[Filip]

That remains to be seen - developments of late internal to China is not necessarily encouraging - and I don't think one should "fight" with China - because nobody wins from that - but to encourage a China that is more open and less paranoid.

AoD

It's hard to be less paranoid when there are so many actions taken against it.

Not to mention lessons learned from the last empire that threatened America's dominance. The Chinese are far, far smarter than that.

Also, I have to disagree with those developments of late. That's just CNN wishful thinking. The CCP has never had such widespread support among the people.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

It's hard to be less paranoid when there are so many actions taken against it.

Not to mention lessons learned from the last empire that threatened America's dominance. The Chinese are far, far smarter than that.

Also, I have to disagree with those developments of late. That's just CNN wishful thinking. The CCP has never had such widespread support among the people.

Of course, China is still living the national shame of the 19th and 20th century. I would argue that the emergence of Xi is a return to a strain of authoritarian rule not present since the Mao days - it has nothing to do with support among the people (which tend to be rather apolitical in general anyways).

AoD

 

[Filip]

Of course, China is still living the national shame of the 19th and 20th century. I would argue that the emergence of Xi is a return to a strain of authoritarian rule not present since the Mao days - it has nothing to do with support among the people (which tend to be rather apolitical in general anyways).

AoD

The emergence of Xi is a natural progression back toward the Chinese Empire and its Dynasties. This is the new (old) normal.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

The emergence of Xi is a natural progression back toward the Chinese Empire and its Dynasties. This is the new (old) normal.

There is nothing "natural" about that - what you have suggested is historical inevitability, which I don't think is particularly helpful as an explanation - much less prognostication.

AoD

 

[Filip]

There is nothing "natural" about that - what you have suggested is historical inevitability, which I don't think is particularly helpful as an explanation - much less prognostication.

AoD

I think it's very helpful - this is an Empire that hasn't really 'changed' since 350 BC. The last 100 years are the aberration, not the past. Historical inevitability defines today's China.

Everything happen right now is China charting its manifest destiny.

 

[JGHali]

I think it's very helpful - this is an Empire that hasn't really 'changed' since 350 BC. The last 100 years are the aberration, not the past. Historical inevitability defines today's China.

Everything happen right now is China charting its manifest destiny.

Right, nothing changed during centuries of foreign rule under the Mongols and Great Khans and later the Manchus of the Qing Dynasty. Chinese history is more an ebb and flow of centralization and collapse then anything else. Currently the country is run by cadres of party kleptocrats, untold corruption, and extreme environmental degradation. For all the success of the 2008 Olympics, the most remarkable thing was getting Beijing's air looking clear for a few weeks.

 

[Filip]

Right, nothing changed during centuries of foreign rule under the Mongols and Great Khans and later the Manchus of the Qing Dynasty. Chinese history is more an ebb and flow of centralization and collapse then anything else. Currently the country is run by cadres of party kleptocrats, untold corruption, and extreme environmental degradation. For all the success of the 2008 Olympics, the most remarkable thing was getting Beijing's air looking clear for a few weeks.

Spoken like a true CNN parrot.

What collapse? The non-Han dynasties ruled over a united China, and shuffled the capitals around. There was no collapse of China - ever. The closest that happened was when the fascist and inhuman Japanese slaughtered millions and carved up the country for easier rule.

Despite its various non-Han dynasties, China has been China since about 350 BC (I don't remember the first Emperor's history that well, but it was around this time). Find me one country on this planet that can say the same and that has such historical continuity. Greece is certainly not Hellenistic classical Greece and Italy is certainly not Rome. Iran has little to do with Persia while most Europeans were living in trees and eating with their hands back then.

You're bringing up the Beijing Olympics from 10 years ago? Do you realize just how far China has evolved since then? They have done an incredible job cleaning up their air and regulating polluting industries. They are also a major proponent of the Paris accords.
Funny how the only other time I've ever seen the words kleptocracy and untold corruption was in regards to Russia shortly after the Crimea affair. Seems like when the west is threatened, the lies arrive and the gloves come off.

Your lack of knowledge on the subject and your bias is showing.

I'm not even Chinese so don't use that crap on me.

 

[Northern Light]

Spoken like a true CNN parrot.

