| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - China - A threat to peace in the Pacific?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


China - A threat to peace in the Pacific?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 9>
Author
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4303
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Jun 2010 at 03:49
Originally posted by calvo calvo wrote:

  Giving my 2 cents to the topic:
It is logical that the PRC would TRY to excercise control over the overseas Chinese communities by making propaganda and formenting ethnic nationalism, they would also try to sell the idea to foreigners that they DO have control over the overseas Chinese as a demonstration of power, yet how successful they really are is another question.
 
Of course, this is a valid point. But on another hand very recent immigrants (the last 30 years) acccording to the paper I presented constitute from 60 to 80% of the Overseas Chinese population in the developed countries. The absolute majority of the rest of Overseas Chinese, however, moved during the recent 150 years.


Originally posted by calvo calvo wrote:

I could imagine that this policy may have some feedback among the LEGAL Chinese emigrants and overseas students that had left the country in the last 20 years, but in a global sense, the overseas Chinese community is extremely diverse, and in the case of S.E. Asia and  Europe, Canada, USA, Peru, and Panama, the communities had been well established well before even the foundation of the PRC in 1949. How would these grandchildren and great grandchildren of Chinese emigrants feel any loyal to a regime in China that neither they nor their families had formed any part of?


That's what I said those communities are extremely diverse, but they still tend to organize themselves in associations. Like you correctly noted in Peru, for example, many Overseas Chinese are still members of Pro-Taiwan associations. Also, Chinese overseas community is different in America and Europe compare to other European immigrants. Chinese belong to a different race and culture and have a very long tradition of building separate ethnic communities abroad. That puts them apart. Their "uniqueness" usually survives much longer than in the case of other immigrants. And, of course, the PRC doesn't control every Chinese overseas, but it, at least trying, hard to promote its influence in Overseas Chinese organized groups. On another hand, it's not correct to think that Overseas Chinese would consider the PRC as a kind of red totalitarian monster with which they don't want to have anything to do... Many "old immigrants" simply don't care about the PRC political regime etc. for them China remains a kind of romantic land of the ancestors and modern successes of the PRC are viewed as a source of pride. They may participate in those associations just for the sake of practicability, it's good to be well connected with China nowdays just to do business... Above everything "connections"-"guanxi" is a very important concept in Chinese culture.


Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
calvo View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 21 May 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 1357
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote calvo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Jun 2010 at 20:18
I know that Wikipedia isn't the most reliable source, but this section regarding Chinese Americans seem to indicate the lack of political unity among the community:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Americans#Politics

articles regarding Chinese Canadians and Chinese Peruvians do not mention politics, but mention a very diverse origin and historical background:

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

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

Panama is also a country with a very large Chinese community, who are also economically very dominant:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_Chinese_in_Panama
According to the article, the Chinese community of Panama has become a political and economic battleground between the PRC and Taiwan.


Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4303
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Jun 2010 at 01:35
Well, yes, of course they are very diverse. But I was writing about the issues involving the majority of their organized groups.
 
Panama is an interesting case. Until recently, local Chinese were exclusively in pro-Taiwan association. In fact, Panama was the only state with which Taiwan had a free trade agreement. But Panama has recently switched its "official recognition" to the PRC and now the same thing is happening withing Panamese overseas Chinese association, I was also writing about this tendency above.
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1345
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Jun 2010 at 09:02
The situation in Panama began to swing in the PRC's favor in the mid-1980s, and peaked in late '90s, when Hong Kong Chinese began moving into Panama. Though the ROC continued to underwrite the Sun Yat-sen school, the new arrivals were more oriented to the PRC, particularly since many of them still had families in Hong Kong, then transitioning for the turn-over, and other neighboring parts of the PRC. The new arrivals moved into their own neighborhoods, and created a second 'Chinatown' in a more modern sector of Panama City that eclipsed the old Chinatown. Then, with Hutchinson-Whampoa's contracting to run the Canal ports, and Chinese goods being no small part of Canal traffic, the handwriting was on the wall. 
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6261
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Jun 2010 at 00:16
If Chinese ex-pats represent a threat to peace by simply emulating the corporate cohesiveness practiced by their "Western" counterparts then we are all in deep doo-doo. Why if the bs posted here is true, then the implosion of Deepwater Horizon was an MI6 "dark op" hatched by the Anglo community in Houston! Excuse me as I go watch Wimbledon...Evil Smile
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12490
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Jun 2010 at 00:22
Originally posted by whalebreath whalebreath wrote:

Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:

This article is actually quite critical of Chinese propaganda:
 

Mainland China also pays considerable attention to spreading propaganda messages

with the help of the overseas Chinese communities. The central authorities give

relevant instructions to the organisations abroad to provide their support and assistance

to China's dubious efforts to promote its positive moralistic image in the world....

This is exactly what we see where I live-flunkies/mouthpieces/shills/touts and brainless dolts spouting the most most nauseating Communist Han Chinese propaganda/garbage imaginable.



Other countries do the exact same thing. The US, Israel, UK, Russia, Iran, Saudi and what not.  China is not unique here.
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
Back to Top
Kruska View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 10 Jun 2010
Location: Shanghai
Status: Offline
Points: 44
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kruska Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Jul 2010 at 13:53
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

Kruska  In re your:  "And again the US is siding with a dictatorship (Singapore) that has no friends - but a lot of envious and poor countries around them. As such the US is not making friends with e.g. Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand and the Philippines - but China is closing in on those others."

How is Singapore, a multi-party state whose government is elected, a dictatorship? Just for the record, do you characterize the current Chinese government as a dictatorship? Also, is China also closing in on Burma, as it is Zimbabwe? For the record, I don't see China as a present threat either, but Taiwan does represent a possible flash-point. Back in my college days, I tired of hearing how South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore were dictatorships, from the very same people who encouraged me to 'rethink' my views on Cuba, North Korea and the PRC, which were 'popular democracies'.
Hello lirelou,
 
As I can see Al Jassas, more or less already gave the answer. So please let me add the following.
 
