Fascinating: "The Internet in China" - New Chinese white paper

[Zeno Swijtink]

From: Lauren Weinstein
[email protected]
Date: June 8, 2010 5:00:33 PM EDT
Subject: Fascinating: "The Internet in China" - New Chinese white paper


Fascinating: "The Internet in China" - New Chinese white paper (PDF available)
https://www.nnsquad.org/archives/nnsquad/msg03664.html

The Chinese government has just released a white paper covering a wide range of topics related to their view of the Internet. It is *very* much recommended reading. Since this paper apparently was only released officially as a number of separate HTML pages, I have converted and combined them into a single PDF document for ease of handling, and am hosting the file locally.


"The Internet in China" (Single PDF file):

https://bit.ly/bGsTBK *(Lauren's Blog)

Original HTML version:

https://bit.ly/cDglKq *( https://China.org.cn )

--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein
[email protected]
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800
https://www.pfir.org/lauren
Co-Founder, PFIR
*- People For Internet Responsibility - https://www.pfir.org
Co-Founder, NNSquad
*- Network Neutrality Squad - https://www.nnsquad.org
Founder, GCTIP - Global Coalition
*for Transparent Internet Performance - https://www.gctip.org
Founder, PRIVACY Forum - https://www.vortex.com
Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Lauren's Blog: https://lauren.vortex.com
Twitter: https://twitter.com/laurenweinstein

[LenInSebastopol]

I like the introduction of this paper where it's stated that the gov't has an interest to build, administer, & utilize the internet so that 'state sovereignty and dignity' is an issue. That is SO cool. Oh, wait, no...it's repressive...but then they are the gov't and they know better! Oh, wait.....
They go way beyond simple level one of hardware and standards for gear!
Matter of fact that whole paragraph says it all quite well,with my translation being that their gov't develops their interment to promote.....their gov't....and is controlled by....their gov't for their own good (that is the good of the social order via their gov't).
How progressive is that!
But at least they're up front about it all.
I would rather live in the hell caused by internet conspiracies, kooks with their agendas, Snopes being in error, the slightly goofy & often wrong & opinionated Wiki, and all that than in a regulated & gov't control place as in China's with their policies. And it's coming to wires that control this board here!
FCC Clyburn is attempting to make the internet a "utility" and then he can do what China is doing to their peoples: REGULATE.

[podfish]

just to point out: it's an incredible article of faith that most Americans accept unquestioningly (I can't say whether Len falls in there or not) that "government control" is exactly the same as government repression. Personally I'm way too anti-authoritarian to be able to live that way, but I've read plenty of comments from Chinese citizens that seem to express appreciation of a government keeping society under control.
Several caveats: I've never lived there, so I can't speak from any personal experience. And yes, there are plenty of things that the Chinese government does that are unquestionably oppressive. And yes, the media reports and interviews I'm using to piece together a part of this thesis are probably consciously and unconsciously biased.
But there are plenty of Americans who are more comfortable with some kind of authority keeping order and limiting expression so that it stays in bounds. As an earlier thread here touched on, pretty much all of us don't want to hear much about that guy with a weird way of loving his dog, for example. So it's to some degree universal that we accept limits on public expression. I have little trouble believing that the average Chinese citizen would choose his government over ours. Just because pretty much no American would do the same doesn't change that fact. The things we accept to support our worship of individualism and independent action are often seen as totally destructive of a broader social order. Again, you see a similar acceptance of limations in smaller American social groups. To use a trivial instance, a member of a baseball team is supposed to place team success over personal success, and celebrating personal achievements can be in bad taste. Older societies like the Chinese and Japanese (which I have a bit more experience with) apply that to situations where Americans never would.
It's cheap and simplistic to take this kind of document as an indictment of the Chinese government, and just as much so to take it as an analogy to our own regulations, or as a harbinger of where we're headed ourselves.

I like the introduction of this paper where it's stated that the gov't has an interest to build, administer, & utilize the internet so that 'state sovereignty and dignity' is an issue. That is SO cool. Oh, wait, no...it's repressive...but then they are the gov't and they know better! Oh, wait.....
But at least they're up front about it all.
I would rather live in the hell caused by internet conspiracies, kooks with their agendas...

["Mad" Miles]

The government of China is a Communist Marxist-Leninist Military Dictatorship One Party State. And that's what they call themselves.

Then you have the overlay of a Confusian culture, where authority, respect for, responsibility from, is the paramount value. "The nail that raises its head will be hammered down."

When teaching in Taiwan, March - August, 1997, I ran into the disconnect between Western Individualism and Eastern concepts of authority. There's a whole industry of Western recent college grads teaching English in small schools run by Asian business people. I've written about this here in the past. It's a fascinating, sometimes hilarious, culture clash.

The reason you don't hear much from Chinese who don't approve of their own governments structure and policies, is, they're either in jail, prison or living underground. See my first paragraph.

There's this guy in Burma democracy circles who has a project called Dictatorship Watch, his name is Roland Watson, and here's his latest take on China. (This may only open his website, go to the article "Democracy For China: What Will It Take?" for the article.)

I even heard some western commentator saying recently, on the twentieth anniversary of Tienanmen Square, that non-Chinese underestimated the fear of social chaos as a motivation for the government crackdown. While that may have been the government's reason for the massacre, I think that as a justification it's a crock. It just goes to show that even in freedom loving, democratic, individualistic, Post-Enlightenment societies, there're plenty of apologists for, "The Man".

Recently I've watched "Election" and "Triad Election" a series of gangster films set in post-'97 Hong Kong. (wee hours on Sundance) Aside from being kick-ass films, I found the debates about authority very telling. Lot's of stuff about following the dictates of elders, how young upstarts are a destabilizing force. Yet those very same young upstarts are the ones making things happen.

