Uh... is the link only broken for me then?

I don't see the link either just... http:///

中国肿瘤网 肺癌 胃癌 肝癌 中国癌症网 肺癌 胃癌 肝癌 癌症 肺癌 胃癌 肝癌 复方红豆杉胶囊 软坚口服液 臌症丸 食道平散 复方鹿仙草颗粒 蟾乌巴布膏 金龙胶囊 华蟾素片 参一胶囊 清肺散结丸 癌症康复 肺癌 肝癌 胃癌 珍香胶囊 清肺散结丸 抗癌平丸 慈丹胶囊 金复康口服液 消癌平片 西黄丸 食道平散 复方斑蝥胶囊 天芝草胶囊

So now we know why you're so keen to head there.

consider Foshan in your next trip.
a nice lake, and ancient temple, etc.

Yes, Simon, well I haven't discovered the area's many attractions yet. But perhaps in two weeks' time! I'll definitely look into Fut-san, thanks, Sun Bin.

Terrible. I'm without words! Is this our future as well?
Roberto - Italy

Please note this is not for all of China, only the city of Zhangzhou in Fujian. But it's a poor precedent...

I'm not sure if you're right, but I've always heard the nationalist Chinese forces did most of the fighting against the Japanese. They certainly received most of the massive military and economic aid that the United States sent to China. Anyway, here's what wikipedia(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sino-Japanese_War) says:

# The Kuomintang fought in 22 major engagements, most of which involved more than 100,000 troops on both sides, 1,171 minor engagements most of which involved more than 50,000 troops on both sides, and 38,931 skirmishes.
# The CPC mostly fought guerilla attacks in rural area in North China.

A little guerilla war might seem more noble, but I'm guessing that the hundreds of thousands of nationalist troops who fought and died in major battles would be considered more resistance than anything the communists did in their guerilla campaign. Chiang Kai-Shek's intentions may not have been noble, but it seems like his forces did provide "most Chinese resistance" in the Second Sino-Japanese war.

Your post doesn't address anything at all about the statement that the nationalists did most of the fighting.

All you say is that the nationalists' intentions were not as "noble" and less effective than the communists' guerilla tactics. These two arguments in no way refute the fact that the nationalists provided most of the resistance against the Japanese.

Hi James, you are right, the KMT did do most of the fighting that was done, but to say that the KMT were the heroes against Japan while the Communists did nothing, which was the implication of the author, would be a terrible injustice.

Furthermore, almost all the fighting that was done by the KMT happened early in the war (37 and 38) when they still held onto the nominal concept that they were the government representing all authority throughout China, and then right at the end when Japan was already practically defeated.

I highly recommend the book by Barbara Tuchman, Stilwell and the American Experience in China, for a very realistic assessment of the efforts made by the KMT throughout most of World War II against Japan. While as I mentioned the average Nationalist soldier fought and died bravely, he did so at the behest of uncaring generals that really had no regard for his own fighting men or their welfare. The KMT retreated so incredibly quickly in 1942-3 that the Japanese did not have time to catch up. It was in great contrast then, that the Communists, after having survived their near-annihilation during the long march, began truly fighting against the Japanese effectively.

The author of that article does not say that the KMT were the heroes of the war. Your perception of the implication of the article is relative and completely irrelevant.

The exact quote was, "Will also pointed out a few things Beijing would never admit. Most Chinese resistance during the war was by Chiang Kai-shek's forces." You then attempted to claim that a revision of history is necessary, when no such thing is needed when you yourself admit that the KMT did do most of the fighting. You claimed that that quote was a farcical claim and a mis-statement, and then backtrack and admit that the KMT did indeed do most of the fighting.

There is nothing factually wrong with the coherent statement, "Most Chinese resistance during the war was by Chiang Kai-shek's forces." No revision is necessary for this statement when it is easily understood and easily verifiable. You yourself admit that it is true.

HK Dave,

Regardless of whether the nationalist resistance petered-out after a few years of the war, they still provided the majority of resistance against the Japanese. The Japanese suffered much higher than expected losses in the opening years of the war, and while the nationalists, having suffered massive losses against the Japanese, retreated to the interior of China, that didn't change the fact that they were still providing the majority of resistance against the Japanese. The author merely stated that Beijing would not admit that "Most Chinese resistance during the war was by Chiang Kai-shek's forces." How exactly does this statement, which many people would consider true, qualify as "one of the greatest journalistic mis-statements of all time"? You said it yourself: the KMT did do most of the fighting that was done. The author didn't call them heroes, nor did he claim the Communists did nothing.

"While there is some truth to that, there is also truth to the fact that many segment of Japanese society live in a complete bubble, insouciantly ignorant of any past atrocities, and an influential minority that prefer to distort history by outright denying it. The power of history is strong, and nationalist leaders in Japan feel they must pander to these revisionists to carry their votes."

The issue of what citizens in both Japan and the PRC know about their own countries and about the relations between the two is different from the issue Liu raises. Liu is discussing international relations. Since both Japan and the PRC are one-party states (does anyone care who could be the next DPJ-nominated premier?) where popular will is minimized, how this knowledge affects relations is rahter unimportant. Opposition in both governments is expressed by factional fighting. Factional identification is more important even than votes, because elections are decided in the nomination process and by the support given by a politican's faction. Koizumi belongs to the nationalist, conservative faction with a history extending back to Nobusuke Kishi. He does not to pander, especially to voters, because he believes in the factional line. Without it, he would not be premier. He can rebel against certain parts of the program, such as privatization, but he cannot sacrifice his identity within the faction.

However, judging from protests against textbooks and yasukuni, many Japanese citizens do know their history. For them, this is a Japanese matter, and Beijing's protests only incite resentment.

Koizumi has also clearly stated that he cannot believe beijing would hold up negotiations on important issues, just because of the history issue. It's at least possible Beijing's rhetoric is self-serving, because those issues are not easy to discuss or resolve for a Coomunist party held together with nationalist sentiment. Beijing probably wants cash for concessions on irrdentist claims, energy, and taiwan, like Tokyo has given before. But Japanese conservatives want the concessions before they consider handing cash over. So, Beijing is trying to shame Tokyo. The only difference between Aso and Abe is, that Aso would bring the cash to the meeting waiting for the deal, whereas Abe would make Beijing beg and wait for it. That is Koizumi's game, too.

I would also be willing to bet Rep. Hyde is in hock to pro-PRC lobbies. The Gray Lady's support for Beijing doesn't even need explaining. In lieu of a policy, American blue and red teams just spar, with hisotry as a tool. When dealing with some of the best spin artists in the world, history is just a whore.

Look, Chiang did his best not to win the war against Japan, and nearly succeeded. He avoided fighting with the Japanese at every opportunity, and refused to fight them even when America gave the KMT the ability to do so. He was a totally hopeless battlefield commander that basically relied on the Aamericans to come in and save his skin.

The implication in Liu's piece clearly is that the Communists have something to be ashamed about, whereas the Nationalists have something to be proud about.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

And as to history being a whore, yes some versions may be. But except for the inconvenient fact that there is truth, and there is fiction. The versions of history sold by both China and Beijing are prostitutes but the truth remains about both Chinese and Japanese atrocities against Chinese citizens (and other Asian citizens in the case of Japan) over the past century and nothing they say now is going to change this. Both countries will have these histories come back to haunt them. It appears in the next decade that Japan's turn is first.

HK Dave,

Don't try to shift the argument. This isn't about whether Chiang Kai-shek's willingness to engage the Japanese in battle, it is about whether his forces can be considered as providing more resistance against the Japanese than the communist guerillas.

