荆楚网：古体长诗写就"最牛满分作文"
ltlee1
文”。
该作文共1080字(含标点符号)，文首是一段170多字的文言文，介绍了该诗歌的写作背景——2008年作者参观黄花岗七十二烈士陵园，“百
感并至，赋诗一首。 ”诗歌共51行102句，每句七言；后记约70字，也是文言文写作。
“形式和内容表现上都堪称一流。”武汉某省级示范高中阅卷老师介绍，该作文采用古诗词的形式，虽然是采用的历史题材，但表达了敬仰、向上的感
情，内容并不空洞。另一位老师表示，作为中学生，能选择这种文体写作，并运用得比较成熟，说明这名学生读了很多书，有一定的古典文学功底。
《站在黄花岗陵园的门口》
清宣统三年三月二十九日(西元一九一一年四月二十七日)，广州起义暴发。起义之军百二十人持枪械攻入广州督府衙门，两广总督张鸣歧闻风而逃。然
义军终因寡不敌众，数百清军围之，起义军多战死。旋革命党人潘达微见而怜之，收烈士之骸，止得七十二具，葬于白云山麓之黄花岗。九十七年之后，时值腊
月，会天大雪，余滞于广州，遂至黄花岗七十二烈士之陵。止于其门，百感并至，赋诗一首，诗曰：
赤焰难明赤县天，百年群魔舞翩跹。国土已破何人见，金瓯早缺有谁怜？
皇祚不复天威去，天朝迷梦化为烟。五口通商香港失，断鸿声中夷舰现。
圆明园中尽烈火，太和殿里无君颜。水师已覆巨舰沉，黄海之水腥且咸。
春帆楼上条约订，马关之约逆臣签。大沽台上炮声隆，将士陈尸国门前。
新鬼啾啾旧鬼哭，京洼难日见炊烟。宣战诏书何处寻？言说帝后西秋狝。
辛丑条约庚子恨，落日秋风哭宝剑。六十年来伤国步，八千里外吊民残。
空向长河咒逝川，不尽国愁在斯年。四万万人齐下泪，天涯何处是神州？
民穷国敝割土地，偿银赔款年复年。可怜越女夜夜哭，半国殖民半封建。
檀香山上聚义士，兴中会中复青天。烈火已燃锤与镰，今将炮火灭清廷。
枪声惊破五羊城，英雄无惧挥宝剑。提携玉泉为国死，何得英名在人间。
悲歌一曲从天落，壮士不再歌易水。晓见江山有炊烟，烈士之魂已沉泉。
人生百年能几何，荒草斜阳土坯间。白云片片魂悠悠，黄花遍野使人愁。
义军已覆化碧土，留得精神载史书。黄花岗上土一抔，埋没荒烟蔓草间。
起事何知一死难，的卢青骢劳鞍鞯。青天白日满地红，镶开碑上覆墓间。
行人往往悲旧事，含愤长忆孙逸仙。无量头颅无量血，可怜换得假共和。
皇冠已覆君前落，不见人间少帝制。百越之人总不忘，秋风秋雨湿黄花。
愁看长江东逝去，却有青史映君前。莫悲往事愤钩沉，但看祖国焕新颜。
沧桑浮沉忆浮生，吾辈发奋应向前。岁月如潮歌似梦，百年弹指一挥间。
红尘梦里忆壮举，烈士陵前有愧颜。吾侪不曾历战火，无复见此漫硝烟。
和平岁月忆往事，史海沧茫不亲见。今春南岭雪满天，雪映梅花忠魂骨。
碧血横飞四塞惊，草木含情风云悲。只因烈士血如海，才使日月换新天。
英雄何只黄花岗，无数忠魂红旗间。百兆国子怀先辈，万里江山动后人。
召公甘为社稷死，感君总能多奉献。至今天下传英名，不使君没蔓草间。
今之河山多锦绣，不复沉沦如从前。工厂遍地多铁马，信息时代在眼前。
民众康乐少悲苦，难以再见愁容颜。吾今立于陵门口，思绪纷飞感万千。
聊诌一诗悼君魂，勿怪字拙人不见。
后记：今日之生活，皆先辈流血而成，今中国多烈士之陵，何止黄花岗耶？然吾平生只至黄花岗，愧矣。今年之秋，料黄花岗之黄花，应于秋风之中透香
中华乎？ (来源：荆楚网-楚天都市报)(记者罗欣)
abia...@my-deja.com
country, Republic of China. How dare those teachers gave it highest
score!!! Those teachers and the student are counter-revolutionary
traitors if they were in Mao's era.
