
As a result, his view is too much distorted and has become fictions itself in terms of China.
In that he is misleading his readers.
2011-02-07
Complex history and relations of China and Mongolia
Second comments on Justin Li “Chinese investment in Mongolia: An uneasy courtship between Goliath and David”, 2/02/2011, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/02/02/chinese-investment-in-mongolia-an-uneasy-courtship-between-goliath-and-david/#comments
Questions for Bold (who posted a comment there on 4 Feb 2011):
While the Mongolians may be bitter in terms of the parts lost which they may think belonged to them, much more Chinese may think that Mongolia should have never been allowed to split from China. And indeed many mainland Chinese have been very bitter towards the communists and the communist government that had ‘agreed’ to the independence of Mongolia in the first place.
In that context, the Mongols should be grateful to the Chinese communists and the communist government, because the other major political party in the last century in China was the Gomindang that is now in government in Taiwan and it has been said that they did not accept Mongolia’s independence. Should they be in government in the mainland, they may still want Mongolia back to China!
It is true that the Han Chinese and Mongolians may have fought each other for many centuries, but it is equally true and a fact they became one for hundreds of years until the Mongolia’s succession from China in the first half of the last century, whether it was the Mongols conquered China or China colonised Mongolia does not matter much. The time they were one is longer than the time the history of the current USA, and certainly than current Australia!
It is clearly difficult to evaluate the opinion polls you cited without knowing the detailed sources of those polls.
But for many Chinese, both mainland and in Taiwan, they may not trust those polls and the purposes of those Western organisations. They may think some Westerners simply want to divide China and make it weaker. And by that logic, they suspect that some Westerners clearly don’t want to see China becomes any territorially larger.
Questions for Bold (who posted a comment there on 4 Feb 2011):
While the Mongolians may be bitter in terms of the parts lost which they may think belonged to them, much more Chinese may think that Mongolia should have never been allowed to split from China. And indeed many mainland Chinese have been very bitter towards the communists and the communist government that had ‘agreed’ to the independence of Mongolia in the first place.
In that context, the Mongols should be grateful to the Chinese communists and the communist government, because the other major political party in the last century in China was the Gomindang that is now in government in Taiwan and it has been said that they did not accept Mongolia’s independence. Should they be in government in the mainland, they may still want Mongolia back to China!
It is true that the Han Chinese and Mongolians may have fought each other for many centuries, but it is equally true and a fact they became one for hundreds of years until the Mongolia’s succession from China in the first half of the last century, whether it was the Mongols conquered China or China colonised Mongolia does not matter much. The time they were one is longer than the time the history of the current USA, and certainly than current Australia!
It is clearly difficult to evaluate the opinion polls you cited without knowing the detailed sources of those polls.
But for many Chinese, both mainland and in Taiwan, they may not trust those polls and the purposes of those Western organisations. They may think some Westerners simply want to divide China and make it weaker. And by that logic, they suspect that some Westerners clearly don’t want to see China becomes any territorially larger.
2009-07-20
Who is trying to fool others?
Comments on David Burchell “The great gall of China has us fooled”, 20/07/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25805432-5013479,00.html
Whether the China experts that Burchell talked about have fooled us or not, or whether they have claimed a false moral high ground or not, remain to be seen. However, one thing is certain that Burchell is trying to claim the even higher moral ground.
It is a bravery act, one against many experts. It is commendable on this ground.
One, however, may want to see if David Burchell is trying to claim the moral high ground of the glorious power of past British imperialism. If that is what Burchell tries to do, he may have lost that battle before he even started, since the United Kingdom itself has long given up that status.
Zhao’s book may be useful in understanding some very limited aspects of China at a particular time of Chinese history. There are, however, many valuable Chinese books, especially history. In that context, Zhao’s book is a drop of water in the ocean and it should be understood in that context. Using that book may or may not help Burchell’s cause.
If Burchell wants to claim a moral high ground relating to Chinese issues, it may help if he understands more Chinese books and history and culture.
Whether the China experts that Burchell talked about have fooled us or not, or whether they have claimed a false moral high ground or not, remain to be seen. However, one thing is certain that Burchell is trying to claim the even higher moral ground.
It is a bravery act, one against many experts. It is commendable on this ground.
One, however, may want to see if David Burchell is trying to claim the moral high ground of the glorious power of past British imperialism. If that is what Burchell tries to do, he may have lost that battle before he even started, since the United Kingdom itself has long given up that status.
Zhao’s book may be useful in understanding some very limited aspects of China at a particular time of Chinese history. There are, however, many valuable Chinese books, especially history. In that context, Zhao’s book is a drop of water in the ocean and it should be understood in that context. Using that book may or may not help Burchell’s cause.