Your original post clearly states that you regard the statement: "Will also pointed out a few things Beijing would never admit. Most Chinese resistance during the war was by Chiang Kai-shek's forces. " as one of the greatest journalistic mistatements of all time, and you directly call this a "farcical claim", which implies that the author's statement that Chiang Kai-shek's forces didn't did not account for most Chinese resistance to the Japanese.

While it's true that Chiang Kai-shek avoided fights with the Japanese, how exactly does it change the fact that his troops engaged in many large conventional battles with the Japanese in which hundreds of thousands of nationalist troops were killed as well as tens of thousands of Japanese? The communists, whose forces were small in comparison, could never be considered most of China's resistance against Japan. Regardless of whether most of the large battles Chiang Kai-shek fought against the Japanese were early in the conflict or whether or not he was aggressive later in the war, most people can look at the cold hard facts and see that the nationalists provided a bigger overall contribution in the struggle against the Japanese.

It's great to know that Chiang Kai-shek was a poor commander who wanted to avoid conflict with the Japanese, but that doesn't change the fact that his forces were far larger, and engaged the Japanese in far more battles than the communist guerillas in their little hit and run attacks.

Most Chinese resistance during the war was by Chiang Kai-shek's forces, and Beijing does not admit this fact in its version of Chinese history. The statement in the article is valid.

"And as to history being a whore, yes some versions may be. But except for the inconvenient fact that there is truth, and there is fiction. The versions of history sold by both China and Beijing are prostitutes but the truth remains about both Chinese and Japanese atrocities against Chinese citizens (and other Asian citizens in the case of Japan) over the past century and nothing they say now is going to change this. Both countries will have these histories come back to haunt them. It appears in the next decade that Japan's turn is first."

Oh come, that's rather philistine and unsporting of you! Next, you'll tell me you believe in Santa Claus! The correspondence theory of truth is the ugliest whore in the lot! With millions of separate accounts divided into at least tow groups, are you, a college graduate, honestly going to tell me you can see truth in that thicket! I want that drug, pal, but it might kill me! I haven't believed in that crap since Confirmation!

And, even if it did wash, no human has time for such exalted views.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth

I've mentioned elsewhere on this site that I'm currently in the middle of Chang and Halliday's biography of Mao. With the caveat that much of the book is hotly disputed, they postulate that Mao was busy avoiding the Japanese at every opportunity and the only significant Communist battle against the Japanese - the "Operation 100 Regiments" (pp. 273 of the paperback edition) - was against Mao's wishes. Chang says Mao's intention was to let the Japanese thrash the KMT to the point the Russians would be forced to intervene, and then the Russians would appoint Mao China's ruler. While Chang doesn't heap praise on the KMT, she contends that the KMT were the only resistance to the Japanese with the one exception being Operation 100 Regiments...which later become the basis of the myth of Communist resistance to Japan.

As for the article Dave mentioned, much of it dwells on American disbelief at how much both Japan and China have vested in the issue of Yasakuni. But it's pretty simple: both sides see the issue as a microcosm of their very different views of history and both are playing to domestic audiences. Both countries, to a greater or lesser extent, are now ruled by parties with little by the way of ideology, as someone said above. Nationalism is about it, patriotism being the last refuge of a scoundrel. So long as the status quo is maintained, everyone is OK on this and all the other issues on the table. The ones that really matter are still being dealt with, such as North Korea or the continuing massive investment by Japanese corporations in China. The op-ed says American politicians believe both Japan and China are big enough to resolve the Yasakuni saga on their own, whereas both countries want some kind of arbiter...like the USA. There's no upside to the USA getting involved (yet), and for both leaderships in China and Japan there's more mileage in Yasakuni than in working it out. When that equation changes, the Yasakuni question will too.

1) i am actually very puzzled at why so many people bought that "divert attention" theory. china has no need to divert attention on its own history. this has become the biggest myth in western media. because,
a) pointing finger at japanese does not change how people think about C.R., GLF, or CCP's role in WWII. If you ask any Chinese person, you would find out there is hardly any correlation in their minds. If that is CCP's reason, they would have secretly asked/wished Koizumi to do more of these stuff.
b) there is only one reason for the temporary lift on popular protest last year, to build a case when China is forced to excercise its veto power regarding Japan's applicaiton to UNSC. Nothing else. As you can see, once Japan dropped its application, this year the civilian protest was suppressed.

2) I agree with Simon's assessment on CKS. The fact is, CKS' army is incompetent and ill-equipped/ill-trained. KMT fought more war simply because it occupied a larger area, with a larger army, and hence more exposure to fighting.

3) Liu kingmin:) this clown is everywher once in a while, but his writing are very predictable. i have some discussion with davesgonechina about his story a couple weeks ago. http://silkworms.chinesetriad.org/?p=331#comments

4) Will's WP essay is just as bad, typical of someone who has no clue about Asia, perhaps he has not even have spent any time in Asia. Howard French was pretty good this time
http://www.i_h_t.com/articles/2006/08/18/news/letter.php

(the website link was forbidden, so i had to insert 2 "_" there)

Chang/Halliday:)
the truth is
1) CCP fought a few war (100 regiments, pingxinguan) against the Japanese. But the real contribution is dragging the Japanese army from further expansion, not the 2 battles that it bragged about.
2) the 2 battles may be against Mao's view, maybe only in hind-sight (after CCP also suffered great lost). But we can agree that Mao wanted to preserve power because these battles were not effective. But preserving power does not mean not fighting, if you were Mao, why would you stop from bombing the railway and launching small surprise attack on strayed Japanese troop? Why would you fight them in the front, when you do not even have enough guns and bullets?
3) For every thing Chang said, I would seek a second source before believing. :)

James said, "Don't try to shift the argument."

That is right. Liu Kinming and apologist should really listen to you. What CCP has done in WWII, or in 1959-70, or in its history book, has really nothing to do with the Yasukuni issue.

Even if Japan did horrible things in WWII, does it mean Japan has no right to ciriticze the Holocaust? Well, this is basically the logic of Liu and his apologists.

One careful evaluation of Chang/Halliday's claims (which I'm quite sure are the source of Will's claims) is here. In short, the evaluation of Mao's motives is highly suspect, and their evaluation of the military situation is deeply flawed.

There has been much criticism of Chang/Halliday's book, and in turn, such criticism has also been attacked.

There was a lively discussion concerning this on the Peking Duck a while back.

http://tinyurl.com/josr9

When one considers that at the beginning of the Sino-Japanese War the Comunist Party decreed a Policy of Non-Aggression Against Japan (it's in the archives, you can look up the minutes of the meeting), hoping that Japan and the KMT would wear each other out allowing the CCP to swoop in on whichever was left standing, the word "noble" seems rather inappropriate.

Don't believe everything you read.

Thanks I'll follow those leads. I know the book has been critically reviewed elsewhere. I wonder if it's proved popular because of the position it takes, because it is well written, because it is well marketed or some combination of all?

It's a combination, to be sure. The writing is.... well, you can judge for yourself, but it's certainly got more energy and moral outrage than your averge history book. It's been marketed like crazy: Regnery is a significant American conservative echo chamber, which means that they've gotten lots of free good press from conservative commentators (and a few "open-minded" liberals who don't know anything about China), and the marketing has highlighted the "original" aspects of the book, making it seem like more than it is. (I put "original" in quotation marks because, while there is substantial new material in the book, a lot of what's being touted are really findings which have been in the English-language scholarship on Mao for years, and the new material is contentious territory due to the difficulty of confirming their research)

For all the hype, it's an important book: confirming or rebuting their points will probably be a recurring theme of modern Chinese historical scholarship in English for a decade. But it's not definitive, by any means.

Indeed, it would be a more important book in the Western academies if its sources were more transparent than they appear to be. But those who do not write history do not require footnotes. The impact of its mere existence has already been felt.