What many people do not seem to know is that China also has several "alternative" parties. These alternative parties are approved by the CPC, just as the "alternative" parties in Singapore by the PAP.
 
So both countries now are democratic countries? Both are absolutly controlled and the media as anything else is censored. Singapore has far more cameras and microphones installed throughout the country at assembly areas such as a Coffee Bean's or a larger Busstation then China. Not to mention all the civil dressed and voluntaries of the NIA and CID. China is still owned in general by the CPC and not by Hu Jintao and his (Family business conglomerate). Singapore is defacto a "Family-enterprise".
 
Singapore's PAP "family" is asside from genocide the ultimate perfection of the NSDAP. It's ISA act (Arresting persons with no right to seek or council or a lawyer - and vanishing for years - (with even the family-members not knowing about as to where and why) is fully in action. As a funny aside note. Upon China opening up, Singapores PM Lee sen. thought that he and his PAP experience could be a valuable contribution towards China and was dreaming of becomming the influencial buddy towards Beijing -in the interest of Singapore - also due to his pro Han-Chinese racial mindset. Well Bejing kinda send him back to where he came from, and Lee sen. suddenly found out that the "US-Western subculture" (His words not mine) - is indeed an attractive "Partner" - the following Military connections and entanglements with the USA and Taiwan, made sure that relations between China and Singapore aren't really what they could be. (Singapore aka the "Lee's" lost out almost 1.4 billion US$ on their Singapore-China Industrial Park enterprise, incl. the huge "loss of face" which in Asia is far worse then loosing $). ...ah well politics.
 
I was raised as a two year old till the age of twenty in Singapore. So I guess that I am pretty well informed - also due to my profession - which made me spend a total of more then 35 years so far in Asia.
 
A good old Singapore school buddy of mine (X) is heavy into politics and hates the gutts of the Lee's aka PAP. Two years ago we (about 6-8 of us) were at the bar in our club. So X as usual starts to get into politics, within 2-3 minutes - they told him to please shut up, (not because they might not agree with him) all but me spread away and took place at the possibly furtherest away club seat grouping. I followed a bit later, more or less to save X's neck - since he was really going into topic.
 
In all my years in China, I have never encountered such a situation or demonstration of fear. But I have run into the same situation in Zimbabwe.
 
Regards
Kruska


Edited by Kruska - 01 Jul 2010 at 14:37
Men who goes to bed with itchy bumb, wake's up with smelly finger - Confucius?
Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1345
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jul 2010 at 15:55
Kruska, Well, given that Al Jassus was woefully mistaken on Korea (where the opposition has actually won elections and governed, though they are presently out of power) I brushed off his comments on Singapore. But, yes, I will concede to both you and Al Jazz that Singapore's 'democracy' is seriously flawed by the way the government intimidates its opposition in order to maintain a hold on power. Still, the structure for a transition to real elections remains in existence, which is not the case In North Korea or Vietnam, nor (I presume) in China.

I found this information of interest:

"Singapore's state-mandated filtering of Internet sites is quite limited... ... the state's technological Internet censorship is minimal..."

"However, ONI's legal and background research demonstrates that Singapore uses other, non-technological measures to prevent online posting of and access to certain material, particularly that related to political groups other than the People's Action Party and to religious and ethnic conflict. The threats of extremely high fines76or even criminal prosecution77 as a result of defamation lawsuits, imprisonment without judicial approval under the Internal Security Act,78and police monitoring of computer use79may deter users in Singapore from creating or obtaining access to potentially objectionable material. Thus, Singapore's filtering regime for political, religious, and ethnic material is primarily low-tech, yet nonetheless potentially effective."

source:  http://opennet.net/studies/singapore

Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
Kruska View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 10 Jun 2010
Location: Shanghai
Status: Offline
Points: 44
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kruska Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jul 2010 at 19:04
Hello lirelou,
 
I wouldn't really know much about South-Korea, but looking at their track-record in regards to demonstrations and changing governments, I would perceive the ROK to be democratic indeed. Even though the government does have sveral security act related laws that can be used to subdue an opposition.
 
I do remember - but I am not really informed in detail - that President Kennedy ordered the NG into certain states that opposed equality for blacks to enter white schools in the USA. So did Kennedy overrule an opposistion (maybe a majority) by deploying NG to enforce his views (or those of the ruling Democrats) towards those of others?
 
As for Singapore and for China it isn't that the internet (besides porn and as to "where can I buy drugs real cheap" would restrict the access towards information as such. In China I can lock into sites that report about Tibet ot Tianmen anytime. It is just as in Singapore that the bloggers are restricted or even procecuted -"for causing unrest".
 
Singapore is a tiny country - more or less a city - therfore it is -restricted internet or not - absolutly controllable. Asians are into money and politics is reserved to intellectuals that run an own enterprise or are otherwise financially well of and secured. Districts in Singapoe which are under an "alternative" party - simply are cut off from financial state allocations.
 
So whilst PAP districts receive nice upgrading projects towards the HDB (kind of state sponsered housing) school upgrades or a new Kindergarden - the democratic opposition goes out emptyhanded. This in turn will cause a Singaporean - not to question democracy and it's rights and wrongs or to oppose the PAP - but simply to recognize the economic advantage it beholds to vote for the PAP next time.
 
Regards
Kruska  


Edited by Kruska - 02 Jul 2010 at 19:09
Men who goes to bed with itchy bumb, wake's up with smelly finger - Confucius?
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jul 2010 at 22:05
Originally posted by Kruska Kruska wrote:

I do remember - but I am not really informed in detail - that President Kennedy ordered the NG into certain states that opposed equality for blacks to enter white schools in the USA. So did Kennedy overrule an opposistion (maybe a majority) by deploying NG to enforce his views (or those of the ruling Democrats) towards those of others?
Actually that wasn't Kennedy, it was Eisenhower in 1957: http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=old&doc=89
 
Nostalgia: my first-ever professional byline was on a related story a year earlier than that - the expulsion of Autherine Lucy from the University of Alabama. 
 