And the role of the Chinese Secret Police, as revealed at the end of the sequel is amazing. Stability, order, profits are the paramount values. Anything, and anybody, threatening those, or even questioning them, will be ground down.

And the cost to the individual? Well, you've got to see the films to figure out if the director is saying it's just the way it is. Or if it's a tragedy to be mourned. If you can stand some pretty sick violence, they're both worth a look.

[LenInSebastopol]

Miles, I found your insight and experience most interesting and need to remark on it briefly. It is involving the notion of culture and one's (my) inability to truly understand others. I cannot find the words to express the vast differences between the Asian culture, more specifically Chinese, and ours. I would think if I lived there 30 years I may begin to understand it a little. For example their notion of social order approaching harmony, the role of authority, their notions of "freedom" and "personal freedom" may be as foreign as Chinese calculus is to me. I am staggered by the thought, as well as colored by my Western notions, that the language conjures up when I think of such words and how they would be taken in that culture.
Even if it is an internet rumor, I once read that the word "freedom" translated into the Chinese language also means "insanity", it still gave me time to pause to consider what that means to a whole group of people that see the world in a totally different way.
Just because I am disagreeable, I find your first two sentences backwards. Seems the overlay is Marxism while the base is Confucian, but other than that, thanks for your post.

[LenInSebastopol]

Let me help you, PF.
Gov't control is the same as gov't repression.
I can almost understand Chinese folks writing they are glad their gov't is there to keep society under control. Seems to be a very high concern and an underlying component of their unwritten social contract, or at least from what I've come to regarding the Chinese over the years. Or it probably is my racist stereotype and I am in the dark, but I can only go with what I know.
What bothers me is that so many Americans are more than willing to allow gov't into our life. I kind of blame the Great Depression and my parents generation in coming to believe the gov't is there to help, or even their 'friend'. I don't believe this country started or grew that way but there it is.
OK, I am cheap and simplistic trick. I got over it, AND that is where we are going!
Great post and thanks.

just to point out: it's an incredible article of faith that most Americans accept unquestioningly (I can't say whether Len falls in there or not) that "government control" is exactly the same as government repression. Personally I'm way too anti-authoritarian to be able to live that way, but I've read plenty of comments from Chinese citizens that seem to express appreciation of a government keeping society under control.
Several caveats: I've never lived there, so I can't speak from any personal experience. And yes, there are plenty of things that the Chinese government does that are unquestionably oppressive. And yes, the media reports and interviews I'm using to piece together a part of this thesis are probably consciously and unconsciously biased.
But there are plenty of Americans who are more comfortable with some kind of authority keeping order and limiting expression so that it stays in bounds. As an earlier thread here touched on, pretty much all of us don't want to hear much about that guy with a weird way of loving his dog, for example. So it's to some degree universal that we accept limits on public expression. I have little trouble believing that the average Chinese citizen would choose his government over ours. Just because pretty much no American would do the same doesn't change that fact. The things we accept to support our worship of individualism and independent action are often seen as totally destructive of a broader social order. Again, you see a similar acceptance of limations in smaller American social groups. To use a trivial instance, a member of a baseball team is supposed to place team success over personal success, and celebrating personal achievements can be in bad taste. Older societies like the Chinese and Japanese (which I have a bit more experience with) apply that to situations where Americans never would.
It's cheap and simplistic to take this kind of document as an indictment of the Chinese government, and just as much so to take it as an analogy to our own regulations, or as a harbinger of where we're headed ourselves.

[podfish]

thanks for bringing your personal experience to this - thus my disclaimer in my own post!
I don't mean to be an apologist for them or for repressive philosophy, by the way. Len responded to my real point - that there's a knee-jerk application of American values to everything around the world, like their internet policies. Google seems to have done the right thing - refusing to go along with policies that violate their own principles. Their corporate value of "do no evil" is phrased that way more as an impish tweak at Microsoft than as an over-arching goal, but as far as I can tell their action was thought-provoking for those in China affected by it. Part of my impressions of Chinese attitudes does come from coverage of that, too - apparently many there refuse to see it as a statement of principle but think there's some more bottom-line oriented cause.
To turn the thread a bit, though, since you -do- have insight from being there: How widely held are western-style values, where rights of the individual are usually more important than having a less-contentious society? There's been a widely-held belief that exposure to our system, in which there's a lot of (especially economic) freedom, other parts of the world would start to adapt our own mores. I don't see that it's happening from here, anyway, but it's hard to know. I'm sure they're both intrigued and horrified by what they see of our culture and the consequences of the way we use our freedoms - how do you think it balances out??

The government of China is a Communist Marxist-Leninist Military Dictatorship One Party State. And that's what they call themselves.

Then you have the overlay of a Confusian culture, where authority, respect for, responsibility from, is the paramount value. "The nail that raises its head will be hammered down." The reason you don't hear much from Chinese who don't approve of their own governments structure and policies, is, they're either in jail, prison or living underground. < .. snip .. > I even heard some western commentator saying recently, on the twentieth anniversary of Tienanmen Square, that non-Chinese underestimated the fear of social chaos as a motivation for the government crackdown. While that may have been the government's reason for the massacre, I think that as a justification it's a crock.....

["Mad" Miles]

Podfish,

I'm no expert, just an Army Brat who lived in Taiwan for three years in early childhood, spent sixth and seventh grade in Seoul, Korea, and then spent six months working in the expat English teaching scene in Taipei in 1997. I also traveled to Hong Kong three times, was there for the "handover" and spent a couple of weeks in early August traveling in Southern China (Guanzhuo, Yanshuo, Kunming, Dali and Lijiang, then back out to Hong Kong and Taipei). Admittedly when I lived with my family in Taiwan and Korea, it was in an American (U.S.) bubble. I never learned the languages, so essentially I was just a visitor, never integrated into the society.