If Burchell wants to claim a moral high ground relating to Chinese issues, it may help if he understands more Chinese books and history and culture.
2009-07-13
Losing heavenly mandate?
Comments on Isabelle Oderberg “Losing the heavenly mandate”, 13/07/2009, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Losing-the-heavenly-mandate-pd20090713-TVREM?OpenDocument&src=sph
I am truly amazed by Isabelle Oderberg’s knowledge of the Chinese superstitions about extraordinary natural events. They not only have been written in many history books or quasi history books, but also been said about the year of 1976 when Mao Zedong, Zhou Enlai and Zhu De died.
In that year, there was a big earthquake in Central/Northern China. There were some reports that there were also large meteors falling from the sky and divided into three parts with one of them very big, in probably northeast China. Some books even say that Mao himself felt helpless, resigned and probably with the implication that he realised he was going to die soon when he heard the news.
But I must say that I am not sure the recent natural signs are anything of similar indications of changes. The Chinese leaderships seem to be as strong as ever, both physically, mentally and politically. So is its political system, it seems.
We all hope that China can introduce political reforms and allow more freedom for its people and the press. But it appears that the Chinese leadership group takes the view that stability and economic development should and must outweigh all other things. The collapse of the former USSR has struck deep and hard in the minds of many Chinese, not just their political leaderships. No one wishes or wants to become China’s Gorbachev. So no one will know when real and more widespread political reforms will occur in China.
But it should be acknowledged that many Chinese are content with the way China has been going, although there are also many unrests happening. It is a big country and the legal system and people’s concept or interpretation of the legal system is different from here in Australia.
Further, it has to be recognised that there has been remarkable progress in the political system since the pass of the Mao era in China. Now at least no leader is expecting to be on the top job for more than two terms that is 10 years. This differs greatly to the case of the Mao era, the case in the former USSR, in many former Eastern communist countries, the case in North Korea now.
When a person’s leadership is limited clearly by time, his or her behaviour differs greatly from a person who expects his leadership to last for a life time. China has successfully made leadership successions. If China continues this path for another decade or two, things will continue to improve. That is very important.
Slowly but surely, China will come to a stage when its leaderships feel it is safe to introduce more bold political reforms. That will take time, but it will happen, sooner or later. But whether it happens under external pressure or coming from internal initiatives is hard to tell. I would bet it would be the latter.
China, as a country, is unlikely to like being pushed. Just think about how our former prime ministers, Mr John Howard and Bob Hawke, how reluctant they were in relinquishing their prime ministerships, one will not find it too difficult to understand the difficult and long process of political changes in China. Mr Howard fought to the end until he was lost his own seat, and Mr Hawke lost and was pushed aside after two challenges (and the second one successful) from Mr Keating. The matter of fact is that they were in Australia, don’t forget.
China will become a more democratic and free country one day. But it is more likely to occur in its own terms.
I am truly amazed by Isabelle Oderberg’s knowledge of the Chinese superstitions about extraordinary natural events. They not only have been written in many history books or quasi history books, but also been said about the year of 1976 when Mao Zedong, Zhou Enlai and Zhu De died.
In that year, there was a big earthquake in Central/Northern China. There were some reports that there were also large meteors falling from the sky and divided into three parts with one of them very big, in probably northeast China. Some books even say that Mao himself felt helpless, resigned and probably with the implication that he realised he was going to die soon when he heard the news.
But I must say that I am not sure the recent natural signs are anything of similar indications of changes. The Chinese leaderships seem to be as strong as ever, both physically, mentally and politically. So is its political system, it seems.
We all hope that China can introduce political reforms and allow more freedom for its people and the press. But it appears that the Chinese leadership group takes the view that stability and economic development should and must outweigh all other things. The collapse of the former USSR has struck deep and hard in the minds of many Chinese, not just their political leaderships. No one wishes or wants to become China’s Gorbachev. So no one will know when real and more widespread political reforms will occur in China.
But it should be acknowledged that many Chinese are content with the way China has been going, although there are also many unrests happening. It is a big country and the legal system and people’s concept or interpretation of the legal system is different from here in Australia.
Further, it has to be recognised that there has been remarkable progress in the political system since the pass of the Mao era in China. Now at least no leader is expecting to be on the top job for more than two terms that is 10 years. This differs greatly to the case of the Mao era, the case in the former USSR, in many former Eastern communist countries, the case in North Korea now.
When a person’s leadership is limited clearly by time, his or her behaviour differs greatly from a person who expects his leadership to last for a life time. China has successfully made leadership successions. If China continues this path for another decade or two, things will continue to improve. That is very important.
