|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
 Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 6:11 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| What people seem to forget, or be totally ignorant of, is that China was a very successful economy (by global standards) before the Japanese took it over. It was the largest GDP at the turn of the century. There already was a developing industrial base before the Japanese and Mao did not add to it. He did not. What he did do was totally destroy traditional Chinese culture (which is the crime of his I care the least about) which was very top-down. My colleagues from the PRC, who are government diplomats on leave from Ghana, say that China will never, ever be Chinese ever again as Mao undid the way that the Chinese saw the world. Much like the Japanese in Korea. And perhaps that is why in both nations (China and Korea) wacky Christianity and wild materialism are spreading like wildfire. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Privateer
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Location: Easy Street.
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 6:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BJWD wrote: |
| What people seem to forget, or be totally ignorant of, is that China was a very successful economy (by global standards) before the Japanese took it over. It was the largest GDP at the turn of the century. There already was a developing industrial base before the Japanese and Mao did not add to it. He did not. What he did do was totally destroy traditional Chinese culture (which is the crime of his I care the least about) which was very top-down. My colleagues from the PRC, who are government diplomats on leave from Ghana, say that China will never, ever be Chinese ever again as Mao undid the way that the Chinese saw the world. Much like the Japanese in Korea. And perhaps that is why in both nations (China and Korea) wacky Christianity and wild materialism are spreading like wildfire. |
At a guess, I'd say most of that industrial base was built by European and American capitalists?
Also, I imagine Mao supporters would argue the destruction of traditional culture was a necessary first step toward modernization. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 6:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't know.
Anyhow, I've said my bit. And what little respect I had left for the Guardian (I enjoy their Iraq coverage, seriously) is gone. I'm done with it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemcgarrett
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 6:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
BJWD:
The Guardian is like most of the British print media these days: it's advocacy over reporting. And the NYT is going the same path, sadly enough. At least The Christian Science Monitor is still going strong.
If we want to glorify a Chinese leader, my yuan's on Sun ZhongShan.
Interesting sidenote:
I was in Tiananmen Square the morning after the 50th Anniversary celebration for the CCP and they still had the floats there. Three portraits were prominent among them and guess whose was by far the largest?
Yep, Sun's. And that wasn't a coincidence but a silent symbolic statement the Western media never mentioned. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChimpumCallao
Joined: 17 May 2005
Location: your mom
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 6:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ddeubel wrote: |
I think this same arguement can be attempted on the current "regime" also.
Much corruption, state murder, tyranny, waste, famine, poverty, injustice etc........ presently. Even though there is economic progress and some liberalization -- I don't think we should still put up with these "negatives" and say, "Oh well, they can be forgiven." No way and same with Mao revisionism.
Just one year out of the cultural revolution alone, is enough to condemn him to infamy and damnation.
DD |
Well put.
And when the king of all lefties disagrees with you BB, you know you've kind of gone off the deep end.
Mao did nothing but systematically destroy Chinese people in every way possible. Their ideas, their culture, religion, economy...not to mention the tens of millions of murders. And for the guardian to so glibly state he was "cruel" but "laid some good foundations" is shockingly ballsy and deranged. Apart from the fact that those foundations are a bold faced lie, mass murders, enslavement, and the destruction of people's spirits and freedoms are never justified by ANYTHING.
If you fancy this 'means to an end' system, where are your articles on Pinochet? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 5:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stevemcgarrett wrote: |
Big Bird:
I realize you're a leftist sympathisizer but how do you expect those of us who aren't to take this article seriously? It's from a leftist rag, The Guardian, which clings to neo-Marxist analysis of history.
If you doubt me, consider this: Would they ever try to rehabilitate the historical image of Mussolini? More people were senselessly killed under Mao than Mussolini? Oh, but wait, he was a fascist so we can't have any of that.
I always laugh how the commies try to distance themselves morally from the fascists; they're both birds of a feather, that is, totalitarians.
Have you read the most recent biography of Mao by the author of Wild Swans? If not, I suggest you pick up a copy online.
You need reeducation.
But let me entertain The Guardian's thesis. Had the Guomindang remained in power they would have received considerable American economic assistance, which in turn (despite admittedly rampant corruption) would have led to China's modernization decades before Deng Xiaoping facilitated it. And the old habits were already dying, especially in large urban coastal areas, long before Mao came to power.
