"turn toward a system of liberties, democracy, and rule of law...

[Guest ShaQuaNew]

There's a difference between opining on a messageboard, and jamming something down someone's throat.

 

If I muse in private, or discuss with a friend over whether or not Sally should lose some weight it is not the same as me walking up to sally and saying "Hey tubby, why doncha drop a ton or two?"

 

And Jesse, your silly talk example only holds water as far as facts go. To apply that to Roger's points would be to first make the assumption that you are right and he is wrong - period. Can you be SO sure of yourself as to literally make that a given?

 

Jason, first, I want to thank you for avoiding personal attacks and keeping discussions above board.

 

Second, like most everyone who participates on this board, I am married to a Chinese woman. I not only love her and her family, but I love and respect her country. This is not JUST a message board, but it's a place that's visited by hundreds, if not thousands of people that do not participate in discussions. They do however read what goes on.

 

I've pointed out before that this forum is dominated by messages and posts that have a negative tone toward China. Have you noticed that the few Chinese people that participated in the past no longer post here? To some, that may be unimportant, as most threads are generated from the easy to find negative rhetoric found in today's media.

 

I have no special talent, or ability to places me above anyone else as some have suggested. I'm simply a guy you can call Joe, that is perplexed by the lack of cultural sensitivity exhibited by many members in this forum. Perhaps it happens because the majority of the members are living in the US, and the only experience they have with China is traveling back and forth a few times to meet with their partners before they arrived in the US. Very few members have ever come back after their wives got their visas and green cards.

 

It just seems the sensitivity should be shown to both cultures; the US and China. The moderatorship has gone to great lengths to avoid political discussions. Why? It seems they want to avoid heated discussions where people get hurt and upset. But why should this policy be limited to political discussions? Should there not be a rule that helps guide members to showing cultural sensitivity to the people of China?

 

Aren't there better and more edifying things to talk about than tainted milk, human rights, and whatever other negative stories are in today's news?

 

I know my posts are not well-received by a few members, but there are many that feel just like me about the ongoing negativity toward China. One need not look far in China to see wonderful things, and it does not require rose colored glasses to see it. Every single day I am touched by a strong and good people, from whom all of us could learn a lot. I can tell the people with whom I work about my life in America, but I am always cautious to refrain from pointing out how things would be better in China if it were more like America.

 

Americans already have one of the worst images in the world, and are perceived as being arrogant and pushy the world over. This includes China. A few people have asked me to post my experiences in China on this board. The few times I've attempted to do this, has been met with accusation and ridicule, and being labeled as not having the right to express my thoughts, because I've been here only a short time, have rose-colored glasses, and so on. What's this all about? When it becomes necessary to engage in debate after you post here, like anyone would, I tend to hold back from posting more personal experiences, as do many others. I think most everyone here enjoys reading about other members personal experiences in China, but when it becomes a battlefield of jokes and ridicule, people leave and will not participate.

[Dennis143]

There's a difference between opining on a messageboard, and jamming something down someone's throat.

 

If I muse in private, or discuss with a friend over whether or not Sally should lose some weight it is not the same as me walking up to sally and saying "Hey tubby, why doncha drop a ton or two?"

 

And Jesse, your silly talk example only holds water as far as facts go. To apply that to Roger's points would be to first make the assumption that you are right and he is wrong - period. Can you be SO sure of yourself as to literally make that a given?

 

Jason, first, I want to thank you for avoiding personal attacks and keeping discussions above board.

 

Second, like most everyone who participates on this board, I am married to a Chinese woman. I not only love her and her family, but I love and respect her country. This is not JUST a message board, but it's a place that's visited by hundreds, if not thousands of people that do not participate in discussions. They do however read what goes on.

 

I've pointed out before that this forum is dominated by messages and posts that have a negative tone toward China. Have you noticed that the few Chinese people that participated in the past no longer post here? To some, that may be unimportant, as most threads are generated from the easy to find negative rhetoric found in today's media.

