In this really sensitive time, many Chinese see any oppositions as against their will to host a successful Olympic games, and I am not talking about gov't, but of the people in general, they don't even want to hear any negative comments. They have this mentality of not "airing the dirty laundry", and the riots, the protests, the negative commentaries, are all being digested as such; when it's not the Olympics, the Chinese public in general are more open to criticism, would even criticize their gov't themselves, they protest on gov't corruption, and unfair workers compensations and labor practices, etc, those have been going on more openly in recent years, the police there are learning modern tools to deal with large protest, instead of suppressing them completely as they did in the past. Each country and culture has their own unique story, history, social problems, and their paste of evolving, to sit comfortably in the West and criticize China not up to developed countries' standard in human rights and product control(especially products with bad designs, loose parts, since the designing were done in the west, not by Chinese in China.) is not completely fair, even though I myself get really upset with the Chinese gov't when I hear or read some of the current events taken place. But it's easy for me to criticize when I grew up in British ruled Hong Kong and US, without having lived with the people in China, to see what they are up against when they are trying to modernize a country of 10 billion people, mostly farmers, and many poorly educated. I find my feelings going from one way to another, as my writing shows, that's because it is not a simple subject with a simple answer. China is a huge country, with many ethnic minorities living within its borders, with Communism as the ruling party, adds another layer of complexity and difficulty to modernizing, because the whole idea of Communism isn't about personal freedom, and individuality, and that's what the developed countries are about. This kind of extreme nationalism doesn't exist for Chinese in Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Southeast Asia, just in China. Interestingly, I found some older Chinese living in San Francisco showed this kind of what I should say ethnic pride, when they had probably left mainland China for years, they were not too happy to see the demonstrations, they looked at it suddenly through the eyes of mainland Chinese, that the SF major didn't do a good enough job to show how organize they could be in making the torch run go smoothly.
Open Forum
Free speechThe current wave of Chinese national pride, or ethnic pride, it's unfortunate I suddenly felt, that the Chinese people are defending their country, their govn't, when many of them had been and many still victims of the communist tight fisted control of their civil liberty, when much too often the gov't wouldn't do the same to defend its people, of their birth right as human beings to speak positively AND negatively of their gov't, Galileo I agree with you on that, this is a very tragic circumstance.
In reply to KaWai:
Dear KaWay,
In answer to your cogent arguments and because this is an intensely complicated and long subject, Democracy, allow me please to quote the following which should reflect and summarize my opinion on the subject as I personally see it too :
Ref 1: ' Plato's Criticism of Democracy '
Plato was against democracy as a system of government, arguing instead that states should be ruled by philosopher-kings, who as true lovers of wisdom were best placed to know the essential nature of truth and justice and most capable of applying these ideas successfully in practice.
In this paper, Plato's critique of democracy is discussed. While the validity of many of his arguments are acknowledged, his critique is rejected on the grounds that it is based upon models of human nature and society which are either too pessimistic or static for today's modern and increasingly complex world. Also his distinction between philosopher and sophist is rejected through arguing that a key skill for politicians to cultivate today is the Aristotlean notion of phronesis or practical wisdom. Successful rulers, it is argued, have to reconcile knowledge of the general with the diversity that particular situations may confront them with. Such skills mean that both philosophers and sophists (as Plato defined them) would be ill-suited for political office.
Ref: 'A Critical Account of Plato's Critique of Democracy '
A philosopher, to Plato and Socrates, is the ideal ruler of a state. The fact that such a government would be one where the people do not decide is irrelevant; as a philosopher concerned with the welfare of one's soul, Plato wants what is best for the souls of the citizens. A king concerned with the pursuit of wisdom would undoubtedly be better than a lover of wealth, power, or status.
In conclusion, it should be noted that, in modern times, a democracy is considered one of the more ideal forms of government, considering the value many people tend to place on individual liberty and the freedom to choose one's own path in life. However, Plato's criticisms should be kept in mind when determining the merit of a democratic government. Oh, would it not be great to have a democracy of philosophers, who would pursue truth and wisdom! Alas, we are only human, and susceptible to many evils and lies. The trick is to prevent such ignorant people from becoming the majority. At times, it seems nigh impossible to do so; curse our stupidity!
