Author: TheRedPill

CHINA: Is China MORE Wise than West?   [Copy link] 中文

Rank: 8Rank: 8

2016 Most Valuable Member Medal Gold Medal

Post time 2016-12-4 16:51:54 |Display all floors
abcfirst Post time: 2016-12-4 14:07
Sound like you are talking of Vietnam, Japan, the Philippines or the Western nations.  The latter ev ...



And let us talk about Chinese subjugating foreign peoples in other continents or countries:

Taiwan has the only Chinese goverment that has had the decency of owning up for crimes by the Chinese colonisers: It has officially apologised to the Native Formosans for robbing their country and making it a Chinese state.

Will China ever have a responsible goverment that has the courage to do the same???

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 4

Post time 2016-12-4 18:29:53 |Display all floors
seneca Post time: 2016-12-4 16:51
And let us talk about Chinese subjugating foreign peoples in other continents or countries:

Tai ...

China has always treated minorities as equals.  It was the Taiwanese who treated them as inferiors for more than a century.  Of course, they have to apologize, but they are much better than the Australians, because the aborigines in Taiwan did get special privileges from the Taiwanese government, while the Australian aborigines got only a warning that they should not expect any reparations despite the apology given to them for show only.  And, what reparations have the Black Americans received so far?  Not even an apology!  Or the Mexicans, to whom all the Western states belonged originally - they are now treated as illegal immigrants in the land of their forefathers!

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 4

Post time 2016-12-4 18:32:37 |Display all floors
And don't forget the Native Americans in Standing Rock, North Dakota, who are being evicted as trespassers in the land their forefathers owned, free and clear, before they ware invaded.  Isn't it a shame that neither Obama or Trump are standing up for them?  Aren't you embarrassed?

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Medal of honor

Post time 2016-12-4 19:42:40 |Display all floors
abcfirst Post time: 2016-12-4 18:29
China has always treated minorities as equals.  It was the Taiwanese who treated them as inferiors ...

What the hell are you talking about? Australia has spent billions on Aboriginal compensatory action. Just in the last few years if we took the so-called 'bridging the gap' billions out of the budget Australia would be in surplus. Australia has been spending billions on Aboriginals since Gough Whitlam in the 60s. Many many billions on Aboriginals and for little change. And if anyone should be compensating Aboriginals and saying sorry to them it should be England not us.

Aboriginals do not own Australia anyway and they do not deserve any compensation. When did this compensation nonsense begin anyway? Are we paying compensation to Aboriginals so that Jews can be compensated by the Nazi for the holocaust? Does all of this affirmative action minority nonsense only exist for the protection of Jews? Did these so-called 'first people' come up with all of this junk or was it Jews after WW2? God gave Israel to Jews right? Are Jews the 'first people' of Israel? Or the Amaleks? Jews are responsible for all of this minority nonsense that has come about since WW2.

In Australia there is a big push from conservatives to change our anti-vilification laws that say that Australians cant say anything that may offend an Aboriginal. And guess who are the only group that is pushing hard to keep the laws in place. Jews. Australian Jews. Australian Jews do not want anti-vilification laws changed because they fear that someone may be able to say something about a Jew that may offend them. See the laws do not even exist for Aboriginals - they exist for Jews. But everyone is sick of all this minority and identity politics and most people want the law to change because it is quite ridiculous. The laws go too far and the point of them is really not to prevent racism or discrimination - the point of the laws is to prevent debate and criticism. Jews do not want anyone to be able to say a bad word about them or be critical of them in any way even if the criticism is constructive or justified.

And look at how the leftists that love to protect minorities hate Israel. The left that support the idiotic affirmative action for minorities and and minority/identity politics are the ones that hate Israel the most. So it is really not in the best interest of Jews to keep pushing this leftist nonsense because to do so creates a situation where all the leftists come together to hate Israel and to vote against them in the UN and to call for boycotts on Israel and to call for Palestinian statehood. And the right are sick to death of minority/identity politics and want to get rid of all this nonsense that protects Jews from all criticism. It is a pretty comical situation that Jews are in right now.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Medal of honor

Post time 2016-12-4 19:56:27 |Display all floors
Confucianism is influenced by and essentially comes from the ancient west.