I guess CCP is now busy for their internet filter software for July 1
release so they must have ignored this counter-revolutionary poetry!!!
Haha!
On Jun 23, 12:14 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 记者昨采访高考阅卷情况时，多位作文阅卷老师一致介绍，一篇名为《站在黄花岗陵园的门口》的古体长诗(全文附后)，被他们评为今年高考语文"最牛满分作
> 文"。
>
> 该作文共1080字(含标点符号)，文首是一段170多字的文言文，介绍了该诗歌的写作背景----2008年作者参观黄花岗七十二烈士陵园，"百
Tienxia
continuously that you can "speak/read/write PERFECT and FLUENT
Chinese"? All you did here was to cut-and-paste "青天白日满地红", and the
rest you wrote in bad English! Shove that filthy dildo further up your
filthy cunt, Thai whore. You're dribbling rubbish all over the
Internet!
You are a coward and a fraud! Yes, you!
On Jun 23, 11:24 am, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abianc...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
> > 中华乎？ (来源：荆楚网-楚天都市报)(记者罗欣)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
report2009
you
faked abianchan's account to harass netters for revenge. That's truly
coward and fraud!!!
Regarding psycho Tienxia (anti-abianchenvirus, Chairman MaObama,
Chairman Mao, etc), a mentally ill racist troll.
Psycho Tienxia (aka anti-abianchenvirus etc) has been harassing
abianchen over a year and he also faked abianchen's account for
revenge. Here's the reason:
More than a year ago, psycho Tienxia posted as "Chairman Mao", he
also
used another alias "Leroy B Jones" to pretend as a black guy to
harass
other black netters in soc.culture.african.american (and crossposted
to alt.flame.niggers) but got caught by poster "abianchen", so his
alias "Chairman Mao" vanished. Later he signed up many aliases
(Tienxia, anti-Abianchenvirus etc) to retaliate against abianchen
with
all sorts of silly lies, e.g., using a Thai girl Meichi's photos to
flame abianchen. His retaliation has been going over a year and seems
no end. He also faked abianchen's account as well as others' accounts
for revenge.
Tienxia = Chairman MaObama = anti-Abianchenvirus = Xangdi = WanLF =
James T = Chairman Mao Says = ... = fake Moshki = fake abianchen =
fake Dr. Ira... -> actually just one mentally ill racist troll.
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
ltlee1
wrote:
> In the poetry, there is a sentence "青天白日满地红". That's the flag of my
> country, Republic of China. How dare those teachers gave it highest
> score!!! Those teachers and the student are counter-revolutionary
> traitors if they were in Mao's era.
"青天白日满地红，镶开碑上覆墓间。"
Read it again.
Looks like it is part of the tomb/memorial declaration.
abia...@my-deja.com
during Cultural Revolution.
KMT Chairman Lien Chan visited 黄花岗陵园 in 2006. Here's the link:
http://www.southcn.com/news/hktwma/zhuanti/nylt/pics/200610170915.htm
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
ltlee1
wrote:
> I know that. It's miracle that 青天白日满地红 was not destroyed by Red Guards
> during Cultural Revolution.
>
> KMT Chairman Lien Chan visited 黄花岗陵园 in 2006. Here's the link:
>
> http://www.southcn.com/news/hktwma/zhuanti/nylt/pics/200610170915.htm
"连战一行向七十二烈士纪念碑进献花圈，参观烈士陵园，为孙中山先生亲手
种植的树培土浇水，并为烈士陵园题词："浩气存寰宇，碧血映丹心"。"
Why do they say 碧血 all the time?