 

I have no special talent, or ability to places me above anyone else as some have suggested. I'm simply a guy you can call Joe, that is perplexed by the lack of cultural sensitivity exhibited by many members in this forum. Perhaps it happens because the majority of the members are living in the US, and the only experience they have with China is traveling back and forth a few times to meet with their partners before they arrived in the US. Very few members have ever come back after their wives got their visas and green cards.

 

It just seems the sensitivity should be shown to both cultures; the US and China. The moderatorship has gone to great lengths to avoid political discussions. Why? It seems they want to avoid heated discussions where people get hurt and upset. But why should this policy be limited to political discussions? Should there not be a rule that helps guide members to showing cultural sensitivity to the people of China?

 

Aren't there better and more edifying things to talk about than tainted milk, human rights, and whatever other negative stories are in today's news?

 

I know my posts are not well-received by a few members, but there are many that feel just like me about the ongoing negativity toward China. One need not look far in China to see wonderful things, and it does not require rose colored glasses to see it. Every single day I am touched by a strong and good people, from whom all of us could learn a lot. I can tell the people with whom I work about my life in America, but I am always cautious to refrain from pointing out how things would be better in China if it were more like America.

 

Americans already have one of the worst images in the world, and are perceived as being arrogant and pushy the world over. This includes China. A few people have asked me to post my experiences in China on this board. The few times I've attempted to do this, has been met with accusation and ridicule, and being labeled as not having the right to express my thoughts, because I've been here only a short time, have rose-colored glasses, and so on. What's this all about? When it becomes necessary to engage in debate after you post here, like anyone would, I tend to hold back from posting more personal experiences, as do many others. I think most everyone here enjoys reading about other members personal experiences in China, but when it becomes a battlefield of jokes and ridicule, people leave and will not participate.

Jesse, haven't you been posting this same theme for weeks now? It's beginning to sound whiny.

 

I can't be the only one who wonders if all you read here were positive and glorious reports about China that you'd still find some ax to grind (w/Roger).

 

Yet, when we read again and again the same drum beat, not only does it sound whiny, but condescending and pontificating too.

 

Your message isn't even subliminal. We all know the story behind the post. It's not difficult to read that your real point is your continued attempts to attack Roger.

 

It's way past time to GET OVER IT finally. You're in China now. Share THAT with us, please!!

[Guest ShaQuaNew]

 

Jesse, haven't you been posting this same theme for weeks now? It's beginning to sound whiny.

 

I can't be the only one who wonders if all you read here were positive and glorious reports about China that you'd still find some ax to grind (w/Roger).

 

Yet, when we read again and again the same drum beat, not only does it sound whiny, but condescending and pontificating too.

 

Your message isn't even subliminal. We all know the story behind the post. It's not difficult to read that your real point is your continued attempts to attack Roger.

 

It's way past time to GET OVER IT finally. You're in China now. Share THAT with us, please!!

 

I'm sorry. And I do mean that, to everyone, including Roger. My intentions were overrun by my methods, which I know are not welcome.

 

Edited January 14, 2009 by ShaQuaNew (see edit history)

[Guest jin979]

deleted the off topic breakfast food posts

 

----

 

And I cleaned up the last three pages

Edited January 15, 2009 by DavidZixuan (see edit history)

[david_dawei]

Every country has some form of corruption in government, and China is no exception. Roger's attempt to suggest that the Rule of Law as practiced in the US or any other country claiming to be a part of it, would work in China, is silly talk.

 

 

It's not silly talk. "Snozzlefrazzle Snizzlefritz Goblamdapoop" is silly talk. You disagree with him. You have reasons, so does he. So do many people who have taken up the argument, both Non-Chinese and Chinese. I don't really find either side of the argument to be silly.

ok.. not silly... but completely ignorant of thousands of years of history...

 

There's plenty of explanation for why it won't happen in china anytime soon... let's start with the anachronistic reality that Chinese law predates the definition

 

Let's compare the political-economic philosophy of the Confucians vs the Legalist? Anyone?

