Many Americans have trouble celebrating China's Olympics. They worry about China's influence, military, economy and human rights record. We should be concerned about our not effectively competing with China in the Olympics as well as economically. We should be as pro-Western and competitive in our dealings with them as they are pro-Chinese and competitive in their dealings with us. But we should not insist that China will turn into a liberal democracy. We need to recognize that so-called "human rights" are really a Western concept.
As the Olympics start those who believe in universal human rights will start protesting of China. They will basically be saying that the entire world must adopt Western standards of right and wrong. It seems to us that our ways are undeniably right for the whole world, but remember that China's GDP quadrupled between 1978 and 1992. It has since been growing faster. Think about that when we, with our huge trade deficits, tell China how to live. They may have reason to suspect that heavy rights for criminals, high school student empowerment and freedom of the media lead to victory.
We are a young nation. Asian - American students comprise 50 percent or more of the student body at numerous universities. Perhaps we have something to learn. If we continue to confuse liberty and licence, the right to be responsible in numerous ways with the right to party without consequence, we may not be around as long as China. Rather than telling other cultures that they must be like us, we can best secure liberty by telling our current population that they must be more like our forefathers. They always understood that liberty is not sustainable without responsibility. Before we tell other nations how to live, we should make sure of our own standing.
The Olympics should teach us something: it is a competitive world. Teams that do not accept discipline from their coaches are at a disadvantage. Teams that will allow you to play regardless of how many practices you miss will fail. Teams on which the members do not really care if they win or not will not prosper. Human rights activists are globalists and multiculturalists tell us that we have no core culture - both undermine our sense of team. We do not gain by decrying China for knowing it is a sovereign nation with a different culture. Culturists say we should enjoy the Olympics and learn from China. We should rally for our team, instead of decrying theirs.
Showing posts with label China. Show all posts
Showing posts with label China. Show all posts
Friday, August 8, 2008
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
China's Terrible Earthquake
My friend Laura sent around a call for donations to aid those killed, injured and / or left homeless by the recent earthquakes in China. This mass mailing went out to a lot of people, but as I have known Laura for quite some time I imagined what I might say to her if we had a conversation concerning her relief efforts. Of course, sentimentally, my heart goes out to all the victims. But, my imagined conversation led to callous realities. For the sake of our nation and my friendship with Laura, I’m just going to ignore her e-mail.
As caring and supposedly wealthy people, Americans often want to give and are always expected to provide disaster relief. This giving spirit reflects a belief in a human community. Yet, as culturists know, that community is often more illusory than real. When America stepped into stop violence in Rwanda, Somalia and the Balkans we backed and protected some unsavory people in the middle of torrential violence. In such cases, someone will always resent your helping the other side. We are yet to see gratitude for our supporting Muslims in the Balkans. When it comes to interfering in nations we know little about, my culturist instincts always lean towards caution.
In the case of major nations, how much of a sense of community is there? When Katrina happened, Japan sent us $500,000. That is not enough money to buy one condominium in New York. While it goes further in New Orleans, it verges on being an insult. How much money did China give us? If we were broke and had a disaster, how much relief would China send us? We already have a major trade deficit with them and in normal times they do not seem to mind playing hardball to increase that deficit. As it is, we send them a lot of money and they send much less back. They seem to think our nations are competitors. The trade deficit seems to confirm this impression.
Diversity exists. Myanmar refused to distribute the aid sent to them. The North Korean government regularly takes U.N. aid, puts it in bags labeled “North Korean government,” skims the bulk off for their military, and pretends like it is providing the relief. Whatever China spends in aiding its poor, they will not spend propping up the murderous regime in Sudan nor fueling their incredible and secretive military growth. As per my Western bias, I feel more akin to nations that promote democracy and rights and do not back terrorists. Even if it were eventually getting to the people, giving free money to China and Myanmar seems problematic.
Culturism does not put stock in abstractions. Rights, for example, only come from countries that believe in them and can afford them, not from a metaphysical reality. Even if we did consider all peoples one and looked past nationality and culture, we would still have limited resources to spend on the world. We currently have tremendous debts and deficits. Our very own infrastructure is old and collapsing. We have many homeless. And neither Katrina nor the World Trade Center has been rebuilt. While it might feel good to Americans to imagine the world shuttles money back and forth whenever there is a disaster, there are limits and one must prioritize.
I send those in China and Myanmar my condolences. I truly hope that their governments spend money on their people. I’ll be watching their governments and judging them accordingly. Laura might ask if I would not want other nations to give me money if I needed it. Certainly I will take all the free money I can get. But, in reality, the lion's share of help I'd get would come from my own government and my personal resources. And the money our government spends to help in disasters comes out of real American’s incomes. I do not resent that other nations do not take in refugees willingly or send other nations much money in times of need. I think they have their priorities straight. I truly hope China and Myanmar get relief to their people quickly.
As caring and supposedly wealthy people, Americans often want to give and are always expected to provide disaster relief. This giving spirit reflects a belief in a human community. Yet, as culturists know, that community is often more illusory than real. When America stepped into stop violence in Rwanda, Somalia and the Balkans we backed and protected some unsavory people in the middle of torrential violence. In such cases, someone will always resent your helping the other side. We are yet to see gratitude for our supporting Muslims in the Balkans. When it comes to interfering in nations we know little about, my culturist instincts always lean towards caution.