 
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1345
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Jul 2010 at 05:14
Actually, GCLE, I believe Kennedy did too, though if memory serves it was the University of Mississippi as opposed to a public High School, which was the case with Little Rock in 1957. In both cases, the President was upholding federal court injunctions or cases. So he wasn't "upholding his views" as much as upholding federal law as superior to state law. You may recall that the civil rights issues of the period were often stated as "States Rights" issues by those opposed to integration. Also, one should not assume that a 'majority' of White Southerners were in favor of Jim Crow laws. Certainly a very vocal percentage were, but one of the reasons that the Civil Rights movement chose Little Rock Arkansas as a test case for school integration was its liberal attitudes. (They expected it to go smoothly) And accounts by both supporters and opponents of integration commented on the large number of out of state vehicles that were in Little Rock during the crisis. There were a fair amount of southerners who supported Civil Rights for "Negroes", and a certain percentage of middle-roaders who thought 'they should be treated like everybody else (i.e., Whites), but they shouldn't be marching and demonstrating."
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Jul 2010 at 06:37
Hello to you all
 
About South Korea and when did democracy came there. Syngman Rhee was far from being a democratic president, he ruled from 48 till 1960 massacring some 100k people during his autocratic rule where he won elections with 90% of the vote (I assume when it comes to American puppets that is called democracy).
 
Anyway, ousted by students the military took charge from 1961 untill 1988 when the last of the military dictators, Chun Doo-hwan was replaced (by a general) who finally brought democracy after the American green light and the first civilian to lead the country was elected in 1993, Kim Young-sam.
 
Al-Jassas


Edited by Al Jassas - 03 Jul 2010 at 06:38
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6261
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Jul 2010 at 12:54
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

Actually, GCLE, I believe Kennedy did too, though if memory serves it was the University of Mississippi as opposed to a public High School, which was the case with Little Rock in 1957. In both cases, the President was upholding federal court injunctions or cases. So he wasn't "upholding his views" as much as upholding federal law as superior to state law. You may recall that the civil rights issues of the period were often stated as "States Rights" issues by those opposed to integration. Also, one should not assume that a 'majority' of White Southerners were in favor of Jim Crow laws. Certainly a very vocal percentage were, but one of the reasons that the Civil Rights movement chose Little Rock Arkansas as a test case for school integration was its liberal attitudes. (They expected it to go smoothly) And accounts by both supporters and opponents of integration commented on the large number of out of state vehicles that were in Little Rock during the crisis. There were a fair amount of southerners who supported Civil Rights for "Negroes", and a certain percentage of middle-roaders who thought 'they should be treated like everybody else (i.e., Whites), but they shouldn't be marching and demonstrating."
 
Ah, the "mystic cords of memory" and how often they lead us astray into fantasy. The crucial confrontation actually took place before the U. S. Supreme Court and the landmark decision in Brown vs. Topeka Board of Education in 1954. However, one might assert that the legal challenge began in 1951 (the year of the original suit) and was a corollary of Executive Order 9981 issued by President Harry S. Truman on 26 July 1948 as a consequence of the president's 2 February message to Congress in which he outlined a ten-point program on civil rights and a guarantee of equal treatment under the laws as he declared:
 
"It is my deep conviction that we have reached a turning point in the long history of our efforts to guarantee a freedom and equality to all our citizens… And when I say all Americans--I mean all Americans."
 
There the turning-point and the succeeding presidents could do little to alter the social and legal change brought into being by Truman that began with the desegragation of the American military despite the protestation of General Omar Bradley that it was not the business of the military to conduct social experiments! Nevertheless, the Brown decision of 1954 was the essential catalyst to the dismantling of the last vestiges of the South's "peculiar institution" under the myth of "separate but equal". Yes, in Arkansas you have the instance of a Black GI entering the University of Arkansas Law School in 1948 under the terms of the GI Bill and that after the USSC decision both Washington and Franklin counties dismantles their segregated schools by 1955. However, the state capital (and other districts with high Black populations) made resistance to Brown a exercise in public defiance and received the support of the state governor Orval Faubus, who publicly proclaimed he would use state law enforcement, including the National Guard, to block desegregation in Little Rock. The fact that President Dwight Eisenhower did not hesitate to not only "federalize" the National Guard in the state but also despatched the 101st Airborne to Little Rock in September 1957 can not be underestimated, becuse by his actions he effectively bound all of his successors in office to the precedent. For the shennanigans in Arkansa between 1954-1957 see:
 
 
As for Kennedy, the then senator should be remembered for his mealy-mouthed response to events in Little Rock:
 
 "The Supreme Court's ruling on desegregation of schools is the law of the land, and though there may be disagreement over the president’s leadership on this issue, there is no denying that he alone had the ultimate responsibility for deciding what steps are necessary to see that the law is faithfully executed."
 
By the way, Lirelou, the reason Blacks were "marching and demonstrating" was because the Southern political "establishment" was refusing to accept the consequences of Brown vs Topeka and the upending of the artifice fashioned in the South subsequent to Plessy vs Ferguson.  When you had people like Senator Richard Russell of Georgia comparing the 101st Airborne to Nazi Storm Troopers on the floor of Congress and Majority Leader Johnson (yes, old Lyndon) sneering that the president would find it harder to "getting the troops out is a much more difficult proposition than getting them in" (Johnson to Dean Acheson, 26 September 1957) is a more veridical characterization of the situation than a "white-washing" of the ingrained bigorty held dear by Southern populists! Besides, the fact that de facto rather than de jure segregation still persists in American public education can not be rationalized by "economics".
 
