4 June 1989: Never Forget

Having a couple thousand people dead is always more tolerable to having another bloody revolution. Stability is obviously better than radical progress without guaranteed results. The only error the Chinese government made there is the use of excessive force (not that China even had riot police at that time) as opposed to milder methods, and the only regret is the cooling down of Sino-American relations and that it boosted the growth of Sinophobia in Western countries.

If China needs democracy, it'll someday evolve it. For all we know, anything that evolved out of the Greco-Roman roots of the modern Western civilization may be utterly unsuitable, perhaps even destructive for China. You may not want to give the Chinese government a chance, but you should at least give Chinese culture and the Chinese people a chance to change the system for themselves without unnecessary outside influence. If the demonstrators were right, then surely one day we'll see the entire country turn against their supposed "oppressors" and fight for their "freedom". So far, that hasn't happened, so we have no choice but to assume (if only for now) that what the Chinese government did was best for China as a cultural as well as a political entity, preventing it from becoming another generic Western-styled democratic state that's possibly one size smaller than before.

"Fifty cents if you throw a rock at a soldier, five yuan if you throw a rock at a car."

I'm currently in Canada, and apparently some people in the local community who left China after 6/4 have actually heard the above phrase during the protest. Can someone explain why?

"Having a couple thousand people dead is always more tolerable to having another bloody revolution."

It was bloodless until the tanks moved in.

"Stability is obviously better than radical progress without guaranteed results"

I'll be sure to tell that to Chairman Mao. That's a very old way of thinking. Very Chinese.

"The only error the Chinese government made there is the use of excessive force"

What about the years after. Locking up people who even mention Tiananmen. In today's China you could go to jail for saying what you said in public. Even now Beijing denies that it used excessive force.

"You may not want to give the Chinese government a chance"

The PRC has had 50 years. It's time for them to at least admit that they need to change.

"you should at least give Chinese culture and the Chinese people a chance to change the system for themselves"

If you read back through my blog, you'll find that this is exactly what I've been saying for all these years.

"If the demonstrators were right, then surely one day we'll see the entire country turn against their supposed "oppressors""

Sorry, it doesn't work like that. Oppressive governments are rarely overthrown in that way, especially not when said oppressive regime has the PLA and the Armed Police force on it's side. Beijing is too powerful to simply be overthrown, and anyway that is not the Chinese way.

"So far, that hasn't happened"

It happened in Tiananmen, except that the people fought with banners instead of pistols, and look where that ended up.

"we have no choice but to assume (if only for now) that what the Chinese government did was best for China"

I'm afraid not. I can reach no conclusion other than that Beijing was afraid for its own survival and its own grip on power, and that it moved to crush the people least the people triumph

"Can someone explain why?"

Can you?

"It was bloodless until the tanks moved in."

Can you guarantee that anything like the Thermidorian Reaction won't happen if a different government was set up? Can you guarantee that it won't appease the Western powers like the Qing dynasty to gain control of China? Can you guarantee that it won't be like the Weimar Republic and sell out Chinese national sovereignty? (And FYI, before anyone mentions it, it was either to lose Mongolia or to lose the entire northern China, so don't bring it up.)

"I'll be sure to tell that to Chairman Mao. That's a very old way of thinking. Very Chinese."

Glad you noticed. Maybe lots of other Chinese people think that way too? How democratic is it when you try to sell Western ideas to an unwilling or uncaring group of people?

"What about the years after. Locking up people who even mention Tiananmen. In today's China you could go to jail for saying what you said in public. Even now Beijing denies that it used excessive force."

Hope you remember Glasnost. It wasn't exactly pretty, now was it. Do you think the Chinese people want their country to be one size smaller? In any case, Chinese society is far better than it has been for thousands of years. At least you won't be beheaded for wearing yellow or for having dragon patterns on your shirt.

"The PRC has had 50 years. It's time for them to at least admit that they need to change."

A lot of people do. Wen Jiabao, for example, has mentioned once that China should become democratic one day. In any case, when change comes backed by the majority of the Chinese people, it won't be stopped a government or its troops. We've seen this in the fall of the Soviet Union. The leadership is still made of people, after all. And when you speak of "change", do you mean "to splash white paint onto oneself and pretend to be living on the other side of the world and to govern accordingly"?

"If you read back through my blog, you'll find that this is exactly what I've been saying for all these years."

Good to know you agree with me there.

"Sorry, it doesn't work like that. Oppressive governments are rarely overthrown in that way, especially not when said oppressive regime has the PLA and the Armed Police force on it's side. Beijing is too powerful to simply be overthrown, and anyway that is not the Chinese way."

Maybe it's the Chinese upbringing, but do you honestly believe that if the people truly hated the government, they can't get rid of it? And remember that the PLA and PAP are both made up of Chinese citizens too, not mindless robots. If violent revolutions occur, would you not expect mass desertion, etc? How powerful were the forces of theocracy/autocracy in Europe prior to the rise of the government secularization / democratization movements? In any case, I believe that another civil war in China would be far worse than just letting the current government sit and do what it wants. If most of the Chinese people don't mind their government, whether it's due to "brain washing" or "ignorance" or anything else, at least they're content. Why would it matter to them then that they haven't got the rights they weren't going to exercise anyway? Or do you think it's better for them to become as bitchy about their government as some Western people are? True happiness doesn't come from having things like "human rights" or "freedom" or whatever, it simply comes from being content with one's position in life, wherever that may be. A democratic system won't help people achieve that.

"It happened in Tiananmen, except that the people fought with banners instead of pistols, and look where that ended up."

Not enough people went along with it. Remember the May 4th movement? Why did that go so well? Maybe 6/4 wasn't that important after all? Anyway the situation was handled by inexperienced people in a government that didn't even have riot police set up. What else did you expect? It's not like they can simply hand control of the government to the mob.

"I'm afraid not. I can reach no conclusion other than that Beijing was afraid for its own survival and its own grip on power, and that it moved to crush the people least the people triumph"

In other words, you're saying that the Chinese government is made up of nobody but power-hungry politicians who don't even consider themselves a part of the Chinese nation? Do you not believe they at least feel a sense of responsibility toward the state of China as a political and cultural entity? Do you really believe they don't want to see happy people in a country they govern? In any case, what government isn't trying to stay in power? Are Western politicians truly concerned about the welfare of their people, or are they just trying to get elected?

"Can you?"

Nope. Why else would I be asking?

In conclusion: democracy is not a religion, so there's no need to follow it the way religious fanatics followed the Roman Catholic Church into the crusades. People should realize that no matter how well a certain system is working in their own countries, there's no guarantee it's going to be perfect anywhere else, and that different cultures value different things. Just because "for king and country!" became "for me and money!" in Europe, it doesn't mean things like "human rights", "freedom", and "democracy" are now universal values. If they are indeed universal values, why do some people lack the confidence to just leave other countries alone and watch them turn to the "one true path" of democracy? A lot of Chinese people value things like national sovereignty and dignity of the Chinese nation over their own personal rights. Maybe that's just how the Chinese people like their government?

Did Yue Fei care about his personal rights/freedoms? Did he once express regret at working for such a blind and naive emperor? Did he try to change sides?

Some Chinese activists could stand to learn a lesson or two from his story. (I'm not referring to you, ACB, btw.)

"Can you guarantee that anything like the Thermidorian Reaction won't happen if a different government was set up"

I can't, and many people would argue that it would be all the justice that the leaders of the time deserved.

"How democratic is it when you try to sell Western ideas to an unwilling or uncaring group of people?"

Ah, but that's where the democracy bit comes in. Once you've made your sales pitch you let the people decide whether they actually want what you're selling.

"when you speak of "change"

Not arresting people for rumormongering when they report on a Dengue outbreak that really happened would be a good start, as would the introduction of jury trials. Even Japan is experimenting with jury systems these days, does China really want to be left that far behind?

"Maybe it's the Chinese upbringing, but do you honestly believe that if the people truly hated the government, they can't get rid of it?"

What we have are a combination of three things.

Firstly, although there have been some notable uprisings in Chinese history, the overall culture of China is obedience rather than disobedience. It's one of the any legacies of Confucianism in China. Do you remember the famous story of Kong Qiu and the woman whose family had been killed by tigers? Her natural instinct was to hunker down rather than to effect change.

Secondly, one thing that many Chinese fear is instability, particularly when the end is unclear. They would rather live with 100 years of gradual change with the certainty that things will slowly get better, than 10 years of certain instability with the possibility that things wll be better afterwards but also the possibility that things will be worse.