Surely this book has been reviewed in China at the highest levels in an effort to discover and discredit its alleged sources. Where is the news leakage from within China on this?

Rich Kuslan, Editor
Asia Business Intelligence
www.asiabizblog.com

the book sounds more like a propaganda + marketing deed. but we trust simon has a more critical mind than the other 90% who bought the book. :)

Chang may not be able to add marks to her career this time as a novelist although her previous story has won overwhelming success.
Dragging her historian-husband in as co-author has also not made this book look more scholarly. Their so-called research on china-russian archieve was nothing more than a biased integration of scattered and unproven "facts" and emotional enmities gathered from victims of the Cultural Revolution.
Demonization of Mao will not allow us to view objectively that "dark age period" of contemporary chinese history.
[This is not CPC propaganda]

Exciting website. http://jobs.msdinc.com/Members/de/chip-poker.html

Text of a bumper sticker sometimes seen around Boulder, Colorado:

"Forget Tibet, Free Boulder!"

I think it is just part of ever-present cynical attitude towards everything China. It seems like China can never be right in achieve some sort of net positive for its people unless CCP today just politically slit their wrist and "embrace democracy(???)".

The see the same sort of hilariously cynical attitude in alot of the commentators that when they open their mouth and spew out waves of tired rhetoric, it is hard to not laugh or take them seriously.

The fundamental mindset is that, after the collapse of communism, "Democracy" has evolved from the "best way" to the "only way". Its application is all purpose and universal. Any solution to the contrary is heresy.

IMO, some people needs to stop treating "Democracy" like a religion and return to the examination of the human condition.

So I did a quick google news on Tibet and I found the some headline talking about the railroad and immediately i see some extremely hyperbolic headline such as "Railroad from hell" and "Blow to Tibet's independence".

Can't help but be amused and cynical at the same time.

But I guess the potential is there for cultural genocide such as the American Indians.

Look, I do think what has happened to Tibet was unfortunate, and certainly it is debatable whether it was an independent state historically like Korea and/or Vietnam, or a dominion of China.

But as much sympathy as I have for displaced Tibetans that chafe at the idea of Chinese rule, those debates now are in the past. Given the rise of China and the global geopolitical tectonic shifts that entails, China's absorption of Tibet is a fait accompli.

Once one comes to terms with it, you realize that any efforts to spur economic development of that dirt poor area is a good thing. And to decry globalization there as 'Sinification' is like 19th century Victorians objectifying the 'noble savage'. Yes, there is troubling evidence of forced ethnic heterogeneity by the thousands of Chinese settlers China has encouraged to move there. But the railway has no racial bias - it can only help people there rise up from the poverty that has blighted the region from before even the Chinese takeover.

While I agree with your assertion that Tibetan independence will never happen, I disagree with all this talk about moving economic prosperity to Tibet.

People who believe this are usually the ones that haven't traveled extensively to minority regions in China and/or have no idea what REALLY is going on. Just visit minority group-themed destinations in China such as Lijiang or Dali in Yunnan where the minority groups have been pushed out and Han Chinese settlers have moved in to cash in on their 'minority culture'. Fake cultural shows, tacky shops that sell minority trinkets are all features of them.
Take a look at last weekend's Standard article about a small town on Lugu Lake straddling Yunnan and Sichuan to see what economic development has done to minority people:

http://www.thestandard.com.hk/weekend_news_detail.asp?pp_cat=30&art_id=22417&sid=8705268&con_type=3&d_str=20060708

"....hope that people in Tibet can afford more opportunities, improved healthcare, safer roads, and more education, the better."

If Tibet was being unified with Canada or Australia then I would agree with you. I'm not sure how often you travel in China, but the health care for the vast majority of Chinese are terrible (visit a MASH-like Chinese hospital if you dont' believe me), safer roads don't exist and education in the rest of the country is in crisis mode.

Nobody asks what the ordinary Tibetans want (other than independence that is), the Han tell them what they need. If they do want economic progress why haven't any of them spoken up about it?

My advice is to go to Tibet, talk to a few Tibetans and see what they think about this tourism/unity with China circus. You'll quickly learn that many of them realise that independence is out of the question but they just want to be left to their own devices. Kind of like many Taiwanese people...but that's another story for another day:)

The railway is an impressive feat of engineering. Like most impressive -- and ergo expensive -- feats, there is plenty of room to debate the rationality of the thing. But now that it's there the Tibetans will get some benefit. Personally I hope to take the thing at some point.
I'm more bothered by that freaky giant Mao Zedong statue.

My comments are posted here:

http://www.radicalcontrapositions.com/leftflankblog/article/ambivalent-human-miracle

Dezza, I don't care for tacky Chinese tourism any more than the next guy, and yes, I've seen it - all over the country. They belittle all the 'quaint' cultures of all the 'minorities' of China. It made my experience in Kashgar one of the most disappointing stops of my life (everything afterwards on the Pakistan side was way cooler).

But even with the huge influx of Han Chinese, I still thought that overall, Kashgar had overall become a wealthier city - as has Lijiang, Dali, and lots of other places where the tourism dollars had made its way. And while the chief tourism enterprises, many of them national, were run by Han Chinese, I definitely saw a decent share of my tourism dollars going to local minorities, and to their employment.

dezza,

i certainly agree with your 'advice of to go to Tibet, talk to a few Tibetans'. but the topic and observation should perhaps be much broader.

btw, have you done so? how did you arrived at your conclusion?

myrick,

that whole statue thing is quite weird. but 7m is more like the average size you see in other cities, anything but giant.

speaking of "Fake cultural shows, tacky shops that sell minority trinkets"

Deeza, have you been to Oahu's Polyneasian Cultural Center? Any of the Indian reservation with cement teepees?

Taiwan's "high mountan people"(GaoShanRen) were actually plains dweller before the Dutch and Chinese pushed them up to the hills.

Sun Bin: I've traveled extensively in Tibetan areas of Northern Yunnan and Western Sichuan. Although I've never traveled to Tibet itself, Tibetans in the areas I did visit go back and forth between Tibet and their homes in the above mentioned places.

I've talked extensively with regular Tibetan folks, even been invited into a few homes for chats, check out my website for photo evidence. I think it's pretty safe to say they cast a weary eye on all this development talk and feel left out and pushed out. I also speak with Han Chinese residing in these areas who think Tibetans are dirty, lazy and stupid because most of them just want to live on the land and herd yaks. There is definitely a lot of animosity between the minority groups and Han Chinese.

Fellow travelers and Tibetans themselves have even remarked that the Tibetan areas outside of Tibet are more authentically Tibetan than Tibet is now. I guess I'll have to see that for myself when I visit Tibet next year. I hope it hasn't turned out into another Lijiang by then..

HK Dave: if you can stomach what Lijiang and Dali have become then you're a bigger tourist 'man' than me:)

Bobby Fletcher: it's been awhile since I've been to Hawaii, I'll have to check out that cultural centre some time. What state are those cement teepees in?

I've seen cement teepees not on reservations, but outside or near them in southerwestern Colorado and in New Mexico.
I also believe I recall one outside of Tuba City, Arizona circa 1975 during a travesity of a road trip - but that might've been the drugs)))))
Tacky and absurd as they are -- they're used as adverts or picnic shelters, not housing -- they compare somewhat favorably to some of the horrendous housing on the actual reservations.

When some people talk about "evil train" it's obvious that the point is not the "train" but the "evil". In other words, the problem is not whether China has or not the right to put a railway line in its territory (of course it has), but the evil China did in and against Tibet in the last 50 years. If you miss this point, your post makes no sense.

Best.