Plus I'm a reader, that counts for something.

A start would be to google topics such as Confucianism, Face in Asian Culture, Chaebol, Traditional Chinese Culture vs. Western Culture.

Instead of posing the question as individual freedom vs. social order, although that's a fine way to look at it, I would juxtapose the value placed on individual freedom in the west, vs. the value of loyalty to the "group" in Asian culture. And by group it can mean the family, the school, the workplace, the social network, the economic network, and society as a whole.

The Chinese have a reputation as sharp, strong willed business people, the world over but especially in Southeast Asia and the Western Pacific. They dominate the business classes in Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and elsewhere. This sometimes makes them targets for brutal local frustration when the economy has taken a serious downturn. As happened in Indonesia in 1998.

When I spoke about Tibet and Taiwan, gingerly, with some twenty-something antique shop assistants in Guanzhuo back in the spring of '97, they pretty much took it for granted that both territories were part of China, had always been part of China and would always be part of China. Any attempt to sway that opinion with claims to historical facts, would have been completely useless. They have been trained to believe these things and nobody is going to get them to change their minds.

Sort of like Americans (U.S.) who are convinced that the USA is the greatest, best, most just, most advanced country in the world. It's received truth and nobody is going to convince "us" of anything different.

China is going through a sexual revolution, so a lot of what you think they might be appalled by in Western culture, isn't really shocking to them.

There is a huge class difference between privileged party members, the new urban middle class / business class and the mass of rural and industrial poor workers. Plus there's a huge supply of casual workers (day laborers) in the cities having come from the countryside. This is a constantly changing dynamic. Recent reports are about efforts by workers to raise their own pay through strikes and collective bargaining have been in the news.

The idea that economic prosperity will lead to greater individual freedom... I think that is mostly a myth used by Western companies who want to profit from doing business in Asia, China especially, and want to claim that their influence will improve things in the areas of social justice and human rights. The only thing I see them improving is their own bottom line, and the bottom line of those in power who allow them in.

As for Asia becoming "westernized" I wouldn't hold my breath. If you read Roland's essay, which I highly recommend, you'll see that the only forces that might help foster democracy (in the western sense) are social and political movements in those countries. Not a "trickle down" from American (U.S.) and European investments.

And if you look at places like South Korea, Japan and Taiwan, you'll see that democratic rule, in a Confucian culture, has a very different flavor from democracy in Europe, The America's and The Antipodes. But it, democracy, is still feasible there. Given the infuence of powerful economic blocks, it's debatable as to how democratic their politics are. Sound familiar?

Leninsebastopol,

As to which is more fundamental in China, Maoism or Confucianism, I think it could be argued that after the Cultural Revolution, Maoism became the base of their culture and Confucianism became an overlay.

When flying to Taipei, I read in The Lonely Planet that if one wanted to experience examples of traditional Chinese culture, it was more likely to occur in Taiwan, Singapore and places like them, because of the destruction that happened during the period between 1966 and 1976.

A more interesting question might be what are the Confucian elements in Maoism?

*****************************************

Hey Folks!

I dug up the post I wrote about teaching in the Asian Bushiban scene. I mentioned it in my first post in this thread.

It was in response to a question from Clancy about Korean culture. So that's its focus and repeats some of what I've already said here. But I've copied the whole thing, the bit about English immersion schools is most apropos.

By the way, aside from Hong Kong gangster movies on Sundance, I've also been watching some fine Korean films there as well. The one about the assassination of Park Chung Hee was particularly good. And indicative of Korean social structure and issues surrounding authority. The President's Last Bang

The following was written in early 2007:

Clancy,

I don't speak Korean, except for a couple of vile insults (the kind a twelve year old retains for life!) and a few pleasantries (learned, or reremembered later). I did live on Yongsong Base from 1967-1969. (6th and 7th Grade, the latter my first and only year at Seoul American High School, SAHS) Yonsong of course was a bubble of American culture plopped in the middle of an Asian country. It is not missed by the vast majority of the Korean people.

Most of what I know about Korean Culture and Customs came later (but was confirmed by my initial experiences) from reading and other life experience.

Korean culture is shaped by Confusionism, as are most, if not all, East Asian cultures. Specific to South Korea is the concept of chaebol (a work unit, family business, corporation to which one owes ones primary loyalty and dedication).

Confusionism, for those who have been living under a rock all of their lives, is characterized by respect for authority. The authority of parents, teachers and bosses.

In the ideal chaebol system these roles may be played by one and the same family members (but life is messier).

Children, students and workers do not complain, criticize or question authority. Someone in charge says, "Jump". You ask, "How High?"

In the twenty-something expat English Teaching scene on the Pacific Rim (Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Singapore [less need there since the official language is English]) the Korean Bushiban bosses are known as the toughest, greediest and most abusive and mendacious. Of course this is from the perspective of individualistic slacker westerners just out of party schools and looking for the easy party life. Basically we're talking about a fundamental clash of values here.

(This is a fascinating topic to explore as a writer, and someday when I find a spare minute, I hope to do so.)