Blood is never blue or green.
abia...@my-deja.com
in Taiwan, 【中華民國經典歌曲】碧血黃花
http://www.youmaker.com/video/sa?id=9f18761daaa2403fbf7550cc855e4adc001
I was too young to sing those songs. :-)
abia...@my-deja.com
我們來看神聖的黃花崗，我們來看不朽的黃花崗，
碧血化為怒潮湧向珠江，黃花滿地萬世流芳。
為自由戰要舉起刀和槍，為自由死要昂首上疆場，
燃起革命火花燦爛輝煌，照耀神洲日月同光。
拯救民族要認清方向，爭取民權要團結力量，
安定民生要奮發圖強。萬眾一心莫仿徨。
我們來看神聖的黃花崗，我們來看不朽的黃花崗，
歌頌碧血精神黃花馨香，振臂高唱國土重光。
振臂高唱國土重光。
On Jun 23, 5:53 pm, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abianc...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
Tak To
> Why do they say 碧血 all the time?
> Blood is never blue or green.
碧血 means blood that turns into jade. I.e., blood of someone
who is true and loyal. From the legend of <Cheng2hong2> (萇弘)
who was wrongly exiled by the Emperor <Jing4> of Zhou (周敬王)
to <Shu2> (蜀). Unable to prove his loyalty to the Emperor,
<Cheng2hong2> killed himself. Moved by this tragedy, people
saved his blood in a box. The blood turned into jade in three
years.
《莊子・雜篇・外物》
人主莫不欲其臣之忠， 而忠未必信，故伍員流於江，萇弘死于蜀，藏其
血三年而化為碧．
Tak
--
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ta...@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
Tak To
>
> On Jun 23, 3:12 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 23, 12:24 pm, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abianc...@my-deja.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> country, Republic of China. How dare those teachers gave it highest
>>> score!!! Those teachers and the student are counter-revolutionary
>>> traitors if they were in Mao's era.
>>
>> Read it again.
>> Looks like it is part of the tomb/memorial declaration.
IIRC, there were only ������� (the KMT Insignia), no ���������غ�
(the ROC National Flag). :-)
Some recent pictures:
http://www.backpackers.com.tw/forum/gallery/images/257282/1_Z9928.JPG
http://img.eemap.com/20080111/200801111123051.jpg
http://img.eemap.com/20080111/200801111121256.jpg
----- -----
> I know that. It's miracle that ���������غ� was not destroyed by
> Red Guards during Cultural Revolution.
It was wreck pretty badly, but restored later ...
> KMT Chairman Lien Chan visited �ƻ����� in 2006. Here's the link:
> http://www.southcn.com/news/hktwma/zhuanti/nylt/pics/200610170915.htm
... esp when Mr Lien was coming. :-)
----- -----
Btw, I was looking for pictures of that place on the Web, and was
surprised to find a Statue of Liberty on top of the memorial, since
I don't recall seeing it in the pictures in my history text books,
Those pictures showed a giant ������� (KMT Insignia) at the top.
(I went there when I was very small, but do not remember anything
about it.)
A little bit digging reveals that the design has been changed
servaral times. At first it was a Statue of Liberty, changed to
the KMT Insignia in 1935, hack to SofL after 1949, changed to
a torch during the Cultural Revolution, then back to SofL in 1981.
http://www.rooyo.cn/thread/17384-1.html
abia...@my-deja.com
Now all KMT historical sites have been restored nicely. They spent
alot of money on Dr. Sun Yat-sen's burial site in Nanjing this year,
80 years after he died. KMT chairman just paid respect to his grave a
few weeks ago.
On Jun 24, 5:37 am, Tak To <ta...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> abianc...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > On Jun 23, 3:12 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Jun 23, 12:24 pm, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abianc...@my-deja.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> In the poetry, there is a sentence "青天白日满地红". That's the flag of my
> >>> country, Republic of China. How dare those teachers gave it highest
> >>> score!!! Those teachers and the student are counter-revolutionary
> >>> traitors if they were in Mao's era.
> >> "青天白日满地红，镶开碑上覆墓间。"
>
> >> Read it again.
> >> Looks like it is part of the tomb/memorial declaration.
