7 ms·

China is where the USA was in the 1950s; lots of industrial growth but lots of pollutions, a population happy about all the new wealth and not willing to protes

China is where the USA was in the 1950s; lots of industrial growth but lots of pollutions, a population happy about all the new wealth and not willing to protest.

loyukfai 7y ago
When did protest start to become common in the states?
- JoeAltmaier 7y ago
  Well in 1688 Quakers in America protested against slavery. 1773: Boston Tea Party. Temperance in the 1800's. Women's Vote in 1913. But they entered the public awareness in 1963 with the March on Washington, and haven't let up since.
  - big_chungus 7y ago
    It's a bit sad, but I believe "protests" have lost their meaning. All of what you described were meaningful events, but it these days some one is always protesting something. For instance, there are "women's marches" every year turning out tons of people in a society where equal rights are constitutionally enshrined. That probably doesn't merit such an event. My concern is that if, Heaven forbid, there is ever again something worth protesting to that degree, no one will pay attention. Regular Americans, rather than being swayed, will look on and say, "Oh look honey, the kids are protesting again."
    - pstuart 7y ago
      > a society where equal rights are constitutionally enshrined I don't think they are as "enshrined" as you think they are.
    - noio 7y ago
      Are you talking about the US? I though the Equal Rights Amendment was not yet ratified, and that equal rights are thus not actually 'constitutionally enshrined'?
      - the_watcher 7y ago
        The ERA is not the only way or attempt in the Constitution at enshrining equal rights. The ERA is about sex specifically, which is arguably already covered by the text of the 14th Amendment (some may disagree about the 14th Amendment in practice, but it's hard to argue that the text doesn't cover sex).
    - admax88q 7y ago
      I imagine that to most people living though those protests at the time they were viewed as "someone is always protesting something." Don't underestimate how the narrative telling of history changes your perception of how something went down compared to what your own observations are right now. Survivorship bias ensures that history only remembers the protests that were meaningful, making it seem like protests were historically more effective and more meaningful.
    - lrdd 7y ago
      Legal equality != true societal equality
  - resters 7y ago
    > and haven't let up since. Or one could observe that it has completely let up and now most Americans are cynical about protests and cheer on authoritarian figures from both parties.
- pcmaffey 7y ago
  Returning GIs from WW2 protested, resulting in the GI bill. Women protested in the 1910s for the right to votes. My guess is it’s an industrial revolution side effect, but would be love to learn of earlier roots.
  - neaden 7y ago
    The Bonus Army occupying D.C in 32 probably belongs on any list of significant protests as well.
- andrekandre 7y ago
  protests have been going on in the us for a long time, for example the labor movement in early 20th century but probably what you are referring to is post world war 2, which mostly started in the 1960s caused by the vietnam war and civil rights movements brought about by myriad causes (middle class affluence, mass communications, overextending of the govt overseas (and at home with the draft etc)) wikipedia, but it’s as god a place to start as any[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterculture_of_the_1960s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterculture_of_the_1960s
  - seanmcdirmid 7y ago
    China had its own cultural revolution during the same time. It isn’t remembered fondly and is often used as an excuse to nip any protest in the bud.
    - loyukfai 7y ago
      The Cultural Revolution is IMO something entirely different. To me it's a movement started by a dictator with the aim to consolidate power and purge the system of dissident voices. I'd love to hear other perspectives.
      - seanmcdirmid 7y ago
        It is much more complicated than that. It was a protest for change that started it with mao’s consent, but quickly spiraled out of control, beyond even Mao’s control. Even before Mao’s death it was being vigorously disavowed and many of its victims were rehabilitated. The CR made the party fear chaos above all else. HK actually learned the same lesson under the British during the same timeframe (Maoist protesters almost tore the city apart). Not that it justifies their behavior, it just explains it.
        loyukfai 7y ago
        May I know your sources for further study?
microcolonel 7y ago
There's lots of demand for protest in China, protest just happens to be among the few illegal acts successfully suppressed in China. The two countries are absolutely incomparable on these particular points. Prosperity alone does not quell protests, most protests in the U.S. are decidedly bourgeois.
- resters 7y ago
  > most protests in the U.S. are decidedly bourgeois. Exactly. The US population is a model of complacency, so the US Government does not have to project much authoritarian force domestically. The narrative that there is a culture of dissent in the US is false and gets more false every day.
  - microcolonel 7y ago
    The U.S. is a massive country. You tell me: what class are people who can afford to take time off work, and pay to travel to other cities to complain about society?
namelosw 7y ago
China has a different culture. One reason that western people having protesting culture because of historically authoritarians are less powerful and less cruel than the eastern ones. Take the 'nine familial exterminations'[0] as an example. It will most likely become a totally different cyberpunk society, with modern cities and massive surveillance coexist, instead of being another US.
- resters 7y ago
  > One reason that western people having protesting culture because of historically authoritarians are less powerful and less cruel than the eastern ones. I think western people are just more complacent, and so protests are viewed as fundamentally non threatening by authority figures. In China, however, the people are much less complacent and so authority figures fear more widespread uprising. In the US, we are taught to view this sort of thing through the lens of authoritarian excess, but to do so requires Saddam-ifying the Chinese government. A more rational view is to suppose that all governments operate from the same playbook and use whatever tactics are necessary to keep the people at bay. The American people embody a unique blend of cowardice and complacency that most governments would be quite pleased to foster in their own populations. The image of the "Tank Man" was so compelling in the US because that kind of courage against authoritarian power is utterly foreign to Americans. In the US, the people with "Tank Man" level courage (Chelsea Manning, Ed Snowden, etc.) are vilified and most Americans follow the lead of authority figures and despise them.
  - salawat 7y ago
    This demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of Western culture. You make progress in the West by winning over your naysayers by memetic warfare, and ideally by grassroots sentiment/political engineering. In recent decades, there have been issues with the system as a whole that have made it difficult for the system to self-correct. Namely, the obsession with never revisiting laws on the books to simplify the act of legislating, the dismantling of the legislative branch as the ultimate source of law through delegation to the Executive branch and dissolution of vital apparatuses like the Office of Technological Assessment, and overreliance on an overloaded Judiciary as a relief valve for legislation largely driven by donor/special interest organizations. Resistance in the United States, and the West in general was never intended to be "buy the vote" but rather the end result of pushes to modify public sentiment through bottom up pressure, with laws being passed at the lowest level possible such that each State was free to run itself as it saw fit with minimal undue influence from other State, with a Federal body of jurisdiction to mediate cross-State issues. At no point was the U.S. Government ever expected or desired to be able to control the populace. That was specifically avoided and straight up poisoned through various Constitutional Amendments, as well as quite elegantly rejected in the Declaration of Independence; which while not a document with legal force, remains an elegant expression that I still believe it safe to say expresses the essence of American culture. The Government is there to serve the populace. Not suppress, dominate, or terrorize them. Any contest of wills in the States is fundamentally a difference of opinion between people; not a challenge to the superiority of the State. Whether in current times the establishment has started to waiver from the rails is anyone's guess, but currently there is a generational changing of the guard as it were going on. Hope this is enlightening or at least provides food for thought.