Koreans are very, very tough people. Just look at their history (repulsion of repeated invasions from Manchuria, China and Japan over a period of thousands of years, militant resistance, brutally and repeatedly suppressed, to the Japanese occupation in the late eighteen hundreds through the mid-nineteen hundreds, unlike the Taiwanese, the Koreans were more or less relegated to the role of slaves, as punishment for their recalcitrance and lack of humility [i.e. step and fetchit subservience, unlike the Malayo-Polynesian culture of Taiwan with their "get along to go along" cultural attitudes] the horrors and ravages of the Korean War, etc.), their geography (a rocky peninsula jutting into the North China Sea, little arable land, a cold and rough ocean, but with a modicum of forest, alluvial plain and seafood resources), their climate (pretty much the same as Chicago's; long hot, sticky summers, long cold brutal winters, constantly blasted by freezing Siberian winds, brief temperate spring and fall) and you can understand why.

So they're extremely hard-working (some reasons listed above) very loyal to family and economic unit (often one and the same social entity) and very tough and tenacious.

I won't teach you the insults but here are the polite phrases I know:

Excuse Me / Please Forgive Me - Meeahn Ham Nee Dah / Mean Hamnida

Ham, Sam, and A in general are pronounced Hawm, Sawm, Aw, not as we pronounce cured pig thigh. Soft A, not Hard A.

(Can't recall the correct linquistics/phonetics terms, only took a basic Intro course post college, post grad school which was offered as Professional Development while working as an ESL teacher in Chi-town in 1987.)

Thank you (Informal) - Kamsamnida

Thank You (Formal) - Kamsa Hamnida


Since I left Korea, it has been transformed by the Boom Boom Capitalist development of the seventies and eighties on, it is one of the biggest and most successful Capitalist Tigers. Very modern, very urban, very technologically sophisticated.

For a film review of a great Korean modern Monster Movie see me here:

https://www.waccobb.com/forums/showthread.php?p=25952#post25952

Upon meeting, there is usually a time for socializing around tea and snacks, an exchange of gifts, casual polite conversation, before discussing any serious business. Hospitality is a key value and being an impolite host, or guest, are grounds for termination of relations.

One very good source for understanding any culture is the Lonely Planet series out of Australia. The one for Taiwan helped me get re-acquainted with the first place I remember living, when I went back in March of '97 for six months. The prefaces of those books cover much of what I have merely adumbrated here. Get a copy for South Korea and it will serve you in good stead.

Good Luck and may your arrangements bring prosperity for all involved,

[LenInSebastopol]

Podfish,
Instead of posing the question as individual freedom vs. social order, although that's a fine way to look at it, I would juxtapose the value placed on individual freedom in the west, vs. the value of loyalty to the "group" in Asian culture. And by group it can mean the family, the school, the workplace, the social network, the economic network, and society as a whole.
When I spoke about Tibet and Taiwan, gingerly, with some twenty-something antique shop assistants in Guanzhuo back in the spring of '97, they pretty much took it for granted that both territories were part of China, had always been part of China and would always be part of China. Any attempt to sway that opinion with claims to historical facts, would have been completely useless. They have been trained to believe these things and nobody is going to get them to change their minds.
Sort of like Americans (U.S.) who are convinced that the USA is the greatest, best, most just, most advanced country in the world. It's received truth and nobody is going to convince "us" of anything different.

Now wait a damn minute, Pilgrim. I know as a Europhile you have notions that countries like Sweden, Switzerland, Liechtenstein and the like are far "superior" to US. And you are dead wrong. We are the greatest ever to have come together on the planet. You may be convinced otherwise and we have had our problems (we ain't in heaven yet) but when it comes down to it, none, bar none, has done what this country has done in all of written history.
I can well imagine that the expansionism and colonization that China is going through is simply to make up for the deficit it suffered for those 500 xenophobic years and the re-writing of history to justify those lands they have taken, but arguments to the contrary may be made by the people that they slaughtered in order to 'enlighten' them to the "Chinese Way". As history clearly shows, the nation that has a strong military also has great needs and uses its military to take what they convince is rightly theirs.

There is a huge class difference between privileged party members, the new urban middle class / business class and the mass of rural and industrial poor workers. Plus there's a huge supply of casual workers (day laborers) in the cities having come from the countryside. This is a constantly changing dynamic.

The difference between classes in and out of the party is characteristic of communist countries for all of history and not surprising. From what Marxists tell me, the only place that it would not happen is here, in the Good Ole' US.
As I hear the news, farm boys and rural hicks are coming to the shiny city for work and to consume. Also to escape starvation and oppressive village life, or that may be propaganda. From what I understand the gov't's strength is based on the square of the distance from the big cities. How can one know?

The idea that economic prosperity will lead to greater individual freedom... I think that is mostly a myth used by Western companies who want to profit from doing business in Asia, China especially, and want to claim that their influence will improve things in the areas of social justice and human rights. The only thing I see them improving is their own bottom line, and the bottom line of those in power who allow them in.

That is a most interesting notion and in my ignorance of such sophisticated things, it is my simplistic approach that the more choices one may have, the more "individual expression", and thus freedom. I doubt if it is Marxist, but there is a real economic association between property and freedom. How that translates into an Asian culture is most interesting. I doubt if there will be a Hell's Angels anarchy type of individuals there, but the manifestation of an individual will grow as their wealth is gained, collectively speaking, of course.

As for Asia becoming "westernized" I wouldn't hold my breath. If you read Roland's essay, which I highly recommend, you'll see that the only forces that might help foster democracy (in the western sense) are social and political movements in those countries. Not a "trickle down" from American (U.S.) and European investments.
And if you look at places like South Korea, Japan and Taiwan, you'll see that democratic rule, in a Confucian culture, has a very different flavor from democracy in Europe, The America's and The Antipodes. But it, democracy, is still feasible there. Given the infuence of powerful economic blocks, it's debatable as to how democratic their politics are. Sound familiar?

