4 ms·

What’s racist about it? The Chinese state has a very long and well documented history of brutal authoritarianism spanning many emperors and dynasties. Mao didn

What’s racist about it? The Chinese state has a very long and well documented history of brutal authoritarianism spanning many emperors and dynasties. Mao didn’t change that and neither did Xi. If you think I meant anything about Chinese individuals maybe you should re-examine my words and your conclusions...

emodendroket 8y ago
I think you're a bit confused about the nature and continuity of the "Chinese state." How do you account, for instance, for warlords ruling the country in the early 20th C., if it's just a series of emperors ruling a unified country for thousands of years? Given the fractured continuity, it seems to me that you could only argue for the unchanging cruelty of Chinese rule by arguing that there's something cruel about Chinese people or their culture.
- rm_-rf_slash 8y ago
  Wew lad, that’s an awful lot of words you’re putting into my mouth. If I had argued similarly that the American state has a history of brutality, which it does (Native American genocide, slavery, colonialism, for-profit prison labor, etc) am I subsequently arguing that Americans themselves are cruel? Of course not. Self-centered, detached, unaware of their constitutional privileges to change things or unwilling to use them, perhaps. But certainly not cruel. I would welcome a discussion about the nuances of Chinese dynasties, individual emperors, interdynastic states of affairs, and so on, but come on, but let’s at least have a conversation in good faith, ok? Perhaps a point to start with: individuals with very little power compared to the state have little to no say in the state’s affairs. If the state is brutal and cruel, how much of that is their responsibility? Could they be blamed for political inactivity if it only brings suffering on their household? Are they complicit in th activities of the state if they merely want to make money and live a comfortable life with their friends and families, given that they pay taxes which are used for wars and state suppression?
  - emodendroket 8y ago
    America is a poor example because it has only existed for a few hundred years with essentially continuous government. My objection to what you're saying is that you want to lump together every various dynasty that's ruled China with every modern government, when there is little basis for doing so besides ethnic ones. Would you appeal to the cruelty of the Merovingians to say France has always been cruel? I'd guess the thought wouldn't even occur to you.
    - rm_-rf_slash 8y ago
      I think there is a flaw in your line of reasoning. Many bureaucratic structures, such as the general structure of government and military, withstood the test of time throughout dynasties and interdynastic periods. For a state that governed huge areas with significant diversity in ethnicities and languages, that is very impressive! If it aint broke don’t fix it, you know? But those same structures were very much top-down methods of management, with little room for dissent. It’s not as if all Chinese (which is a very broad definition because there are many many millions of Chinese citizens who are not Han) got to sit down together every few years or decades and decide what kind of state and society they wanted to live in. The vast majority of all of humanity largely had the structure of their societies decided for them by the ghosts of the past and the structures that survived. We are always swimming through the inertia of our pasts. Anyway, I hope that is more instructive of the point I am trying to make. Ethnicity doesn’t just poof into a structure of government, in a China or anywhere or anywhen else. Edit: funny you mention France after your edit, because I was considering saying that Europe as a whole before 1945 was no picnic either. That’s why my ancestors - from four different countries, no less - got up and left for America. Nevertheless, the period of time between WWII and now is the longest Western Europe has gone without a war since the time of Rome. That’s of course not to say that Western Europeans are inherently warlike. Peasants don’t get to choose the wars their lords and kings send them off to fight. It’s quite remarkable how quickly things can change sometimes.
      - emodendroket 8y ago
        I don't quite agree, but I'm sorry the language I used was excessively inflammatory.

emodendroket 8y ago

I think you're a bit confused about the nature and continuity of the "Chinese state." How do you account, for instance, for warlords ruling the country in the early 20th C., if it's just a series of emperors ruling a unified country for thousands of years? Given the fractured continuity, it seems to me that you could only argue for the unchanging cruelty of Chinese rule by arguing that there's something cruel about Chinese people or their culture.

rm_-rf_slash 8y ago
Wew lad, that’s an awful lot of words you’re putting into my mouth. If I had argued similarly that the American state has a history of brutality, which it does (Native American genocide, slavery, colonialism, for-profit prison labor, etc) am I subsequently arguing that Americans themselves are cruel? Of course not. Self-centered, detached, unaware of their constitutional privileges to change things or unwilling to use them, perhaps. But certainly not cruel. I would welcome a discussion about the nuances of Chinese dynasties, individual emperors, interdynastic states of affairs, and so on, but come on, but let’s at least have a conversation in good faith, ok? Perhaps a point to start with: individuals with very little power compared to the state have little to no say in the state’s affairs. If the state is brutal and cruel, how much of that is their responsibility? Could they be blamed for political inactivity if it only brings suffering on their household? Are they complicit in th activities of the state if they merely want to make money and live a comfortable life with their friends and families, given that they pay taxes which are used for wars and state suppression?
- emodendroket 8y ago
  America is a poor example because it has only existed for a few hundred years with essentially continuous government. My objection to what you're saying is that you want to lump together every various dynasty that's ruled China with every modern government, when there is little basis for doing so besides ethnic ones. Would you appeal to the cruelty of the Merovingians to say France has always been cruel? I'd guess the thought wouldn't even occur to you.
  - rm_-rf_slash 8y ago
    I think there is a flaw in your line of reasoning. Many bureaucratic structures, such as the general structure of government and military, withstood the test of time throughout dynasties and interdynastic periods. For a state that governed huge areas with significant diversity in ethnicities and languages, that is very impressive! If it aint broke don’t fix it, you know? But those same structures were very much top-down methods of management, with little room for dissent. It’s not as if all Chinese (which is a very broad definition because there are many many millions of Chinese citizens who are not Han) got to sit down together every few years or decades and decide what kind of state and society they wanted to live in. The vast majority of all of humanity largely had the structure of their societies decided for them by the ghosts of the past and the structures that survived. We are always swimming through the inertia of our pasts. Anyway, I hope that is more instructive of the point I am trying to make. Ethnicity doesn’t just poof into a structure of government, in a China or anywhere or anywhen else. Edit: funny you mention France after your edit, because I was considering saying that Europe as a whole before 1945 was no picnic either. That’s why my ancestors - from four different countries, no less - got up and left for America. Nevertheless, the period of time between WWII and now is the longest Western Europe has gone without a war since the time of Rome. That’s of course not to say that Western Europeans are inherently warlike. Peasants don’t get to choose the wars their lords and kings send them off to fight. It’s quite remarkable how quickly things can change sometimes.
    - emodendroket 8y ago
      I don't quite agree, but I'm sorry the language I used was excessively inflammatory.