Lastly, it's all well and good saying that you can "get rid of" a bad government, but the big thing, and this IS a big thing, about marching against a cruel government is that cruel governments tend to have ranks of tanks and soldiers standing between them and the assembled masses. You profess not to like Beijing, but wold you actually bet your life like Tiananmen tank man did in order to effect change? For every successfully uprising that there has been in the world, there have been 100 that have been brutally crushed. Most individual Chinese cold suffer a cruel government more than they could suffer a tank shell at 50 paces.

"the PLA and PAP are both made up of Chinese citizens too, not mindless robots."

Yes, and like the Chinese people they don't want to be on the wrong end of a firing squad. Individually a soldier might disagree with what they are being told to do, but you have to be very brae or very stupid to actually do anything about it. How many soldiers actually joined the ranks of the demonstrators in Tiananmen? The most that actually happened was that they tried to blend in with the crowd for fear of being mobbed by it, no more than a handful turned.

"If most of the Chinese people don't mind their government, whether it's due to "brain washing" or "ignorance" or anything else, at least they're content."

Wrong, they do do mind but either know no different or are afraid of things being worse. Suffering a government isn't the same thing as being contents.

"Why would it matter to them then that they haven't got the rights they weren't going to exercise anyway?"

It's having the choice that matters. I lived in the West for many years before starting this blog. I had the right to protest in the streets but I mostly chose not to, yet I would fight tooth and claw for Westeners to maintain those rights.

"True happiness doesn't come from having things like "human rights" or "freedom" or whatever, it simply comes from being content with one's position in life"

How very philosophical. I would counter that it can often be difficult to be content with ones position in life when an oppressive government is treading on the human rights and freedoms that you don't have.

"A democratic system won't help people achieve that"

Any system done badly won't achieve that, and even when it is done well it won't achieve that for everybody. Look at the US. Everybody in the US has freedom of worship yet half the country complains that the other half is letting its values slide because it is choosing not to worship, and the other half of the country is complaining that those who are choosing to worship are trying to press conservative values on them that are based on their religious values. I don't believe that any system has ever pleased all of the people all of the time.

"the situation was handled by inexperienced people in a government that didn't even have riot police set up"

Western sanctions actually prevented the government from importing riot equipment or from hiring experienced help to training up riot police. Besides, there wasn't actually a riot.

"What else did you expect?"

I'd expect the not to suppress thefamilies of the dead for 20 years after the event.

"It's not like they can simply hand control of the government to the mob"

The "mob" as you so put it didn't actually ask for control. The students didn't want to run the country they wanted elections so that the people could choose who ran the contry, and te workers actually WANTED the communist party to run the country. Their complaint was AGAINST capitalist reforms.

"you're saying that the Chinese government is made up of nobody but power-hungry politicians who don't even consider themselves a part of the Chinese nation?"

No, I'm saying that the Chinese governments of the time was run by power-hungry politicians who believed that they WERE the Chinese nation.

"Do you not believe they at least feel a sense of responsibility toward the state of China as a political and cultural entity?"

That's actually the crux of th problem.

"Do you really believe they don't want to see happy people in a country they govern"

The wanted people to be happy with what they had. This isn't the same thing as wanting to give them the things that would make them happy.

"Are Western politicians truly concerned about the welfare of their people, or are they just trying to get elected?"

Western politicians want to get elected because they believe that they can do what is best for the people. However not everybody sees their vision of what is best as being best, which is where a multi-party system comes in. For example, do you believe that Barack Obama doesn't want to effect change in the US for the sake of the people, or that McCain doesn't want to prevent change because he believes that the current path is the best one?

"democracy is not a religion"

There are many religions and many forms of democracy (Parliamentary and presidential, for starters). I see a lot of parallels

"People should realize that no matter how well a certain system is working in their own countries, there's no guarantee it's going to be perfect anywhere else"

Firstly, tell that to the Bush administration. Secondly, you are speaking about the pro-democracy movement as if it were lead by foreigners when it was actually lead by Chinese. Thirdly, hlf of the protestors at Tiananmen weren't pro-democracy, they were anti-free market, they wanted more state control, not less.

"it doesn't mean things like "human rights", "freedom", and "democracy" are now universal values"

According to the UN, they are basic human rights.

"If they are indeed universal values, why do some people lack the confidence to just leave other countries alone and watch them turn to the "one true path" of democracy?"

Compassion, for one thing, and belief in democracy for another. I'm not sure that I would like to live in a world where everybody stuck their heads in the sand as far as problems in neighboring countries went.

"A lot of Chinese people value things like national sovereignty and dignity of the Chinese nation over their own personal rights."

As I said above, that's a mixture of Confucianism, fear of instability, and ignorance. How many Chinese people would actually still feel that way if they had been given rights and then were asked to give them up?

One could argue that Yue Fei belonged to a school that equated utter loyalty with honor and honor with life. Therefore the purpose of his life was simply to be a tool in his Emperor's hand and if he were not to be this then he had nothing and was nothing. One cold also argue that the only reason that he is held as he is today is because of his blind loyalty and therefore he is not an example of good practice, but merely an example of extreme practice.

Many a military leader has committed many an atrocity because of blind obedience, this does not make them good examples of how to live your life. I believe that the appropriate phrase is "Befehl ist Befehl".

Hello, I would like to know your opinion on what the 6/4 has brought to Chinese? Can you tell me how the whole thing happens? Because if it is as what you said, we in China can not know it, right? Do you think that what the government did at that time was totally wrong?

Tanks, civilians. There are all kinds of wrong there.

"I can't, and many people would argue that it would be all the justice that the leaders of the time deserved."

Many people in the WEST. They don't represent justice. After all, should you not look at the other things they did as well, such as reforms and whatnot? Can you claim to represent the rest of China?

"Ah, but that's where the democracy bit comes in. Once you've made your sales pitch you let the people decide whether they actually want what you're selling."

Western democratic styled governments more often than not cannot represent the true will of the people, as their parties are often very similar. Look at the US system, for example. The Republicans and the Democrats are very similar, as they are both supporters of the current system. The true opposition, like the CPUSA, the Green Party, etc, that want true change, do not have much power. CPUSA, for example, was crippled early on in its history by the two major parties. This has nothing to do with the number of votes, only corporate sponsoring behind the parties. In the end, the people are still not governing the country.

"Not arresting people for rumormongering when they report on a Dengue outbreak that really happened would be a good start, as would the introduction of jury trials. Even Japan is experimenting with jury systems these days, does China really want to be left that far behind?"

Not all information should be available to the public, since they would cause widespread panic. The United States didn't announce the Cuban Missile Crisis immediately after it was discovered, and many argue even today that it was unnecessary to announce it to the public. Do you think they're wrong?

"Firstly, although there have been some notable uprisings in Chinese history, the overall culture of China is obedience rather than disobedience. It's one of the any legacies of Confucianism in China. Do you remember the famous story of Kong Qiu and the woman whose family had been killed by tigers? Her natural instinct was to hunker down rather than to effect change."

Great. Chinese people don't want change. End of story. Why do you keep pushing your ideologies onto others? Political systems should only be evolved naturally, not forced onto a country / people, especially when we're talking about countries on different sides of the world with completely different backgrounds. Why do you imply that Confucianism and obedience is bad? Simply due to your Western background?

"Secondly, one thing that many Chinese fear is instability, particularly when the end is unclear. They would rather live with 100 years of gradual change with the certainty that things will slowly get better, than 10 years of certain instability with the possibility that things wll be better afterwards but also the possibility that things will be worse."

Do you want 10 years of instability with no certain outcomes? On a personal level that's up to you, but when you're talking about an entire country, how much risk do you think you'd be willing to take?

"Lastly, it's all well and good saying that you can "get rid of" a bad government, but the big thing, and this IS a big thing, about marching against a cruel government is that cruel governments tend to have ranks of tanks and soldiers standing between them and the assembled masses. You profess not to like Beijing, but wold you actually bet your life like Tiananmen tank man did in order to effect change? For every successfully uprising that there has been in the world, there have been 100 that have been brutally crushed. Most individual Chinese cold suffer a cruel government more than they could suffer a tank shell at 50 paces."

Most Chinese people don't suffer under the Chinese government, they simply ignore it and go about their business. That's why they won't turn against their government. I for one don't mind the current government simply because it's been able to protect China as a political, geographical (mostly), and cultural entity. Under the CPC, China at least stayed together. The same could not be said for the KMT government, the "empire" under Yuan Shikai, or the Qing dynasty. Remember the many protests held by students under the rule of the KMT government asking for more active anti-Japanese actions from a government bent on in-fighting even when the Japanese took over half of China? Did human rights and freedom matter to them? They knew the CPC wasn't going to set up a representative democratic system just like the Western countries, but did that matter?