I suppose they will never have this British notion of gov't democracy, etc. I can't wonder why when I look at them, but I can respect with curiosity their take on it. How America "forced" democracy on the vanquished Japanese in 1945 is most interesting in the way it moved out. Talk about cultural shock!

Leninsebastopol,
As to which is more fundamental in China, Maoism or Confucianism, I think it could be argued that after the Cultural Revolution, Maoism became the base of their culture and Confucianism became an overlay.

Look, we already bump heads, so I know you should not mind if I characterize anything you read and pass on as "colored" to the more-than-slightly-red, and thus propaganda.
As I recall the "Cultural Revolution" of the mid to late 60s, beside killing those that simply did not comply to Mao's whims, and the humiliation suffered by those that wore glasses or taught for example, I will not swallow the notion that a 10 year period of insanity and hysteria would wipe out a culture. The fabric of a society, its language, customs, practices, as well as beliefs simply do not "revolutionize" in that short a period. The powers that be in China make small sounds of "explaining" that period, as a matter of shame, and I am sure it will be "corrected" as it is "reinterpreted and rewritten" but unless you kill everyone over 30, the beat goes on, so to speak.

When flying to Taipei, I read in The Lonely Planet that if one wanted to experience examples of traditional Chinese culture, it was more likely to occur in Taiwan, Singapore and places like them, because of the destruction that happened during the period between 1966 and 1976.

I suppose trying to "erase" the British influence in a 10 year period, especially in those cities, took the firebomb of Cultural Revolution" but the big cities are not a total culture.

A more interesting question might be what are the Confucian elements in Maoism?

An interesting question and when I find one that can elucidate (meaning without propaganda purposes, which I dare say will be impossible for the next 100 years) I will find the time to read it. But with the link to Roland's essay, I will take time now. Thanks.

[podfish]

sorry to be snarky, but that sounds like a teenager talking about his parents. If that's an accurate statement of your philosophy of government's role in society, then you're right, there is no role for government to take, possibly outside of limiting direct expression of violence between individuals - and even then, that's the government controlling the action of a person. You're dismissing outright that any society could deliberately choose to limit unbridled individual freedom so as to promote a common vision of society. I'm not saying it's an invalid position to hold, but it pretty much is a statement of faith and makes debate pointless, at least any debate on the proper role of government or the obligations of citizens to their neighbors. Ok, that's not totally true - but it turns the discussion of interpersonal obligations into a primarily religious, not political, arena.

Let me help you, PF.
Gov't control is the same as gov't repression. ....

[podfish]

Thanks, Miles. I wasn't trying to appeal to you as an expert, but to draw out some more first-hand observations - so thanks. They actually do reinforce many of the opinions I'd formed over time, but since I have limited direct knowledge the best I can do is to try to sweep up as much information from as many sources as I can.
And just to clarify one point: when I thought they'd be 'horrified' at some expressions of our culture, I don't mean sexual ones. I'm thinking more of things like the way we are twisted up about handling mental illnesses vis-a-vis personal freedom. When reforms were made regarding institutionalization of schizophrenics, etc., because of the reluctance to apply coercive control on individuals we ended up with many of them living on the streets, unwilling to accept help but unable to care for themselves. I'm NOT trying to take a position on this here; just to highlight an issue that for other cultures may be baffling. If your society routinely enforces restrictions on its members, of course you'd see no problem with forcibly putting someone into treatment. Yes, I know that's been done nefariously by many societies... but here I'm just pointing out that it looks awful from a humanitarian perspective as well.

-- to address some of Len's recent comments, while I'm here:

Now wait a damn minute, Pilgrim. I know as a Europhile you have notions that countries like Sweden, Switzerland, Liechtenstein and the like are far "superior" to US. And you are dead wrong. We are the greatest ever to have come together on the planet. You may be convinced otherwise and we have had our problems (we ain't in heaven yet) but when it comes down to it, none, bar none, has done what this country has done in all of written history.

England's got a pretty good claim to make, as does Rome if you allow for the different time zone. If by 'greatest' you mean "who else has put men on the moon" or "who else has nuked an enemy??", I suppose so. But we lag many current and past societies in many measures, as people have repeatedly shown in other Wacco posts. 'Course, they're often measures of 'soft' things like infant mortality...

...... As history clearly shows, the nation that has a strong military also has great needs and uses its military to take what they convince is rightly theirs.

does that apply to us? I think so myself, but that doesn't sound like the kind of thing you've agreed with in the past

The difference between classes in and out of the party is characteristic of communist countries for all of history and not surprising. From what Marxists tell me, the only place that it would not happen is here, in the Good Ole' US.

I have no clue what that might mean - it sounds like you're saying that we live in a largely classless society, especially compared to communist ones? and that even they admit that their classism wouldn't really work here even after they take us over??? The U.S. is incredibly class conscious. There's more class mobility here than most places, at least as far as I understand it, but that's not equivalent to having a classless society. Because of American anti-intellectualism we're actually more sensitive to trivial class differences; we do a poor job (despite our claims to the contrary) of respecting a person for their abilities and accomplishments. Instead, we respect money and celebrity - but rarely does acquisition of either of those translate into actual movement between classes.

(comment directed at Miles) Look, we already bump heads, so I know you should not mind if I characterize anything you read and pass on as "colored" to the more-than-slightly-red, and thus propaganda. ....

I don't see how that affects the value of his comments, even if we accept your premise. There's plenty of specific assertions and references in the posts that can be directly addressed. I don't see any undefended blanket assertions that could be considered propaganda as opposed to a statement of fact or opinion.

["Mad" Miles]

Podfish,

Thanks for your kind response. Something that is getting rare on waccobb.net lately.

I am acutely aware, when making general statements about a country, or a group of people of any kind, that the truth is in the details and all generalizations are inherently inadequate, even false.

