5 posts tagged “china”
"Tibet's spiritual leader said he wanted a "middle way" of autonomy, despite calls for independence among Tibetans."
I get the distinct impression that this bloke is some sort of a bourgeois
humanitarian.
The 'middle way' which he speaks of - which is a
perversion of Buddha's 'Middle Way' which promotes the quest for enlightenment
without self-mortification or addiction to earthly pleasures (sort of an
'anglican' buddhism) - is basically to sit-back and wait for the Chinese to
handout some empathy to the Tibetans.
What he forgets is that the
maintainence of Chinese tyranny in Tibet will,
over time, and if not resisted, accustom the people to an apathetic way of life where one
sees all creation as a means to self-aggrandizement - which is one of
the quintessential features of China's
2000 year old culture - as it is a significant degree of apathy and focus on self-interest that is
required for the acceptance of Chinese misrule and occupation. The rule is simple, where tyranny is left unresisted, into one's worldview, it is incorporated. Such incorporation is the ultimate coping method.
Secondly,
his not seeking separation from China reinforces Chinese action in
taking Tibet as alright so long as it leads to both sides learning to
live peacefully together. In this, he promotes the general perspective
that it is alright for any country to take any other country by force
so long as living peacefully together is achieved at some future date
and some degree of cultural autonomy is granted. So, analogically, Saddam
wasn't wrong for taking Kuwait years ago; Hitler wasn't wrong in taking
Austria and then attempting to take the rest of Europe; the west
weren't wrong for their colonial banditry; England wasn't wrong for
taking Ireland, amongst others; Israel wasn't wrong for taking
Palestine; etc, etc, etc. What might make it wrong is their not
working towards a peaceful coexistence.
But
learning to live peacefully together is not a virtue in itself. It is
the system within which they live that determines that. What this
bloke essentially promotes is two things -
1. It is alright to take any country by force so long as you work towards a peaceful coexistence,
2. That peaceful coexistence is a virtue in itself and the socio-economic status quo promoted amongst the people as irrelevant.
To sit on the fence, in this context, and perhaps others, is to
basically sit on the devil's trident and validate his forward march. To adopt a wait and 'see' attitude, as opposed to seizing change, is to firstly, give time to the conqueror to assimilate them to their way of seeing things, and secondly, to validate the right of any powerful nation to see-and-conquer as and when they please so long as a peaceful coexistence is arrived at eventually - no matter what the cost and consequence to human life and development.
Tibet: What's the fuss all about?
Chinese Takes More ‘Brainpower’
“Speaking Chinese may take more brainpower than speaking English, a study suggests.
Researchers in Britain have found that people who speak Mandarin use both sides of their brain to understand the language. This compares to English-language speakers who only need to use one side of their brain.”
“There is no
doubt that those having had the
freedom to determine the meaning of words via their own personally determined intonation might find Mandarin quite difficult to learn.
- ed-infinitum
The questions that occurred to myself when I read the above article was,
- Does ‘brainpower’ in this context equate with creative or critical intelligence?
- Do the rules of the Chinese language which regiment intonation (four sounds determining 4 different meanings of a single word) itself – where other cultures leave intonation to personal feelings – compromise or impose a ceiling, as a consequence, on the creative and critical propensity, promote formulaic thinking, and nurture an all round penchant for tradition as opposed to critical creativity?
- Or, perhaps, is the full potential of the Mandarin language in inciting all-round critically creative vibrancy circumscribed by other cultural factors to the point that the intonational rules of language simply serve to inhibit creative and critical vibrancy? In other words, Mandarin might hold the dual potential of making a person critical and creative or critically and creatively sedate.
- Does the brainpower that it takes to speak mandarin simultaneously circumscribe a person’s intellectual potential because of the language’s usurpation of an individual’s ability to use her/is own personal feelings to determine intonation – thus, compromising the ‘personal space’ in favour of collectively-applied linguistic rules.
- Does the relatively less ‘brainpower’ that it takes to speak English free the mind to engage in critical thinking?
- Does this degree of regimentation within a language that reduces a whole array of personally-determined intonational possibilities to 4 simple sounds actually compromise critical and creative thinking?
- And does this compromise the metaphorical value and impact of the language? In other words, since one word can refer to four different phenomena when four different sounds are applied, it may be seen to encourage metaphorical or metaphysical thinking by way of impressing upon us the generic idea that no phenomena is what it seems to be till other factors (‘sound’ in this context) are taken into consideration.
- Does the relatively angularity and harshness of written Chinese characters, along with the intonational rules, actually serve to typify, complement and reinforce the regimentation, ‘rules for its own sake’, ‘tradition for tradition’s sake’ and non-critical character of Chinese culture?
