Posted on 10/18/2001 10:02:07 PM PDT by super175
Most Chinese people - along with most of the international community - think the central Government's decision to side with the United States and its partners in the fight against international terrorism is Beijing's wisest decision in a decade.
President Jiang Zemin, who was among the first foreign leaders to telephone President George W. Bush after the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, has handled the crisis well. He has condemned the September 11 assaults, expressed his shock and condolences to the American people, and reiterated his full support for the fight against terrorism.
In the past, Beijing has disappointed its people with poor foreign-policy decisions - for example, the central Government has been soft on Japan and stayed mute when Pakistan's military staged a coup two years ago.
The worst episode was in 1990, when Beijing abstained in the United Nations Security Council's vote endorsing the use of force to oust Iraqi troops from Kuwait. China has been victimised by Japanese and other foreign aggression, so most Chinese are baffled as to why their government is sympathetic towards Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
China's unconditional support of the US-led war against terrorism is refreshing for the world and the people of China. A week after the attacks, Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan went to Washington on a trip that had been scheduled earlier to prepare for this weekend's summit between Mr Jiang and Mr Bush at the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation meeting in Shanghai. During Mr Tang's visit, the two countries agreed to share intelligence that might aid the Bush administration's war on terrorism. Soon after, Beijing sent a delegation of counter-terrorism experts to Washington to explore avenues of co-operation.
But for most Chinese, humiliations at the hands of America - for instance, the US-led Nato bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade in May 1999, and the mid-air collision of a US spy plane and a Chinese fighter jet resulting in the loss of the fighter pilot in April this year - are still fresh in the mind.
Chinese people simply do not believe US claims that the embassy bombing was an accident because they think US intelligence systems are too sophisticated to allow such an error. As for the spy-plane incident, most Chinese are less concerned with the actual cause of the accident than with the fact that the US was spying on their country. Most insulting, in their view, is Washington's dismissal of its surveillance activities as "routine" and its resumption of such flights shortly after the accident.
Given this angry backdrop, many Chinese, although shocked, took some solace in the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon because they revealed America to be as vulnerable as China. These people believe that to some extent the US Government's unilateral policies are to blame. That does not mean they think Islamic extremists are blameless or that ordinary American people deserve to be hurt, just that the US has reaped what it has sown.
There are plenty of reasons for Beijing to co-operate with the US-led international coalition against terrorism. This will burnish China's international image, improve its relations with Washington and legitimise its fight against terrorism in Xinjiang province, where pro-independence Islamic extremists periodically stage violent attacks.
Initially, Beijing might have attempted to link its co-operation with US support for its fight against separatists in western China and Taiwan, but it later decided this was unwise during such a crisis. But Beijing might still be concerned that US retaliation against Afghan-supported terrorist organisations could result in a long-term US presence in Central Asia and an expansion of Japan's military role.
Sino-American relations are at a crossroads. The US should stop demonising China, which cannot be a "strategic competitor" for the foreseeable future, even though Beijing prefers a multi-polar world. And China should initiate political reforms and abandon its policy of making the fight against US hegemony its security priority. In fact, the Chinese people and the American people are friends - it is just their governments that do not get along. One lesson to be drawn from the September 11 attacks is that it is much safer to make friends than enemies.
When Beijing and Washington drop their Cold War mentalities, they will find they are more constructive partners than strategic competitors. They will find a new world in which all people can live peacefully and co-operatively.
All the nations of the world - especially such powers as China, Russia and the US - are re-evaluating their foreign policies after the terrorist attacks. Most noticeably, Washington is co-operating more with the UN and its member countries and is involved more in the Middle East peace negotiations (the US has even come out in support of a Palestinian state).
The US-led military strikes on Osama bin Laden, who is alleged to have masterminded the September 11 attacks, and the Taleban regime harbouring him in Afghanistan have so far been proper and limited, although some hawks in the Pentagon want to expand the war.
These are signs that a new world is coming and Beijing and Washington should seize this opportunity.
Zhang Tianguang (zhangtianguang@yahoo.com) is a senior engineer who studied American Studies, as a civilian, at the PLA's Foreign Language University in Luoyang, Henan province.
The most basic form of capital is what you mentioned in post #76
You are being ignorant to reality.
Sun's revolutionary ideas were not only about those things, but they were about not immediately having those things.
The feudal Chinese culture required a great deal of time and effort to change. The 'democratic' movement in China was not a popular revolution, as in everyone on the street being able to comprehend everything about democracy and fighting for that.
Sun wanted to revolutionize Chinese culture, away from feudalism, which would take time, and for a while a dictatorship.
This was reality. 'We have a lock on power until the new though (new Chinese thought) catches on...'.
He not only had a revolution against the feudal lords, but also against the negative aspects of feudal Chinese culture. (such as foot binding, etc)
He wanted to educate the entire masses because democracy without education does not work.
