hx37

Ray, please read my post a little bit more closely. I stated that I have summarized the CCP-defenders' points on why they think the Tibetan issue is misconstrued - I did NOT say that I agreed with them. Your replies to the summarized points are valid, and I personally feel that many aspects of their argument are based on shaky logic at best.

As for Legalism being the cause of apathy, that is NOT what I wrote. I stated that Legalism is NOT the cause, rather the relatively quick shifting from communism to capitalism by the Chinese. You pointed out that Hans have suffered worse conditions within the last few decades - I've forgotten to take that into account, and stand corrected. However, I was thinking of the Han population today, instead of thirty years ago. There have been democratic reforms in China, along with better (still censored) access to information in the major cities. I do not believe that they would step meekly in line at this age due to these two reasons.

The reason why I do not think Legalism is widespread in China is due to the fact that I hardly ever encounter anyone who even knows of the philosophy. You stated that Legalism is based on the assumption that the State is always greater than the Individual. Yet within the last century we have seen 2 revolutions that toppled the government, both started by the people, instead of some power-struggle at the top. Granted there were some extraordinary circumstances at the time, but the fact that the Chinese have toppled two governments within a span of a few decades do not give credence to widespread Legalism - since these were clear instances of the Individual triumphing over the State.

I did not mean to dehumanize the Hans as you said, but I have observed an obsession over materialism ascend within the last decade or so among the younger generations of Hans. It's great that there are Hans on this board who truly care about the poor, however, I've found that in reality people like them are in the minority. The gap between the rich and poor are growing wider in China, and most of the rich/middle class look down at the poor with disdain. I base my observations on my trips to Shanghai, where I've observed some truly apathetic behavior among the population of that city.

xunil

Ray, calm down, please !
I just want you to taste the feeling of being misinterpreted.

Ray

Xuil,

Please leave and let some intelligent debate ensue.

Just collect your fee from the local Communist office and begone.

It require real hard work to reply to Laffman and HX 37 since they are not clowns out here and have very vexing issues that require thought!

__________________


"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

HAKUNA MATATA

Parihaka

Then stop trolling and contribute to the conversation.

__________________
In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz

xunil

Do you have any provement for this statement ?
Stop personal attack please!

xunil

Sorry ! My fault. Won't do that again.

Ray

I am not in anyway suggesting that the status quo is changed in China by force or by foreign intervention, morally or otherwise.

I am only for an amicable settlement and letting the Tibetan have their way of life, archaic or otherwise, provided human rights values are maintained.

The start is talk. So, talk.

I have great regards for the Hans as human being and their cultural heritage and what they have contributed to the world. Make no mistake about that. What upsets me is the ‘imperialist’ mindset and that Han culture is uber alles!

I don’t buy the idea that the shifting from Communism to Capitalism has being cataclysmic. India is going through the same throes. Socialism and centralised planning to crass commercialism and materialism! We have not gone overboard!

There may have been two revolutions, but it is when the straw broke the Camel’s back. I presume you are alluding to Sun Yat Sen and Mao. You must look closely at these two situations in history to realise the social interplay at work. And yet, once established, Legalism came into play. The Cultural Revolution itself was enough to cause a backlash on Mao. It never happened!

Take the example of Singapore. The govt is the Mother Father – Legalism and there is no turmoil that brought about this Legalism! The Chinese are the majority and it permeates to others. I was there myself and I was more Legalism minded than many genuine Singaporean! I made it a point to hold onto my cigarette till I came to a bin, unlike some who had chucked it onthe road!! It grows on you, especially when there is too much of turmoil otherwise or maybe because I was an Army man brainwashed to avoiding chaos as one Chinese poster stated so cutely!

I have seen Mainland Chinese labour working in Singapore. If they are charged with apathy, then the Indian labour signatures the dead!!

Ray

Just run away and don't waste time!

You can do a personal attack to a person who has intelligence.

Not to a rhino or a croc!

So what personal attach are you talking about?

ying

If my understanding is correct, what Ray wants to propose is that the “Legalism” has something to do with the “imperialist” mindset Chinese have and the “dictatorship” tradition of China. Am I right?

Ray

In a way.

What I am trying to say, whatever be the name you use, it is the readiness to accept authority, be it the Emperor, Mao or the CCP. And the intolerance to chaos as one Chinese poster so lucidly stated!

Like in India, no matter how modern we may become, the psyche to respect elders, irrespective of economic and social status, continues to be there even if it is a trifle diluted!

Deltacamelately

Could be. However I will prefer to attribute the 'imperialist" mindset of the Chinese to the cockroll, stinking, own-all philosophy of the CCP rather than the Han's own socio-cultural mindset.

__________________
I am the DARK that Rise to Kill..And Soar to Redeem!

Deltacamelately

What is the ethinicity of the people of Taiwan?
If its Han, then is there a difference in the concept of "Legality" in context of the ROC and PRC?

ying

There is no agreed definition of “Legalism” in academic area. Legalism various in various dynasties (the legalism in Qin has major differences compared to that of Han.). Many Chinese scholars called their own philosophy as Legalism but they did disagree with each other on many points. So, if any one what to make reference to Legalism, he would better make it clear which Legalism he is discussing or at least list up some major points of the Legalism he referred to.
I guess the Legalism Ray referring is one point hold by some Chinese philosophers, the government knows the best. Like what 1984 says, the big brother is watching you. Am I right?

ying

Not to surprise you, Taiwan keeps more Chinese traditional culture than Mainland. CCP tried to replace Chinese traditional culture with Communism. The Culture Revolution almost destroyed our Confucianism tradition. More serious problem is no Confucianism has been taught in our elementary and high schools since 1949.

Legalism was not the predominant philosophy in China. Confucianism was. It’s not easy to explain clearly the relation with Legalism and Confucianism and I really don’t want to get into this topic in depth. Thousands of scholars, Chinese, Japanese and westerners, have too many books and articles in this regard. One idea is the Confucianism sets up the basic value system of a society and Legalism is just the “method” (术) to be used to realize the values set up by Confucianism.

Ray，the background of the point ”the government knows the best” is a little bit complicate. Firstly, it is Confucianism not Legalism justified the “rule of emperor”. The government in ancient China is supposed to check and balance the power of emperor. Legalism was used to justify the legitimacy of the government and provided useful methods to help the government fulfill its duties more efficiently and correctly. Secondly, ancient Chinese scholars insisted to have an elite government and strongly against the intervention and privileges of royalty families and those eupatrids. This is one reason why they insisted that “the government knows the best”. This point was somehow used to make sure only qualified scholars may be the officials of the government and kick those eupatrids out.

Ray

Ying,

Thank you for the explanation.

It is very difficult to understand the underlining principle since it is very philosophical in structure and I believe that are very subtle nuances.

That apart, I am led to believe that it in very basic terms advices leaving the governance to those who are to govern.