Enzo

Actually I've always wanted to ask this question but never got a chance to. Every god damn backpacker seems to have some innate knowledge on the "pulse" of Tibetans and seems to have gained some sort of socio-political wisdom. I know that 99% of the schmucks backtracking in Tibet can barely speak a lick of Chinese, let alone Tibetan. Also 99% of Tibetans and Chinese likewise don't speak any English. How are people like Dezza communicating complicated social and political concepts with "regular" natives when the grasp of the language is at best tentative or generally non-existant? Grunting can only take you so far.

It is really nothing "EVIL" about building a train to Tibet. If you want to talk about the policies there's a time and place for it.

The hypocrisy is so deep sometimes that people fails to see things for what they are. It is simply another part of the infrastrucuture development that's going on all over China. Not some neferious scheme to "wipe out the Tibetan culture".

Even if Tibet is an independent country, the train would STILL be just another part of globalization that's inevitable. People can't honestly be suggestion that instead of a train they should build a wall?

Jing, I am not sure if Dezza speaks Tibetan; but for one reason or another he has ability to speak Chinese. Perhaps you may check his blog first.

Look, Chinese travelers travel the way they want to. We can criticize them when they travel abroad, but when they travel in their own country we can't really tell them how to do it. As much as I hate whistle-stop bus tourism sandwiching in crappy food, stupid rip off 'handicraft factories' that pay commissions to the tour guides and ritualistic, soporific, pathetic 'cultural performances', if a billion people like travelling that way there's not much you or I can do about it.

And anyone that thinks that despite what Chinese domestic tourism is doing to historic or cultural environments, that it is not also bringing in money to the local economy, is totally deluding themselves.

Tibet is a part of China now. Get over any Quixotic quest to hope something will change the status quo and roll back five decades. That being the case, China not only has a right, but a responsibility to bring economic development to the region.

And on my favorite subject - I fervently hope for total culinary colonization of Tibet by China. Stop tsampa!

Glad none of you were in charge of the World in the late 80s. I can just picture it, "Poland has been part of Russia for 50 years and always will be!"

Personally, I think the train will give a much needed economic kick in the pants to the region.

Tibet will be free and maybe it will take another 50 years. When you are all dead.

Germaine greer: You are right, I am also waiting for the day when Northern Ireland is free. And why limit our imagination, maybe my personal favorite, Scotland, also has a chance.

I guess the Brits deeply regret that they did not do to the Irish what they did to the early Australians in the 18th century. Things would be much easier now.

Or if you are American, the Chinese can learn from you, chase all the Tibetens up to the mountain top and buy them hard liquor all day.

It would seem that the Chinese are damned if they do and damned if they don't. The predictable response came even before the plans for the railway had been laid. But if the Chinese didn't build a railroad, it's possible that some would have accused the Chinese of trying intentionally to box the Tibetans in.

I also think that tourism would be a good thing. Remember, the Vatican gets millions of visitors a year, and they are still very much in business.

I can give you China's history in one word, they are the fucking "IMITATORS".

Im thinking of minature dildos.

What was in the case ????

Pictures, darnit. Where are the pictures?

Not according to the Durex Sex Attitudes Survey:

http://www.durex.com .cn/download/2005report.pdf

(take out the space; comments here aren't friendly to Chinese domains)

Another great successes story from China. I am always glad to read how someone starts with an idea and turns it into something profitable. Some pics would be great next time!

Maybe the cause is that the public are pirating the Chinese films, an appropraite bum rap.

away from distribution and exhibition issues, the simple (but painful) reason is that 90 percent of movies made are just no good. Try to make a list of top 10 mainland movies of last five years and it isn't easy. Even the foreign film festival favorites tend to be painfully slow and self-obsessed and wouldn't get a look in were it not for their 'oriental' (sorry) appeal. watched 'bao ber in love' t'other night - looked like it was made by a chimpanzee with a camera in one hand and a bottle of beer in the other. shockingly bad.

I would disagree and say that many of the Chinese film festival films are quite good; although they tend towards sentimentality, many talented directors such as Jia Zhangke, Li Yang and Yang Zhang are making good films.

I think piracy is definitely a problem, as are the cinemas themselves. There need to be some brand spanking new cinemas made, and ones that enforce laws on spitting and gross/obnoxious (not to mention unhealthy) behavior. I will never forget going to see "The Rock" in a cinema in Changsha. The movie did not have advertised start times - you just walked in and sat down; they would start playing the film as soon as they had finished and rewound the reel, which usually means you're about halfway through the film when you arrive.

If there was a guarantee of buttered salted popcorn and English subtitles I'd be out to the movies at least once a week.

"I would disagree and say that many of the Chinese film festival films are quite good; although they tend towards sentimentality, many talented directors such as Jia Zhangke, Li Yang and Yang Zhang are making good films."

could you give some examples because I have racked my brain and failed to come up with any? Even the likes of pickpocket or blind shaft are interesting rather than actually good in a cinematic sense. others like peacock are just dull. who wants to to the cinema (rather than dvd at home) and watch what are basically puffed up tv movies (or stage plays)?

compare china's output with korea, japan or hk and the you see what a tedious, ego-filled, over-directed movie world we are forced to live in.

Let's be as realistic as possible, and talk about "simple economics", or rather, plain old, common sense. They say, 10Yuan for a pirated DVD, and 40-120Yuan for an admission ticket to a run-down theater - I say, DVD looks pretty good, and the thing is, I make over a 100 times more money than the average, potential movie goer in China - so what's this about "less regulation and more competition". Why should I pay more for something I can have for less - it's stupid. The "Economist" should re-evaluate its own name, and change it to the "Idiots", for failing to see "simple economics" in action - the "Economist" -ha, what a joke.

"Why should I pay more for something I can have for less - it's stupid."

Well, exactly. At its core, this is the same issue that faces cinema owners in the United States. If you're going to create or maintain a popcorn culture of regular movie-goers, you have to offer more than just the viewing of a movie. You need to give people a reason to get out of the house, go through the time and expense, and get that premium value out of it.

Cinema will not progress much further unless it the business is completely rethought and patrons are either getting a unique experience, OR they're going to get an opportunity to see something they cannot see elsewhere.

Mo bettah, a combination of the two.

How to Get All the Website Traffic You Want with No Effort at all

In order to have a successful site you need of course a lot of website
traffic. But in many cases, even if you work really hard and you create
a
professional web page you still do not get too many visitors and in
conclusion the profit that you deserve.

First, let us review the most poplar methods of directing traffic to a
certain website.

-link exchanging - cheap method but many say that overall it drives
people
away from your site instead of to it, because adding a large number of
links
to you pages makes them look unprofessional and may drive visitors
away.
Adding only a small number of links does not have any noticeable
effect.
Also making link exchanges it's mot always so easy because you have to
convince webmasters to trade links with you. I can tell you from my
experience that if you have a new site this thing could get really
difficult
because almost no one will want to exchange links with you. Over time a
good link
can build your website traffic but it is hard work.

-free ezine ads - another cheap method but it rarely does anything
because
that are thousands of ads out there that try to attract attention and
yours
will just blend in with the others.

-search engine submissions - this may be the most effective method but
it
requires a lot of work and time, plus some money, and it only works if
you
get a high position in the search engines, which is very difficult to
do,
and you can loose that position in a few weeks.

-Buying one way links to increase you link popularity and your search
engine
rankings could be a method but having top positions in the major search
engines it's not so easy. Every one knows that search engine website
traffic
is the best but to get it you must have thousands of good quality links
which can get really expensive.

The solution is easier than you may think it is.. you can buy traffic!
For a
small amount of money you can purchase all the website traffic that you
need
and boost you business profits. Without people visiting your pages you
can
not promote and sell your products, so if you want to increase your
profits
you have to get as much website traffic as you can. Therefore, the
simplest,
easiest solution is to buy traffic. It is not expensive at all and you
will
definitely gain much more money than what you spend on buying traffic!