China is where the USA was in the 1950s; lots of industrial growth but lots of pollutions, a population happy about all the new wealth and not willing to protest.

loyukfai 7y ago

When did protest start to become common in the states?

JoeAltmaier 7y ago
Well in 1688 Quakers in America protested against slavery. 1773: Boston Tea Party. Temperance in the 1800's. Women's Vote in 1913. But they entered the public awareness in 1963 with the March on Washington, and haven't let up since.
- big_chungus 7y ago
  It's a bit sad, but I believe "protests" have lost their meaning. All of what you described were meaningful events, but it these days some one is always protesting something. For instance, there are "women's marches" every year turning out tons of people in a society where equal rights are constitutionally enshrined. That probably doesn't merit such an event. My concern is that if, Heaven forbid, there is ever again something worth protesting to that degree, no one will pay attention. Regular Americans, rather than being swayed, will look on and say, "Oh look honey, the kids are protesting again."
  - pstuart 7y ago
    > a society where equal rights are constitutionally enshrined I don't think they are as "enshrined" as you think they are.
  - noio 7y ago
    Are you talking about the US? I though the Equal Rights Amendment was not yet ratified, and that equal rights are thus not actually 'constitutionally enshrined'?
    - the_watcher 7y ago
      The ERA is not the only way or attempt in the Constitution at enshrining equal rights. The ERA is about sex specifically, which is arguably already covered by the text of the 14th Amendment (some may disagree about the 14th Amendment in practice, but it's hard to argue that the text doesn't cover sex).
  - admax88q 7y ago
    I imagine that to most people living though those protests at the time they were viewed as "someone is always protesting something." Don't underestimate how the narrative telling of history changes your perception of how something went down compared to what your own observations are right now. Survivorship bias ensures that history only remembers the protests that were meaningful, making it seem like protests were historically more effective and more meaningful.
  - lrdd 7y ago
    Legal equality != true societal equality
- resters 7y ago
  > and haven't let up since. Or one could observe that it has completely let up and now most Americans are cynical about protests and cheer on authoritarian figures from both parties.
pcmaffey 7y ago
Returning GIs from WW2 protested, resulting in the GI bill. Women protested in the 1910s for the right to votes. My guess is it’s an industrial revolution side effect, but would be love to learn of earlier roots.
- neaden 7y ago
  The Bonus Army occupying D.C in 32 probably belongs on any list of significant protests as well.
andrekandre 7y ago
protests have been going on in the us for a long time, for example the labor movement in early 20th century but probably what you are referring to is post world war 2, which mostly started in the 1960s caused by the vietnam war and civil rights movements brought about by myriad causes (middle class affluence, mass communications, overextending of the govt overseas (and at home with the draft etc)) wikipedia, but it’s as god a place to start as any[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterculture_of_the_1960s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterculture_of_the_1960s
- seanmcdirmid 7y ago
  China had its own cultural revolution during the same time. It isn’t remembered fondly and is often used as an excuse to nip any protest in the bud.
  - loyukfai 7y ago
    The Cultural Revolution is IMO something entirely different. To me it's a movement started by a dictator with the aim to consolidate power and purge the system of dissident voices. I'd love to hear other perspectives.
    - seanmcdirmid 7y ago
      It is much more complicated than that. It was a protest for change that started it with mao’s consent, but quickly spiraled out of control, beyond even Mao’s control. Even before Mao’s death it was being vigorously disavowed and many of its victims were rehabilitated. The CR made the party fear chaos above all else. HK actually learned the same lesson under the British during the same timeframe (Maoist protesters almost tore the city apart). Not that it justifies their behavior, it just explains it.
      - loyukfai 7y ago
        May I know your sources for further study?