"Yes, and like the Chinese people they don't want to be on the wrong end of a firing squad. Individually a soldier might disagree with what they are being told to do, but you have to be very brae or very stupid to actually do anything about it. How many soldiers actually joined the ranks of the demonstrators in Tiananmen? The most that actually happened was that they tried to blend in with the crowd for fear of being mobbed by it, no more than a handful turned."

As well they shouldn't. Whatever happens inside a country is that country's business, and the main point of the military is to protect China from outside threats, not inside ones. If half of the military deserted, who would protect China's borders against the neighboring countries? They may have a responsibility toward the people, but they carry a greater responsibility toward China as a country. That's their first duty.

"Wrong, they do do mind but either know no different or are afraid of things being worse. Suffering a government isn't the same thing as being contents."

Most of the people I know from China are not oppressed, neither do they have any thoughts of becoming anti-government. They live their lives in China just like anyone lives their lives anywhere else. They try to find a job, get a wife, pay the rent, etc. Nobody is paranoid about the government watching the phone lines or about the secret police. You should not equate China to the Soviet Union or North Korea. China is more like Western countries than many realize.

"It's having the choice that matters. I lived in the West for many years before starting this blog. I had the right to protest in the streets but I mostly chose not to, yet I would fight tooth and claw for Westeners to maintain those rights."

That, is a very Western liberal way of thinking. "I may not agree with a word of what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it" etc stuff that's mostly developed in 18th century Europe. To a person trained in the Western way of thinking, nothing matters more than to have his rights guaranteed by a slip of paper stored in some museum. Not so in China. Chinese people generally only care about their living conditions, which mind you, have been steadily improving over the years. As for their rights, they couldn't careless, since they don't need freedom of speech or whatever to earn money, get fed, have a house, etc. Call it "ignorance" if you wish, you'd simply be advertising your lack of tolerance for different political/philosophical axioms. The Western way isn't the only way, there are cultures out there, for whatever reasons Westerners can't comprehend, that value things other than personal freedom. National sovereignty, for example.

"How very philosophical. I would counter that it can often be difficult to be content with ones position in life when an oppressive government is treading on the human rights and freedoms that you don't have."

Again, Chinese standards of living have been increasing generally throughout the country, even in remove rural areas. The Chinese government may have done some things the people wish they didn't do, but it's at least feeding its people and allowing them to live in acceptable (to them) conditions. To a people that doesn't really care about its rights, what else matters?

"Any system done badly won't achieve that, and even when it is done well it won't achieve that for everybody. Look at the US. Everybody in the US has freedom of worship yet half the country complains that the other half is letting its values slide because it is choosing not to worship, and the other half of the country is complaining that those who are choosing to worship are trying to press conservative values on them that are based on their religious values. I don't believe that any system has ever pleased all of the people all of the time."

I would go further to say that freedom or whatever has essentially nothing to do with the amount of happiness a person obtains. When a man lost in a desert finds a bottle of water, does that not bring more happiness to him than the amount of happiness a typical Westerner would get from getting a new job? Now apply the analogy to rights/etc.

"Western sanctions actually prevented the government from importing riot equipment or from hiring experienced help to training up riot police. Besides, there wasn't actually a riot."

According to records given by people who have left China after the incident, the demonstrators were wrestling weapons from the troops forming a human wall. Soldiers were being killed because they refused to fight back. Display windows on stores were being smashed and robbed. It was a serious riot. Look up info on 6/4 on websites of Chinese communities outside of China, where just a few days ago were filled with debate. It's even on facebook under Wen Jiabao's page. You'll also find that the student leader at the time is now one of the most hated people among Chinese people for inciting riots and spreading baseless rumors that the Chinese government would be hunting down activists after the event. If it weren't for her, the tension between the government and the demonstrators wouldn't have been nearly as high as it eventually became, and far less people would have died in the incident.

Don't only get your info from Western sources. As you may know, they never report the whole truth. Only get information from people who have actually been there, like I have.

"I'd expect the not to suppress thefamilies of the dead for 20 years after the event."

If you're cutting grass, you remove the roots. And they weren't even completely removed. What's your point?

And remember, all you know seem to be from Western media sources. How do you know they're not lying, just like they did about the Tibet incident?

"The "mob" as you so put it didn't actually ask for control. The students didn't want to run the country they wanted elections so that the people could choose who ran the contry, and te workers actually WANTED the communist party to run the country. Their complaint was AGAINST capitalist reforms."

As I said before, it eventually evolved into an uncontrolled riot. All the people in the West got to see are pictures of miniature statues of liberty, corpses, and that guy in front of a tank, which never even fired. Don't base your opinions on them.

"No, I'm saying that the Chinese governments of the time was run by power-hungry politicians who believed that they WERE the Chinese nation."

Well, they do make decisions that affect the entire country, if that's what you mean. Looking at the current leadership, I see more people who care about their country than you'd ever see in a democratic country's cabinet.

"That's actually the crux of th problem."

If they don't care, then can you explain how it's far better to live in China today than China 50 years ago? I'm pretty sure nobody wants to run a weak country where the people are constantly dissatisfied. What's the fun of running a country like that, even if you do have complete power?

"The wanted people to be happy with what they had. This isn't the same thing as wanting to give them the things that would make them happy."

And the people are indeed mostly content, or at least as content as they can be anywhere. I've seen Chinese Canadian immigrants constantly complaining how they could've been a professor in China but is getting far crappier jobs in Canada. Should I blame this on the Canadian system? Just a few years ago, the fear in the West was that the Chinese government was becoming too populist. A quick search on Google turns up "populist authoritarianism". How can you fit that in with your argument?

"Western politicians want to get elected because they believe that they can do what is best for the people. However not everybody sees their vision of what is best as being best, which is where a multi-party system comes in. For example, do you believe that Barack Obama doesn't want to effect change in the US for the sake of the people, or that McCain doesn't want to prevent change because he believes that the current path is the best one?"

Or they're just trying to tell the people what's best without having to change their positions as that would undermine their authority and legitimacy?

Besides, parties do change over time. Is that because they "suddenly realized the errors in their ways"? Or is it because they simply want to fit in better with the American public's demands? It's a combination of this and corporate backing that resulted in a system of two practically identical parties between which elections come down to personal popularity of the nominees and/or who promised to build more playgrounds.

"There are many religions and many forms of democracy (Parliamentary and presidential, for starters). I see a lot of parallels"

What I meant was, there is no need to view democracy and your definition of freedom the same way people in the Middle Ages viewed the Roman Catholic Church. It's not something you should be killing other people for, and definitely not something you should be invading other countries / taking part in other countries' internal affairs for. Just as there was the separation of Church and State, there should be a separation of Ideologies and State behaviors. Attempting to export democracy is no different than the Soviet Union attempting to export communism. It's invasive, and the only possible cause of it is imperialism based on the ideologies they represent.

"Firstly, tell that to the Bush administration. Secondly, you are speaking about the pro-democracy movement as if it were lead by foreigners when it was actually lead by Chinese. Thirdly, hlf of the protestors at Tiananmen weren't pro-democracy, they were anti-free market, they wanted more state control, not less."

For the third time, the main cause of the actions of the Chinese government was not to crush the demonstrators lest there be more people attempting to overthrow the current government, it's because the riot was becoming a serious threat to social stability.

"According to the UN, they are basic human rights."

In case you haven't noticed, UN is but an American puppet. It was also set up mostly by countries in the West, where the majority of WWII was fought, or at least, the majority of the parts of WWII Westerners focus on was fought. They based their ideologies on 18th century philosophers from Europe, not in Asia or Africa. Therefore, other than an international forum for resolving conflicts peacefully and attempting to improve living standards, the UN means absolutely nothing, especially when it comes to ideologies. It should never be an international governing body for democracy, as the Roman Catholic Church was for Christianity.

"Compassion, for one thing, and belief in democracy for another. I'm not sure that I would like to live in a world where everybody stuck their heads in the sand as far as problems in neighboring countries went."