- We could also wonder if the personal freedom, enjoyed in part by 'intonational freedom' experienced by English-speakers, amongst others, might help them to learn Mandarin quicker than 'native' Mandarin speakers are able to pick up English and other languages. This is assuming intonational freedom does encourage critical thought which in turn enables one to learn anything quiker.
In sum
There is no doubt that those having had the freedom to determine the meaning of words via their own personally determined intonation might find Mandarin quite difficult to learn. However, once one becomes adept at Mandarin, and the intonation becomes similar to the spoken word in enabling the listener to understand what is being said, does this come at the price of having compromised one’s early access to personally-defined intonation which is one of the primitive inciters of individualism and personal and critical creativity?
china chinese mandarin language linguistics culture sociology psychology sociology malaysia india hong kong singapore taiwan uk science society philosophy
"If I have to shoot 200,000 students to save China from another 100 years of disorder, so be it."
- 'Minister Mentor' Lee Kuan Yew
(erstwhile Prime Minister of singapore, turned 'Minister Mentor', turned 'Senior
Minister') evoking the ghost of Deng
Xiaoping whilst endorsing the Tiananmen Square massacre, Straits Times, Aug 17,
2004 - from wikiquote
How could we justify the above perspective, given that it obviously underlay the decision of the Chinese Government under Deng Xiao Ping to reinstate 'Order'?
Let me try...
- To kill a large number of people
for the sake of 'order' can only be to do so for the sake of an elite-defined and led order.
- For, underlying such a perception is that the masses are wrong and the leader
is right, or, that the masses are always wrong and the leader is always right between elections.
- In other words, for one wo/man to define and impose a particular brand of order and mow down all dissenters is to simultaneously assert her superiority over the masses. Her success in this undertaking is itself seen as a validation of her relative superiority.
- This is when 'Order' is synonymised with the 'rule of the One', and the 'rule of the One' is appreciated as the conduit via which Order is delivered.
- This is where 'Order' itself is fetishised as it is required that it be worshipped for its own sake as opposed to its being viewed and scrutinised as a tool by all. For to subject 'order' to scientific scrutiny is to simultaneously put under the microscope their leaders, themselves, their aspirations, and the socio-economic-cultural system within which these are engendered.
- When we worship a tool, we will cease to look at who wields it and for what purpose it is applied. The existence of order is seen to be an end in itself. Thus, no despot, benevolent or otherwise, requires that the people worship him first, but rather Order. For they who fetishise Order will inevitably be led to fetishise its deliverer.
- In this, there is a parallel with Chinese history where a leader is often perceived to have lost the 'Mandate of Heaven' when disorder ensues. This, to the populace was a sign that the 'Son of Heaven' had lost the support of heaven.
- Such a people will fail to appreciate that the 'disorder' engendered by dissent can just as easily be seen as birth pangs giving birth to another state of being and not a permanent condition.
- When this is the case, all disorder that transpires usually delivers a similar status quo at the end as the people have yet to evict, a la Muhammad when he thrashed the Arabic 'pagan' Gods in the Ka'aba, the Gods of old - in this context, the 'God' that is 'Order'.
This is where, or in the space between elections, ‘democracy’ and associated freedoms can be successfully associated with ‘disorder’ and all opposition will be viewed as heresy. If this was not the case, suggesting the slaughter of a
large number of dissenting people would logically cause any non-elitist and truly representative leadership to baulk as it
would be perceived as nothing short
of pa/matricide. The Chinese people, by their witholding peaceful, Gandhian-style support from the dissenters in Tiananmen Square, would have proven the case of the elite that the government are indeed fit to be their 'fathers'. One could also argue that it would be undemocratic of the Chinese Imperium to give in to the 200,000 or so protestors where a billion of the populace abided by the dictates of Thy Father Who Art in Government and stayed home. If 'right' is judge by numerical support, then the dissenters can be viewed as occupying the extreme end of 'wrong'. In this, the dissenters may be proven to have been wrong, or the witholding of support by the rest of the population indicative of their not being ready to be treated as anything but children. Their childlike response, one could argue, validates the paternalism of the Government.
In this case, the exquisite paradox, that the Imperial Fathers of China have been fathered by their children, would be true.
Thus, in the case of the Tiananmen Square massacre, one could argue that it was an
act of self-defence in the face of attempted patricide.
Olympic Crackdown on China's Bad Habits
“Venues for next year's Beijing Olympic Games may be nearing completion but, it appears, work still needs to be done on improving people's manners.
Chinese Olympic officials fear bad habits, such as spitting, queue jumping, littering and bad language could harm China's image at next year's event.
To deal with this apparent problem, a number of campaigns have been launched to "civilise" the city.