In the case of major nations, how much of a sense of community is there? When Katrina happened, Japan sent us $500,000. That is not enough money to buy one condominium in New York. While it goes further in New Orleans, it verges on being an insult. How much money did China give us? If we were broke and had a disaster, how much relief would China send us? We already have a major trade deficit with them and in normal times they do not seem to mind playing hardball to increase that deficit. As it is, we send them a lot of money and they send much less back. They seem to think our nations are competitors. The trade deficit seems to confirm this impression.
Diversity exists. Myanmar refused to distribute the aid sent to them. The North Korean government regularly takes U.N. aid, puts it in bags labeled “North Korean government,” skims the bulk off for their military, and pretends like it is providing the relief. Whatever China spends in aiding its poor, they will not spend propping up the murderous regime in Sudan nor fueling their incredible and secretive military growth. As per my Western bias, I feel more akin to nations that promote democracy and rights and do not back terrorists. Even if it were eventually getting to the people, giving free money to China and Myanmar seems problematic.
Culturism does not put stock in abstractions. Rights, for example, only come from countries that believe in them and can afford them, not from a metaphysical reality. Even if we did consider all peoples one and looked past nationality and culture, we would still have limited resources to spend on the world. We currently have tremendous debts and deficits. Our very own infrastructure is old and collapsing. We have many homeless. And neither Katrina nor the World Trade Center has been rebuilt. While it might feel good to Americans to imagine the world shuttles money back and forth whenever there is a disaster, there are limits and one must prioritize.
I send those in China and Myanmar my condolences. I truly hope that their governments spend money on their people. I’ll be watching their governments and judging them accordingly. Laura might ask if I would not want other nations to give me money if I needed it. Certainly I will take all the free money I can get. But, in reality, the lion's share of help I'd get would come from my own government and my personal resources. And the money our government spends to help in disasters comes out of real American’s incomes. I do not resent that other nations do not take in refugees willingly or send other nations much money in times of need. I think they have their priorities straight. I truly hope China and Myanmar get relief to their people quickly.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
China, Tibet and Culturism
China is reasserting its control over Tibet with its usual disdain for the right to peacefully assemble and freedom of the press. China "liberated" Tibet from its traditional way of life, and sent the Dalai Lama into exile, in 1959. They noted that Tibet had the highest percentage of priestly class living off the peasants ever recorded (25%). Han Chinese were then told that they could escape the one child per family rule if they moved to the Tibetan region of China.
Culturism holds that majority cultures have the right to define, protect and promote themselves. Culturism does not buy into the universal human rights regime. It would seem culturism gives carte blanch approval to the Chinese actions. The tough question for culturists is "does the majority in China have right to do whatever it wills to minorities within its population?"
Tibetans still comprise the majority culture in Tibet. Despite China's discrimination for its own people and attempt to take Tibet over demographically, Tibet's environment is so harsh that ethnic Chinese are still under 10 % of the population. Since Tibet has long had sovereignty and a distinct culture, and has a chance to regain said status, culturist principles condemn China's actions. Within Tibet's old borders, tibetans should have sovereignty.
But from here on culturism takes its usual hard realist stance. Not all cultures believe in Western values. China is a race-based nation which does not prize democracy or free speech. That is China's right. Culturism would never condemn China for following its historic cultural principles internally. China, like Islamic nations, is free to look at our debt, crime, racial issues, rates of out-of-wedlock childbirth, as well as our educational failure and conclude that our ways are not to be desired. Culturism wants to protect our way of life for us, but respects the fact that a diversity of international principles exists.
What can we do about Tibet? Not much. Our military is already spread thin trying to make the Islamic Middle East Western. To conduct a war against China over Tibet, we would have to borrow money from them. As it is, if we complain officially or boycott the Chinese olympics they could retaliate by damaging our economy. Our not knowing where the Western world ends, poor economy and moral behavior have weakened Western power. Before we worry about others' sovereignty we must worry about our own. If you wish to help Tibet, work hard, buy American goods, be moral and get out of debt.
Culturism holds that majority cultures have the right to define, protect and promote themselves. Culturism does not buy into the universal human rights regime. It would seem culturism gives carte blanch approval to the Chinese actions. The tough question for culturists is "does the majority in China have right to do whatever it wills to minorities within its population?"
Tibetans still comprise the majority culture in Tibet. Despite China's discrimination for its own people and attempt to take Tibet over demographically, Tibet's environment is so harsh that ethnic Chinese are still under 10 % of the population. Since Tibet has long had sovereignty and a distinct culture, and has a chance to regain said status, culturist principles condemn China's actions. Within Tibet's old borders, tibetans should have sovereignty.
But from here on culturism takes its usual hard realist stance. Not all cultures believe in Western values. China is a race-based nation which does not prize democracy or free speech. That is China's right. Culturism would never condemn China for following its historic cultural principles internally. China, like Islamic nations, is free to look at our debt, crime, racial issues, rates of out-of-wedlock childbirth, as well as our educational failure and conclude that our ways are not to be desired. Culturism wants to protect our way of life for us, but respects the fact that a diversity of international principles exists.
What can we do about Tibet? Not much. Our military is already spread thin trying to make the Islamic Middle East Western. To conduct a war against China over Tibet, we would have to borrow money from them. As it is, if we complain officially or boycott the Chinese olympics they could retaliate by damaging our economy. Our not knowing where the Western world ends, poor economy and moral behavior have weakened Western power. Before we worry about others' sovereignty we must worry about our own. If you wish to help Tibet, work hard, buy American goods, be moral and get out of debt.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)