How much good can compassion result in when ignorance / political intolerance is rampant as it is today in Western societies? Especially when calling other people "Commies" is considered an insult and when their knowledge of China is limited to Chinese food? Does belief in democracy require one to be invasive and controlling of other countries? Does that mean they should force the rest of the world to follow their system as fervently as they do, artificially and unnecessarily bending cultures and religions as they go? How did the crusades go? Why do you think they ended the way they did? Ultimately, compassion is only a small part of the reasons for the behaviors of Western countries and people. Racism and a general fear of the East originating from the Mongol invasions drive the rest.

"As I said above, that's a mixture of Confucianism, fear of instability, and ignorance. How many Chinese people would actually still feel that way if they had been given rights and then were asked to give them up?"

How many people would take those rights when they know the price for them is national sovereignty and pride? When adopting a Western system means full-scale cultural invasion from the West (Not that we don't have enough)? You speak of "Confucianism, fear of instability" alongside ignorance. Can you deny that those things are the cultural heritage left to us by our ancestors? That they are what makes the people in China Chinese? That by giving them up, China would no longer have a distinct national identity? They may be inconvenient for someone pushing a non-native style of government, but when it comes down to it, should a nation's own culture not play the major role when deciding on a suitable style of government for a country? Natural evolution results in far better governments than foreign intervention.

"One could argue that Yue Fei belonged to a school that equated utter loyalty with honor and honor with life. Therefore the purpose of his life was simply to be a tool in his Emperor's hand and if he were not to be this then he had nothing and was nothing. One cold also argue that the only reason that he is held as he is today is because of his blind loyalty and therefore he is not an example of good practice, but merely an example of extreme practice."

You seem to be arguing against a traditional Asian way of thinking. Do you have the right to do so? Do you have anything but the arguments of Western philosophers to base upon? By calling him "blind loyal", do you not also advertise your blind, religious adherence to your ideologies of freedoms and human rights and your complete disregard of the concepts of loyalty to one's own country, an idea not only seen in Asia but common in Europe as well? How can you imply that your way of thinking is better than his? Somehow, I get the idea that in a war based on national interests (not ideology), you'd be the first to surrender, as you don't seem to be able to clearly identify yourself with either side.

"Many a military leader has committed many an atrocity because of blind obedience, this does not make them good examples of how to live your life. I believe that the appropriate phrase is "Befehl ist Befehl". "

Your ideas are far more extreme than they should be. The ultimate duty of a soldier is to protect the borders of his country, and to do that, he must obey orders. In no military can you get away with disobeying orders, not even in the US. Can you imagine a military structure set up with individualism in mind? I hope you know about the phase of French history when the Republic's troops were led by democratically elected officials giving out orders on the basis of preference of the soldiers under their command. How did that go for the French? The military is the gun in their governments' hands. If they disobeyed orders, how can you give legitimacy to governments? Remember the temporary government in the history of German reunification with no military but was democratically elected? How did that go?

In the end, you seem to highly value individualism and forced international adoption of your ideologies, while I and a large number of Chinese people favor communitarianism. You represent a culture with a background rooted in the thinkings of the Greco-Roman thinkers and more recently the European liberal philosophers, while I think along the lines of the traditional Chinese writers with influences from the comparatively recent Marxist movements as modified by the CPC to fit better with the Chinese culture. It's impossible to claim that one is "better" than the other without first defining "better" to be "more European / Western" or "more Asian / Eastern", but I hope the least we can all agree on is that whatever a country chooses as its government, it should be born out of necessity, out of the directly expression of the will of the people, however "uneducated" or "barbaric" they may appear in Western eyes. A cannibalist society should have the right to set up a cannibalist government until they evolve out of cannibalism, and countries like China or Russia should be allowed to keep an authoritarian government until the culture evolves to the point of being able to facilitate a better style of government, just as Europe evolved out of semi-theocracy and feudalism in the Middle Ages. Sacrificing a few generations (not that most of them are living in pain anyway) for a government that lasts for thousands of years, if not more, is definitely worth it.

Cho:

"Many people in the WEST. They don't represent justice."

Many people in China, too. People in China have long memories, there are many students and families of students who think that mob justice is all that the leaders of the time deserved. I believe that the appropriate foreign phrase here is "An eye for an eye"

"should you not look at the other things they did as well, such as reforms and whatnot?"

Ironically, one of the causes of the 1989 protests were actually workers campaigning AGAINST the reforms. If you remember your history you will know that many Chinese workers were very unhappy about the reforms that had come in because they had a bad impact on a lot of people. For starters, many Chinese relied upon the over-inflated state enterprises and when these enterprises were trimmed down they suffered.

"Can you claim to represent the rest of China?"

Show me where I claim to. I represent myself.

"Western democratic styled governments more often than not cannot represent the true will of the people"

If you read my comments on this blog and others you will see that I share your view. Over the last 20 years Western countries (Specifically America, Britain, Italy, France, Germany and Spain) have actually gotten less democratic. In the case of America this is because vested interests are becoming increasingly powerful and can direct public policy and opinion along their own lines, and in the other countries this is because they have put in place programs to try and make themselves more "representative". What they aimed to do was to adjust the weighing so that the majority could not dwarf minority groups, but what they actually ended up doing was giving minority groups a say in power that was higher than their percentage value of the population. In essence, any minority groups who shouts loud enough can have a say in the running of a country which vastly out of proportion to their size.

"The true opposition, like the CPUSA, the Green Party, etc, that want true change, do not have much power"

You've obviously 1) never listened to a Green Party manifesto, 2) Never been to Germany.

Green Parties are usually ideological megalomaniacs whose ideals are not matched by common sense. Just look at what happened in Germany where the Green party became part of a coalition government (Wielding massively more power than their portion of the electorate should have allowed). The Green Party pledged to terminate ALL of Germany's nuclear power plants. Under this policy Germany will burn MORE fossil fuel at a time when the world is trying to reduce carbon emissions, and will make Germany ever more dependent on coal, oil and gas form other countries.

"Not all information should be available to the public, since they would cause widespread panic."

Except, if in China you can be arrested for revealing the information AFTER the event. For example, until recently the death rate from natural disasters was a state secret.

"The United States didn't announce the Cuban Missile Crisis immediately after it was discovered"

Are you saying that America could have announced the Cuban missile crisis BEFORE they knew about the missiles? Wouldn't that require time travel?

"Do you think they're wrong?"

In a word, yes.

"Chinese people don't want change. End of story."

Wrong, the greater Chinese people don't want instability. Change for the better is good, but change at the cost of stability makes people nervous.

"why do you keep pushing your ideologies onto others"

Show me one person that I've ever forced my ideologies on. Remember, you came to me, I didn't come to you.

"Political systems should only be evolved naturally, not forced onto a country"

Read my About Me page. I've had pretty much that exact same phrase up there for about 4 years now.

"Why do you imply that Confucianism and obedience is bad?"

I explained why thing are the way that they are. You added the "bad" in yourself.

"Simply due to your Western background?"

Which Western background would that be? I'm not Chinese-American.

"when you're talking about an entire country, how much risk do you think you'd be willing to take?"

While the Chinese people might talk about the Chinese people what they actually mean is themselves and their immediate surroundings. As I said before, most Chinese prefer stability to instability.

"Most Chinese people don't suffer under the Chinese government, they simply ignore it and go about their business"

I could argue that China suffered 50+ years overly restrictive rule and bad economic management, and that the deprivation and lack of progress that the Chinese people experienced certainly can be classed as suffering. I can also argue that the current climate of corruption, illegal land seizures, and the repression of human rights also counts as suffering. People might ignore individual proclamations made by the government, but it is pretty hard to ignore it when you get thrown in jail for protesting. I'd like to see you walk up to the gates of the Forbidden City with a placard bearing the single word "Reform". You'd get about 2 yards before finding all about suffering.

"Under the CPC, China at least stayed together"

Wrong. Under the PLA China stayed together. While your average Han might want a single united China, there are a number of ethnic regions such as Tibet and East Turkestan (Not to mention Hong Kong and Taiwan) which would have split off years ago if it weren't for the PLA.

"government bent on in-fighting even when the Japanese took over half of China?"

More anti-Japanese action would have lead to more Chinese deaths. Chinese soldiers would have died fighting, and Chinese civilians would have died in the reprisal. Had there been "more action" against Japan we might well have history books that read: "And then there was Nanjing (Nanking), often overlooked by historians for being one of the smaller massacres committed by Japan".

"They knew the CPC wasn't going to set up a representative democratic system just like the Western countries, but did that matter?"

At the time, many Western countries didn't have a representative democratic system, and most Chinese wouldn't have know about it even if they had. This was a period where women often couldn't vote, where the US was still segregated, and where hereditary monarchs held much more power than today.