But more than one official admits these are not always successful.”
bbc: Olympic Crackdown on China's Bad Habits
What the Chinese authorities have predictably fail to understand is that those behaviours that are generally the rule indicates a generic cause, that is, Culture. Culture can either encourage certain negative propensities or fail to put in place buffers against the amplification of these negative propensities.
In the case of China, top-down oppression-cum-suppression paired with bottom-up subservience leads to horizontal antagonism.
In an equation, it appears as,
(1)Top-down Oppression-cum-Suppression + (2)Bottom-up Subservience = (3)Horizontal Antagonism.
Top-down Oppression-cum-Suppression – refers to a totalitarian/authoritarian style government.
Bottom-up Subservience – basically refers to popular subservience to the whims and fancies of the government.
Horizontal Antagonism – refers to
mutual antagonism where the self is viewed as supreme despite the interests and
rights of all.
That is when
queue-jumping,
...spitting, bad language, the production of bad quality consumer products,
amongst others, become the norm. The self becomes supreme as the people internalise the self-serving values of their government. In other words, an evil countenanced, becomes an evil internalised. Humans have little choice but to question evil, or, as a coping strategy, turn a blind eye to it. Thus, we can, paradoxically, say, that when one turns a blind eye towards an evil, one' s evil sight is enhanced. This is the final step towards becoming one with it. This, in turn, is encouraged and exacerbated by the need to feed the growing demands of a self-aggrandizing government and oneself. Thus, when one subsists within such a milieu, all creation is gradually reduced to little more than 'use-and-abuse' value. Culture, over time, is shorn off those symbolic or perspectival elements that frown on such perspectival reorientation, or, new meanings are attached to them. Alienation becomes the perspectival norm, and opportunism and apathy gradually becomes the paradigm within which their code of ethics evolves. And within this, the ethos of the people of China underdevelops.
I have often said that the Tiananmen Square massacre was the perfect example of culture-induced apathy, just as, to some degree, the success of Gandhi was dependent on the existence of a relatively appreciable degree of empathy amongst the people, and the relative humanity of the British. Ever heard of a Chinese 'Gandhi' enjoying as much prominence and success as the Indian variant in China? Every 'Gandhi' needs a wall of empathetic people to protect her/im from destruction. Unfortunately, the only 'wall' that exists in China is that which protects the status quo. A wall of imperium-induced apathy and political impotence is all that is needed to smother every Gandhi in the crib. Thus, it is not surprising that whilst tanks rolled over protestors in Tiananmen Square, more than a billion chinese turned the apathetic cheek, and proverbially, 'saw no evil, heard no evil and spoke no evil', and in effect, became an indispensable and symbiotic part of evil itself. Sad. Very sad. Forgive the crudity, but s/he who kow tows to the self-serving whims and fancies of a government puts herself in a perfect position to flatulate on her fellow humans. That is why the following news items, amongst others, might exist,
Olympic Crackdown on China's Bad Habits
China to eradicate queue-jumping
China executions 'part of culture'
China 'selling prisoners' organs'
China abortion activist beaten
Chinese activist beaten in jail
China abortion activist sentenced
Chinese product scares prompt US fears
Scandal-hit China food firms shutList of products recalled by MattelToys recalled after safety fears
Brand China' at risk after toy recall
US warns over Chinese toothpaste
Of course such a system holds much benefits for the authorities
...as it enables the people to do unto each other that which the authorities do unto them. When the former is disallowed, it will only be a matter of time before the people look askance at the government. In other words, where the cathartic valve via which the people are able to cope with life under such a government is blocked, the people will turn on the government. Where it remains unblocked, one is able to cope, and the government enjoys longevity. This is where 'coping' in such way gradually becomes a part of one's nature and is perpetuated via its inclusion within a culture. I've always thought that one ought to be careful how one copes with an evil, lest the evil ways one copes with an evil becomes the norm of one's behaviour and attitude towards all things. Thus, the best way to cope with an evil is to address it at its source. This takes more effort and time, but the benefits are long-lasting. A wise chinese philosopher, about a thousand years ago, said, what the government is, the people will be. Most astute indeed.
Culture evolving
within such a milieu,
...will, over time, be shorn of those aspects that frown
on such attitudes and behaviours. (The outcome of cultural development, to a
significant degree, is dependent on political style and the economic system.) This is when people who practice such a
culture - or 'ways of seeing things' - will have any restraint on such attitudes and behaviours weeded out of
them, or make them less averse to behaving in such a way provided the slightest
encouragement. This breeds what I term,
Vulgar Individualism, as opposed to say, British-style *Rational Individualism where the value of another is recognised to be quite equal to one’s own.