Slowly but surely, China will come to a stage when its leaderships feel it is safe to introduce more bold political reforms. That will take time, but it will happen, sooner or later. But whether it happens under external pressure or coming from internal initiatives is hard to tell. I would bet it would be the latter.
China, as a country, is unlikely to like being pushed. Just think about how our former prime ministers, Mr John Howard and Bob Hawke, how reluctant they were in relinquishing their prime ministerships, one will not find it too difficult to understand the difficult and long process of political changes in China. Mr Howard fought to the end until he was lost his own seat, and Mr Hawke lost and was pushed aside after two challenges (and the second one successful) from Mr Keating. The matter of fact is that they were in Australia, don’t forget.
China will become a more democratic and free country one day. But it is more likely to occur in its own terms.
2009-07-10
Need to be fair - the riots in Urumqi, Xinjiang China
Comments on David Brophy “Uighurs lying low in brave new world”, 10/07/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25757933-5015664,00.html
Mr Brophy, you say that “the Uighurs who took to the streets on Sunday were not rallying for independence but for law and order, demanding justice for the violent deaths of Uighur workers in Guangdong province”, but what about those Han Chinese killed by those Uighurs in Urumqi? Were they for law and order when they were killing other innocent people?
You say that, to quote: “Now it is the Uighurs who must remain silent, lying low in fear of Han reprisals, with communications in and out of Urumqi shut down. For now, their voices will be drowned out by the patriotic chants of street patrols and cries for vengeance from their Han neighbours, who think the Uighurs have never had it so good.”
What do you want them to do? More killings of other innocent people by them or some of them? Isn’t it the case that both sides need to be calming down and obey law and order?
You say that, “In Xinjiang, formal equality runs up against real inequality and racism.” What is your evidence of racism towards the Uighurs by the Chinese government or Hans? The Uighurs enjoy special preferential rights as a minority ethnic group in China, as most other minority groups do. As you mention their entry scores are lowered than their Han counterparts. What is wrong with that? Is that racism?
You say that “Fearing that the unity of China is at stake, Han residents of Urumqi have taken up arms in the righteous defense of the motherland”. Don’t you think you are distorting the truth? Don’t anyone need to have self defense? Why anyone’s self defense a part of fearing a country’s unity? What logic is that?
Why are you so biased and distorting the truth? Don’t you feel shameful of your doing?
Also, why The Australian only publish one sided and distorted story?
Mr Brophy, you say that “the Uighurs who took to the streets on Sunday were not rallying for independence but for law and order, demanding justice for the violent deaths of Uighur workers in Guangdong province”, but what about those Han Chinese killed by those Uighurs in Urumqi? Were they for law and order when they were killing other innocent people?
You say that, to quote: “Now it is the Uighurs who must remain silent, lying low in fear of Han reprisals, with communications in and out of Urumqi shut down. For now, their voices will be drowned out by the patriotic chants of street patrols and cries for vengeance from their Han neighbours, who think the Uighurs have never had it so good.”
What do you want them to do? More killings of other innocent people by them or some of them? Isn’t it the case that both sides need to be calming down and obey law and order?
You say that, “In Xinjiang, formal equality runs up against real inequality and racism.” What is your evidence of racism towards the Uighurs by the Chinese government or Hans? The Uighurs enjoy special preferential rights as a minority ethnic group in China, as most other minority groups do. As you mention their entry scores are lowered than their Han counterparts. What is wrong with that? Is that racism?
You say that “Fearing that the unity of China is at stake, Han residents of Urumqi have taken up arms in the righteous defense of the motherland”. Don’t you think you are distorting the truth? Don’t anyone need to have self defense? Why anyone’s self defense a part of fearing a country’s unity? What logic is that?
Why are you so biased and distorting the truth? Don’t you feel shameful of your doing?
Also, why The Australian only publish one sided and distorted story?
2009-05-25
History needs to be told to benefit all
Comments on Richard Rigby “Can China embrace its history and Zhao Ziyang’s memoir?” 24/05/2009, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/05/24/can-china-embrace-its-history-and-zhao-ziyangs-memoir/
Zhao Ziyang's book will be a valuable aid in assisting historians as well as for many others to fully understand what really happened back then in China and what lessons can be learnt from that particular event in China's long history, including its current modernistic reforming era, although it is very likely to remain a taboo in mainland China for some time to come. I suppose that it is paradoxical for many Chinese - they may be curious to want to know what the book has to say, yet they might also be resigned to the thinking that the time may yet opportune for the book to be allowed released in the mainland. I may be wrong, but I am eagerly waiting to see what will happen in the mainland in the wake of the book's release outside China and the potential availability from the web.