"Whatever happens inside a country is that country's business"

The Holocaust, Year Zero, Rwanda?

"the main point of the military is to protect China from outside threats, not inside ones"

That may be so in the case of a Western country, but in China the purpose of the PLA is "to protect the CCP from enemies, both foreign and domestic", not to protect China itself.

"Most of the people I know from China are not oppressed"

What is your definition of oppression? Personally, I count the heavy censorship regime enforced by the state as being pretty oppressive. Maybe you should pin an to Hu and Wen on the door of your house, telling them that you think that it would be in China's best interests if they had a public memorial naming all of the Tiananmen dead. You'd be "oppressed" pretty quickly.

"They live their lives in China just like anyone lives their lives anywhere else."

A Chinese elsewhere may openly practice FLG meditation, and may openly walk around with a T-Shirt bearing the likeness of the Dali-Lama. Can you honestly say that you can do this on the Mainland?

"Nobody is paranoid about the government watching the phone lines or about the secret police."

Nobody you know, obviously. You'd be amazed how often I remember hearing "It's not good to talk about ...."

"China is more like Western countries than many realize"

I've been to the West, I noticed the difference quite quickly.

"To a person trained in the Western way of thinking, nothing matters more than to have his rights guaranteed by a slip of paper stored in some museum."

That's mostly the US.

"Chinese people generally only care about their living conditions"

Do you mean that Chinese people are more concerned about not starving or freezing than they are about not having elections. If so, then I agree with you. When you are a dirt poor farmer, or a migrant laborer, there are more important things to you as an individual than voting.

"Call it "ignorance" if you wish"

Prefer to call it "not knowing what you're missing"

"you'd simply be advertising your lack of tolerance for different political/philosophical axioms"

So, why not offer these things to the Chinese people and let them turn them down?

"allowing them to live in acceptable (to them) conditions"

People don't except them, they put up with them. I'm pretty certain that if gave most Chinese a South Korean standard of living they wouldn't want to go back to what they had before.

"To a people that doesn't really care about its rights, what else matters?"

There used to be a saying that in Britain that the poor knew their place.

"Now apply the analogy to rights/etc."

So, what you're saying is that "A slave should be when their master doesn't beat them"?

"soldiers were being killed because they refused to fight back"

Name one?

"Display windows on stores were being smashed and robbed. . It was a serious riot."

That was actually a separate event that happened concurrently to the peaceful protests. Mostly is was local gangs settling scores and some malcontents and agetators. Most of it also happened AFTER the first wave of troops were sent in.

"It's even on facebook under Wen Jiabao's page."

Beijing pays people to write comments on the web.

"Don't only get your info from Western sources. As you may know, they never report the whole truth."

Hence, this blog

"Only get information from people who have actually been there, like I have"

6/4/08, maybe 6/4/89, I think not.

"they weren't even completely removed. What's your point?"

Beijing's lawnmower isn't up to the task. Maybe you should try reading this site: http://www.tiananmenmother.org/

"all you know seem to be from Western media sources"

You might be surprised at where I get my information

• How do you know they're not lying"

I've been doing this for years, and I'm pretty good at it.

"just like they did about the Tibet incident?"

Now, you should know better than that.

"it eventually evolved into an uncontrolled riot"

Actually, the rioting happened after the first attempt to suppress peaceful demonstrations.

"All the people in the West got to see are pictures of miniature statues of liberty, corpses, and that guy in front of a tank, which never even fired."

You'd be surprised.

"I see more people who care about their country than you'd ever see in a democratic country's cabinet."

If they are so good why not give the people the chance to elect them to office?

"If they don't care, then can you explain how it's far better to live in China today than China 50 years ago?"

I find it hard to imagine how it could be much worse. 50 year ago China was enduring one of the worst famines on record. Or didn't you're American text books include 大跃进.

"What's the fun of running a country like that, even if you do have complete power"

North Korea?

"I've seen Chinese Canadian immigrants constantly complaining how they could've been a professor in China but is getting far crappier jobs in Canada."

Yes, but you go to a middle class district of Hong Kong and you will find well educated Filipino women slaving away as amah. It's the same the world over for immigrants.

"Just a few years ago, the fear in the West was that the Chinese government was becoming too populist."

That may have had something to do with Anti-Japanese sentiment being the in thing. You could throw a brick at the Japanese embassy and nobody would blink, but if you were to throw a land rights petition at the steps of the Great Hall of the People......

"It's not something you should be killing other people for"

If you read my About Me page, you will see my view on this.

"it's because the riot was becoming a serious threat to social stability."

That is all well and good except the rioting was a reaction to attempts to put down the protests. Beijing created the violence.

"UN is but an American puppet"

China is on the UNSC, it is nobody's puppet.

"You seem to be arguing against a traditional Asian way of thinking"

I added the explanation, you added the Against.

"to do that, he must obey orders"

Sorry, but "Befehl ist Befehl" was discredited 60 years ago.

"forced international adoption of your ideologies"

I don't seem to recall mentioning force, except to denounce its use at Tiananmen. you're trying to put words in my mouth.

"You represent a culture with a background rooted in the thinkings of the Greco-Roman thinkers"

Once again. I'm not Chinese-American.

"It's impossible to claim that one is "better" than the other without first defining "better"

Well, why didn't you say so? I can define better for you if you like.

"A cannibalist society should have the right to set up a cannibalist government until they evolve out of cannibalism"

But who are you to say that cannibalism is a trait that they should evolve out of? You seem to be arguing that China should stay the same because it is the Chinese way to be like this, yet aren't you going totally against that principle by saying that cannibals must change?

"Sacrificing a few generations (not that most of them are living in pain anyway) for a government that lasts for thousands of years, if not more, is definitely worth it."

Supposing it's a bad government?

"Many people in China, too. People in China have long memories, there are many students and families of students who think that mob justice is all that the leaders of the time deserved. I believe that the appropriate foreign phrase here is "An eye for an eye" "

Deng Xiaoping, the person who supposedly gave the orders at the time, is already dead. I'm at least not low enough to insult dead people.

"Ironically, one of the causes of the 1989 protests were actually workers campaigning AGAINST the reforms. If you remember your history you will know that many Chinese workers were very unhappy about the reforms that had come in because they had a bad impact on a lot of people. For starters, many Chinese relied upon the over-inflated state enterprises and when these enterprises were trimmed down they suffered."

Therefore they shouldn't have reformed? I don't see your point too clearly here.

"Show me where I claim to. I represent myself."

You claimed that your views are shared by "Many people in China".

"If you read my comments on this blog and others you will see that I share your view. Over the last 20 years Western countries (Specifically America, Britain, Italy, France, Germany and Spain) have actually gotten less democratic. In the case of America this is because vested interests are becoming increasingly powerful and can direct public policy and opinion along their own lines, and in the other countries this is because they have put in place programs to try and make themselves more "representative". What they aimed to do was to adjust the weighing so that the majority could not dwarf minority groups, but what they actually ended up doing was giving minority groups a say in power that was higher than their percentage value of the population. In essence, any minority groups who shouts loud enough can have a say in the running of a country which vastly out of proportion to their size."

Democratic centralism seems to make far more sense in that case.

"You've obviously 1) never listened to a Green Party manifesto, 2) Never been to Germany.

Green Parties are usually ideological megalomaniacs whose ideals are not matched by common sense. Just look at what happened in Germany where the Green party became part of a coalition government (Wielding massively more power than their portion of the electorate should have allowed). The Green Party pledged to terminate ALL of Germany's nuclear power plants. Under this policy Germany will burn MORE fossil fuel at a time when the world is trying to reduce carbon emissions, and will make Germany ever more dependent on coal, oil and gas form other countries."

The point is not how crazy they are. It's how "radical" they appear. The Republicans and the Democrats were once as radical to each other as the Green Party is today. What about now?

Besides, if you think they're crazy, how crazy do you think the Americans are with their military bases all over the globe, destroying a country every ten years or so? And how crazy are the Western liberals constantly talking about a holy crusade in the name of freedom and democracy and raising those values to the point of religious dogma?

"Except, if in China you can be arrested for revealing the information AFTER the event. For example, until recently the death rate from natural disasters was a state secret."

CCTV reported the numbers as they rose during the first few days. I watched it myself.

"Are you saying that America could have announced the Cuban missile crisis BEFORE they knew about the missiles? Wouldn't that require time travel?"

The Cuban Missile Crisis wasn't announced several days after the US government found about the Soviet nukes being set up on Cuba. My point was that should they have announced it right away and have people panic?