China, in the cities, has seen a huge explosion in the Arts over the last twenty years. I have a good friend who teaches in Beijing, and I periodically get updates from him about their underground scene.

Also China has over thirty different ethnic minority cultures, mostly in the south and west, who have their own extant languages, arts and crafts, social structures and belief systems. Of course with modernization those differences have faded and many of these cultures are in danger of extinction.

And, to be totally obvious, the Chinese are human beings, people, so most of what they care about are the same things we do. Family, friends, food, understanding the world around themselves, entertainment, safety, health, etc. It's just that how those things are interpreted, and justified, can be different depending on cultural differences.

Recently I read an interview on Slate.com, of Anthony Bourdain, he has some very sharp observations about cultural difference. Check it out.

As for being puzzled, or appalled, by how we treat our mentally ill, or don't treat them, I don't think you have to privilege social order and group membership, over individual rights and freedom, in order to find our methods puzzling. But the last place I would want to be treated for a mental illness, is a Chinese mental hospital! Unless it was the only choice other than one in, I don't know, Kazakhstan?


Leninsebastopol, I'm no longer interested in engaging in political debate, or pretty much discussion of any kind, with you. Frankly, the results are boring and predictable.

May I suggest you, Dark Shadows and CowGal (who I strongly suspect is the same person as DS) go on a dinner date and report back to the rest of us as to how you all got along? That might be entertaining...

[LenInSebastopol]

sorry to be snarky, but that sounds like a teenager talking about his parents. If that's an accurate statement of your philosophy of government's role in society, then you're right, there is no role for government to take, possibly outside of limiting direct expression of violence between individuals - and even then, that's the government controlling the action of a person. You're dismissing outright that any society could deliberately choose to limit unbridled individual freedom so as to promote a common vision of society. I'm not saying it's an invalid position to hold, but it pretty much is a statement of faith and makes debate pointless, at least any debate on the proper role of government or the obligations of citizens to their neighbors. Ok, that's not totally true - but it turns the discussion of interpersonal obligations into a primarily religious, not political, arena.

Well, you put me in my place and well.
My basic tenet is quite the opposite of what this site kind-of has as a basis: folks are basically selfish, evil, out for their own and ....we ain't in heaven, meaning that utopia cannot ever be made here on earth.....that gov't is made of folks (see above) however it is a necessary evil to have such as we are to live with one another. I agree with Mao and George Washington: gov't is force.
Being a necessary evil means it should be contained to a small size addressing those issues that are minimally necessary to ensure the safety of citizens, mostly foreigners. There may be other issues I've not identified, simply because I've got to go and have a day. I will enjyo addressing the issues you identified in the above but not at the moment. But you get the gist. Enjoy yours.

[LenInSebastopol]

And just to clarify one point: when I thought they'd be 'horrified' at some expressions of our culture, I don't mean sexual ones. I'm thinking more of things like the way we are twisted up about handling mental illnesses vis-a-vis personal freedom. When reforms were made regarding institutionalization of schizophrenics, etc., because of the reluctance to apply coercive control on individuals we ended up with many of them living on the streets, unwilling to accept help but unable to care for themselves. I'm NOT trying to take a position on this here; just to highlight an issue that for other cultures may be baffling. If your society routinely enforces restrictions on its members, of course you'd see no problem with forcibly putting someone into treatment. Yes, I know that's been done nefariously by many societies... but here I'm just pointing out that it looks awful from a humanitarian perspective as well.

PF, the issue of how we treat the mentally ill in this country is to complex to get one's arms around with ease. Where is the balance point? The Thomas Szaz point of view conflicts with the desire for those who determine that those souls in most downtown cities require continuous medication, follow up programs, as well as housing. When the individual is not a danger to self or others very few, none really, MDs will 5150 (Welfare & Institution Code 5150) that person. Thanks, lawyers!
Of course you allude to the facts of mental illness under Soviet rule as exposed by Alexander Solzenetsien and others a la, "The state is always right, those that disagree must be either mentally unstable or need more re-education".

-- to address some of Len's recent comments, while I'm here:
England's got a pretty good claim to make, as does Rome if you allow for the different time zone. If by 'greatest' you mean "who else has put men on the moon" or "who else has nuked an enemy??", I suppose so. But we lag many current and past societies in many measures, as people have repeatedly shown in other Wacco posts. 'Course, they're often measures of 'soft' things like infant mortality...

Please tell me of other empires that ran some kind of Marshall Plan on their defeated enemies after a major war? Japan & Germany would have achieved their excellent status in a far different timetable had we simply left them alone, or subjugated them! However Rome simply had all their vassal regions pay taxes (revoltingly heavy ones) and almost never gave them status within their empire nor assist them in gaining their former status/strength. England? Yeah, right. Their history is replete on how they treated their colonies. We had the Philippines, as well as Cuba after a war and while we held economic influence (called business) we did not treat them as England treated those they had outright conquered. Right now we are spilling our best and precious blood in countries that have.....what to offer? Iraq has oil we haven't touched....and Afghanistan has....what? We've seen photos.....nothing but rocks! What nation has treated the vanquished as we have? Beneficence where none has done before.
One of the blots on our history is slavery, more importantly racial slavery. Yeah, on the planet, every empire and "group" at every time, has had every "other" group as slaves. None have escaped. Almost to the point where folks thought it "natural" to have slaves, with far to many STILL thinking that! The blot on our history is that we went far wider than most based on race alone. The Romans, Greeks, and others made anybody slaves, but we made only Africans. It took several generations to enculturate the many disparate groups and races, and for some having "other" agendas it is still a long road to cross. All manner of endless and futile debate may continue on the speed, depth, and "completeness" of leaving the racial blight behind and moving on, but there are certain facts that are glossed over in noting the racial'ness of America. To be sure, the good fight is before us with those who have agendas contrary to the good from which notions of freedom, property, and the individual spring from.
It is too often the case that many, like progressives, love America for what they think she may become, while others love the same country for what she was and how far from the cave she brought so many into the light.