Now, a new innovative method was developed - the redirected visitors
technology. This tehnique brings, just as its name suggests, redirected
visitors to your site. It works perfectly and it is guaranteed to bring
a
lot of website traffic to you!

People who are working with this technology purchase all the abandoned
domain names that had a website with good traffic on them. Those
abandoned
websites are listed in the search engines and they are marketed,
therefore
they used to be visited by quite a lot of people. When you enter this
kind
of program, your website will be scanned, and those abandoned websites
will
be redirected to yours. When someone searches for something in a search
engine and clicks on the link that used to point to the abandoned
pages, it
will lead them to you instead! Unlike popups this method is not
annoying for
users, because what they find has the same subject as what they
searched
for, so they will most likely not even notice the redirection.

This way you will get all the targeted website traffic you need.
Instead of
working really hard you can simply buy that traffic! And as i saw on
the net
the prices for this kind of services are really cheap. Furthermore,
this
tehnique is not a spamming tehnique and it brings real traffic to you,
thousands of visitors!

If you are interested in learning more about the Increase Traffic
redirecting
technology or if you would like to know how to buy traffic just follow
these
links.
http://www.redirectedvisitors.com

I've managed to save up roughly $56452 in my bank account, but I'm not sure if I should buy a house or not. Do you think the market is stable or do you think that home prices will decrease by a lot?

I struggle with the lack of innovation, improvisation, invention, self motivation every day in my job. The nationals that work for me are bright, great people. But, they really struggle when it comes to thinking of new ways of doing things. The propensity to sit back and let things happen, rather than driving a new way in maddening. A simple thing like getting up in front of the group and presenting a project and convincing people of your point of view...and then, getting the audience to question what is being presented. We (westerners) don't think twice about interrupting and asking questions...but not here.
Training can only take me so far...there is so much ingrained habits that have to be overcome.

Chinese are trained to learn by rote. Historically, the ladder of imperial success, to quote Ho Ping-ti, depended upon rote learning, and that tradition follows to the present day. In classes of 50 or more, little else can accomplished but the memorization of discrete bits of information and spitting it out again. By seeing the best students -- those who have made it through the sieve into the college system -- that we think Chinese are, as a rule, so very intelligent and well-learned. But go into the great mass of businesses and train the sales force (college grads, nonetheless), as I have, and one finds only a handful prepared to think on their own. When education fosters dependency, who can expect more?

With the new emphasis on Marxism, the kids in China will no doubt have a new father figure called Uncle Mao or some such. Look for characters who speak in cliches and platitudes and describe Uncle Mao in superlatives such as "glorious," etc. The sacharine in their tones will no doubt give a whole generation of kids diabetes. I'll take my sugar in Snickers bars any day.

I have two questions

1) Is this revisionism?
2) Would the US ever accept that it's history (at least the columbus bit) is wrong?

I'm not saying, not even by a long shot, that this map is real (it's as fake as my 99 cent copy of Lord of the Rings), but even if China could produce the original map, on Carbon dateable material, made with carbon dateable ink, and accompanied by who knows what else that would be indesputable to modern science, is there even a remote chance that America would accept it as being genuine?

One of the giveaways is that the Zheng He's ships have a golden M on the sails

Re: ABC's comment. 1. History is always subject to revisionism.
2. Why wouldn't "America" accept it as real if it was proven to be so beyond a scientific doubt? Few, if any, Americans have no problem with the fact that the Norse predated Columbus's discovery, for instance.
Many of us are more educated and open-minded than you may suspect.
Of course, I have to admit that there are also the boneheads in the US who think the world is 6,000 years old and that it was created in 6 days...I don't think they'd be comfortable with a Chinese Columbus.

why does it matter, even if the map is true, zheng he is just someone between the nativs american and the white.
either judge by the first discoverer (native american) or the current occupiers (mainly whites, and more recent immigrant), zhenghe's alleged trip bears no implication whether it is incorporated by the US textbook or not.
it is no different than a bird fly by without laying egg or even some dropping.

I am with Sun Bin on this one. China's rise today has very little to do indeed with Zheng He or indeed any other notables of the Ming dynasty.

Please make the Zheng He issue go away! Why does everyone think this is so important, even if the proof is there that he globetrotted (which he didn't?)

I would like everyone to read an excellent book - the Adventures of Ibn Battuta, a 14th century Muslim traveler that visited much of the known old world, which at that time, a great deal of it was under Islamic influence. A fascinating book. travelling by land and sea, in total distance he must have covered the world.

Justin:

My comment comes because, in my experience, America tends to intensly dislike any attempts at revisionism, no matter how justified.

I hold up the example of 'Native Americans' (indians, or whatever you like to call them). American history records them as coming over on land bridges from Asia around the end of the ice age, yet there is indisputable scientific evidence (including Carbon 14 dating and forensic reconstructions) that non Asians were present in the US long before the end of the ice age.

During the 90s, they dug up a skeleton of a non-Asian human male in a river, it carbon dated back to significantly earlier than any known Asian-Indian remains and did not match up to the facial or genetic structure of any known native American tribes of Asian decent. A Revelation in history? No.

Federal authoriteis confiscated the body and presented it to a local native American tribe for berial, despite it pre-dating them by thousends of years and having no genetic relationship to them.

Similarly, there is pretty good evidence to show that George Washington had a number of black children with a servent, yet most of their decendents are denied official recognition despite DNA evidence.

The list goes on.

No offense, but American hisotry is full of events where it should have been revised, but it wasn't and those who tried to revise it were denounced.

I just can't see Columbus day being scrapped for Zheng day.

Imagine that, America celebrating a Chinese eunec, it'd never happen in a millien years.

opps, maybe I should add that the argument wasn't whether native Americans are not decended from Asians who crossed over on a land bridge near the end of the ice age, but whether or not they were the first human settlers in America.

I think that the earliest accepted date in Us books is 13,000 years ago, but the true (revisionist) date is 16,000 years ago.

Don't forget he was a Muslim, too. Makes it even more unlikely.

ACB, your point is irrelevent and seems to betray an irrational disdain for the US.

First off, most people don't give a damn about Columbus day in the US, except that it gives them a day off from school. Furthermore, the historical perception of Columbus in the US has been in a steady state of revision.

But regardless of whether a Chinese guy set foot on the Americas, Columbus would still be the guy who brought that knowledge back to Europe, which led the way to the European exploration and colonies that ultimately drastically changed the continent and led to the creation of the US.

It's like, if you could prove that some guy invented a silicon chip in his barn in 1824 and then buried it, it wouldn't really change the significance of its development in the 20th century.

my regret is that i did not save the set of photographs of rural Chinese children whose cheeks were all purplish-red ... I mean, everybody in that classroom ... If I remember, I was too busy crying ...

In what way is the Peter Kovolsky matter a controversy? According to the dictionary, "A controversy is a contentious dispute, a disagreement in opinions over which parties are actively arguing."
Just who is actively arguing on behalf of SCMP right now?

Point taken, although I implicitly assumed SCMP would stand up for themselves.

Hi, SImon,

Here is the ink to the New York Times review of this book, which also comments on page 2:

"If events in Cuba and Indochina gave Washington fits, the Soviet leaders, in their turn, were stymied by North Korea and driven to the point of apoplexy by Mao Zedong, who would traumatize Khrushchev by casually commenting that war with the United States might be an excellent idea."

URL:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9904E3D81230F93BA15751C1A9639C8B63

There's a greater worry - that China's little emporers will turn into a vast army of rote-learning robots that lack creativity, initiative and drive, such as largely afflicts Japan and Korea. If American cartoons can engender a small amount of rebelliousness, it may undermine Confucian ideals of filial duty, but it may also prove the spark that ignites future economic growth and success.