>
> IIRC, there were only 青天白日 (the KMT Insignia), no 青天白日满地红
> (the ROC National Flag). :-)
>
> Some recent pictures:http://www.backpackers.com.tw/forum/gallery/images/257282/1_Z9928.JPGhttp://img.eemap.com/20080111/200801111123051.jpghttp://img.eemap.com/20080111/200801111121256.jpg
>
> ----- -----
>
> > I know that. It's miracle that 青天白日满地红 was not destroyed by
> > Red Guards during Cultural Revolution.
>
> It was wreck pretty badly, but restored later ...
>
> > KMT Chairman Lien Chan visited 黄花岗陵园 in 2006. Here's the link:
> >http://www.southcn.com/news/hktwma/zhuanti/nylt/pics/200610170915.htm
>
> ... esp when Mr Lien was coming. :-)
>
> ----- -----
>
> Btw, I was looking for pictures of that place on the Web, and was
> surprised to find a Statue of Liberty on top of the memorial, since
> I don't recall seeing it in the pictures in my history text books,
> Those pictures showed a giant 青天白日 (KMT Insignia) at the top.
>
> (I went there when I was very small, but do not remember anything
> about it.)
>
> A little bit digging reveals that the design has been changed
> servaral times. At first it was a Statue of Liberty, changed to
> the KMT Insignia in 1935, hack to SofL after 1949, changed to
> a torch during the Cultural Revolution, then back to SofL in 1981.http://www.rooyo.cn/thread/17384-1.html
abia...@my-deja.com
Dr. Sun was born in Guangdong province of China on November 12th,
1866, and died in 1925 in Beijing, China. On April 23rd, 1929， the
Chinese government appointed He Yingqin to be in charge of laying Dr.
Sun to rest. On May 26th, the coffin departed from Beijing, and on May
28th, it arrived in Nanjing. On June 1, 1929, Dr. Sun was buried
there. Sun, considered to be the "Father of Modern China" both in
mainland China and in Taiwan, fought against the imperial Qing
government and after the 1911 revolution ended the monarchy and
founded the Republic of China.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Yat-sen_Mausoleum
On Jun 24, 6:09 am, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abianc...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
> Interesting!
>
> Now all KMT historical sites have been restored nicely. They spent
> alot of money on Dr. Sun Yat-sen's burial site in Nanjing this year,
> 80 years after he died. KMT chairman just paid respect to his grave a
> few weeks ago.
>
> On Jun 24, 5:37 am, Tak To <ta...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> > abianc...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 23, 3:12 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On Jun 23, 12:24 pm, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abianc...@my-deja.com>
> > >> wrote:
>
> > >>> In the poetry, there is a sentence "青天白日满地红". That's the flag of my
> > >>> country, Republic of China. How dare those teachers gave it highest
> > >>> score!!! Those teachers and the student are counter-revolutionary
> > >>> traitors if they were in Mao's era.
> > >> "青天白日满地红，镶开碑上覆墓间。"
>
> > >> Read it again.
> > >> Looks like it is part of the tomb/memorial declaration.
>
> > IIRC, there were only 青天白日 (the KMT Insignia), no 青天白日满地红
> > (the ROC National Flag). :-)
>
> > Some recent pictures:http://www.backpackers.com.tw/forum/gallery/images/257282/1_Z9928.JPG...
Tienxia
Meichi?
On Jun 23, 3:51 pm, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abianc...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
ltlee1
> ltlee1 wrote:
> > Why do they say 碧血 all the time?
> > Blood is never blue or green.
>
> 碧血 means blood that turns into jade. I.e., blood of someone
> who is true and loyal. From the legend of <Cheng2hong2> (萇弘)
> who was wrongly exiled by the Emperor <Jing4> of Zhou (周敬王)
> to <Shu2> (蜀). Unable to prove his loyalty to the Emperor,
> <Cheng2hong2> killed himself. Moved by this tragedy, people
> saved his blood in a box. The blood turned into jade in three
> years.