 


Edited by drgonzaga - 03 Jul 2010 at 13:00
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
DukeC View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 08 Nov 2005
Location: Alberta, Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1980
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DukeC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Jul 2010 at 13:19
China has traditionally been more focused on internal stability than outward expansion, the Chinese leadership know the real threat to their power lies within the borders of China not outside.
 
That being said China is still going to try and build and maintain an economic and military advantage over other nations and blocks it sees as a threat.
we have a blind date with destiny..and it looks like she's ordered the lobster
Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1345
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Jul 2010 at 03:37
Doc, very nice detailed response, however I fail to see anything in my post that evidences misty memory leading me into bouts of fantasy. You did pick up on the bit about the president enforcing federal case law or injunctions I presume?  No matter, back to China.
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1345
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Jul 2010 at 04:41
Al Jazz: Your statement was:

"As for South Korea, last time I checked it was ruled by the military for nearly a third of the time since it was independent and even those democratically elected came from the same party and enforced oppressive laws."

I believe that you will now agree that the first part of that is incorrect. Opposition parties did end up in government. Ergo, Korea is a multi-party democracy. As for those same governments enforcing oppressive laws? Give me a break. The two Koreas are still legally at War, and North Korean agents have murdered people in the South, and overseas within the past few years, not counting the recent naval engagement. So, some form of internal security is still needed. As for Syngman Rhee, that's ancient history. The Americans did not 'select' Rhee, he more or less selected himself, and the U.S. was forced to deal with him. Much as Kim Il-sung selected himself. Except in KIS's case, as a former Soviet Army officer he had much closer ties to the Russians.

Are you advocating that the U.S. government should step in and dictate to Allied governments exactly what those governments should do? Or are you naive enough to believe that all our 'puppets' jump to whatever string we pull? We were in Korea because our politicians of the period saw 'International Communism' a direct threat. Our government had no illusions about Syngman Rhee, or Chiang Kai-shek, or Joseph Broz 'Tito'. But for the sake of opposing Communism, they ended up dealing with them, however outdated our vision of the Comintern turned out to be.

So, Syngman Rhee massacred 'some hundred thousand' people? I am sure that some were massacred, as massacres happened on both sides of that civil war. But that number makes me highly suspicious. Are we counting everyone killed in all the political murders and armed actions prior to and during the war? How do we filter out those massacred by the Communists? How about those merely caught in the crossfire of opposing sides? And finally, what's the point? Do we know for a fact that the U.S. failed to object? Would you have had us withdraw all support from Korea and withdraw our troops over such massacres, thereby abandoning non-Communist Korean to further massacres? You didn't see China abandoning North Korea over such.

Jazz, Korea in one of the very few examples of a Nation where we can all look in and see what was really at stake during the Korean War. First of all, the U.S. now has relations with the PRC. It took more than twenty years, but our politicians finally figured out that Stalin was really dead, and the Chinese were not mere pawns of the Soviets. Second, both Koreas have developed into the states that their Korean progenitors wished for them. Up North, that is unfortunate indeed for the average North Korean. The time has come for the U.S. to pull its troops out of Korea, which was, and always will be, tied to what has been the primary U.S. goal in East Asia ever since 1786, and that is trade with a friendly China. Which fits nicely with China's own long term interests in Korea, which was a competent and stable regional government that did not pose a threat to China.


Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Jul 2010 at 05:25
Hello lirelou
 
My post above was simply to show you that I wasn't wrong when I said the ROK army ruled th country with an iron grip for more than half its life. In your earlier post you denied that and called Korea a democracy when it wasn't such until 1993 when the last general left the Blue House.
 
Now as to the US's role in all of that, first of all I am not judging, if I was in the position the US was in in those days I would have probably done even worse things. Except the coup against Mossadagh nearly all the coups the US supported/organised were successful and in the best interests of the US. Also in the case of ROK the coups were actually one of the reasons why they are what they are today, stable and prosporous (of course this is not the case in Latin America).
 
Second point is as far as I know much of ROK's professional forces were subordinate to the American forces there and I doubt that the 61 and 79 coups came without American knowledge about them or without giving the green light to them.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1345
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Jul 2010 at 06:19
Al Jass, I'd add the 1954 Arbenz coup in Guatemala and our invasion of the Dominican Republic in 1965 to our list of never should have screw-ups.

I don't recall ever denying that Korea was under military rule at times. I did say that it was a democracy, which it is at present. And that even during military rule, the goal of returning to multi-party rule was recognized in principle. As for the U.S. control over the ROK Armed Forces, the U.S. did (and does) occupy the top position in the Combined Command structure. However, the Senior Intelligence Officer is a Korean Major-General (the C-2). His Deputy is the US Forces Kores J-2, but it is below the Combined Command that the chain of command splits into two national sides, as the ROK Ministry of Defense sits just down the street.

I wasn't there during either of those coups, but my internal readings that the '79 coup suggest that was a total surprise to the U.S. military. Understand that there is a major difference between Korea and similar U.S. command arrangements in Europe and Panama. Specifically, the barrier erected by language and national cultures. In Europe and Panama, U.S. officers who spoke the local language were fairly common, and thus we often developed very close ties with our host nation counterparts. That is not the case in Korea, where the vast majority of U.S. military cannot speak five sentences in the language, and find it hopelessly alien. Even today, the majority of that very small minority of Americans who do speak Korean were either born and raised there, or raised in the States by Korean born parents.

For two years, I worked under an American lieutenant colonel whose boss, in the office next door, was a Korean colonel. We interfaced all the time, but we did not have a single Korean speaker for most of that period (At that same time, I was the only one there who could even read the language, a skill that takes about three days study. Comes n handyfor finding place names on Korean maps). Even when we made a concerted effort at team building, via combined social activities on one afternoon a week, it ended up being merely a few hours outside the building. The colonels would sit together with the Korean translators, while the rest of our 'team' would sit facing each other across the tables, with both sides doing their best to make at least a sentence or two understood over more than a single bottle of soju.  When I moved out of the building two years later, not a single person could claim a relationship of trust with our Korean counterparts. But shortly before the LTC left, the Koreans came in with a small piece of intelligence that they had been sitting on for five years. They were throwing him a scrap to add to his list of accomplishments.