I quite agree Simon, the potential for differences in thinking created by cartoons are quite positive overall, as much as China may fret about it (proof being that Disney was banned from airing its Looney Tunes cartoons on TV on the mainland until this year).

It will also be interesting to see what works and translates well in China, and what does not (for instance, Mulan) simply because the kids don't like it much.

Great analogy, Dave. That's put a smile on my face, especially the last line.

And not a single mention of pandas!

Thanks for the cyber-pat on the back, Simon. High praise from a newspaper columnist!

For some reason, people don't seem to like my analogy much of Hong Kong being the child of a forced union between Britain and China, with Britain being the father of the 1841 assault. The father takes the child away from the mother after its birth, and raises the child as his own. But the previously strong father is brought low by catastrophe (read: WW II), and is eventually forced to return the son to the mother, who in the meantime has become rich and powerful. The custody agreement is signed by the parents without consulting the child himself.

This of course explains why the mother is overjoyed to have the son back, but the son does not return this affection, with part of him preferring to stay with his wealthier father (who had outgrown sowing his wild oats in all corners of the earth). The mother, a rather sensitive character, becomes incredibly offended when her son tells her he wants more independence and freedom...

There is one problem with the wife analogy. The image of a 60+ year old o-ba-san (aunt/nana) is what oen would associate with.

This lady becomes more attractive as she gets more mature.....so, let's shrink the number of the year by a factor of 10, and start 1895 as an early teenager. Now it is all above libido and war.

The beautiful thing about countries, unlike people, though, is that they are blessed with a very long lifespan, and can sometimes grow younger instead of older (I would argue that China today has the energy of someone in their early 20s rather than a 4,000 year old geriatric!).

The problem with this aging system for countries, though, is that some of them never seem to grow up, particularly with regard to their relations with other countries. Just like with our families, our relationships with close relatives can sometimes seem frozen in time...

I doubt that arguing Mao is evil is going bring down the system.

The official version is that Mao was a great man for leading the 1949 revolution but led China into disaster in the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. In any case Mao doesn't matter all that much any more.

Yes, statues of Mao really annoy me, but they are no worse than statues of Confederate leaders that you still see in the southern United States, and there really are a lot of parallels between how Southerners think of and attempt to defend Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson and the official Chinese history of Mao.

The interesting thing about facts is that people react differently to them. For example, what do we learn from the Cultural Revolution? The thing that I've learned is that basing policy on ideology is a bad thing, looking at details is important, experts can be stupid, bureaucracy can be a good thing, and "revolutionary causes" are a bad thing.

For example, I think it is hideous that one would consider allowing millions of people to die for the "greater good," but sometimes I think detect the same sort of thinking in Chinese democracy activists, who really don't think through or don't care about the consequences of social revolution because it fits in the "greater good."

Joseph,
I think your reasoning is respectable but your historical and political comparisons are silly. Think again, if you want.

Best.

Enzo

The thing that I've learned is that basing policy on ideology is a bad thing, looking at details is important, experts can be stupid, bureaucracy can be a good thing, and "revolutionary causes" are a bad thing.

For example, I think it is hideous that one would consider allowing millions of people to die for the "greater good," but sometimes I think detect the same sort of thinking in Chinese democracy activists, who really don't think through or don't care about the consequences of social revolution because it fits in the "greater good."

------------

excellent points, Jo

"democracy fundamentalists" won't do china any good compared with old guards of the past, because they harbor the same mentality of intolerance and sacrificing individual/minority for the "greater good".

while the dying ideology annoies me from time to time (like the blocking of wikipedia), "democracy fundamentalists" in various forms are more dangerous for china in the coming years.

btw, here is another portrait that might upset some people but is no longer related with any ideology or "national spirit", it only serves to be a symbol of mongolian nationality:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/91739285@N00/49923619/

To: "Simon"

From: "Rykehaven"

I posted a a second response a while ago to your post about "Gnome Unknowns", but your page rejected the response because of "questionable content".

What qualifies as "questionable content"?

Today in China, Mao is more widely used as a luck-charm (to scare away bad luck/devil) than a 'statue'.

It had been reported (over 10 years ago), there was a miracle survival in a car accident where there was a Mao "charm". Talk to taxi drivers they would tell you different versions of the story.

Enzo: It might help if you point out why my historical analogies are silly.

I don't think that comparing the official Communist view of Mao Zedong to the southern view of Robert E. Lee is silly at all. Both of them were responsible for defending systems that were morally reprehensible and indefensible, yet both have fans today that rely in some part on emphasizing some parts of history and deemphasizing the "bad bits."

I mean pretty much no one can defend chattel slavery and institutional racism just as I don't think anyone can seriously defend the Cultural Revolution. By you can talk about the heroic qualities of Mao and Confederate generals, and how they are good people because they "defended us from outside interference."

States-rights/anti-imperialism, same thing. It lets you have people rally together without really thinking about what they are defending.

Another experiment is to find someone that calls themselves a Maoist and see what they think about the current Chinese government. Pretty much every self-described Maoist I've talked hates the current Chinese government which must mean that they are doing something right.

Also if you think that my worry about "Chinese democracy activists" repeating the Cultural Revolution is overblown, read the last few paragraphs of Wei Jingsheng's the "Fifth Modernization." If forced to choose between the Communist Party's version of democracy and Wei Jingsheng's, I'll take the former. (Yes I realize its not either or, but I'm making a point.)

Fortunately, overseas Chinese democracy activists are like campus Marxist radicals, pretty irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. They've manage to destroy themselves before doing any real harm to anyone else. Sad, in a way. The Tiananmen generation could have done so much more, but oh well......

The current crop of public intellectuals and peasant activists are a different story. They aren't trying to overthrow the system, just put pressure on the system to reform itself, and so my objections don't apply to them at all.

Joseph Wang - you never cease to amaze me! Once again, as usual, you bring to these discussions a sober sense of fairness and balance. I won't add anything further, because you have already pretty much summed up my own views.

Mark Anthony Jones

Enzo, you are right to point out that millions died under Mao, and that given not only what we know today about him, but also what we know he knew about the tragedies he caused, he was a terrible, atrocious leader neck deep in blood.

I think before one totally rips apart outside observers for being sympathetic to him though, one has to remember that during those years, outsiders actually knew very little about what was happening inside China. The CCP was very good at pulling the wool over the eyes of foreign visitors. There was evidence, yes, but the same sort of evidence that, for instance, tells us that there is global warming today.

It was also a time when the Cold War and later, the Vietnam War made intelligent people wary of demonizing another country just because it was Communist. They thought they were open minded by considering Mao without the blinkers of Cold War rhetoric. Sadly, this sort of doubt led people to very incorrect conclusions.

I am not defending Mao at all. I simply think that we must remember that many people's sympathy to Mao came out of a time of little information about China and also of rebellion against 2 decades of anti-Communist rhetoric. They were mistaken, they were misguided, some of them were stupid, but it does not make them evil...

Incidentally, I think Joseph Wang makes a good point, albeit tangetially related to the main thrust of your piece, that what is really necessary in China is not a new ideology per se, but a fundamental appreciation for the sanctity and dignity of the life and welfare of individual citizens.

Jonathan Spence gets it right (excerpt found at The Corner):

"As I was reading this book [Chang and Halliday's], I kept asking myself why historians should feel that they ought to be fair even to pathological monsters, if that is truly what Mao was. The most salient answer is perhaps structural as much as conceptual. Without some attempt at fairness there is no nuance, no sense of light and dark. The monster, acute and deadly, just shambles on down some monstrous path of his own devising. If he has no conscience, no meaningful vision of a different world except one where he is supreme, while his enemies are constantly humiliated and his people starve, then there is nothing we can learn from such a man. And that is a conclusion that, across the ages, historians have always tried to resist."