In the west children are seen by many as being a burden and many do not want them so our birthrates are very low. If western populations of European 'whites' is shrinking it is because less and less of us care about children. In more traditional societies people still want to have children and often many children. but gone are the days of big Catholic families or any big 'white' families really. You could claim that the lower birth rates are due to the fact that children cost so much now days and that is probably a factor but more than that I think the main thing is that westerners increasingly do not want children. And it is not as if this hasnt happened before. When Octavian was ruler of Rome the citizens were not getting married and not having children because things were good and children and also marriage were seen as being burdens by many. Octavian was worried about the low birthrates and low marriage rates because he needed the masses to breed so that there was a good supply of troops and workers. So Octavian made reforms that encouraged couples to marry and to breed. In the west we just bring in immigrants from other countries - and we do have to because if western nations end up with small populations then we will not be powerful. Imagine how small Englands population would be with no immigration since WW2 and then imagine how weak it would make them to have such a small population.

But anyway - Confucianism is influenced by and essentially comes from the ancient west. The ancient west was a virtue-based society which was a lot closer to so-called 'social darwinism'. What genius decided that modern Christian western societies are an example of social darwinism anyway? That is an utter nonsense. Have these people read Might is Right? The modern west is in no way so-called 'social darwinism'. My God most people are utterly stupid. What nonsense most people go on with.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2016-12-4 23:30:11 |Display all floors
seneca Post time: 2016-12-4 16:51
And let us talk about Chinese subjugating foreign peoples in other continents or countries:

Tai ...

Why the helll you did not ask the Japanese to apologise to the Chinese people for colonising China Manchuria ?

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 4

Post time 2016-12-5 05:18:12 |Display all floors
Kevin Rudd, Australian PM, said to Parliament on February 13, 2008, the following:

"The nation is demanding of its political leadership to take us forward. Decency, human decency, universal human decency, demands that the nation now step forward to right a historical wrong. That is what we are doing in this place today. But should there still be doubts as to why we must now act, let the parliament reflect for a moment on the following facts: that, between 1910 and 1970, between 10 and 30 per cent of Indigenous children were forcibly taken from their mothers and fathers; that, as a result, up to 50,000 children were forcibly taken from their families; that this was the product of the deliberate, calculated policies of the state as reflected in the explicit powers given to them under statute; that this policy was taken to such extremes by some in administrative authority that the forced extractions of children of so-called ‘mixed lineage’ were seen as part of a broader policy of dealing with ‘the problem of the Aboriginal population’.

One of the most notorious examples of this approach was from the Northern Territory Protector of Natives, who stated:


Generally by the fifth and invariably by the sixth generation, all native characteristics of the Australian aborigine are eradicated. The problem of our half-castes — to quote the Protector — will quickly be eliminated by the complete disappearance of the black race, and the swift submergence of their progeny in the white ...

The Western Australian Protector of Natives expressed not dissimilar views, expounding them at length in Canberra in 1937 at the first national conference on Indigenous affairs that brought together the Commonwealth and state protectors of natives. These are uncomfortable things to be brought out into the light. They are not pleasant. They are profoundly disturbing. But we must acknowledge these facts if we are to deal once and for all with the argument that the policy of generic forced separation was somehow well motivated, justified by its historical context and, as a result, unworthy of any apology today.

Then we come to the argument of intergenerational responsibility, also used by some to argue against giving an apology today. But let us remember the fact that the forced removal of Aboriginal children was happening as late as the early 1970s. The 1970s is not exactly a point in remote antiquity. There are still serving members of this parliament who were first elected to this place in the early 1970s. It is well within the adult memory span of many of us. The uncomfortable truth for us all is that the parliaments of the nation, individually and collectively, enacted statutes and delegated authority under those statutes that made the forced removal of children on racial grounds fully lawful."

There are 450,000 aborigines among Australia's 21 million population.  There is no law mandating reparations to them because of difficulty proving their claims.  Now, Rudd is better than Howard, who refused to apologize at all on the theory that even if he inherited the wealth of his forefathers who took the land from the aborigines, he does not inherit their debts to the estates of the aborigines.  Frankly speaking, all of Australia belongs to the natives.  How about awarding a Rio Tinto to the natives as a token replacement of some of their losses?  A half a dozen of Darwin Stubby or six of Bundaberg Bundy will not do.



Use magic tools Report

You can't reply post until you log in Log in | register

BACK TO THE TOP
Contact us:Tel: (86)010-84883548, Email: blog@chinadaily.com.cn
Blog announcement:| We reserve the right, and you authorize us, to use content, including words, photos and videos, which you provide to our blog
platform, for non-profit purposes on China Daily media, comprising newspaper, website, iPad and other social media accounts.