What collapse? The non-Han dynasties ruled over a united China, and shuffled the capitals around. There was no collapse of China - ever. The closest that happened was when the fascist and inhuman Japanese slaughtered millions and carved up the country for easier rule.

Despite its various non-Han dynasties, China has been China since about 350 BC (I don't remember the first Emperor's history that well, but it was around this time). Find me one country on this planet that can say the same and that has such historical continuity. Greece is certainly not Hellenistic classical Greece and Italy is certainly not Rome. Iran has little to do with Persia while most Europeans were living in trees and eating with their hands back then.

You're bringing up the Beijing Olympics from 10 years ago? Do you realize just how far China has evolved since then? They have done an incredible job cleaning up their air and regulating polluting industries. They are also a major proponent of the Paris accords.
Funny how the only other time I've ever seen the words kleptocracy and untold corruption was in regards to Russia shortly after the Crimea affair. Seems like when the west is threatened, the lies arrive and the gloves come off.

Your lack of knowledge on the subject and your bias is showing.

I'm not even Chinese so don't use that crap on me.

On what basis do you make these claims?

As someone who actually has taken a university level course in Chinese History, I find your comments to include erroneous and outright nonsensical claims.

First. your off by 130 years on the initial Chinese unification which was 221BC.

Second, China was far from a unitary state as we think of them today, under than first emperor, and there were several wars, civil wars and invasions your managing to skip over.

I won't school you on all the details just now, but you can start your self-education by reading the wikipedia article on China, history section. Its passably accurate.

Third, what is this BS line?

"while most Europeans were living in trees and eating with their hands back then."

Perhaps you missed that Greece and Rome are in Europe? Or that no modern humans have ever lived in trees? (that's 100,000 years and covered in Anthropology 101)

****

If you feel someone else's characterization of China (or anywhere else) is misinformed, then by all means say so. But perhaps you could support your assertion with evidence and leave out the complete hyperbole from
your response.

I saw nothing in the post you were responding to that implied racism, or undue bias.

You would be correct to note that air quality in Beijing has improved by leaps and bounds.

But you can only state that if you acknowledge it remains quite poor.

Improvement:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...rive-paints-bluest-sky-over-beijing-in-decade

Current, 2018 comparison to air pollution levels in Toronto.

https://www.numbeo.com/pollution/co...a&city1=Beijing&country2=Canada&city2=Toronto

On Corruption:

There is an index for that, by country.

Canada #8 (least corrupt)

China #77

https://www.transparency.org/news/f...MIk9_70pOY3wIVgkJpCh1mwAAwEAAYASAAEgKZAPD_BwE

 

[Filip]

On what basis do you make these claims?

As someone who actually has taken a university level course in Chinese History, I find your comments to include erroneous and outright nonsensical claims.

First. your off by 130 years on the initial Chinese unification which was 221BC.

Second, China was far from a unitary state as we think of them today, under than first emperor, and there were several wars, civil wars and invasions your managing to skip over.

I won't school you on all the details just now, but you can start your self-education by reading the wikipedia article on China, history section. Its passably accurate.

Third, what is this BS line?

"while most Europeans were living in trees and eating with their hands back then."

Perhaps you missed that Greece and Rome are in Europe? Or that no modern humans have ever lived in trees? (that's 100,000 years and covered in Anthropology 101)

****

If you feel someone else's characterization of China (or anywhere else) is misinformed, then by all means say so. But perhaps you could support your assertion with evidence and leave out the complete hyperbole from
your response.

I saw nothing in the post you were responding to that implied racism, or undue bias.

You would be correct to note that air quality in Beijing has improved by leaps and bounds.

But you can only state that if you acknowledge it remains quite poor.

Improvement:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...rive-paints-bluest-sky-over-beijing-in-decade

Current, 2018 comparison to air pollution levels in Toronto.

https://www.numbeo.com/pollution/co...a&city1=Beijing&country2=Canada&city2=Toronto

On Corruption:

There is an index for that, by country.

Canada #8 (least corrupt)

China #77

https://www.transparency.org/news/f...MIk9_70pOY3wIVgkJpCh1mwAAwEAAYASAAEgKZAPD_BwE

Excuse me, but on what are you making these claims?