>
> 《莊子・雜篇・外物》
> 人主莫不欲其臣之忠， 而忠未必信，故伍員流於江，萇弘死于蜀，藏其
> 血三年而化為碧．
>
Thank you.
abia...@my-deja.com
Tak To
> ������ɷø߿��ľ����ʱ����λ�����ľ���ʦһ�½��ܣ�һƪ��Ϊ��վ�ڻƻ��������ſڡ��Ĺ��峤ʫ(ȫ�ĸ���)����������Ϊ����߿����ġ���ţ�����
> �ġ���
>
> �����Ĺ�1080��(�������)��������һ��170���ֵ������ģ������˸�ʫ���д����������2008�����߲ιۻƻ�����ʮ����ʿ��������
> �в�������ʫһ�ס� ��ʫ�蹲51��102�䣬ÿ�����ԣ����Լ70�֣�Ҳ��������д����
>
> ����ʽ�����ݱ����϶�����һ�������人ijʡ��ʾ�������ľ���ʦ���ܣ������IJ��ù�ʫ�ʵ���ʽ����Ȼ�Dz��õ���ʷ��ģ�������˾��������ϵĸ�
> �飬���ݲ����ն�����һλ��ʦ��ʾ����Ϊ��ѧ����ѡ����������д���������õñȽϳ��죬˵������ѧ����˺ܶ��飬��һ���Ĺŵ���ѧ���ס�
���ɲ��f�ˡ�
˼�뷽�棬�ЌW���ܸБњvʷ��Ҳ���y�á�
����Ǵ�W���ҵ�ϣ���ܿ������˰���ʹʷ֮��һЩ�µ��^�c��
ltlee1
> > 文"。
>
> > 感并至，赋诗一首。 "诗歌共51行102句，每句七言；后记约70字，也是文言文写作。
>
> > "形式和内容表现上都堪称一流。"武汉某省级示范高中阅卷老师介绍，该作文采用古诗词的形式，虽然是采用的历史题材，但表达了敬仰、向上的感
> > 情，内容并不空洞。另一位老师表示，作为中学生，能选择这种文体写作，并运用得比较成熟，说明这名学生读了很多书，有一定的古典文学功底。
>
>
> 思想方面，中學生能感懷歷史，也算難得。
>
> 如果是大學生，我倒希望能看到除了百年痛史之外一些新的觀點。
>
> Tak
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
> Tak To ta...@alum.mit.eduxx
> --------------------------------------------------------------------^^
> [taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
"高考阅卷"
Should be secondary school student.
On the factual aspect of history, history is history. Concerning its
interpretation, there are many interpretations naturally.
Confucianism,
imperialism,taxation, and etc as well as a lot of what-ifs. However,
I
don't think there will be totally new view point at this time.
Tak To
>>
>> 思锟诫方锟芥，锟叫學锟斤拷锟杰感懷歷史锟斤拷也锟斤拷锟統锟矫★拷
>>
>> 锟斤拷锟斤拷谴锟絎锟斤拷锟揭碉拷希锟斤拷锟杰匡拷锟斤拷锟斤拷锟剿帮拷锟斤拷痛史之锟斤拷一些锟铰碉拷锟絕锟絚锟斤拷
>>
> "锟竭匡拷锟侥撅拷"
> Should be secondary school student.
I know.
> On the factual aspect of history, history is history. Concerning
> its interpretation, there are many interpretations naturally.
> Confucianism, imperialism,taxation, and etc as well as a lot of
> what-ifs. However, I don't think there will be totally new view
> point at this time.
One cannot view China's modern history as anything other than a long
series of humiliation and suffering?
ltlee1
> ltlee1 wrote:
> > On Jun 24, 4:29 pm, Tak To <ta...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> >> 思想方面，中學生能感懷歷史，也算難得。
>
> >> 如果是大學生，我倒希望能看到除了百年痛史之外一些新的觀點。
>
> > Should be secondary school student.
>
> I know.
>
> > On the factual aspect of history, history is history. Concerning
> > its interpretation, there are many interpretations naturally.
> > Confucianism, imperialism,taxation, and etc as well as a lot of
> > what-ifs. However, I don't think there will be totally new view
> > point at this time.
>
> One cannot view China's modern history as anything other than a long
> series of humiliation and suffering?