 

Hint.. go back to the "Warring State Period"... another hint: "Warring" has the word 'war' in it.. quess what was going on... and just after this was the first unification of china... how did that happen? What was truly learned from this? and pursued going forward for another 1000 years?

 

"rule of law"... "ruled by law"... we're debating one word difference in reality. But the implications are much greater than most will never realize...

 

I'll say this:

Confucius and the Legalist were at odds for good reason. The former wanted Social Harmony and Order by investing in the people the ability to pull it off; The latter wanted to enforce it (a legacy found in the west).

 

The former dominates all of chinese history down to the present; the latter had a hand in the first unification of china; Yet, they lasted how long as a dynasty?

 

There are so many lessons learned from history that china purposely avoids. There are so many lessons they pursue towards a goal of social harmony and order.

 

Here is what Confucius predicted (he is not considered a prophet, but it applies here): A country which lives by a rule of law will produce criminals. A country ruled by law will produce citizens.

 

Consider this (and this is my own theory):

- Rule of law is meant to prevent people from being exploited by the government. (western approach); thus, people are surrounded by laws which directs what they can and cannot do.

- Rule by law is meant to prevent people from being exploited by other people. (eastern approach); thus, people are surrounded by guiding principles of how to treat each other.

[Jeikun]

 

Here is what Confucius predicted (he is not considered a prophet, but it applies here): A country which lives by a rule of law will produce criminals. A country ruled by law will produce citizens.

 

Consider this (and this is my own theory):

- Rule of law is meant to prevent people from being exploited by the government. (western approach); thus, people are surrounded by laws which directs what they can and cannot do.

- Rule by law is meant to prevent people from being exploited by other people. (eastern approach); thus, people are surrounded by guiding principles of how to treat each other.

 

 

Only enough brain energy left to address this part tonight.

 

Confucius's prediction is both true and false, and can only be both true and false, never just one or the other. One could suggest that makes it negate itself... it says nothing. Because the reality is a country which lives by rule of law produces citizens and criminals. A country ruled by law will also produce criminals and citizens. I see the core point it seeks to convey, but it idealizes one example to perfection, and denegrates the other into complete corruption. Hyperbole.

 

From my western standpoint, I would say "ruled by law" produces subjects, not citizens... but that's admittedly a western viewpoint, so I will only mention it as an aside.

 

For your offered definitions, you have the core purpose correct in spirit, but some important nuances slip away in the oversimplification.

 

In your (western approach) "rule of law", the majority of the laws that choke the US system aren't those designed to protect people from the government, but the ones designed to protect people from other people, which is the law system you are contrasting to it. So one could say it's not truly a characteristic of the rule of law idea, but rather of our (the west's) own implementation of it.

 

In your (eastern approach) "rule by law", protecting people from other people, neglects that the government is not an alien entity, but also comprised of an elite group of the people, and thus is prone to devising laws self serving to those people, and actually being more forgiving of the non-government people hurting each other. Yet, there are still no shortage of laws which surround people (less perhaps, but far from the point of standing in direct contrast to the other system), as the jails never stand empty.

 

Still by and large, in spirit you have a good grip on it. The rub, I think is in the fact that while philosophy influences reality, reality tends to defy it openly pretty darn often.

 

 

Maybe this part belongs in a seperate post, but I am curious of your opinion if you have one (and god forgive me for mentioning Japan on this board). But Japan, and Korea both have very ancient cultures and histories, closely tied to China's through politics, philosophy, religion, language, writing, art for millenia. The Koreans and Japanese have (in their traditional culture) extremely similar ethics and worldview. It was theorized in the past that both countries would have been model communist countries for mostly the same reasons as China(and North Korea seems to confirm this idea). Yet both Japan and South Korea are vibrant solid democracies. Their peoples have found some way to honor both their traditional cultures, and yet at the same time have a democratic government in no danger of collapse. How is this so? Not to mention Hong Kong and Taiwan... both Chinese, both currently democratic. Despite having nearly identical roots, are mainland so deeply rooted and ingrained in one way of thinking that the very suggestion a democracy is possible there is ridiculous and laughable, while for their cousins and brothers it was possible? If so, what is the intrinsic difference?