You are saying that 'they were all dictators' as in all dictators are the same. You are being ignorant.
Sun recognized (and so did Chiang) that there had to be a transition period specifically tailored for China in the move towards democracy. How else would you westernize (to some extent) the uneducated masses who would not understand the concept of voting...ever?
No. According to Marxism, the basic elements of production are capital and labor (physical and/or mental). Capital is the physical resources or materials that can be used to generate revenues. Things related to human brains are labor, such as knowledge, profession nad skill. Marx believed men should not buy or sell labor because it insults the dignity of human beings and deprives them of the right to fully contribute their labor to the society. There are many examples in which people have to give up their favorite professions to find jobs they don't like in order to put food on the table. Marx thought it was humiliation.
I am not talking about 'according to marxism'. I am talking about sheer Americanism. "Capital" does not have to be physical goods. It can consist of conceptual items or things such as professional skills or labor.
If I am a painter, the skill of painting is my capital, on which I can employ that capital to benefit myself and gain other forms of 'capital' such as a home, money, land, or whatever...
"Capital" in the American sense of the word can mean physical and non physical things. Capital is the physical resources or materials that can be used to generate revenues.
In the American sense of the word, capital does not have to be some tangible asset, like a factory, or tools. Marx believed men should not buy or sell labor because it insults the dignity of human beings and deprives them of the right to fully contribute their labor to the society.
Marx was an idiot.
There are many examples in which people have to give up their favorite professions to find jobs they don't like in order to put food on the table. Marx thought it was humiliation.
Marx was also an arrogant idiot.
The market demands what the market demands. If the market has 10,000 painters and no carpenters, where are you going to sleep?
There are such things as physical capital, and there are such things as human capital.
And on top of that, every man is responsible for himself, and his own freedom of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Every man for himself.
In communist society, you had very little choice as to which professions you got into. Whatever the government felt you were good at is what you did. Like it or not...
You asked me to explain Marxism and I did so. I didn't make any comments.
So, that's not the communism Marx suggested. Marx wanted freedom. If you know anything about Paris Commune, you can find out what Marx's dream was.
Marx thought the individual resposibility should come from self-motivation, not from the fear of hunger or unemployment.
Marx didn't think free competition in capitalism was efficient. Instead the competition caused waste of resources and would end up with monopoly.
The only similarity in language between these so-called dialects is the common writing system.
The common writing system was imposed by Emperor Qin. Before him, there were many different writing systems. Some of those old writing systems still exist in small numbers today. I watched a TV program the other day about 'nu-shu'. It is a completely differenct writing system that exists (or existed) in China...
There are many forms of Chinese writing including different forms of calligraphy.
Jia Gu Wen (the writing on the turtle shells) is the oldest so far...
There is also Zhuan Shu--which refers to those characters that are of curved flowing lines.
The invention of paper made other forms of calligraphy come up too. There is 5 basic categories: 1. Zhuan Shu (see above). 2. Li Shu 3. Kai Shu 4. Xing Shu 5. Cao Shu.
Kai Shu is printed form of characters. Xing and Cao Shu are forms of Chinese cursive writing.
Since 1949 and educational reforms more Han are able to speak putonghua (the "common language" or Mandarin) than ever before.
This began long before 1949, maybe even 50 years before. I can't give a specific date though.
The old language is refered to as Wen Yan Wen, and the new language is refered to as Bai Hua Wen.
Those reforms began to take place around the turn of the century, give or take a few years... It was at least 30 or 40 years before 1949, and before the CCP was even formed. What the CCP called 'putong hua' is referred to as 'guo-yu' on Taiwan.
Wen Yan Wen is an old form of Chinese written grammar. In English terms it would be about like writing in old biblical English. Speaking grammar and written grammar were different before those reforms were undertaken.
Also Wen Yan Wen was largely written in columns going from the right of the page to the left, to be read up to down. It was that way because scrolls were the common writing material (then consider everyone writes with their right hand).
The reforms around the turn of the century westernized some of the Chinese language. It was written side to side, and read just like English. Also Bai Hua Wen was introduced. Basically Bai Hua Wen consolidated written Chinese grammar with spoken Chinese grammar. (of course they are not exactly the same, but much more than with the old way).
The CCP simplified characters from fanti to jianti. That was done for several reasons, part of them political and 'revolutionary' and part of them 'to promote literacy'.
In language circles the oversimplification of characters is widely critcized because it destroyed many of the culturally significant things attached to Chinese writing.
Add one more: Li Shu, which was used in legal documents by the court. Li means "slave".
It was based on the language Machus spoke in the empiral court and used to be called "Jing Qiang" (Beijing Tone).
Simplified characters are good for hand-writing and don't neccessarily lose the cultural meanings in them. The mainlanders who learn simplified characters have no difficulty in reading Fan Ti. However, Taiwanese who only learn Fan Ti will have hard time in reading Jian Ti.
Add Li Shu???
Read again... it is my #2...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.