Not all Korea forces fall under U.S. operational control. And those that don't can be moved throughout country at the will of the Korean government. Those forces that are committed to the U.N. Command, ergo the Combined Command, can also be moved at will, however there is a requirement to inform the (US) combined forces commander of the fact. This happened during the Kwang-ju uprising, when the U.S. officer was simply told that they units were being moved. In other words: This is what we're doing. You've been informed. Don't get in our way.

Nations don't have friends, not even in an alliance. What nations have are interests. And they will always act according to what they believe is best for their interests. The Koreans may not have invented that proverb, but they are masterful practitioners of it.



Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
eventhorizon View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 21 Aug 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 432
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote eventhorizon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Jul 2010 at 06:20
Why does PRC feel the need to keep a buffer state, where it has a thriving trade relationship with South Korea? The politics of Korean peninsula between China, Korea and the US/Nato block is complicated, but I wish the Chinese would give up their strategy of this keeping a buffer state. Without Chinese support, the Kim Jong Il regime will crumble. There is no fear of North Korean refugees flooding into China, as North Korea can be stabilized easily with a joint regional effort that involves South Korea, US, China and Japan, in case the regime there collapses. That should be a regional strategy that is in the interest of everyone in the region and the world in general. The Chinese short sighted policy in this matter is beyond my comprehension, unless someone cares to explain why this has to be so.

Please don't mention refugees, because I know Koreans have a deep racial hatred for the Chinese and looks down on them, and this is true for poor North and rich South Koreans. So they would rather get help from their rich cousins in the South than get help from China, when this idiotic regime is gone of course.


Edited by eventhorizon - 04 Jul 2010 at 06:25
Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1345
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Jul 2010 at 06:57
Event, In my judgment China ceased viewing North Korea as a buffer state some time ago. Perhaps the best date for the cut-off is the date that China withdrew its forces from Korea.

Reasons for China to support the current status quo:
1 - Keeps the US out of the North: US Forces are still in the ROK, and any ROK expansion North (as in the wake of a Nork collapse) carries the danger that U.S. Forces would 'be' on the Chinese border.
2 - Avoids a greater evil: increased illegal immigration. Not providing some aid increases the chances for a Nork collapse, ergo more refugees into China.
3 - Avoids danger of resurgent Korean ultra-nationalism: Five million 'ethnic minority' Chinese in China's Northeast provinces are actually Koreans (not counting illegals). A reunified Korea could turn nationalistic. The combined population of North And South Korea total some 70-75 million souls. Both North and South Korea have taken issue with China over the ancient kingdom of Kogoryo (or Goguryo), whose territory covered those Northeast now-Chinese provinces. A rejuvenated and reunited Korea could spark ethnic problems within that territory. In pure numbers, it would seem silly for China to worry, but then the Han Chinese vastly outnumbered the Mongols and Manchus when these latter conquered China.
4 - Finally, old loyalties! For all the Kim dynasty's faults, they were true Asian Communists who fought with the CCP directed Northeast Asian Anti-Japanese United Army. In 1950, another 45,000 Koreans in the PLA helped Mao win his war against Chiang Kai-shek. Add to this the number of Chinese who died to keep North Korea as it is today. Those old veterans may now be far fewer in number, but their sacrifice is respected. Any change in North Korea's status that does not include the total withdrawal of U.S. Forces from the peninsula would represent a repudiation of those sacrifices.   
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
eventhorizon View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 21 Aug 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 432
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote eventhorizon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Jul 2010 at 10:14
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

Event, In my judgment China ceased viewing North Korea as a buffer state some time ago. Perhaps the best date for the cut-off is the date that China withdrew its forces from Korea.

Reasons for China to support the current status quo:
1 - Keeps the US out of the North: US Forces are still in the ROK, and any ROK expansion North (as in the wake of a Nork collapse) carries the danger that U.S. Forces would 'be' on the Chinese border.
2 - Avoids a greater evil: increased illegal immigration. Not providing some aid increases the chances for a Nork collapse, ergo more refugees into China.
3 - Avoids danger of resurgent Korean ultra-nationalism: Five million 'ethnic minority' Chinese in China's Northeast provinces are actually Koreans (not counting illegals). A reunified Korea could turn nationalistic. The combined population of North And South Korea total some 70-75 million souls. Both North and South Korea have taken issue with China over the ancient kingdom of Kogoryo (or Goguryo), whose territory covered those Northeast now-Chinese provinces. A rejuvenated and reunited Korea could spark ethnic problems within that territory. In pure numbers, it would seem silly for China to worry, but then the Han Chinese vastly outnumbered the Mongols and Manchus when these latter conquered China.
4 - Finally, old loyalties! For all the Kim dynasty's faults, they were true Asian Communists who fought with the CCP directed Northeast Asian Anti-Japanese United Army. In 1950, another 45,000 Koreans in the PLA helped Mao win his war against Chiang Kai-shek. Add to this the number of Chinese who died to keep North Korea as it is today. Those old veterans may now be far fewer in number, but their sacrifice is respected. Any change in North Korea's status that does not include the total withdrawal of U.S. Forces from the peninsula would represent a repudiation of those sacrifices.   