While we're at it, another review of the Chang/Halliday book in the NYT.

Joseph, you wrote:

"I don't think that comparing the official Communist view of Mao Zedong to the southern view of Robert E. Lee is silly at all. Both of them were responsible for defending systems that were morally reprehensible and indefensible, yet both have fans today that rely in some part on emphasizing some parts of history and deemphasizing the "bad bits."

Unless you think that one death is a tragedy, one million deaths is statistics (Stalin docet), unless you have some news for me, Robert E. Lee was not responsible for the death of many millions people in the name of a totalitarian utopy. Is that difference enough or do I have to go on? Let's be serious, these are serious matters.

You wrote:

"Also if you think that my worry about "Chinese democracy activists" repeating the Cultural Revolution is overblown, read the last few paragraphs of Wei Jingsheng's the "Fifth Modernization." If forced to choose between the Communist Party's version of democracy and Wei Jingsheng's, I'll take the former. (Yes I realize its not either or, but I'm making a point.)"

When I read statements like "the Communist Party's version of democracy" I give up. There are some necessary premises to have a consistent debate. "The Communist Party's version of democracy" in the real world is called dictatorship. You are free to think that it's the best for China or that chinese people don't deserve anything else, but stop using the orwellian language, please. Democracy is a serious thing, many democracy activist as well, if you don't like them don't talk about. But, please, don't insult them and the intelligence of your interlocutors. Confusion is not a good companion.

Dave, you wrote:
"I simply think that we must remember that many people's sympathy to Mao came out of a time of little information about China and also of rebellion against 2 decades of anti-Communist rhetoric. They were mistaken, they were misguided, some of them were stupid, but it does not make them evil..."

In the case of journalists and intellectuals, they had cultural background and material possibilities to know the truth. Simply, they weren't interested.
As for the "rebellion against anti-Communist rhetoric", I don't buy it. I'm sure the same excuse wouldn't accepted if we were talking about nazi crimes.

"what is really necessary in China is not a new ideology per se, but a fundamental appreciation for the sanctity and dignity of the life and welfare of individual citizens".

I completely agree. It's for that that China needs democracy, rule of law, respect for human rights and individuals.

Best.

Enzo

Enzo, correct me if I'm reading you wrongly here, but are you trying to say that China ought to adopt something similar to what we have in the West? If so, what makes you think that our system is any more democratic than what China already has?

What is democracy, Enzo? I tell you what it is. Democracy, by definition, is the idea that soceity's public decisions will reflect the collective will of equal citizens rather than those of powerful elites. Now, do you really believe that in countries like Australia or Britain or France or Germany or the United States, that the public decisions which are made by government usually reflect the collective will of their citizens? And are all citizens in these countries really all that equal - in terms not only of their wealth and educational level, but also in terms of their abilities to influence decision-making processes and to impact in any significant way on public opinion?

Surely not?

In the United States, Britain, Australia, and most other developed countries, there operates what is generally known as the "two-party system". Sure, other political parties can exist, like the Greens in Germany and Australia for example, or like independents like Ralph Nader in the U.S. But the rules are rigged in such a way as to ensure that one of only two main political parties will always form government. Sure, this system does provide a certain amount of political stability for a nation state (I'm not necessarily against it), but it also prevents any real form of democracy from being able to emerge - in essence, it works to protect the status quo.

The United States is in fact less democratic than most other parliamentary democracies, because in the United States there exists a "winner-takes-all" electoral system: by giving all representation to the candidate with the most votes by definition shuts the door on political minorities, does it not?

Nearly all European legislatures, as well as in New Zealand, have forms of proportional representation, where 51 per cent of the vote wins ten percent of seats, and in some nations, like Germany and Belgium, candidates can win with far less support. Indeed, new political parties form in European "democracies" in roughly similar numbers as they do in the United States; the difference is that with proportional representation, more than half of these parties ultimately win seats and a chance to bring new voters and issues into politics even as the leading parties (or coalitions) typically function as stable pillars of government.

Still, I would argue that even under a system of proportional representation, parliamentary democracy is a very limited form of democracy. Surely democracy implies much more than the simple right to choose between representatives of political parties every four or five years? The Chartist Movement in the 19th century saw that gaining the right to vote was meaningless unless it could be used to effect "change".

Exercising our democratic right to vote for a conventional political party does not effect change Enzo. No way! It amounts to little more than making a selection between rival representatives of power and class interests whose overarching function is to protect private property and to ensure that profits flow. It is, quite frankly as far as I am concerned, little more than a representative government where all the representatives support obedience to the capitalist system.

Can anybody seriously say that in the United States there is really any fundamental difference between the Democrats and the Republicans? Or in Australia, between the Liberal/National Party Coalition and Labor? Or in Britain, between the Tories and Labour? I don't think so. What differences do exist are grossly exaggerated when you strip away all of the opposing rhetoric.

Not only this, but in all of these societies, both major rivals are more often than not funded by the same corporations. Do you think that Murdoch for example, puts all of his eggs into the one basket? Of course not.

Any political party which in fact challenges the orthodoxy of corporate rule, any party which genuinely seeks a better deal for workers, or whose policies are perceived in any way to threaten the health of the corporate world, will simply not attract any real funding from corporate bodies. How can such alternatives manage to voice their policies in fair competition with the big guns? Such an enequal contest is far from democratic. To get anywhere, a party must be able to attract corporate sponsors. The last presidential race in the U.S. is estimated to have cost at least US$1.2 billion.

And of course, not surprisingly, the corporate media in all of these countries even shut out the smaller fry by staging election "debates" between the two major parties only. And these so-called debates are very limited in their scope, precisely because both parties are essentially the same. They are the "two heads, of the one monster", as Gore Vidal once said - and each one feeds from the same trough.

Just take a good look at how governments throughout the so-called "democratic" world operate. The most important decisions are usually made unilaterally and without any consultation - not even with elected representatives or allies, much less with the ordinary citizen. Most people in both Britain and Australia were opposed to any military involvement in the Iraqi invasion for example, and still are. And yet, the governments of both of these countries made the decision to get involved nevertheless. There was no referendum, no consultation with local representatives even. Both governments ignored all opinion polls as well.

At any rate, for us Westerners to be constantly rattling on about how China needs and should be compelled to introduce "democracy" (whatever that might mean, and I assume usually such people like yourself Enzo are referring to a parliamentary system not unlike the type found in the U.S., etc) is simply unrealistic and naive, not to mention downright ignorant and arrogant. Not every country can suddenly "introduce" this kind of democracy for themselves - for such systems of limited representation always develop best where it develops incrementally - with gradual but consistent reforms in the political and civic landscape - instigated by economic change, and the changes in social mores that flow from this.

Indeed, in the West, electorates were enfranchised gradually. It took the British almost 150 years to develop a middle-class parliament. By contrast, the advent of democracy in the developing world has been telescoped. In relative terms, Asian politics is still where Britain was when rotten boroughs were bought and sold.

You cannot simply implant a "democracy", in the way that certain U.S. cowboys are trying to do in Iraq right now. The idea that you can bomb a country to pieces, occupy it, and then set up a parliamentary system with free elections is foolish nonsense - especially in a country with no real democratic traditions, and where political power has for centuries rested with local tribal affiliations based on religious and ethnic divisions.

In fact, parliamentary democracies do not promote peace and prosperity in such places, but conflict. One of the leading causes of conflict in our world today is the rivalry between peoples of different ethnic and religious groups. A very large number of these conflicts have taken place under so-called "democratic" regimes - like in India for example. According to the noted American lawyer and libertarian scholar, James Ostrowski, 25 out of 29 recent intrastate conflicts were ethnic or religious in nature, and out of those, 23 of the 25 occured in nations that were "democratic" throughout the time of the dispute.