"In a word, yes."

Chaos FTW? US hawks in the military invading Cuba regardless of orders is definitely the correct way of handling the crisis?

"Wrong, the greater Chinese people don't want instability. Change for the better is good, but change at the cost of stability makes people nervous."

Indeed, that is the case. If they can at least "put up with" the current situation, they have no reason to want big changes that bring instability.

"Show me one person that I've ever forced my ideologies on. Remember, you came to me, I didn't come to you."

I agree, I used the wrong words here. But you seem to be suggesting that imposing democracy on non-democratic countries is a good idea. I know that's opposite to what you said, but what you said later contradicts that.

"Read my About Me page. I've had pretty much that exact same phrase up there for about 4 years now."

Good to know.

"I explained why thing are the way that they are. You added the "bad" in yourself."

As I said, you IMPLIED, by listing Confucianism and "ignorance" side by side. Is Confucianism related to ignorance? If so, then perhaps neither are so bad in this particular environment?

"Which Western background would that be? I'm not Chinese-American."

You readily adopt Western ideologies such as human rights, democracy, freedom, etc. By "background" I do not refer to who you are or where you're from, I refer to the belief system you have been taught to accept, or based on the resources available to you, chose to accept.

"While the Chinese people might talk about the Chinese people what they actually mean is themselves and their immediate surroundings. As I said before, most Chinese prefer stability to instability."

Suppose you're the leader of a generic democratic country, would you be willing to take a huge risk of ruining your country to attempt to achieve progress at a faster progress? Can you bear the responsibility if you mess up?

"I could argue that China suffered 50+ years overly restrictive rule and bad economic management, and that the deprivation and lack of progress that the Chinese people experienced certainly can be classed as suffering. I can also argue that the current climate of corruption, illegal land seizures, and the repression of human rights also counts as suffering. People might ignore individual proclamations made by the government, but it is pretty hard to ignore it when you get thrown in jail for protesting. I'd like to see you walk up to the gates of the Forbidden City with a placard bearing the single word "Reform". You'd get about 2 yards before finding all about suffering."

On average, how many Chinese people become so-called "political prisoners" per 1000? If it happens to a quarter of the population it might be a problem, but as far as I can tell, it's quite a bit lower than that. Freedom for the sake of freedom is pointless; it's only good for something when 1.3 billion people somehow all become happier as a result. That won't be the case since elected officials can still be corrupt (in some village elections in China, it doesn't matter who you elect, the politician will be invariably bought out by big businesses), and uncensoring the media obviously won't improve anybody's lives. Most of the websites blocked in China are porn / drug sites. Some pirating sites are also blocked. Maybe unblocking those will make some people happy? People who hold Western values tend to see freedom as a goal in its own, which is an error to someone who holds different values.

"Wrong. Under the PLA China stayed together. While your average Han might want a single united China, there are a number of ethnic regions such as Tibet and East Turkestan (Not to mention Hong Kong and Taiwan) which would have split off years ago if it weren't for the PLA."

Can you prove that the overwhelming majority of the people in the aforementioned areas want separation? Or is it just a few extremist race-focused groups sponsored by the US (eg. http://www.state.gov/www/about_state/history/vol_xxx/337_343.html) who have become extremely vocal outside of China and in the minds of people living outside of China, represent everyone of their ethnic origins? Why don't you take a vote in China and see if the majority of the people there want to let the aforementioned areas become separate countries? How democratic would the separatists feel then?

"More anti-Japanese action would have lead to more Chinese deaths. Chinese soldiers would have died fighting, and Chinese civilians would have died in the reprisal. Had there been "more action" against Japan we might well have history books that read: "And then there was Nanjing (Nanking), often overlooked by historians for being one of the smaller massacres committed by Japan". "

Therefore China should've just surrendered and enjoyed the benefits of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere? Funny I don't remember many Chinese longing for the wonderful Manchukuo government to come back again? Don't you think the lives lost in the war was worth it in the sense that they helped preserve China as a nation and as a state? Or, since you are an individualist, I suppose you'd now call me a nationalist freak / fascist because I put my country before my life?

"At the time, many Western countries didn't have a representative democratic system, and most Chinese wouldn't have know about it even if they had. This was a period where women often couldn't vote, where the US was still segregated, and where hereditary monarchs held much more power than today."

And today is history to tomorrow, to next year, to next century. Maybe 100 years from now people will think "there was a time when in China the CCP wasn't just another party you vote for". We are only observers, as clearly, neither of us are inside China, with a mostly Chinese background, or are Chinese citizens. We have no right, therefore, to do anything about it.

"The Holocaust, Year Zero, Rwanda?"

It's a shame that these events happened, but they are necessary steps in the evolution in a culture. The lives lost perhaps will help awaken people from their respective bloody nightmares followed by a return to normalcy (in your case, democracy), or perhaps they will fertilize the ground for the growth of something entirely different. At the very least, they are mistakes entire cultures, not just governments that govern them, can learn from. Had it not been for the Great Leap Forward, could the newer generations of the Chinese leaders realize the problems with a centrally planned economy, if not properly implemented (next to impossible anyway)? Had it not been for the 6/4/89 incident, would the Chinese government be as open as it is today compared to, say, during the Cultural Revolution?

"That may be so in the case of a Western country, but in China the purpose of the PLA is "to protect the CCP from enemies, both foreign and domestic", not to protect China itself."

To protect the CCP from having a US base right next to northern China. To protect the CCP from losing territory to India. To protect the CCP from having a US base set up on an island traditionally Chinese. I like your logic. It's kind of amusing. 6/4 is about the only time the PLA was used against domestic enemies, who weren't even real enemies according to you.

"What is your definition of oppression? Personally, I count the heavy censorship regime enforced by the state as being pretty oppressive. Maybe you should pin an to Hu and Wen on the door of your house, telling them that you think that it would be in China's best interests if they had a public memorial naming all of the Tiananmen dead. You'd be "oppressed" pretty quickly."

Being randomly dragged into the streets and shot at night is oppression. Seeing death squads patrolling the streets is oppression. Having 80% of the population live in constant fear of being hunted down by the government is oppression.

To me, laws telling me not to become anti-CCP are no different than laws telling me not to kill people. They don't affect my quality of life, so what does it matter? Or is quality of life somehow related to how much you're allowed to publicly display your anger at the government?

And why would it be in China's best interests to have a public memorial for the people died during 6/4? So China can finally give up the burden of self-government? If you had a Chinese upbringing (assuming you didn't), your parents would tell you that it's better to be slapped by your parents at home than to have strangers laugh at you on the streets. Same thing applies politically. Whatever the CCP did, it was Chinese people killing Chinese people. Where do Western liberals thinking they must make the world conform to their ideologies come in?

"A Chinese elsewhere may openly practice FLG meditation, and may openly walk around with a T-Shirt bearing the likeness of the Dali-Lama. Can you honestly say that you can do this on the Mainland?"

Because everyone wants to and it'll make everyone SO MUCH happier than they are now? Because the Chinese people all secretly sympathize for Dalai Lama and FLG practitioners who burned themselves to death? As I said, in China, having freedom simply for the sake of having it is pointless.

"Nobody you know, obviously. You'd be amazed how often I remember hearing "It's not good to talk about ...." "

In where? Germany? It's sort of like that in the US after the PARTRIOT Act. And if you were in China, why would you talk about sensitive topics anyway? Are you sure you have nothing better to talk about? Are you trying to instigate instability and hatred between the people and the government? What is your motivation for doing so anyway?

"I've been to the West, I noticed the difference quite quickly."

The main difference being there are no Sinophobic protests in China held by activists who can't even find Tibet on a map. Excellent observation skills. I noticed that too.

"That's mostly the US."

But doesn't it come from the writings of the European philosophers?

"Do you mean that Chinese people are more concerned about not starving or freezing than they are about not having elections. If so, then I agree with you. When you are a dirt poor farmer, or a migrant laborer, there are more important things to you as an individual than voting."

CCP, at least now, is trying to make less people starve or freeze. They're at least trying, and as they try more, they get better at it. Living conditions in China are far better than during the Cultural Revolution or the Great Leap Forward. the CCP is still learning how to run a country properly instead of through ideologies. Maybe it'll even democratize in the process. Give it time.

"Prefer to call it "not knowing what you're missing" "

I hate watermelons. People often comment on how "I don't know what I'm missing" because they think it's absolutely awesome.