microcolonel 7y ago

There's lots of demand for protest in China, protest just happens to be among the few illegal acts successfully suppressed in China. The two countries are absolutely incomparable on these particular points. Prosperity alone does not quell protests, most protests in the U.S. are decidedly bourgeois.

resters 7y ago
> most protests in the U.S. are decidedly bourgeois. Exactly. The US population is a model of complacency, so the US Government does not have to project much authoritarian force domestically. The narrative that there is a culture of dissent in the US is false and gets more false every day.
- microcolonel 7y ago
  The U.S. is a massive country. You tell me: what class are people who can afford to take time off work, and pay to travel to other cities to complain about society?

namelosw 7y ago

China has a different culture. One reason that western people having protesting culture because of historically authoritarians are less powerful and less cruel than the eastern ones. Take the 'nine familial exterminations'[0] as an example. It will most likely become a totally different cyberpunk society, with modern cities and massive surveillance coexist, instead of being another US.

resters 7y ago
> One reason that western people having protesting culture because of historically authoritarians are less powerful and less cruel than the eastern ones. I think western people are just more complacent, and so protests are viewed as fundamentally non threatening by authority figures. In China, however, the people are much less complacent and so authority figures fear more widespread uprising. In the US, we are taught to view this sort of thing through the lens of authoritarian excess, but to do so requires Saddam-ifying the Chinese government. A more rational view is to suppose that all governments operate from the same playbook and use whatever tactics are necessary to keep the people at bay. The American people embody a unique blend of cowardice and complacency that most governments would be quite pleased to foster in their own populations. The image of the "Tank Man" was so compelling in the US because that kind of courage against authoritarian power is utterly foreign to Americans. In the US, the people with "Tank Man" level courage (Chelsea Manning, Ed Snowden, etc.) are vilified and most Americans follow the lead of authority figures and despise them.
- salawat 7y ago
  This demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of Western culture. You make progress in the West by winning over your naysayers by memetic warfare, and ideally by grassroots sentiment/political engineering. In recent decades, there have been issues with the system as a whole that have made it difficult for the system to self-correct. Namely, the obsession with never revisiting laws on the books to simplify the act of legislating, the dismantling of the legislative branch as the ultimate source of law through delegation to the Executive branch and dissolution of vital apparatuses like the Office of Technological Assessment, and overreliance on an overloaded Judiciary as a relief valve for legislation largely driven by donor/special interest organizations. Resistance in the United States, and the West in general was never intended to be "buy the vote" but rather the end result of pushes to modify public sentiment through bottom up pressure, with laws being passed at the lowest level possible such that each State was free to run itself as it saw fit with minimal undue influence from other State, with a Federal body of jurisdiction to mediate cross-State issues. At no point was the U.S. Government ever expected or desired to be able to control the populace. That was specifically avoided and straight up poisoned through various Constitutional Amendments, as well as quite elegantly rejected in the Declaration of Independence; which while not a document with legal force, remains an elegant expression that I still believe it safe to say expresses the essence of American culture. The Government is there to serve the populace. Not suppress, dominate, or terrorize them. Any contest of wills in the States is fundamentally a difference of opinion between people; not a challenge to the superiority of the State. Whether in current times the establishment has started to waiver from the rails is anyone's guess, but currently there is a generational changing of the guard as it were going on. Hope this is enlightening or at least provides food for thought.