I will refute your reasons:

1 - It is the democratic right of Korean people to let any power to have base in their country, and this will be the case even after an eventual unification of the two Korea's, unless of course China tries to pull a Monroe doctrine for all of Asia or its immediate surrounding area (it will not fly for now). Han Chinese need to build confidence in the mind of Koreans and Japanese so they do not feel threatened and feel the need for US protection

2 -  This refugee issue is a great PRC bluff, the only reason there is poor N Koreans getting into China is because it is such a basket case, a direct consequence of PRC support for this inhuman regime. As I stated Koreans can take care of themselves when hostile external hand is removed from their land and South Koreans will be happy to oblige, as they will no longer need to import migrant labor from rest of Asia (have you been to Incheon airport lately and see the lines of Laonese, Cambodian and Vietnamese)

3 - Korea as an old civilization has every right to be nationalistic as any others, such as Han Chinese. The area north of Korea, which is Chinese Northeast was not the traditional homeland of Han Chinese, that is an established historical fact. Manchu's who are a conglomeration of old Jin-Jurchen and Mongol tribes (if I am not mistaken) were the natives in that area. If you go back far enough Kogureyo was a one of the 3 founding Korean states (Shilla and Paekche) being the other two, who were competing peer powers in North Asia compared to Han Chinese Tang dynasty. It was the Tang strategy of allying with Shilla that brought down Kogureyo as well as Paekche, which ended Korean influence in that region. So Koreans have valid reasons to feel nostalgic towards this lost land, but they know as any others, that what is lost is lost, water down the bridge, time and tide wait for none. Besides, Han Chinese now have no reason to fear Korean eye in this region, because Han Chinese vastly outnumber ethnic Koreans. After Kogureyo was lost, most Koreans moved to the remaining Korean states southward. The Jurchens who later were known as Manchu's committed the sin of greed for power, they ruled over Han Chinese and paid the price by getting assimilated into the Han Chinese sea. The Mongols in inner Mongolia have the same fate, but Mongols, tend not to inter-marry much with Han Chinese, although its just a matter of time. They will also get assimilated into the Borg cube of Han Chinese. Only the Mongolian state with some mineral wealth will be able to keep Mongolian culture alive for some time. Its long term prospect next to such a humongous power is also questionable

To restate, Han Chinese have nothing to fear from a unified Korean state of 70 million, whereas as 1.3 billion Han Chinese will soon become the most powerful of all "large systems" on this planet

4 - what can I say about old loyalties, may be its the 60 million dead during Mao's cultural revolution and their ghosts that's causing nightmares among PRC polit buro members and will keep communism alive and its the ghosts of one million dead Han Chinese soldiers in North Korea fighting the allied forces telling them in their nightmares: Hey, what the hey, we all died for nothing, now you are turning your back on this Kim regime!

By the way, the Han Chinese in Taiwan and Singapore are under US protection, because it helps them to become rich and stay rich (I don't want to mention the old cliche that Han Chinese value money above everything, all humans are like that I guess, but some say that Han Chinese are specially known for this, wherever they are). When PRC science, technology and weapons systems equal those of US/EU then Taiwan and Singapore will gladly ditch US protection and opt for PRC protection, after all can I say it, blood is thicker than water?




Edited by eventhorizon - 05 Jul 2010 at 14:10
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6261
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Jul 2010 at 15:46
Is it not a bit tedious to constantly iterate "Han Chinese" as if such was a political term. Please spare us the excess of rhetoric at the expense of historical substance.

Edited by drgonzaga - 05 Jul 2010 at 02:33
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1345
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Jul 2010 at 02:13

Evenhorizon, you haven't refuted anything. You've simply given reasons from your viewpoint (as a Korean, or Westerner married to a Korean?) why my points should not be valid. Note that your very first 'refutation' starts off with what Korea has a right to do. Then you inform me that the refugee issue is a Chinese Bluff., and move on to how Korea can take care of itself, etc. Then you launch into an impassioned speech on how Korea has a right to be nationalistic. You do finally posit a possible Chinese perspective regarding old loyalties, but close you argument with a error of fact regarding Singapore: There is no treaty in force that obliges the U.S. to come to Singapore’s aid should the PRC attempt to take them over.

Remember: Your original question was:  Reasons for China to support the current status quo:

ps: Regarding foreign workers, who I am far more familiar with than you, the reunification conundrum is this: Within a reunified Korea, how does one pay the North Koreans a foreign worker's wage that is under the ROK minimum wage for its own citizens, without engendering widespread resentment among the North Koreans? And more to the point, how long can such a labor regime last before a Korean Court overturns such a law, or Korean elections produce a result that terminate such an unfair practice among Koreans? Which likely result either way would be more Koran jobs moving to cheaper labor markets in Asia. (i.e., China or Vietnam). Please don't bother to answer that. I merely mention it to show that the issue is a very complex one, and hardly set in concrete. 




Edited by lirelou - 05 Jul 2010 at 02:14
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
eventhorizon View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 21 Aug 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 432
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote eventhorizon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Jul 2010 at 06:21
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Is it not a bit tedious to constantly iterate "Han Chinese" as if such was a political term. Please spare us the excess of rhetoric at the expense of historical substance.


Han Chinese is not a political term, it is a clearly defined ethnic group, a ruling majority in PRC, Taiwan and Singapore, all three of whom are political entities.

Sorry for not meeting your standard for amount of rhetoric and historical substance, my apologies.
Back to Top
eventhorizon View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 21 Aug 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 432
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote eventhorizon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Jul 2010 at 08:05
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

Evenhorizon, you haven't refuted anything. You've simply given reasons from your viewpoint (as a Korean, or Westerner married to a Korean?) why my points should not be valid. Note that your very first 'refutation' starts off with what Korea has a right to do. Then you inform me that the refugee issue is a Chinese Bluff., and move on to how Korea can take care of itself, etc. Then you launch into an impassioned speech on how Korea has a right to be nationalistic. You do finally posit a possible Chinese perspective regarding old loyalties, but close you argument with a error of fact regarding Singapore: There is no treaty in force that obliges the U.S. to come to Singapore’s aid should the PRC attempt to take them over.