Besides, "人比人，气死人". There's always something better on the horizon. Instead of fighting for constant progress, sometimes it's better to just let go and feel content with whatever you have. After all, no one knows what the future holds for anyone else, regardless of intention. The CCP may start a civil war when it tries to democratize. Maybe nukes will fly. Who knows?

"So, why not offer these things to the Chinese people and let them turn them down?"

And then have the US invade and tell the Chinese people the wonderfulness of a US puppet government? Do you remember how the economy of Germany was under the Weimar Republic? Did Hitler not fix that problem and gave Germans far better living standards? If the Weimar Republic resulted in such bad economic conditions, what can it result in for China, regardless of duration? Besides, was Hitler not democratically elected? Were his anti-democracy laws not wildly popular? Did he not do absolutely everything legally until the Night of the Long Knives? How does this example speak for the wonderfulness of democratic governments?

And let's not forget the KMT's attempt at running a democracy. Wasn't that awesome. Corruption was definitely worse than it is today (far less monitoring of local officials), and the government openly collaborated with Western powers to give up national sovereignty in exchange for not being invaded. I'm pretty sure nobody wants that back.

"People don't except them, they put up with them. I'm pretty certain that if gave most Chinese a South Korean standard of living they wouldn't want to go back to what they had before."

If they haven't lived in a higher standard of living, they won't care. With nothing better in sight, the least that can be said is that they're content, as they got nothing to strive for. Besides, standards of living has nothing to do with how democratic a country is. China only properly managed itself for ~30 years, and look at the progress it achieved. (Never mind the ecological impact, Europe went through the same phase.) At least in China there are many labor laws in place, which couldn't be said for 19th century European countries in a similar situation. A far larger percentage of population suffered under the European countries at the time due to the laissez-faire system. If standards of living is indeed linked to how democratic a country is, how do you explain that during the 90s Russians lived in far worse conditions than under the Soviet Union, many even longing for a return of the old system? And now, look at Russia today. Many people outside of Russia criticize it for becoming less and less democratic under Putin the ex-KGB head, but how do you explain the > 80% approval rate in Russia? And the recovering economy? You can't possibly attribute it to just the probably-nonexistent Okhrana.

"There used to be a saying that in Britain that the poor knew their place."

Some people in China have a hard time believing Americans would place personal happiness before family / national interest. Just because the Western societies evolved that way, doesn't mean all societies should evolve that way. You seem to be saying that natural evolution of cultures is OK only if it results in a democratic system?

"So, what you're saying is that "A slave should be when their master doesn't beat them"? "

When the person's status as a slave doesn't hurt him in any way, yes. If a slave doesn't get beaten, gets well-fed, has a warm bed to sleep in at night, and people don't point at him and call him a lowly dirty piece of human trash, why should he long for freedom? Like I said so many times before, freedom simply for the sake of freedom is pointless. It's only useful when it brings about actual (positive) change in living conditions. Look at Singapore, for example.

"Name one?"

I see you're questioning the validity of my information. Not that you can't, but prove me wrong first. Use Chinese sources.

"That was actually a separate event that happened concurrently to the peaceful protests. Mostly is was local gangs settling scores and some malcontents and agetators. Most of it also happened AFTER the first wave of troops were sent in."

What a coincidence. Why would local gangs pick the exact time when people in the government are obviously tense and nervous and don't even know how to respond? Especially after troops have already been sent? What are your sources? Are they (lemme guess) Wikipedia? Big media (whose information Wikipedia editors base their info on)? Sinophobic activists? Besides, do you truly expect the Chinese government at that time to be able to tell the difference between agitators / malcontents / local gang members and demonstrators who wanted to slow down on the capitalist reforms or want democracy or anything else?

"Beijing pays people to write comments on the web."

Judging from the amount of comments on the internet, it's a miracle the Chinese government didn't go bankrupt yet.

Following your logic, can I also say that Reporters Without Borders and Amnesty International pay people to edit Wikipedia? Can I also say that the US government pays NGOs to infiltrate other countries?

"Hence, this blog"

is largely repeating Western rhetoric? I see that you have a lot of independent thought, but your facts seem mostly based on Western sources, which, more often than not, (depending on the subject) less accurate than random posts on the internet?

"6/4/08, maybe 6/4/89, I think not."

Could you elaborate if you don't mind? I don't see what you're trying to say.

"Beijing's lawnmower isn't up to the task. Maybe you should try reading this site: http://www.tiananmenmother.org/"

Freedom and democracy at the cost of national unity and strength simply isn't worth it for someone with an upbringing rooted in a culture several thousand years old that evolved almost entirely separately from the Western culture. Can you accept that not only should cultures be able to evolve at their own pace, they should be allowed to evolve into whatever the culture, as a whole, chooses, voluntarily or involuntarily?

"You might be surprised at where I get my information"

Name some sources that aren't afraid of an extra superpower challenging the near-absolute authority the US has over the world. I'd like to check too.

"I've been doing this for years, and I'm pretty good at it."

Telling apart lies from truths in Western reporting? I believe you, but the thing is, more often than not, they don't report entire lies, but only parts of the truth. You've probably been to www.anti-cnn.com. You've probably seen the images of Western media cropping pictures of PLA soldiers saving tourists and calling them PLA soldiers beating up peaceful protestors. You've probably noticed the lack of image/video proof of violent Tibetan protestors setting fire to shops and stabbing people with knives, or if they do, calling them Chinese soldiers dressed up as protestors (which was also debunked, by the way). How can you find out about what they don't tell you then? By living in the west, you are immersing yourself in a Sinophobic society that believes nothing good can ever come out of a traditionally autocratic system. How can you even attempt to be fair then?

"Now, you should know better than that."

See above.

"Actually, the rioting happened after the first attempt to suppress peaceful demonstrations."

Why the crap would the Chinese government crack down on a group of peaceful protestors protesting about something that has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the CCP to rule? To destroy its own popularity? I don't see the logic. Why would they go violent if the crowd didn't go violent first? Even if they did, to many, that is still a mistake that can easily be forgiven.

"You'd be surprised."

That the Western people got to see a lot more than I thought? Actually, that's not the case at all. I've actually gone to libraries and looked up archives of newspapers reporting 6/4 back then during an argument with a friend of mine, and unfortunately, the images I mentioned were all I saw. No accurate, truthful reporting, only politically motivated reporters throwing dirt onto a country they can barely find on the map.

"If they are so good why not give the people the chance to elect them to office?"

Good or not isn't the point. I'm talking about how much they care about their country. Wen Jiabao at least cried after seeing the aftermath of the earthquake. Maybe he's just pretending so he could become more popular, but don't you think that if every politician in the world pretended the way he did, the world would be a lot better? Let's now compare this to Bush's response to Hurricane Katrina. How does the self-professed Pope of the Church of Democracy stack up against some old Chinese guy?

"I find it hard to imagine how it could be much worse. 50 year ago China was enduring one of the worst famines on record. Or didn't you're American text books include 大跃进."

Chinese textbooks clearly do talk about the Great Leap Forward, and they do mention it as one of the greatest mistakes the CCP has ever made. It's so long ago politically, it doesn't matter anymore. In any case, China certainly learned its lesson from it. The people paid a heavy price for it, but at least CCP or anyone coming after it isn't going to mess up the economy anytime soon.

"North Korea?"

Kim-Jong Il has too many psychological problems to mention. He's even running air drills simulating a Chinese air attack. Apparently he forgot who saved his dad's sorry ass 60 years ago. Anyway, because he's running a country given to him by his dad, his mentality is similar to that of a traditional emperor, which, under pressure, will do some very unexpected things, as he feels that the entire country is his personal property.

But China's leadership is obviously better. Not only is it made up of people who experienced the horrors of the Cultural Revolution many years ago, many of them originate from relatively humble roots, so I wouldn't exactly be overstating the facts when I say they can, at least up to a degree, understand the hardship many people in China face. They at least formed a functional government.

To quote Wen Jiabao on corrupt, inefficient officials: "I only have one thing to say: the people are feeding you. Do what you think you should."

"Yes, but you go to a middle class district of Hong Kong and you will find well educated Filipino women slaving away as amah. It's the same the world over for immigrants."

Does that mean the Filipino system is superior to that of Hong Kong in every possible way?

"That may have had something to do with Anti-Japanese sentiment being the in thing. You could throw a brick at the Japanese embassy and nobody would blink, but if you were to throw a land rights petition at the steps of the Great Hall of the People......"