 

I realize that Japan and Hong Kong pretty much had their systems forced on them... but why is it that there isn't constant culture clash, and asians running around with their heads exploding from living in what some suggest are magnetically opposed ethical and philosophical realities? Why??

 

I don't... repeat don't... REPEAT DON'T mean to suggest those countries systems are "better", "should be a model for China", or any such asinine thing!!! Really!! I am only bringing it up as an example that I think complicates the opinion that democracy and chinese thought are a square peg in a round hole. I think it's not as extreme as it is being made out to be. True, Mainland China is "different", but HOW different, and HOW much does it really influence?

 

I'm pretty specifically addressing this to David, or to anyone who has deep insight into Chinese and other East Asian culture. I'd prefer (but of course can't truly request B)) that anyone who answers that part treat it respectfully and try to give a real answer other than "Jerpan ain't China and China ain't Jerpan, ya lobotomy candidate!". Because I'm seriously interested in an answer whether it's an agreement or not.

Edited January 15, 2009 by Jeikun (see edit history)

[Dan R]

 

Here is what Confucius predicted (he is not considered a prophet, but it applies here): A country which lives by a rule of law will produce criminals. A country ruled by law will produce citizens.

 

Consider this (and this is my own theory):

- Rule of law is meant to prevent people from being exploited by the government. (western approach); thus, people are surrounded by laws which directs what they can and cannot do.

- Rule by law is meant to prevent people from being exploited by other people. (eastern approach); thus, people are surrounded by guiding principles of how to treat each other.

 

 

Only enough brain energy left to address this part tonight.

 

Confucius's prediction is both true and false, and can only be both true and false, never just one or the other. One could suggest that makes it negate itself... it says nothing. Because the reality is a country which lives by rule of law produces citizens and criminals. A country ruled by law will also produce criminals and citizens. I see the core point it seeks to convey, but it idealizes one example to perfection, and denegrates the other into complete corruption. Hyperbole.

 

From my western standpoint, I would say "ruled by law" produces subjects, not citizens... but that's admittedly a western viewpoint, so I will only mention it as an aside.

 

For your offered definitions, you have the core purpose correct in spirit, but some important nuances slip away in the oversimplification.

 

In your (western approach) "rule of law", the majority of the laws that choke the US system aren't those designed to protect people from the government, but the ones designed to protect people from other people, which is the law system you are contrasting to it. So one could say it's not truly a characteristic of the rule of law idea, but rather of our (the west's) own implementation of it.

 

In your (eastern approach) "rule by law", protecting people from other people, neglects that the government is not an alien entity, but also comprised of an elite group of the people, and thus is prone to devising laws self serving to those people, and actually being more forgiving of the non-government people hurting each other. Yet, there are still no shortage of laws which surround people (less perhaps, but far from the point of standing in direct contrast to the other system), as the jails never stand empty.

 

Still by and large, in spirit you have a good grip on it. The rub, I think is in the fact that while philosophy influences reality, reality tends to defy it openly pretty darn often.

 

 

Maybe this part belongs in a seperate post, but I am curious of your opinion if you have one (and god forgive me for mentioning Japan on this board). But Japan, and Korea both have very ancient cultures and histories, closely tied to China's through politics, philosophy, religion, language, writing, art for millenia. The Koreans and Japanese have (in their traditional culture) extremely similar ethics and worldview. It was theorized in the past that both countries would have been model communist countries for mostly the same reasons as China(and North Korea seems to confirm this idea). Yet both Japan and South Korea are vibrant solid democracies. Their peoples have found some way to honor both their traditional cultures, and yet at the same time have a democratic government in no danger of collapse. How is this so? Not to mention Hong Kong and Taiwan... both Chinese, both currently democratic. Despite having nearly identical roots, are mainland so deeply rooted and ingrained in one way of thinking that the very suggestion a democracy is possible there is ridiculous and laughable, while for their cousins and brothers it was possible? If so, what is the intrinsic difference?