Remember: Your original question was:  Reasons for China to support the current status quo:

ps: Regarding foreign workers, who I am far more familiar with than you, the reunification conundrum is this: Within a reunified Korea, how does one pay the North Koreans a foreign worker's wage that is under the ROK minimum wage for its own citizens, without engendering widespread resentment among the North Koreans? And more to the point, how long can such a labor regime last before a Korean Court overturns such a law, or Korean elections produce a result that terminate such an unfair practice among Koreans? Which likely result either way would be more Koran jobs moving to cheaper labor markets in Asia. (i.e., China or Vietnam). Please don't bother to answer that. I merely mention it to show that the issue is a very complex one, and hardly set in concrete. 




lirelou, I am sorry that you took my response personally, sometimes I am not in my best of behavior, I suffer from many physical afflictions which affect my expressions.

That said, the points I mentioned, although they may be a more Korean/Western point of view, I believe they stand on their own merit. I will try a second attempt:

1 - Is it not within a sovereign nation state's right to host another nation state's armed forces or giving them basing rights?

2 - lets revisit the North Korean refugee or illegal immigration of North Koreans into PRC. You mentioned that Korean reunification is problematic because how North Koreans will accept foreign workers wage in a reunified Korea? This of course assumes a premise that Korean unification will be just like German unification, where two countries were instantly merged into one. I can assure you (just from common sense observation) that this is not practical in case of Korean unification and this is not how it will happen. I believe the mechanism the Koreans have in mind is something like this:

- Kim regime collapses
- an alternative South Korea friendly regime based on North Korean Army is propped up with regional support including PRC, S Korea, Japan, USA and possibly Russia
- under this friendly regime South Korean businesses setup more industrial parks, hotel, tour centers, high schools, universities etc.
- it will be a gradual merging process like EU union
- eventual unification will depend on North Korean progress and of course South Korean democratic popular opinion

3 - How can Korea with 70 million population, even if they reach per capita GDP like Japan, be a threat for PRC with 1.3 billion population and fast coming up as the world's main super power, which may soon supersede the US? Even Japan with 120 million population considers keeping US bases in Japan, just as a balancing force against a rising China. IMHO, neither Japan nor Korea can be a threat for PRC for the foreseeable future, with PRC's current trajectory of economic growth and overall rise. If you feel that I have stated something false, please explain why that is so.

4 - you have already agreed that this is possibly a valid PRC POV, I just made a wild guess from common sense human behavior, I have no idea how PRC polit buro is thinking, but my guesses are made from big picture observations from a distance

About industries moving to cheaper labor markets, it is always a constant process, it started with the 4 tigers in Asia, then the ASEAN did well for a bit, a PRC move overshadowed the ASEAN and now PRC itself is moving away towards more value added goods and moving higher in the food chain. But Korean entrepreneurs are successful enough that they always seem to need more foreign migrant labors, a South Korean friendly regime in North Korea and industrial parks will largely negate this need. Besides, Korean unification is a national priority and unfinished project for all South Koreans, much above any economic considerations, as they are well aware that the lost Choseon dynasty will not come back as they lost their self rule to the hated Japanese, but they will be able to negate much of the century long vagaries the Korean nation have suffered since that loss of sovereignty, from Japanese occupation, the resulting Christianization and resulting loss of traditional culture, finally the dividing of the nation under the two superpowers, US and Russia and finally the interjection of the old friend and big brother Han Chinese on the wrong side, which itself has been hijacked by a foreign ideology, namely Marxism and its derivative Maoism. Luckily PRC has been moving in the right direction in recent decades, but the leadership cannot seem to move away from old realities.

IMHO, there is a serious problem of vision among PRC leadership. They should forget about what happened in the past 100 years and consider the 1500 year old relationship between Imperial China and the Korean peninsula, of mutual co-operation and co-existence, a relationship that worked. One cannot wish away the Europeans or Euro Americans from world scene, as they will be used as balancing levers, where ever and when ever such tools are needed, but one can slowly reduce the need for them by cultivating more effective and trusting relationship, among regional neighbors.

As for my personal identity and details, why is it important, I am just a sentient being that has been on this planet for few decades, will be gone without a trace after a few decades. My POV is based on my observation, many of it first hand, but some based on hearsay, so it can be flawed, I don't claim to be perfect. I try to keep my mind open and I am willing to learn.

The problem of vision for PRC leadership IMHO:

- wrong Korean policy of supporting Kim regime
- wrong assimilation policy in Tibet and Xinjiang, current PRC policy is to destroy the traditional culture there and conduct demographic invasion, a more correct policy would be to let in only sufficient amount of Han Chinese, providing more economic opportunity for the Tibetans and Turkics and let them continue their traditional culture, and not consider the traditional cultures as a threat that may be a catalyst for future separation of these provinces from PRC. What happened in Soviet Union was different, they simply did not have enough ethnic Russians in the breakaway states, to be a clear majority there
- policy of divide and rule in South Asia, where surrounding states around India are supported and instigated against India
- resource exploitation in Burma under current Burmese regime, a time is coming when the ethnic Chinese will probably be purged again in anti-chinese riots that happened a few decades ago, when this anti people regime collapses

Singapore seems to have a pact with Oceania and UK:

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

But UK and ANZ are not world powers, obviously they are backed up by NATO led by one and only US of A, at the end of the day.


Edited by eventhorizon - 05 Jul 2010 at 14:19
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Location: Bush Capital
Status: Offline
Points: 7823
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Jul 2010 at 11:37
Originally posted by eventhorizon eventhorizon wrote:

Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Is it not a bit tedious to constantly iterate "Han Chinese" as if such was a political term. Please spare us the excess of rhetoric at the expense of historical substance.


Han Chinese is not a political term, it is a clearly defined ethnic group, a ruling majority in PRC, Taiwan and Singapore, all three of whom are political entities.

Sorry for not meeting your standard for amount of rhetoric and historical substance, my apologies.
There is no such thing as a clearly defined ethnic group. And 'Han' is weakly defined at that! Its like European or Indian. Different languages, different appearances, different cooking.
 