History needs to be told. But as many things, there may be a matter of the best timing. In China, stability and development have been the top priorities, it seems. People in the West talk about human rights. The Chinese also talk about human rights, with different emphasis. It is like different government in Australia or the US for that matter may talk about what is the best policy for the society, some may say we should tax the rich even more to make the society fairer, while others may say we should provide incentives for private entrepreneurs and indeed everyone to enhance efficiency and productivity. There may be differences in the value system. There are differences even in one nation. It is no wonder there are more international differences. But who can be the judge of who is right and who is wrong on such matter as to value system?
I am a Chinese Australian. While I have said I am interested in reading the book and in knowing what will happen in mainland China, I am more interested in Australian government budget deficits and ballooning government debts, the strategies the government spins out to turn the deficit into surplus in 2015-16. The respected Treasury appears to have got its forecast of economic growth for the next few years in Australia badly wrong with many economists and commentators saying they are too optimistic. My critique of the Treasury forecast has been that they just either conveniently ignored the Lucas critique, or most of the Treasury officials may be too young that they don’t know that critique, because it is more than 30 years old. The worst thing was that the Treasury changed its traditional forecast methodology for budget that is another reason people are suspicious of its forecast.
To just illustrate the relevance of the Aussie budget to Zhao’s book, the Aussie government in this budget introduced means testing to private health insurance rebate, contrary to or broke the Labor’s and Rudd’s election promise. Their excuse has been that the rich should contribute more in the current recession since they have the capacities to do so. Besides, they increased the age pension by $30.49 a week that translates to a rise of more than 10%, in the middle of the great recession and what Rudd/Swan have been saying a tough budget. Some background information to that is that Rudd may have promised age pensioners during the still good time before the recession set in a rise in pension. The two measures prove that it is the Labor in government now – a traditionally high spending and high deficit party. But don’t you worry, the Liberals will probably fix Labor’s deficit with a more flat tax structure sometime in the future. Different values in one society, that is!
Zhao Ziyang's book will be a valuable aid in assisting historians as well as for many others to fully understand what really happened back then in China and what lessons can be learnt from that particular event in China's long history, including its current modernistic reforming era, although it is very likely to remain a taboo in mainland China for some time to come. I suppose that it is paradoxical for many Chinese - they may be curious to want to know what the book has to say, yet they might also be resigned to the thinking that the time may yet opportune for the book to be allowed released in the mainland. I may be wrong, but I am eagerly waiting to see what will happen in the mainland in the wake of the book's release outside China and the potential availability from the web.
History needs to be told. But as many things, there may be a matter of the best timing. In China, stability and development have been the top priorities, it seems. People in the West talk about human rights. The Chinese also talk about human rights, with different emphasis. It is like different government in Australia or the US for that matter may talk about what is the best policy for the society, some may say we should tax the rich even more to make the society fairer, while others may say we should provide incentives for private entrepreneurs and indeed everyone to enhance efficiency and productivity. There may be differences in the value system. There are differences even in one nation. It is no wonder there are more international differences. But who can be the judge of who is right and who is wrong on such matter as to value system?
I am a Chinese Australian. While I have said I am interested in reading the book and in knowing what will happen in mainland China, I am more interested in Australian government budget deficits and ballooning government debts, the strategies the government spins out to turn the deficit into surplus in 2015-16. The respected Treasury appears to have got its forecast of economic growth for the next few years in Australia badly wrong with many economists and commentators saying they are too optimistic. My critique of the Treasury forecast has been that they just either conveniently ignored the Lucas critique, or most of the Treasury officials may be too young that they don’t know that critique, because it is more than 30 years old. The worst thing was that the Treasury changed its traditional forecast methodology for budget that is another reason people are suspicious of its forecast.
To just illustrate the relevance of the Aussie budget to Zhao’s book, the Aussie government in this budget introduced means testing to private health insurance rebate, contrary to or broke the Labor’s and Rudd’s election promise. Their excuse has been that the rich should contribute more in the current recession since they have the capacities to do so. Besides, they increased the age pension by $30.49 a week that translates to a rise of more than 10%, in the middle of the great recession and what Rudd/Swan have been saying a tough budget. Some background information to that is that Rudd may have promised age pensioners during the still good time before the recession set in a rise in pension. The two measures prove that it is the Labor in government now – a traditionally high spending and high deficit party. But don’t you worry, the Liberals will probably fix Labor’s deficit with a more flat tax structure sometime in the future. Different values in one society, that is!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