 

I realize that Japan and Hong Kong pretty much had their systems forced on them... but why is it that there isn't constant culture clash, and asians running around with their heads exploding from living in what some suggest are magnetically opposed ethical and philosophical realities? Why??

 

I don't... repeat don't... REPEAT DON'T mean to suggest those countries systems are "better", "should be a model for China", or any such asinine thing!!! Really!! I am only bringing it up as an example that I think complicates the opinion that democracy and chinese thought are a square peg in a round hole. I think it's not as extreme as it is being made out to be. True, Mainland China is "different", but HOW different, and HOW much does it really influence?

 

I'm pretty specifically addressing this to David, or to anyone who has deep insight into Chinese and other East Asian culture. I'd prefer (but of course can't truly request B)) that anyone who answers that part treat it respectfully and try to give a real answer other than "Jerpan ain't China and China ain't Jerpan, ya lobotomy candidate!". Because I'm seriously interested in an answer whether it's an agreement or not.

 

Over looked is that the Japanese lost WWII. The constitution was forced on them by the victors. The old Samurai & Court elite had died off or faced war crime trials. Their culture had failed and it was becoming clear that the Emperor was not a God. The defeated Japanese did what their culture supported. They followed the victor. Lucky for the Japanese those who wrote the constitution and picked the leaders for the next 8 years added in details to protect personal freedom that they felt were missing from ours. The main problems encountered have been related to prohibitions on a military. (We regreted this one during the Vietnam war)

 

It hasn't all gone smooth. Anyone remember Mishima Yukio or the Sekigun? Oh yes, we also prohibited war time leaders from serving in the new post war government.

 

Korea didn't get Democracy until a college elite arose and curruption toppled Park.

[Jeikun]

 

Here is what Confucius predicted (he is not considered a prophet, but it applies here): A country which lives by a rule of law will produce criminals. A country ruled by law will produce citizens.

 

Consider this (and this is my own theory):

- Rule of law is meant to prevent people from being exploited by the government. (western approach); thus, people are surrounded by laws which directs what they can and cannot do.

- Rule by law is meant to prevent people from being exploited by other people. (eastern approach); thus, people are surrounded by guiding principles of how to treat each other.

 

 

Only enough brain energy left to address this part tonight.

 

Confucius's prediction is both true and false, and can only be both true and false, never just one or the other. One could suggest that makes it negate itself... it says nothing. Because the reality is a country which lives by rule of law produces citizens and criminals. A country ruled by law will also produce criminals and citizens. I see the core point it seeks to convey, but it idealizes one example to perfection, and denegrates the other into complete corruption. Hyperbole.

 

From my western standpoint, I would say "ruled by law" produces subjects, not citizens... but that's admittedly a western viewpoint, so I will only mention it as an aside.

 

For your offered definitions, you have the core purpose correct in spirit, but some important nuances slip away in the oversimplification.

 

In your (western approach) "rule of law", the majority of the laws that choke the US system aren't those designed to protect people from the government, but the ones designed to protect people from other people, which is the law system you are contrasting to it. So one could say it's not truly a characteristic of the rule of law idea, but rather of our (the west's) own implementation of it.

 

In your (eastern approach) "rule by law", protecting people from other people, neglects that the government is not an alien entity, but also comprised of an elite group of the people, and thus is prone to devising laws self serving to those people, and actually being more forgiving of the non-government people hurting each other. Yet, there are still no shortage of laws which surround people (less perhaps, but far from the point of standing in direct contrast to the other system), as the jails never stand empty.

 

Still by and large, in spirit you have a good grip on it. The rub, I think is in the fact that while philosophy influences reality, reality tends to defy it openly pretty darn often.