And please spare us by refering to mongols as racist everytime you mention them. Read this in a book once did you? I'll admit while your knowledge of events in East and Central Asia is strong, your knowledge of culture and interactions are very weak. You think in terms of race. I suspect you've been listening to anthropologists and orientalists far too much for your own good - at the end of the day those books are worth little more than compost.
Back to Top
eventhorizon View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 21 Aug 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 432
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote eventhorizon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Jul 2010 at 14:09
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Originally posted by eventhorizon eventhorizon wrote:

Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Is it not a bit tedious to constantly iterate "Han Chinese" as if such was a political term. Please spare us the excess of rhetoric at the expense of historical substance.


Han Chinese is not a political term, it is a clearly defined ethnic group, a ruling majority in PRC, Taiwan and Singapore, all three of whom are political entities.

Sorry for not meeting your standard for amount of rhetoric and historical substance, my apologies.
There is no such thing as a clearly defined ethnic group. And 'Han' is weakly defined at that! Its like European or Indian. Different languages, different appearances, different cooking.
 
And please spare us by refering to mongols as racist everytime you mention them. Read this in a book once did you? I'll admit while your knowledge of events in East and Central Asia is strong, your knowledge of culture and interactions are very weak. You think in terms of race. I suspect you've been listening to anthropologists and orientalists far too much for your own good - at the end of the day those books are worth little more than compost.


OK Omar, I will edit that post and remove those words, I guess I should not call people racists, that is like calling people names.

As for meeting Mongols, I did actually meet quite a few Mongols, in several countries and one of my close friends is from Ulan Bator.

Personally I could care less about races and race theories, but in my analysis of world situation, it seems that loosely defined ethnic group based regional integration makes sense as a next step of evolution from nation states, although in many regional groups there will be multiple majority and close to majority ethnic groups.

Han Chinese are a very lucky ethnic group because most of them are within one nation state PRC, so as one of the largest ethnic groups, they are in an enviable position to rise, the theoretical reason for which I detail in another thread, but PRC leadership in charge IMHO are making many policy mistakes, which I take the liberty to point out.

I personally believe that in the future there will be one great mixed race on the planet, and it will be all the better for human race, as it will reduce and possibly end currently prevailing race and ethnicity based discrimination.


Edited by eventhorizon - 05 Jul 2010 at 14:23
Back to Top
calvo View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 21 May 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 1357
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote calvo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Jul 2010 at 18:56
Originally posted by eventhorizon eventhorizon wrote:



I personally believe that in the future there will be one great mixed race on the planet, and it will be all the better for human race, as it will reduce and possibly end currently prevailing race and ethnicity based discrimination.


I'm afraid that mixing isn't going to solve any problems of ethnic nationalism and conflicts. What will happen is that old ethnic identities will fade away, and new ones will emerge, and new forms of discrimination will arise based on the division of these new identities.

This has already been happening throughout human histories. How many "ethnicities" today have more than 1000 years of history? You can count them with the fingers of one hand. Most ethnicities today are the result of mixing of archaic ethnicities of the past.
Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1345
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jul 2010 at 02:50
Event, I fail to see how I took your response 'personally'. You asked the readership of this thread for reasons why China would support the status quo in North Korea, and your response to me was all about why Korea had a right to such and such.

Your scenario for reunifying Korea (which properly deserves a thread of its own) is a reasonable one, but one which will find current South Korean positions vis-a-vis North Korea to be major bumps in the road. The mission of the U.N. command is to preserve the Armistice until such time as a Peace Treaty can be arranged. Once such a treaty is in place, the U.N. Command goes away. Should the U.S. government decide to keep forces in Korea, they will have the slight problem of a loss of U.N. Treaty bases in Japan that provide basing and staging for support of U.N.C. operations in the defense of Korea. Remember that the U.N. solution foresees the survival of two Korean states. Should North Korea merely collapse, the U.N.C. has no statutory authority to enter North Korea. (That could change, but it would require UN action.) The ROKs, however, do have the authority to enter a collapsed North Korea. Their constitution recognizes North Korea as ROK territory, and they have shadow governments for all North Korean provinces.

How China would view such, and possibly react to such, is indeed germane to this thread if it touches upon the basic premise: I.e., Is China a threat to peace in the Pacific, and if so, why?

For the record, the NATO treaty is Euro-centric, though that has been stretched in recent years. Bilateral treaties between the UK and other nations do not, simply because the UK is in Nato, obligate other Nato members to support the UK out of Europe.

 
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
eventhorizon View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 21 Aug 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 432
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote eventhorizon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jul 2010 at 09:23
Originally posted by calvo calvo wrote:

Originally posted by eventhorizon eventhorizon wrote:



I personally believe that in the future there will be one great mixed race on the planet, and it will be all the better for human race, as it will reduce and possibly end currently prevailing race and ethnicity based discrimination.


I'm afraid that mixing isn't going to solve any problems of ethnic nationalism and conflicts. What will happen is that old ethnic identities will fade away, and new ones will emerge, and new forms of discrimination will arise based on the division of these new identities.

This has already been happening throughout human histories. How many "ethnicities" today have more than 1000 years of history? You can count them with the fingers of one hand. Most ethnicities today are the result of mixing of archaic ethnicities of the past.


That statement I made is about a possible scenario far in the future, perhaps not relevant to us in any way.

Mixing of archaic race/ethnic archetypes that developed in isolation in pre agricultural civilization times, has started around after last ice age, probably around 10,000 years ago, and with empires rising since around 5000-6000 years ago, the pace has accelerated and this accelerated pace continues to this day, with migrations increasing in scale with every passing year. So you are correct in stating that new ethnics will continue to emerge with time, perhaps with merging of cohabiting or coexisting ethnics in the same space.

Although it is off topic, I wanted to clarify my statement.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 9>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.156 seconds.