- Registration time
- Last login
- Online time
- 73 Hour
- Reading permission
wowzers Post time: 2012-6-1 18:57
Thank you for the compliment. I don't generally delve into USA stuff on this Forum. I'm here for t ...
Thank you indeed, in the big picture there will always be a ‘line in the sand’ for something, and I find myself in agreement without reservation for your first ideas regarding mass media and manipulation. Beijing definitely censors for its own reasons as with Washington, but here I differ from you in that I DO think western type media are irresponsible. They are profit based and are forced in some ways to expound into areas which can be termed as ‘sensationalistic’. You only have to look at the numerous law suits against media in countries such as the USA and Europe to know that some media push the bounds to make money in any way they can, and in reality a country like China is a good target because it does not fight back and refute the claims made, and back it up with legal actions for slander. China is like a dullard in this respect in that it issues its own single version and then nothing more. The ongoing silence from Beijing is taken to show this single announcement is a lie and the truth is expounded and expanded by media until the reality is almost unrecognizable. Should one blame the media because they make money from this and in the process actually distort the reality? Not really. I would say their basic interests are in pecuniary matters first, and the truth a secondary consideration, and here one would have to place the blame firmly on Beijing and its naivety with the world and its dynamics, a word used earlier by your good self. I will move onto that idea a little further on.
Interestingly enough in your paragraph three you mention Jackie Chan and its has not gone unnoticed by myself that the Chinese Nobel Peace Prize winner who currently resides at Beijing’s ‘pleasure’ for a number of years is allegedly quoted as stating that “China needed 300 years of colonization from Britain before it would be ready for democracy” and I actually did chuckle a little at the reminder of that. That said, I do wonder in the modern world whether ‘forced’ democracy is a good thing. For China it purportedly has 56 ethnicities, and I wonder how that would pan out if the system were to crash overnight as desired by some and if indeed that would not prove to be disastrous to all the people of China. If we look at most of the traditional successful democracies of the world they were all homogenous in their ethnic make-up when they became democratic, and where they were not such as Britain it involved hundreds of years of fighting to subjugate Ireland, Wales and Scotland. Something modern democracies are denied. In the case of the US, a disparate mix of immigrants bound together to fight off the British and in that effort became a recognized homogeneous grouping of ‘whites’ or as they referred to themselves ‘Anglos’. Only the Blacks, Mexicans and N.A. Indians remained as sub-part of the US, but not its democracy until the later years. Examples of forced democracy are African countries and the Balkans where ethnic and religious tensions pervade the very idea of democracy to the point of failure, and now there are these new forced democracies in the Middle East which will suffer many a turn before the politic gets any kind of peace or stability. The Chinese system must at some time change to suit the whims of the ‘mouth-piece US’ of human rights (in name only), but it must also remember that ethnic and religious tensions in a ‘knee-jerk’ to democracy could fold the whole system of China. Maybe they already know that, or as some insinuate here the government officials are just holding power for themselves no matter what. Whatever the answer it is not a simple one and needs thought and care, especially if one believes in the value of human life.
Re: 89. I am in total agreement again here, and initially it was about the resentment and inequality of the system that the workforce was rebelling against. It only later became a spun-myth about democracy to suit another agenda replete with students. Within all the documents on this event it can be seen that the movement failed because there was no common agenda, only a mish-mash of many ideals and grievances. Of course the western media have again simplified this to suit another agenda and the IQ of their readers.
Re: Censorship. As normal people do, when things are getting better people do not take the time to question but rather ‘make hay while the sun shines’. Revolutionaries are bred from disadvantage, suffering and hunger as it brings into perspective the most important thing in life which is seemingly ‘survival’. This related well to your next idea about the unspoken ‘contract after 89. I have read quite a lot about this idea as to how the government of China realized that in order to avoid another ‘89’, it had to make a surreal world of ‘more and better’ and to some extent it had succeeded massively in doing this. However, the downturn in demand from the near bankrupt US and Europe may well put that in jeopardy unless this new found wealth can be turned inward. If any of that is lacking I believe that the Chinese populace will judge the government harshly as many Chinese have huge ambitions for themselves and their offspring and only too rightly. Should a massive downturn happen I believe that China could become very unstable unless it has in place a system which is commensurate to the situation and the first part of that is ‘accountability’. Here I would like to go back to the idea of the Chinese government being naïve which I mentioned earlier.
I do not think that the ‘one-party’ system is a fail. What I do believe is that they lack certain tools. The first of those would be an independent judiciary to keep the members of that one party accountable, and maybe even that judiciary should be formed by a basic democratic vote of the people in different regional representatives. Secondly, the Party should have its own ‘spin doctors’ to deal with certain items and individuals before they become martyrs of the western press. A simple system where a conflagration arises and government seniors are on hand to ease the situation, liaise and be available to answer questions from those who feel the answers should be readily available. I do not think that China is basically bad, but rather it has not mastered management control procedure in all departments. This may well a legacy from earlier times where real thinkers were discouraged because it was known as ‘reactionary thinking’ to out boss the boss. China is definitely doing very well, but it needs a ‘think tank’ in order to discuss and evaluate why it faces flaring fires which need never to have been flares in the first place. Good luck to China, and thank you for the illuminating discussion, and of course may the force be with you on the VPN and satellite TV.