In both milieux, one queues on cue. However, in the latter, whilst one queues on the cue given by an internalised appreciation of the significance of all others in the queue, in the former, where others are viewed as nothing more than competitors or opportunities to be taken advantage of, queueing can only be brought about by a top-down cue. The Chinese are as equal to anyone on the planet. However, having been forcibly interned (first via political oppression, then via the formation of a 'coping' culture) within such a socio-political state of affairs for more than two millennia leads to perspectival underdevelopment. This bodes ill for them in a globalised Age.
*other 'individualisms' are Islamic Universal Individualism - individuality in respect of the significance of another individual despite national boundaries,
and,
Indian or Aboriginal Metaphysical Individualism - individuality in respect, and recognised as a part, of all creation.
china culture taiwan hong kong sociology philosophy politics olympics psychology history uk malaysia singapore india news bbc
“Death penalty for China official
China has sentenced the former head of the State Food and Drug Administration to death after he was convicted of corruption, state media has reported.
Zheng Xiaoyu was convicted on charges of taking bribes and of dereliction of duty, Xinhua news agency reported.
The sentence is unusually harsh for a senior figure, but Zheng could have his sentence reduced to life on appeal.
The verdict came as the government announced plans for the first ever recall system of unsafe food products.
China has been under pressure to act over
increasing concern both at home and abroad about the poor standards of
Chinese-produced food and medicines.”
The more
globally prominent the crime, the more status-endowed the scapegoat.
It is the goodness-of-fit between the latter
and the former that would give the impression that something significant is
being done about the problem. In other words, the status of the person must fit the magnitude of the crime, especially where the crime receives global attention. If some poor sod peddling homegrown bean sprouts is dragged off the street and blamed for a crime of such proportions, it comes across as indicative of governmental impotence. However, if it is a person of status who is indicted, the government can say that it is a case of an abuse of power and the trust that has to usually be accorded to a person granted such power. Thus, the state maintains its blamelessness.
However, Zheng
Xiaoyu is himself a victim.
Reared within
a 2 millennial old system – from the end of the 'Chou era' to the present – that has
forcibly trained the Chinese people to view humans as a mere resource and means to a
self-aggrandizing end, as illustrated, amongst others, by officially overseen human organ
harvesting and totalitarian exploitation and control of the rest of the masses; the
treatment of all life in a similar manner as evidenced by sharks, dogs, cats,
monkeys brains, drunken prawns, etc, being perceived as there for our gastronomic pleasure ‘dead
or alive’; a political milieu that makes it difficult for the masses to
practice compassion or empathy with any appreciable degree of consistency as
they are burdened with the dual responsibility of surviving and feeding an
authoritative leviathan whilst under continuous threat of imprisonment should
they go against such a system; people like Zheng Xiaoyu are simply inevitable
consequences of such a cultural system (ironically, when said with a particular intonation, 'xiaoyu' could be
translated as 'small fish'...methinks 'tis time to identify the 'big
fish').
Profit is paramount. The only 'rights' humans are perceived to have within such a perspectival system is the right to do unto others as they are done unto by those ruling them. The government is the supreme moral exemplar impressing upon all that people are nothing but a resource; that such a resource is to be exploited; and that the resulting power and wealth can only be enjoyed by being authoritarian and self-centred when they themselves 'make it'. Thus, just as they are perceived, they perceive. The alternative is to challenge authority. But as this is frequently handled by violence by the state, they are left, as they have been left with for more than 2000 years, the only option - assimilating one's personality with the state's perspective. That is the only way such a system, and the people reared within such a state of affairs, can survive.
It is not poor
Zheng but the cultural system that ought to be indicted.
As for Zheng, I feel sorry for him. What other alternative approaches to human civilisation had this perspectival system offered him? Sad.
We kill off the most blatant and logical consequences of systems in order to
put these systems across as blameless. We ought not to 'respect cultures' in its entirety. All cultures have good and bad elements emerging from various types of history that can either increase or reduce empathy and critical thought. When we free ourselves from our attributed 'race' and 'culture', we
would have taken the first steps towards opening up ourselves and
taking on the best elements of various cultures within ourselves. We do the same in the case of individual development. So why can this not apply in the case of cultures?
What the
Chinese government is doing, in this case, may be termed as the ‘microcosmicisation
of evil’. That is, locating it within
the individual her/imself so as to detract the masses from the foundational culpability
of the macrocosm(the system). It is not dissimilar to the medieval 'Christian' attempt to 'blame the devil' and 'witches' and 'heretics'; or Americans blaming 'extremists' and 'madmen'. Till any system has been fully dissected and its innards and the interrelationship between these allegedly disparate parts are inquired after with regards to its contribution to the development of evil individuals, I cannot but blush when I ready myself to cast a stone at a particular individual if I do not simultaneously complement these efforts with a well-directed trebuchet at the system that had fathered her/im.
china culture asia culture uk news malaysia singapore philippines india hong kong thailand sociology psychology chinese culture