I didn't know the exact date of Chinese unification (guess I could have googled) but does that in any way change the message that this state has essentially existed in that capacity since before Christ?

Civil wars, invasions, etc.. Ok? Does that make it any different than any other state on Earth? Did America cease being America because of its civil war? Did Russia cease being Russia when Poland invaded half of the then Russian Empire?

And yes, let's compare the pollution levels of Beijing (22 million people and counting) with Toronto. The fact that the reduction was so drastic in less than a decade confirms one of China's most unsung achievements. Did you know Sarajevo has comparable levels of pollution to Beijing - for most of the year? That's a city of half a million.

77 of 193 countries - that makes China a massively corrupt kleptocracy? Then what is over half of the planet then? I am not the one spouting vaguely racist hyperbole.

I guess you conveniently missed the 'most' Europeans, (while I did talk about Romans and Greeks) - they were called barbarians by them for a reason. Living nomadic lives, hunting and gathering, living in huts, beneath trees - that is not civilization my friend. Take off your European glasses (says I, a European).

 

[PinkLucy]

While this discussion is interesting (and I mean that honestly), it has veered way off track from PM Justin Trudeau's Canada.

 

[JGHali]

Your lack of knowledge on the subject and your bias is showing.

I'm not even Chinese so don't use that crap on me.

What bias? Anyway, not interested in continuing when your discussion amounts to a serious of rhetorical questions.

 

[Towered]

On what basis do you make these claims?

As someone who actually has taken a university level course in Chinese History, I find your comments to include erroneous and outright nonsensical claims.

First. your off by 130 years on the initial Chinese unification which was 221BC.

Second, China was far from a unitary state as we think of them today, under than first emperor, and there were several wars, civil wars and invasions your managing to skip over.

I won't school you on all the details just now, but you can start your self-education by reading the wikipedia article on China, history section. Its passably accurate.

Third, what is this BS line?

"while most Europeans were living in trees and eating with their hands back then."

Perhaps you missed that Greece and Rome are in Europe? Or that no modern humans have ever lived in trees? (that's 100,000 years and covered in Anthropology 101)

****

If you feel someone else's characterization of China (or anywhere else) is misinformed, then by all means say so. But perhaps you could support your assertion with evidence and leave out the complete hyperbole from
your response.

I saw nothing in the post you were responding to that implied racism, or undue bias.

You would be correct to note that air quality in Beijing has improved by leaps and bounds.

But you can only state that if you acknowledge it remains quite poor.

Improvement:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...rive-paints-bluest-sky-over-beijing-in-decade

Current, 2018 comparison to air pollution levels in Toronto.

https://www.numbeo.com/pollution/co...a&city1=Beijing&country2=Canada&city2=Toronto

On Corruption:

There is an index for that, by country.

Canada #8 (least corrupt)

China #77

https://www.transparency.org/news/f...MIk9_70pOY3wIVgkJpCh1mwAAwEAAYASAAEgKZAPD_BwE

Haha, pwned.

 

[jje1000]

While we might be better off since our minorities are politically split (so we won't end up with an ethnic democracy the US is trending towards- which will be far more violent), it's going to be a battle between the cosmopolitans and an odd, antithetical alliance between the rich and the working class? So it goes...

Canada is a tinderbox for populism. The 2019 election could spark it.
Opinion: This country isn’t immune to the economic and demographic forces currently dividing the United States

As Canadians, we sit atop the continent, watching as our neighbours slide into cultural civil war. It has become easy to just be appalled as America becomes riven, with social media and antagonistic rhetoric on both sides of the political spectrum erasing the middle ground. There are two Americas, incommensurably separated on the fundamental issues of the day: climate change, the economy, social issues like health and education, employment, the media, immigration in particular, and globalization and free trade.

We’ve learned more and more about the populism that has fuelled this complicated moment as the fracture in America races like wildfire throughout Western democracies. It is the biggest force reshaping democracy, our economies and public institutions. It is the product of economic despair, inequality, and yes, racism and xenophobia. It is an institutional blind spot, largely denied or ridiculed by the media, and by the more comfortable and educated portions of society.