Then the Chinese people would feel offended. I would, and I still count myself as Chinese. If you yelled out anti-Chinese anti-CCP slogans in China, chances are, an angry mob of 19 year olds will take care of you long before anyone from the government arrives. At the very least, you'll be seeing a lot of middle fingers.

If you could, would you yell out anti-CCP slogans when massive crowds gathered on Tiananmen Square and cried out "Go China!" and "Go Wenchuan!"? Would you dare? Do you think that would be the correct thing to do?

"That is all well and good except the rioting was a reaction to attempts to put down the protests. Beijing created the violence."

For what purpose? Because they just randomly felt like shooting people? And according to you, Chinese people don't like instability. How do you explain the riots then?

"China is on the UNSC, it is nobody's puppet."

The other half of the UNSC is US' puppet. How useful is a seat on the UNSC then? The veto power isn't all that useful, you know. And by the way, I believe the US is the country that used the veto power the most.

"I added the explanation, you added the Against."

I was talking about what you implied, not what you directly wrote.

"Sorry, but "Befehl ist Befehl" was discredited 60 years ago."

Who's to judge anyway? Americans with their utopian philosophies? I certainly hope not.

"I don't seem to recall mentioning force, except to denounce its use at Tiananmen. you're trying to put words in my mouth."

But what right do you have to denounce it in the first place? Are you directly affected? You even said yourself you're not a Chinese. Do you not realize that you, as an outside observer, should not be interfering with the internal issues of other countries?

"Once again. I'm not Chinese-American."

But you certainly do appear to be embracing the values of a Western society, such as democracy, human rights, freedom, etc. Where did I say you were either Chinese or American?

"Well, why didn't you say so? I can define better for you if you like."

"Better" as in individuals are happier / live? China's official name would've been changed to Manchukuo a long time ago. How can you even set up a military at all that way? Who would be willing to die for their country then? Better as in "better adoption of Western values"? Then how is China still China?

"But who are you to say that cannibalism is a trait that they should evolve out of? You seem to be arguing that China should stay the same because it is the Chinese way to be like this, yet aren't you going totally against that principle by saying that cannibals must change?"

By "until they evolve out of it", I mean "until they evolve out of it, if they do at all". Does anyone have the right to tell them that cannibalism is "wrong"? Not according to their culture, which evolved due to the conditions they faced. The culture certainly has the right to stay the way it is, or evolve into slavery, then feudalism, then back to slavery, then back to primitive communism if they so choose. Who are we to comment?

"Supposing it's a bad government?"

Just as water always flows downhill, people always attempt to live better lives. If the people "put up with" a "bad" government for thousands of years, then perhaps by their definition, the government isn't really "bad"? Or perhaps there's some reason that they didn't bother changing one, in which case it's probably a good reason, at least in their culture, for the lack of change? In China's case, maybe the imperial/autocratic system isn't so bad? Maybe you don't know about this, but Chinese people tend to look up to political leaders as father-like figures and tend to assume they're right. In that case, how do you think elections would go in such a massive country right now? As I've always said, if the Chinese people do want freedom, then sooner or later a Chinese Gorbachev will rise to power and put in some political reforms. Until then, we have no right to say what's better or what's worse for China. We can only observe on the sidelines and learn to accept cultures as they are.

'cho' ,you shouldn't have argued with ABC like that. it doesn't make sense. you can never convince him,or he will not be ABC any more.He is distinguishing himself by holding his opinion.In fact ,he is 'sombody' in some circle--and if he were to abandon that belief ,he would find himself 'nobody' at all.

You have the patience of Job to refute every one of Cho's illogical arguments, ACB. I do want to expand upon one refutation you made:

<i>"Do you mean that Chinese people are more concerned about not starving or freezing than they are about not having elections. If so, then I agree with you. When you are a dirt poor farmer, or a migrant laborer, there are more important things to you as an individual than voting. "</i>

The political rights versus economic growth argument fails to account for the fact that the two are synergic in large countries. If you look at the forty countries with the highest PPP per capita income, they ALL fall into one of four categories: large, developed democracies; oil producers; off-shore bankers; and small city-states. There many examples of prosperous democracies, but there are no models of large countries achieving a high standard of living under a totalitarian regime. Chinese like to point to Singapore as a model of an economically thriving one-party state, but Singapore's small size and large international presence give its leaders a sense of accountability that could never be achieved among the many layers of government in a huge country like China. Elections and multiple parties themselves are no guarantee of economic development as Russia and India have shown although the latter does seem to be picking up steam.

I will expand on this further if I remember, but it's getting rather late here.

While I more or less agree with you in the context of the 21st century, there are many of examples from history of totalitarian (or at least undemocratic) regimes gaining the equivalent of first world status for their time. Mostly, the failure in modern times is not the result of a lack of democracy, but rather centralized/poor economic planning, often designed around the the low educated worker rather than corporation.

"there are no models of large countries achieving a high standard of living under a totalitarian regime"

While this may be true, I'd argue that to link all three factors together (country size, standard of living, government type) would be a gross over simplification.

The fact of the matter is that there are very few examples of truly large countries having a high standard of living, period. Size usually equals poverty for much of the population, regardless of the government due to the difficulties of managing such a large entity. Only about 14 of the top 50 countries by population size are first world nations, and that's only if you are being generous, and if you also include Taiwan as a separate country from China. True, most of the wealthy ones are currently democracies, but most of them also have other factors that account for their wealth, too.

In most cases these countries industrialized earlier than other nations and had long periods of stability after industrialization. Most also are mono-ethnic environments which were free from tribal conflicts and local infighting and where a single national government rather than a series of local regimes under a national government. Most also have a history of overseas trading and/or colonial aggression against poorer nations during key period in their wealth building.

Another factor is the switch from subsistence agriculture to industrialized farming. Once you increase agricultural output you free up more people for industrialization and education. Just look at what happened to Zimbabwe when they switched from industrialized agriculture to subsistence agriculture. The entire economy pretty much collapsed overnight. Food production plummeted, workers had to pay more for their food and so could not afford to purchase consumer goods, which caused the retail sector and the manufacturing sectors to drop, too. Now the entire country has gone from developing to third world.

Yet another factor is the open market/capitalist economy where efficiency and innovation are achieved through competition between companies rather than competition between work units within state owned enterprises. This generally comes after industrialization and industrialized agriculture but is a key factor in wealth building.

Let's look at the top ten most populous countries

China India USA Indonesia Brazil Pakistan Bangladesh Nigeria Russia Japan

Out of these countries the only ones with a first world standard of living AND a democratic system are America and Japan.

India has been a democracy since the middle of the last century. There are large pockets of wealth but it has a significant poverty problem. In some cities it is developed, but in many rural areas it is third world. Indonesia has enjoyed "periods of democracy" over the last a couple of generations, but is mostly third world or developing world Brazil has had a democratic government for a significant period of time but it still only a developing country, it has a large rural population that is very poor and many inner city slums Pakistan has endured both democracy and dictatorships. The only impact that dictatorship had on its economy was the result of other nations changing their trading habits, and not because of internal policy. It also has significant rural poverty Bangladesh has improved under democratic rule, but mostly this is due the periods of stability that this brought rather than the nature of the govenrment. It is still a developing country Nigeria, regardless of the government corruption is its primary problem Russia, too complex to summarize here, but most of its resent improvements are due to oil and gas exports, and due to the switchover from state monopoly to private ologopaly. The wealth, however is uneven and most of Russia is still a developing country Japan. Japan became rich and powerful before it gained more than token democracy due to its internal mentality. This mentality continued after democracy was "restored" in the late 1940s-early 1950s and Japan became wealthy again once its situation stabilized.

Of these countries America and Japan have been stable for the longest. They also industrialized first, have significant wealth gained through trading and overseas expansion, have had industrialized agricultural sectors for longer than the other nations, and have had capitalist economies for the longest, too. The have also had long periods free from domestic ethnic conflicts.

I believe that it is these factors that make them successful, and that any country that achieves these factors can be success full, regardless of what government is in place. I cite China as an example. China has now industrialized and has an aggressive capitalist economy with a strong export market, it is also moving towards industrializing its agricultural sector (in the East, at least) and is enjoying a period of relative stability free from ethnic and international conflicts. If things continue this way China will become a first world country without having to have democracy. It will reach this level by virtue of having a long period of stable capitalist economic development.

What has held China back up until now is not Beijing's totalitarian rule, but rather decades of mismanagement by a Communist government that made the work unit the standard unit of the economy, rather than the enterprise. Now that the enterprise is the standard unit, China's economy is racing ahead.