In reply to Galileo's Universe:
Even a philosopher who is a true lover of wisdom, could still be corrupted by power if he or she is in the top position of gov't. The founders of the Chinese Communist Party were a group of idealistic students, scholars, seekers of truth, and look what happened, but also another problem with China is for too long, the Chinese felt a sense of pessimism toward their rulers, and they were not taught to question the rules, to question tradition or to object authority, this is so deep rooted in the culture, when they did oppose, they didn't do it in objective way of questioning traditional values, but they did in a complete opposition of tradition, in cultural revolution where tradition-in paper forms or in structural forms, were being burned and destroyed, even today, in China, to many Chinese modernization means destroying the old, instead of questioning tradition, examining the value system of the old, and appreciate the beauty of the old, the gov't only saw the old peasant buildings, ordinary old buildings as having no value, and just get in the way of progression, the gov't just systematically destroyed large amount of regular people's homes as they saw those having no value to exist. I don't think mainland China knows what to do with 2 party system, they would only see the 2nd party as the threat, instead of as a vibrant different point of view. I think Western democracy would never become what it's meant to be, when practice in China, at least for the next 2 hundred years, because of Chinese unique historical cultural development. The difference in the west and China is in the west, democracy is part of their tradition, democracy had so many years to be experimented and to be questioned and tested, but in China, there's no tradition in democracy, the gov't never questioned, never pondered, examined democracy. Books on the philosophy on democracy in China just started probably within the last 150 years.
Another example of the difference between west and China I find is, in the British Parliament, the way they have session, vs the Communist Party's meeting, the members in the Parliament debate like school boys, but there's no debate what so ever in a Communist Party meeting, they just announce. Thankfully, Hong Kong practice the Parliament style of debate in their meeting session, and Taiwan even better, if they have heated debates, they could escalate to physical fights, but no member gets jailed for not agreeing, and they all get back to the table the next time.
Found this on the internet, the different comments are interesting.
http://www.bloggernews.net/115244
Interesting in the blog this one claim from Chinese that she looks at nationalism as a wonderful thing without examing the other side of the coin. She doesn't see this extreme nationalism as a dangerous thing, it could easily makes the country go backward when their gov't is tight fisted, have they forgotten Cultural Revolution? That's the result of extreme nationalism.
It is indeed the nature of men, after all we are made of clay- and we could debate endless about why we humans never manage to cease the moment of wisdom even in our personal ordinary lives in order to live harmoniusly,to be fair and to live in peace with our fellow men ... having said that, in the end it is up to each individual to aim to get closer to the 'utopia' we all may wish for .
It is up to us to use our common sense and dedicate our energy to get closer to that paradise which we will never achieve , so it seems, sadly anyway .... and yet not to act is simply to give the opportunity to tyrants, to the corrupt and the opportunists we allow to take their place in power and use it as they wish in detriment of their subjects ... it will always in the end be up to us humans to make the right choices whenever possible ... but that indeed is far more easily said than done ... and yet we must definitely try our best ... however much history, habits and any other matters of influence may say otherwise .... but then again this is my point of view and it may be a simplistic one and yet any other foolish alternative wouldn't be the best to reach that forever hard to grasp paradise ..... this of course is the point of view of an optimistic whose ancestors also ate the apple in the original paradise ...
Choices have to be made in the end and more often that not, sadly, they come at a price ......
This is a very complicated subject indeed. Jack Cafferty because of his stupid and shallow words, made many Chinese feel that he is arrogant and ignorant, not to mention racist(whether agree with this point or not, that's how he has made many Chinese feel), but CNN didn't put more points of view to counter or question his statement, since the state the US/China relation now, isn't the fault of Chinese gov't. the American gov''t, their banking system and credit system, the US foreign policy on Iraq, American spending habits and most of the Western manufacturers have responsibilities as well(quality control falls into the hands of the western companies quality control department, I feel.) Jack although he is entitled to his personal feelings, CNN this time in reporting on US/China affairs really screwed up this one.
It's foolish and fruitless to try to aim at perfection when it comes to being human, we are imperfect, perfection doesn't exist, anyone who tries only comes across as inflexible and intolerant.