 

 

Maybe this part belongs in a seperate post, but I am curious of your opinion if you have one (and god forgive me for mentioning Japan on this board). But Japan, and Korea both have very ancient cultures and histories, closely tied to China's through politics, philosophy, religion, language, writing, art for millenia. The Koreans and Japanese have (in their traditional culture) extremely similar ethics and worldview. It was theorized in the past that both countries would have been model communist countries for mostly the same reasons as China(and North Korea seems to confirm this idea). Yet both Japan and South Korea are vibrant solid democracies. Their peoples have found some way to honor both their traditional cultures, and yet at the same time have a democratic government in no danger of collapse. How is this so? Not to mention Hong Kong and Taiwan... both Chinese, both currently democratic. Despite having nearly identical roots, are mainland so deeply rooted and ingrained in one way of thinking that the very suggestion a democracy is possible there is ridiculous and laughable, while for their cousins and brothers it was possible? If so, what is the intrinsic difference?

 

I realize that Japan and Hong Kong pretty much had their systems forced on them... but why is it that there isn't constant culture clash, and asians running around with their heads exploding from living in what some suggest are magnetically opposed ethical and philosophical realities? Why??

 

I don't... repeat don't... REPEAT DON'T mean to suggest those countries systems are "better", "should be a model for China", or any such asinine thing!!! Really!! I am only bringing it up as an example that I think complicates the opinion that democracy and chinese thought are a square peg in a round hole. I think it's not as extreme as it is being made out to be. True, Mainland China is "different", but HOW different, and HOW much does it really influence?

 

I'm pretty specifically addressing this to David, or to anyone who has deep insight into Chinese and other East Asian culture. I'd prefer (but of course can't truly request ) that anyone who answers that part treat it respectfully and try to give a real answer other than "Jerpan ain't China and China ain't Jerpan, ya lobotomy candidate!". Because I'm seriously interested in an answer whether it's an agreement or not.

 

Over looked is that the Japanese lost WWII. The constitution was forced on them by the victors. The old Samurai & Court elite had died off or faced war crime trials. Their culture had failed and it was becoming clear that the Emperor was not a God. The defeated Japanese did what their culture supported. They followed the victor. Lucky for the Japanese those who wrote the constitution and picked the leaders for the next 8 years added in details to protect personal freedom that they felt were missing from ours. The main problems encountered have been related to prohibitions on a military. (We regreted this one during the Vietnam war)

 

It hasn't all gone smooth. Anyone remember Mishima Yukio or the Sekigun? Oh yes, we also prohibited war time leaders from serving in the new post war government.

 

Korea didn't get Democracy until a college elite arose and curruption toppled Park.

 

 

 

I did mention Japan had their democracy forced on them, so I didn't overlook it, really. I concede that. I'm not so sure "follow the victor" had so much precident, as Japan had always been the conqueror, not the conquered. But you sound like you know a lot about Japan, so I'll accept your opinion on that and assume you know something I don't.

 

But despite how they were formed, they are persistant, sustainable, and for the most part the systems co-exist with traditional culture. Also, they are all very strong economies, modern, and posessing good health care systems and high quality of life.

 

My main question though is how if these societies (Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan) can have democracy coexist with similar philosophical, cultural, and historical backgrounds as China, that the idea China feasably could have a democracy at some point is considered so laughable and ludicrous on philosophical, cultural, and historical grounds?

[david_dawei]

I quoted you... but was responding mostly to the [erroneous] idea as Jesse stated; that the 'rule of law' would be supplanted in the east as easily as it sprouted and was watered in the west.

 

I'm appealing to the history of why china avoids such an encounter; most want to ask about the current possibility; the problem is, a modern answer needs a historical understanding. and I'm appealing to a purely historical mindset without modern conscious. It produces citizens since that is the only outcome they would ever consider, if one is putting themselves in the time of this ancient period. "Subjects" is an external [modern] interpretation in my opinion which they would have little concept of.