The empirical evidence supports the view that "democracies" can, under certain social conditions, promote ethnic and religious conflict. According to Ostrowski, "an examination of the dynamics of the democratic process explains why this is so: in democracies, people tend to vote along ethinc or religious lines. All experience confirms this: people of one ethnic group tend to vote for candidates of the same ethnic group, or candidates that are known to favour the interest of such a group. The same applies to religion - the recent division of Americans in the last election certainly took on an evangalist verses liberal line to some considerable extent. Not only this, but according to one Gallup Poll, 93 percent of Republicans are white, while 93 percent of blacks voted for Al Gore for President in the 2000 elections."

Why do people vote like this? Simple, says Ostrowski. "It's because parliamentary 'democracy' gives people a virtually meaningless single vote. It allows them to vote for one of the candidates on the ballot, none of whom may represent the views and values of the voter. Since voters implicitly recognise the virtual meaninglessness of their vote, they have little incentive to inform themselves in detail about candidates, issues and policies. It is much easier to vote along ethnic or religious lines. Thus, ethnic/religious voting is a rational response to the problem of rational ignorance about candidates and issues."

"So 'democracies' inherently contain the seeds of ethnic conflict," concludes Ostrowski, "and as history shows us, under certain circumstances, people who are members of ethnic minorities prefer to fight wars of sucession to escape from the control of majority ethnic groups they believe are hostile to their interests."

Just look at all of those countries that once belonged to the former USSR - their experiments with democracy have proven to be dismal, and have resulted in conflicts and wars that have been based around ethnic divisions. Most Chinese will most certainly alert you to the speedy break-up of the former Soviet Union once it began dabbling in "democracy", which is one of the main reasons why they now tread so cautiously.

China is a country with not only a huge population, but also with a diverse range of ethnic minority groups. At least 56 in fact. Trying to rush through with the introduction of a parliamentary "democracy" could be fatal. Most people in China, if given the choice, would have no hesitation in choosing their current system rather than to risk the break-up of the nation state, and all of the violence and conflict this would no doubt entail. In the paper he delivered to the 32nd Sino-American Conference on Contemporary China, Gilbert Rozman noted that influential CCP members as well as influential mainland academic analysts have indeed interpreted the Soviet collapse as "the consequence of moving too quickly toward democracy and thereby losing control," which is something that the British journalist and author, Kevin Sinclair, also discusses in his book, China Culture Shock.

Remember Enzo, every major study to date - both by independent US and Chinese scholars alike, have found that the overwhelming majority of mainlanders DO NOT WANT multi-party elections, and are generally satisfied with the present system and status quo. You can't simply ignore empirical data like that, nor can you try to dismiss it as CCP propaganda.

China has a one-party system. We in the West have also have one-party systems, disguised as two-party systems.

Mark Anthony Jones

As I've said before, we need some premises to have a consistent debate.
Every time I run into someone trying to explain to me that liberal democracies and one-party dictatorships are the same thing, I give up.
Nothing personal but some points of view and some history and politics interpretations are beyond me.

Best.

Enzo

Well look Enzo, this is why, at heart, I am an empiricist, in the more traditional British sense. The fact that the our Western parliamentary democracies are essentially designed to maintain the status quo is I think, empirically verifiable. And I think this is a good thing, incidentally, because what most rational human beings want is stability - a stable economic, social and political environment. They why the two party system exists, but let's not pretend that it is democratic! It's not - and that too, is empirically verifiable.

If the same interests fund and influence both major parties in a two-party system, then is it not reasonable to conclude that these two parties are merely the two sides of the one coin? Some people, intimately familar with the Western political system, like Gore Vidal, are honest enough to admit this.

The Chinese people, like us Westerners, want stability. The two party system might work well for countries like Britain, Australia, etc., but most Chinese themsleves don't believe that it would work well for China. And I agree with them - as do many other Westerners, journalists and scholars alike.

You disagree - fine! But you should at least be willing to listen to alternative viewpoints, and to examine whether such positions can be supported empirically or not, and if so, by how much weight? It's ultimately a more productive approach to debate than merely drawing a line in the sand, separating the two opposing viewpoints as though they were incapable of coming together to form something new. Sands do shift, and it's always best to think dialectically - both the ancient Greeks and the ancient Chinese appreciated that, and independently of one another too.

Best regards,
Mark Anthony Jones

I should repeat myself. There's no need to do it.

Just one final thought. Things are much less complicated than all that. The only way to know what chinese want would be let them express freely. It's so easy. Why so many people are so scared of that?

Thank you, Simon, as usual.

Best.

Enzo

Enzo, as I pointed out earlier, there have been a number of surveys, some of them on ahuge, national scale, conducted by independent researchers from countries as diverse as the United States, Taiwan, and of course, the mainland itself. All of the them consistently produce the same basic result: most mainlanders do not want multi-party elections at this stage of China's development. They answered these surveys freely, the findings have been discussed widely and accepted - the last one I know of was discussed at the 32nd Sino-American Conference on Contemporary China in Taipei.

So there you have it. The people have spoken!

Mark Anthony Jones

Why would you need democracy and free expression when you already have a survey...

My God...

Best.

Enzo

O.K. Enzo, I take your point. I mean, I wasn't trying to suggest that national surveys constitute in themselves a form of democracy. As a way of gauging popular sentiments and attitudes, surveys are limited, I admit. We're not talking about a national census here. But every single survey to date has yielded similar results, and this provides some empirical evidence to suggest that most mainlanders do not want multi-party elections, and that most are presently satisfied with the current system. That's all I'm pointing out. It doesn't seem as though most mainlanders are screaming out for a two-party system, as some people like to suggest.

My main arguments here are (1) two-party systems are really one-party systems disguised as two.

(2) Both China's one-party system and the two-party systems that we have in the West are undemocratic, and are designed to maintain the status quo and to provide economic, social and political stability.

(3) Both systems in question are clearly achieving these aims, and that I think, is empirically verifiable fact.

(4) The aims achieved are in fact what most rational human beings desire, so I'm not suggesting that either system is bad - I'm merely saying that both are very undemocratic.

(5) At present, the one-party model is best suited for China,

and (6) if national surveys are anything to go by, most mainlanders themselves are of the opinion that the one-party system is best for them.

Mark Anthony Jones

Yeah Mark, I guess that is why so much time and effort is put into controlling the media and public opinion, right?
If people really liked the current set-up, what are the authorities so scared of?

Sorry Mark- but to argue that there are no substantive differences between the Democrats and Republicans in the US simply defies reality. Many naive Americans thought so back in 2000- allowing a clown like Ralph Nader to amass millions of votes and allowing the "compassionate conservative" Bush to take the White House.

I actually agree that introducing parliamentary democracy at this stage of China's development would probably be chaotic, but equating China's one-party government with the two-party ones elsewhere in the world undermines your entire argument.

China 2005. Appalling.

Best.

Enzo

Simon,

This has to be taken into context what China was in the 1940s. it was a feudal place in chaos.

The communist moved china up somewhat, and then back down somewhat. Two steps forward, one step backward.

In a way, china's rapid growth now may be attributable to the foundations that may have been laid down in the 60s and 70s?

all the best,
wilson

Wilson, you could argue that China moved one step forward and many steps back, especially with Mao's chaotic Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolutions. China's emergence in the last 25 years has been because Mao died and more sane leaders took the helm.

Our doubts are traitors, And make us lose the good we oft might win By fearing to attempt. William Shakespeare (1564 - 1616), "Measure for Measure", Act 1