does that apply to us? I think so myself, but that doesn't sound like the kind of thing you've agreed with in the past
I have no clue what that might mean - it sounds like you're saying that we live in a largely classless society, especially compared to communist ones? and that even they admit that their classism wouldn't really work here even after they take us over??? The U.S. is incredibly class conscious. There's more class mobility here than most places, at least as far as I understand it, but that's not equivalent to having a classless society. Because of American anti-intellectualism we're actually more sensitive to trivial class differences; we do a poor job (despite our claims to the contrary) of respecting a person for their abilities and accomplishments. Instead, we respect money and celebrity - but rarely does acquisition of either of those translate into actual movement between classes.

It's late, I'm tired and your posts mandate great answers of which I am incapable. The short answer is: those that favor Marxism have come to tell each other, and believe, that the only place Marxism may be implemented, or the best place it can work, is in America....for all kinds of lame Marxists reasons, but IMO it is because it never worked in any other class or country. Weather you define us as classless, or class conscious or what have you. I believe at one time around here folks did give respect for one's accomplishments & abilities, however those virtues have been drummed out of our culture replaced by what you have identified, but only in the major cities and other wealthy places like Sonoma and the like.
It's past my beddy-bye time and today we worked like slaves....more palaver later, but I am staring your posts simply to respond in detail later.
=

["Mad" Miles]

[quote=LenInSebastopol;115964]...England? Yeah, right. Their history is replete on how they treated their colonies. We had the Philippines, as well as Cuba after a war and while we held economic influence (called business) we did not treat them as England treated those they had outright conquered. ...What nation has treated the vanquished as we have? Beneficence where none has done before.

One of the blots on our history is slavery, more importantly racial slavery. ...The blot on our history is that we went far wider than most based on race alone. The Romans, Greeks, and others made anybody slaves, but we made only Africans. ...

It is too often the case that many, like progressives, love America for what they think she may become, while others love the same country for what she was and how far from the cave she brought so many into the light. ...

The short answer is: those that favor Marxism have come to tell each other, and believe, that the only place Marxism may be implemented, or the best place it can work, is in America....

for all kinds of lame Marxists reasons, but IMO it is because it never worked in any other class or country. Weather you define us as classless, or class conscious or what have you. I believe at one time around here folks did give respect for one's accomplishments & abilities, however those virtues have been drummed out of our culture replaced by what you have identified, but only in the major cities and other wealthy places like Sonoma and the like...
[quote]


Said I wouldn't debate you any more. Still won't. But gross distortions of history require a response.

In order of excerpted quotes above.

The war to suppress the nationalist movement in the Philippines, after the U.S. seized the archipelago from Spain with the help from that same nationalist movement, was notorious for its brutality and slaughter. U.S. troops used water torture, and other forms of torture. There were concentration camps where thousands died from disease and starvation. It so sickened conscientious Americans (U.S.) that an anti-war movement, led by the likes of Samuel Clemens, rose up to oppose it. The idea that the U.S. treated the Phillipines and Cuba in ways more kindly than other European colonizers treated their colonized, is bullshit.

American slavery, while in large part racially based, did not start with Africans, it started with Indians (American). Africans came later. And there were enslaved whites, and I don't mean indentured servitude. The first racial separation laws in the American colonies, back in the 1500's were designed to "divide and conquer" the enslaved. There was too much fraternization going on between the enslaved or indentured races and poor white workers, and that was a threat to the power of the slave owners.

Oh yeah, so many people are grateful for having been "brought to the light" by American (U.S.) civilization. Keep pumping that myth for all it's worth!

I'm not a Marxist scholar, I don't read the journals, but I doubt you do either. The notion that Marxists, from any school of thought, think the U.S. is the only, or prime, territory for a "Marxist" revolution or society (Communism? Socialism? Social Democracy? Some other mutually exclusive school of thought? Please define.) is absurd. Never heard it claimed, you're making this up.

You really do hate city folk don't you? What did they do to you in the Mission to create such disgust for: Easterners, City Dwellers, Middle and Upper Middle Class Americans, Pregnant Women, White Liberals, etc.

Spouting hatred isn't discussing ideas or issues.

So predictable...

[LenInSebastopol]