 

China encountered the issue in 200 BC. It traces to an event in 700 BC when King Ping of Zhou returned a favor and gave western land to the inconsequential Qin. Fast forward some 15-20 monarchs and Qin employed the legalist cruel law and punishment approach to 'civil order'... soon decimated all rival 'warring states' and unified china in a blood bath of conquests. When the Qin ruler died (most famous of course since he unified china, self-knighted as the first emperor, built the great wall, standardized money, undertook many infrastructure works, dug the famous terracotta army in Xian), it took less than four years for this invincible dynasty to fall... The vengence which turned on the Qin is almost unparalleled in chinese hisory.

 

No amount of books nor no amount of reasoning will ever completely understand how this affected the next thousand(s) of years. What is not debated is the prior comparison of Confucianism's way to the legalist's way; and afterwards, there is even less debate over why Confucius was embraced and the legalist almost ceased to exist.

 

The next dynasty, the Han, lasted some 400 years (compared to the Qin of 15 years). Legalism was abolished; Confucianism re-instated; Trade encouraged (ie; silk roads); agriculture and commerce grew; Education pushed; Many aspects of life flourished avoiding the sins of the past.

 

There is too much to cover... but while Qin produced the origin of the name for "China", the Han produced an origin for "Han Chinese" and "Han Yu" (Han language, ergo, chinese language). The encounter with "law" (fa) and the "legalist" (fa jia), is as profound as it gets.

 

-----

As for Korea.. I know nothing.. Hope to hear something more.

 

As for HK... they were occupied by the 1840s by the british... why? The Qing Emperor refused to import Opium... and the rest is history...

 

 

As for Japan... DanR should chime in.. but they had a forced occupation which turned their history. If anyone knows the famous film maker, Akira Kurosawa, I would recommend reading his autobiography... there is a part where he talks of the emperors acceptance of the occupation when the masses gathered completely expecting a command of hari kari. The fact is... most were not just expecting it but ready.

 

it's impossible to capture in threads how a country honors their past via their present culture...

[david_dawei]

Here is a comment which may be off topic really... but to the points I am making... which most westerners cannot really comprehend about the chinese way. Chinese look to the past for 'truth'. This concept is very difficult to convey and understand without some understanding of their most ancient ways which included what we would probably call, shaman magic. Without further comment, the fact is: The past is their guide; the past is their source of truth. Hint: That is why 'truth' is so ill defined in chinese culture; it is something that is almost to be discovered rather than based on some universal ideal.

 

So, each dynasty offers a bevy of events which influence future decisions. Confucius said in his very late years that he wished nothing more than to read and understand the Yi Jing, which is considered the ultimate guide for future decisions. Enough.

[rogerluli]

What seems improbable to me is that the modern Chinese really considers their 5000 years of history when deciding what to have for breakfast this morning... After the Cultural Revolution, after following Deng's "to get rich is glorious" dictum for the past 3 decades...How much of the distant past does the average person carry with them???

[rogerluli]

"No big deal, a million yuan will suffice to settle the case..."

 

The Rule of Money vs The Rule of Law

 

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/KA10Ad02.html

[GZBILL]

"No big deal, a million yuan will suffice to settle the case..."

 

The Rule of Money vs The Rule of Law

 

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/KA10Ad02.html

 

Not always.

 

Sometimes it's the Rule of Money vs. The Rule of Runaway Legal Absurdity.

[rogerluli]

"No big deal, a million yuan will suffice to settle the case..."

 

The Rule of Money vs The Rule of Law

 

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/KA10Ad02.html

 

Not always.

 

Sometimes it's the Rule of Money vs. The Rule of Runaway Legal Absurdity.

 

By any chance Bill do you drive a Bao Ma???

[Randy W]

Nothing is better than an intelligent, benevolent dictator who knows what needs to be done and keeps the best interest of the people in mind.

 

Unfortunately, these have been few and far in between over the course of history (know of any?)

 

China's system works and will continue to work only to the degree that this holds true. There are no checks and balances to ensure that it will