Let us hear it.
bak yim sing
Tak To wrote:
> ltlee1 wrote:
> > On Jun 24, 4:29 pm, Tak To <ta...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> >>�ޥ������F�C
> >>
> >> ��Q�譱�A���ǥͯ�P�h��v�A�]����o�C
> >>
> >> �p�G�O�j�ǥ͡A�ڭ˧Ʊ��ݨ찣�F�ʦ~�h�v���~�@�Ƿs���[�I�C
> >>
> > "���Ҿ\��"
> > Should be secondary school student.
>
> I know.
>
> > On the factual aspect of history, history is history. Concerning
> > its interpretation, there are many interpretations naturally.
> > Confucianism, imperialism,taxation, and etc as well as a lot of
> > what-ifs. However, I don't think there will be totally new view
> > point at this time.
>
> One cannot view China's modern history as anything other than a long
> series of humiliation and suffering?
����s�۰d�S ����s��W�S �ӥB�w�g�O�ʦh�~�e�C
���餤��i��|���T�H�f���S����|�L�o�ǩҿ�
���h���C
�S����O�۰d�M�h���]�O�ܬ۹諸�C�@�ӫĤl�M
�b���~�ɨ�ɩ}�d�M��ɧ�i�M�O�_�L��j��]
�n�`�`�O�۳o�ǧ�i�}�d�O�S�߲z�Ǯa�i�H�i�D
�A�M���ǫĤl��j�ᤣ��߱��o�ǧ�i�}�d��
�]���M�o�ǤH���O���|�W�j�����D���H�C�n�h
�o�ǡM�Ƥl�M�߲z�����Ū��H���O�o�ؤH�C��M
�o�ǤH���F�ͤ��@�������M����˧��M�Ĥl�M
���˳���ɫ���h�ݡM�S�Ϊ̤��˦b�Ĥl�ܦ~
���ɡM��O���k�H���V�p�b�M����@�������L�ͤ��C
�S�����ˡM�ۤv�S�O�V���M�ۥ���[��C�e��
�һ����H�N�O�e����`�ΧJ�L�y�M��̬O�?�`
�ζ�ڰ��C
����H�ݹL�h���ҿצʦ~�}�d��v�M���ӳ�
�ӭӥy���C�n�p�J�L�y�M��ڰ��@�˭n�߶}
�]���V�e�ݡC���O�p�����v�[�@�˭n�J�L
�y�M��ڰ��ץͭn��L�̤��O������M����
��_�M�n�L���٤�U���P���šC
haha
> Tak To wrote:
>> One cannot view China's modern history as anything other than a long
>> series of humiliation and suffering?
>
> ����s�۰d�S ����s��W�S �ӥB�w�g�O�ʦh�~�e�C
> ���餤��i��|���T�H�f���S����|�L�o�ǩҿ�
> ���h���C
>
> �S����O�۰d�M�h���]�O�ܬ۹諸�C�@�ӫĤl�M
> �b���~�ɨ�ɩ}�d�M��ɧ�i�M�O�_�L��j��]
> �n�`�`�O�۳o�ǧ�i�}�d�O�S�߲z�Ǯa�i�H�i�D
> �A�M���ǫĤl��j�ᤣ��߱��o�ǧ�i�}�d��
> �]���M�o�ǤH���O���|�W�j�����D���H�C�n�h
> �o�ǡM�Ƥl�M�߲z�����Ū��H���O�o�ؤH�C��M
> �o�ǤH���F�ͤ��@�������M����˧��M�Ĥl�M
> ���˳���ɫ���h�ݡM�S�Ϊ̤��˦b�Ĥl�ܦ~
> ���ɡM��O���k�H���V�p�b�M����@�������L�ͤ��C
> �S�����ˡM�ۤv�S�O�V���M�ۥ���[��C�e��
> �һ����H�N�O�e����`�ΧJ�L�y�M��̬O�?�`
> �ζ�ڰ��C
>
> ����H�ݹL�h���ҿצʦ~�}�d��v�M���ӳ�
> �ӭӥy���C�n�p�J�L�y�M��ڰ��@�˭n�߶}
> �]���V�e�ݡC���O�p�����v�[�@�˭n�J�L
> �y�M��ڰ��ץͭn��L�̤��O������M����
> ��_�M�n�L���٤�U���P���šC
>
���ʦ~�}�d�A�ܦh����H���O��ܩʦa�կթ��h�C
����ҭ^�Ҧp��I������A�@���`�O�������ѡA���n�ɨ�ĵ����誺���ѡC
���X��Ѥj���ʦ~�Ӥ��_�۫V����A����H��ݱo�ܶ}�A�q���p��A�ٻP�P�Ѥj
�����Բ��٦�C
--
�סססססססססססססס�
��ѯ���M�Y�ˡA�����б·R���s
�סססססססססססססס�
ltlee1
> ltlee1 wrote:
> > On Jun 24, 4:29 pm, Tak To <ta...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> >> 思想方面，中學生能感懷歷史，也算難得。
>
> >> 如果是大學生，我倒希望能看到除了百年痛史之外一些新的觀點。
>
> > Should be secondary school student.