The shifts in the democratic world order over the last decade have increasingly prompted social scientists to discard the left-right political spectrum in favour of an “open-ordered axis,” or what The Economist calls drawbridge-down vs drawbridge-up thinking. The former are cosmopolitan-minded people, in favour of diversity, immigration, trade, and globalization, and who are optimistic about the future; they’re guided by reason and evidence-based policy, and believe that climate change is a dominant priority. Drawbridge-up people, with an “ordered” worldview, are largely parochial, and they have reservations about diversity, are deeply pessimistic about the economic future, believe more in moral certainty than reason and evidence, are disdainful of media, government and of scientific expertise, and are convinced that climate change is trumped by the economy and their own survival. It’s ordered thinking that is metastasizing in Western societies, including Canada’s, especially among the political right. EKOS research from 2017 suggests about 30 to 40 per cent of adult Canadians are drawn to it.

Although there has been a recent uptick for the first time in 15 years, the portion of Canadians who self-identify as middle class since the turn of the century has declined from 70 per cent to 45 per cent, a stark number that mirrors America’s—signalling that Canadians have a deeply pessimistic view of their personal economic outlook. Only one in eight Canadians thinks they’re better off than a year ago. Only one in eight thinks the next generation will enjoy a better life. And EKOS finds that, by a margin of two to one, Canadians believe that if present trends with inequality continue, the country — this country! — will see violent class conflicts.

Ordered populism has already become an illusive, misunderstood theme in provincial elections in Quebec, New Brunswick, and Ontario. Indeed, Doug Ford and his Ontario Progressive Conservatives won thanks to a preponderance of working-class, male electoral support—but a closer examination of the vote shows that male millennials, against expectation, supported Ford in significant numbers and had a high turnout. Millennial women, meanwhile, preferred the New Democratic Party by a margin of 25 points, and the millennial women who didn’t vote NDP largely stayed home. Millennial men split their votes between the NDP and Progressive Conservatives, and they led females millennials by 10 points in turning out to cast ballots.

What is happening challenges the conventional view that the youngest adults of Canadian society—the millennials, now Canada’s largest electoral demographic—operate with roughly similar, progressive views and values.

Another assumption in need of challenging is the idea that Canada’s ordered populism, like its American counterpart, is a besieged white citadel. In fact, our northern brand is as much the choice of multicultural new Canadians as of white native-born Canada. A significant chunk of new Canadians, many of them non-white, indicate they will vote Conservative in next year’s federal election — even though 65 per cent of Conservative supporters told EKOS this year that Canada admits too many non-white immigrants. And while a majority of Canadians are open to immigration, the intensity of the opposition is red-hot, including in other parties: 20 per cent of New Democratic Party supporters and 13 per cent of Liberal supporters also believe too many non-white immigrants are entering the country.

There are two possible explanations for this: First, new Canadians may bring with them into the country strains of social conservatism that make them hostile to issues like same-sex marriage and what they see as immoral, too-liberal sex education, an inflammatory issue in Ontario over the past couple of years. Thus, what they see as an assault on their values may be more important than a party trying to appeal to voters who want fewer of them in the country.

Second, where neighbourhoods are ethnically homogeneous as many are around the core of Canadian cities—white, brown or otherwise—populism holds appeal. Where there’s more diversity, it doesn’t. As social scientists have discovered, communities which have the least contact with with minority groups are the most hostile to them.

The looming federal election could be a spark for all the populist tinder largely being ignored in Canada. In the 2015 federal election, voting differences by gender for all age groups were flat. Now the federal Conservatives hold a 17-point advantage among men from all age groups other than seniors —a huge change in three years. Federal Conservatives also hold an advantage over Liberals and New Democrats with voters who self-identify as working class, and the party has overwhelming support from non-university-educated Canadians, the group most likely to feel left behind by the disappearance of blue-collar industries.

What we do know is that Ontario’s Progressive Conservative government, with its populist strains and its vague campaign promises, is what many angry young men voted for. Maybe they didn’t vote for its policies; maybe, in their anger, they just voted to burn the house down, even if the history of populist movements show they’ve rarely worked out.

https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ca...or-populism-the-2019-election-could-spark-it/

 

[Filip]

What bias? Anyway, not interested in continuing when your discussion amounts to a serious of rhetorical questions.

LOL! You just have nothing to say.

 

[Filip]

Haha, pwned.

Because I have about as much respect for his Googling skills as I do for your spelling.