This article reminds me of the Hitler revisionists who claim, you know he was really adept at diplomatic maneuvering and improved the German economy immensely. |
SM: I realise you are a thoughtless twit, who hasn't noticed that Big_Bird is not the author of the article. When I read the article I thought that Mao and China would make a bit of change from the usual topics posted on this forum, and might generate some interesting discussion, and so I created this thread. It's also a topic of great interest to me as I have lived in China and travelled extensively there, and listened with interest to the various views people there hold of Mao. There has been a move by the communist party to rehabiliate him (I saw this myself watching State TV and reading the State approved English newsrag), and many of the younger generation now seem to revere him - and seem to know very little of his darker side. Older Chinese I've spoken with, and those that have travelled outside the country often feel quite bitter about him (although they can only discuss this with great secrecy). At no point on this thread have I yet stated my own views on Mao.
I knew however, that several idiots would come along and confuse the views (or their percieved views) of the author with that of my own. Not surprised to see that you were the first. Congratulations.
Chimp wins second prize. No surprise there either. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChimpumCallao
Joined: 17 May 2005
Location: your mom
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 6:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| stevemcgarrett wrote: |
Big Bird:
I realize you're a leftist sympathisizer but how do you expect those of us who aren't to take this article seriously? It's from a leftist rag, The Guardian, which clings to neo-Marxist analysis of history.
If you doubt me, consider this: Would they ever try to rehabilitate the historical image of Mussolini? More people were senselessly killed under Mao than Mussolini? Oh, but wait, he was a fascist so we can't have any of that.
I always laugh how the commies try to distance themselves morally from the fascists; they're both birds of a feather, that is, totalitarians.
Have you read the most recent biography of Mao by the author of Wild Swans? If not, I suggest you pick up a copy online.
You need reeducation.
But let me entertain The Guardian's thesis. Had the Guomindang remained in power they would have received considerable American economic assistance, which in turn (despite admittedly rampant corruption) would have led to China's modernization decades before Deng Xiaoping facilitated it. And the old habits were already dying, especially in large urban coastal areas, long before Mao came to power.
This article reminds me of the Hitler revisionists who claim, you know he was really adept at diplomatic maneuvering and improved the German economy immensely. |
SM: I realise you are a thoughtless twit, who hasn't noticed that Big_Bird is not the author of the article. When I read the article I thought that Mao and China would make a bit of change from the usual topics posted on this forum, and might generate some interesting discussion, and so I created this thread. It's also a topic of great interest to me as I have lived in China and travelled extensively there, and listened with interest to the various views people there hold of Mao. There has been a move by the communist party to rehabiliate him (I saw this myself watching State TV and reading the State approved English newsrag), and many of the younger generation now seem to revere him - and seem to know very little of his darker side. Older Chinese I've spoken with, and those that have travelled outside the country often feel quite bitter about him (although they can only discuss this with great secrecy). At no point on this thread have I yet stated my own views on Mao.
I knew however, that several idiots would come along and confuse the views (or their percieved views) of the author with that of my own. Not surprised to see that you were the first. Congratulations.
Chimp wins second prize. No surprise there either. |
So you wanted to generate a discussion on Mao and China and THIS is the only article you found? This was best choice? Why would you post an article that was supposedly contrary to your opinion without stating "Look at this crazy dribble! Can you believe they wrote this?"
I understand your MO is just posting articles because you are either too lazy or scared to post your own CRAZY opinions about the world, so you let the Guardian do it for you. I don't think, despite your backtracking, that this was any different.
Nice to call SM a twit because he disagrees with you. I'd expect no less. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 7:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ChimpumCallao wrote: |
So you wanted to generate a discussion on Mao and China and THIS is the only article you found? This was best choice? |
No, I was reading the paper, and there happened to be an article on Mao. "That might generate some interesting discussion on the CE forum" thought I. "After all, people are always complaining there's not enough variety of topics." There is no law that I then had to trawl around for other articles to please you. Trawl for your own.
| Quote: |
| Why would you post an article that was supposedly contrary to your opinion without stating "Look at this crazy dribble! Can you believe they wrote this?" |
Why? That's your style. That seems to be your schoolgirl reaction to most things..."Oh that's so Crazy!!! - Oh he's so Stupid!!!!" ....and I find rather grating to tell the truth.