Howard Zinn's stuff is all over your retorts again. No doubt you believe the Marxist interpreter of US history, though many mainstream & normal historians dismiss his pap as propaganda. But it does incite one's glands.
As we both know war, there's no such thing as a 'clean one' where there are no atrocities and illegal acts, and such was the case by US as well as our "enemies" in the Philippines. (It is noted that though the US has come far closer to anyone especially in our current issues in Muslim countries about accountability with our soldiers. That's another plus for why and how US is great.)
As I understand it, we had no interest or knowledge of the Philippines until Spain attached it to US due to their loss of the Spanish American War. Then the Philippine gov't declared war on US! And that was about five years after they started killing each other over who was to rule their own islands.
As for slavery in the US being "in large part" racially based, that could be counted as a foul ball. You did swing but only wiffed the facts so you do get a strike. Yeah, your ancestors tried using us, but we knew the area, had the skills and would disappear that night, or we would die if you sneezed in front of us, so quickly did all learn. I still don't know the difference between slaves and indentured servants, but it was mostly folks like Jimmy Carter's ancestors that were "slaves" due to Georgia being a penal institution; such minute "civil liberties" were yet defined in that era. I suppose some tried to make Whites their slaves, as that is what folks do all over the place to anyone they can, but when Africans were discovered they soon gave that rope a better pull utilizing the race card, another divisive play.
As for my 'hatred' of all you mentioned, yes, growing up in the Mission has my personal sweet memories, however it took communists like you to try twist things from a happy and personal life to one fraught with dangers (most all phony) and horrible histories (most all twisted to show how life is miserable) and that 'the struggle' is what one should dedicate their lives toward. What a pack of lies the Marxists sell! And while not being a scholar of Marx (why study a lie?) so many of your ilk sell that stuff to they young in hopes of getting the agenda completed. Talk about religion! The prisons are filled with angry young men due, in part, to the histories being peddled in their minority schools by 'pink teachers'. Some were my family and friends. If that is not injustice then folks have lost their vision to a Marxist lie. As written previously, the communists targeted Blacks in the 1930s to raise their anger and use against the cops & authorities in 'the struggle'. It didn't take fruit until 30 years later, and now so many suffer from those neighborhoods....but who cares? None to very few.
I find talking about myself boring, however you asked so...Towards the end of a school year, during the Ceaser Chavez grape days in Delano, I had a bunch of well-to-do White communist young folks try and get me involved and go down to Delano. Luckily I had a teacher that got hold of me and we talked a lot..... it became quite clear these young radicals wanted a martyr, a Jesus Christ, or someone to go down and put their life on the line for 'the cause' and mostly based on racial grounds (or so it was conveyed to me at the time).... and the means would justify their ends without a wit of thought. Being a stranger in a strange land (non White in a White culture), and thanks to that teacher, I started to look into the schizophrenic nature of what I knew to be my background and family, what was said by Marxists "thinkers" all while trying to find another POV. So though you 'think' I dislike pregnant women (more Marxist foolery) and Whites (some of the best Whites are..), city dwellers (my own family? No. Or is the city safe & happy?), you do make a valid point with Easterners. It seems they came out here to a nice place with a New York attitude and their Marxist ways of "improvement". For example Berkeley, where a scion of my family lived forever, was a quiet little town with a fine U that was almost free to attend! Then 'free speech' & radicalization explosion occurred (about the same time as Delano), and the working class town became a magnet for the Marxist trash it became. And it was the indigenous folks but those imported from the East Coast that brought the 'new wave'. However it was not contained to that nice little town but we were inundated with like minded activists. I believe the term 'red diaper babies' is applicable. And as for 'free speech', you can follow that out to what we have now! Try speaking what is not PC!
So there you have it; my life story. I know you wish to say 'boo hoo' poor little boy sees the big bad world come crashing into his little life, so grow up, we don't care', save it.That is a known. Asked & answered.
PS: now that you don't pay attention to me anymore, I can probably get more done than this waste of boring time. Good day.

[quote=Mad Miles;116016][quote=LenInSebastopol;115964]...England? Yeah, right. Their history is replete on how they treated their colonies. We had the Philippines, as well as Cuba after a war and while we held economic influence (called business) we did not treat them as England treated those they had outright conquered. ...What nation has treated the vanquished as we have? Beneficence where none has done before.

One of the blots on our history is slavery, more importantly racial slavery. ...The blot on our history is that we went far wider than most based on race alone. The Romans, Greeks, and others made anybody slaves, but we made only Africans. ...

It is too often the case that many, like progressives, love America for what they think she may become, while others love the same country for what she was and how far from the cave she brought so many into the light. ...

The short answer is: those that favor Marxism have come to tell each other, and believe, that the only place Marxism may be implemented, or the best place it can work, is in America....

for all kinds of lame Marxists reasons, but IMO it is because it never worked in any other class or country. Weather you define us as classless, or class conscious or what have you. I believe at one time around here folks did give respect for one's accomplishments & abilities, however those virtues have been drummed out of our culture replaced by what you have identified, but only in the major cities and other wealthy places like Sonoma and the like...

Said I wouldn't debate you any more. Still won't. But gross distortions of history require a response.

In order of excerpted quotes above.

The war to suppress the nationalist movement in the Philippines, after the U.S. seized the archipelago from Spain with the help from that same nationalist movement, was notorious for its brutality and slaughter. U.S. troops used water torture, and other forms of torture. There were concentration camps where thousands died from disease and starvation. It so sickened conscientious Americans (U.S.) that an anti-war movement, led by the likes of Samuel Clemens, rose up to oppose it. The idea that the U.S. treated the Phillipines and Cuba in ways more kindly than other European colonizers treated their colonized, is bullshit.

American slavery, while in large part racially based, did not start with Africans, it started with Indians (American). Africans came later. And there were enslaved whites, and I don't mean indentured servitude. The first racial separation laws in the American colonies, back in the 1500's were designed to "divide and conquer" the enslaved. There was too much fraternization going on between the enslaved or indentured races and poor white workers, and that was a threat to the power of the slave owners.

Oh yeah, so many people are grateful for having been "brought to the light" by American (U.S.) civilization. Keep pumping that myth for all it's worth!

I'm not a Marxist scholar, I don't read the journals, but I doubt you do either. The notion that Marxists, from any school of thought, think the U.S. is the only, or prime, territory for a "Marxist" revolution or society (Communism? Socialism? Social Democracy? Some other mutually exclusive school of thought? Please define.) is absurd. Never heard it claimed, you're making this up.

You really do hate city folk don't you? What did they do to you in the Mission to create such disgust for: Easterners, City Dwellers, Middle and Upper Middle Class Americans, Pregnant Women, White Liberals, etc.

Spouting hatred isn't discussing ideas or issues.

So predictable...