| Quote: |
| I understand your MO is just posting articles because you are either too lazy or scared to post your own CRAZY opinions about the world, so you let the Guardian do it for you. I don't think, despite your backtracking, that this was any different. |
<chuckles>
| Quote: |
| Nice to call SM a twit because he disagrees with you. I'd expect no less. |
He doesn't even know my opinion on this topic, and neither do you (though you smugly imagine you do), so how can you say he's disagreeing with me? In fact, I don't think someone is a twit merely for disagreeing with me. I'm interested in other points of view. I think he's a twit because of a) his childish need get so personal with me, instead of discussing the topic in hand and b) his penchant for making (quite wrong) assumptions about my views and motives.
These are also the reasons I've never held any respect for you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 7:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You presented the opinion of the author as if it were your own. Look at the title of the op. It is a statement of opinion, as posted by you. You comment before the article itself, that it is "interesting" does not suggest that in any way you disagree with the (very wrong and dishonest) positions of the author. The OP was very much presented in a way that suggested that it was (as it is) your opinion.
Don't try and backtrack. If I posted an article with a very controversial opinion and didn't distance myself from the opinion straight away, people would rightly assume that I was endorsing that opinion. In fact, I would say that the VAST majority of articles posted reflect the opinion, in some way, of the person who posted it.
Maybe you are embarrassed, and that is ok. You should be. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 7:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BJWD wrote: |
You presented the opinion of the author as if it were your own. Look at the title of the op. It is a statement of opinion, as posted by you. You comment before the article itself, that it is "interesting" does not suggest that in any way you disagree with the (very wrong and dishonest) positions of the author. The OP was very much presented in a way that suggested that it was (as it is) your opinion.
. |
Don't be such a twit. I used the title of the article for the OP, because it was attention getting. In that it was successful. It got your attention. I made a very neutral comment about the article being interesting. That appears to be the case as you yourself found it very interesting, so much so that you put a great deal of effort into responding to it. People like yourself who assume I was endorsing the article (whatever the article is supposedly endorsing) have only yourselves to blame if you jump to silly baseless conclusions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 7:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| You are backtracking. Just say you are embarrassed and be done with it. I have admitted wrong many times. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 7:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Big_Bird, the OP plus thread title really don't give any hint that you disagree with the author of that article.
And I'd say that the statement 'Mao was cruel and laid the ground for today's China' seems much more apt - China is still a cruel and brutal place, is it not? The 'but' just doesn't seem necessary, since there's no real contrast to be made.
Mao was a criminal and a monster and Maoism is a sickening ideology. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChimpumCallao
Joined: 17 May 2005
Location: your mom
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Nice to call SM a twit because he disagrees with you. I'd expect no less.
He doesn't even know my opinion on this topic, and neither do you (though you smugly imagine you do) |
I believe we've been down this road before...you post an article, people then ask you to clarify your opinion...you never do.
SO....
What. Is. Your. Opinion. (?) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemcgarrett
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
BJWD:
| Quote: |
| You presented the opinion of the author as if it were your own. Look at the title of the op. It is a statement of opinion, as posted by you. You comment before the article itself, that it is "interesting" does not suggest that in any way you disagree with the (very wrong and dishonest) positions of the author. The OP was very much presented in a way that suggested that it was (as it is) your opinion. Don't try and backtrack. If I posted an article with a very controversial opinion and didn't distance myself from the opinion straight away, people would rightly assume that I was endorsing that opinion. In fact, I would say that the VAST majority of articles posted reflect the opinion, in some way, of the person who posted it. Maybe you are embarrassed, and that is ok. You should be. |
Couldn't have said it better myself. Big Bird doesn't even have the strength of his own convictions, so it's not surprising. Leftists blow with the prevailing winds.
Big Bird:
I realize there has been a movement afoot to rehabilitate Mao for the youth. Even taxi drivers keep little Mao buttons dangling from their rear view mirrors. Sometimes it's just kitsch, sometimes seriously meant. One sees it in the new bills, all of which now has Mao's portrait on it. But it won't work try as they might. It's a temporary stay of historical execution. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JongnoGuru
Joined: 25 May 2004
Location: peeing on your doorstep
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hitler was cruel -- but also laid the groundwork for today's PETA-supporting vegetarians. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