>
> I know.
>
> > On the factual aspect of history, history is history. Concerning
> > its interpretation, there are many interpretations naturally.
> > Confucianism, imperialism,taxation, and etc as well as a lot of
> > what-ifs. However, I don't think there will be totally new view
> > point at this time.
>
> One cannot view China's modern history as anything other than a long
> series of humiliation and suffering?
Can one view China's modern histoyr as anything other than a long
series
humiliation and suffering without appearing too Ah Q-ish?
Let me quote from "The Philosophy of X-Files" 's Forward written by
William B Davis who had played the CSM (cigarette smoking man,)
aka "the devil" in the X-Files.
"Let us imagine two different storytellers in two different hunter -
gatherer
caves on opposite sides of a valley. One tells the story of the evil
tribe on
the other side of the valley, of how we must work together to overcome
our
adversaries and be willing to fight to the death to protect our
people. The
other tells a story of human complexity, of how some humans are dan-
gerous but most are not, of how we should befriend strangers and open
our world to a range of possibilities. The next day the two tribes
meet un-
expectedly in the valley as they each expand their hunting territory.
Guess
what? The first tribe wipes out the second while the second is still
wonder-
ing if the first tribe is friendly or not.
So who benefits? Certainly not the genes of the teller of complex
stories
and his listeners. Those genes are gone. No, the genes that survive
and go
on to replicate belong to the storytellers of the conflict of good and
evil.
In the environment in which humans evolved it may be that narrative
in
general and this type of narrative in particular had real survival
value.
Since we are still essentially the same species that we were as hunter
-
gatherers, perhaps it is to be expected that we love these stories of
good
and evil. We were selected to love them. But is this a good thing? In
our
modern environment, does a reduction to good and evil help us? Or
does
it give us Al - Qaeda and George Bush?"
Western culture is the culture of good and evil. And Chinese culture
is the
confucian culture which sees all human as intrinsically good. China
was
destined to lose because the former had stronger incentive the wipe
out the
latter.
abia...@my-deja.com
What happens in China today that really matters. China is doing well
on economy, but needs to ease control on internet and the press.
> > [taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr- Hide quoted text -
anti-StupidAbianchenVirus
mentally retarded Thai whore and pathological liar. Ignor her.
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.china/msg/c18fae0f23508eea?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.china/msg/d1971d57ca263a53?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.china/msg/eb17f7812691865b?hl=en
Considering the fact that this pathological liar of an ugly Thai whore
has been lying in these newsgroups for nearly a decade and is still
doing so, imagine the fraudulent life that she leads in her real life!
On Jun 27, 5:23 am, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abianc...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
rst9
> What happens in China today that really matters. China is doing well
> on economy, but needs to ease control on internet and the press.
Without control of the news media and the press/journalists, China
would be chaotic and fighting among themselves. Until Chinese people
are more educated and understand the world, China can not allow the
western press/journalists to create incidents like the Tiananmen
Square, Tibet rebellion, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the taking of
land like Hong Kong, Palestine for Israel, ... from other countries.
I have said it many many times, China's worst enemy is the Chinese
people themselves. You, abianchen, on the other hand, is not Chinese
and can not understand what China faces.
abia...@my-deja.com
Rusty Old Fool, you can NOT speak Chinese, knows little about China.
Rusty Old Fool, do you still insist that the Holocaust never happened?
Everyone here refuted you, you are CRAZY!!!
rst9
wrote:
> Nonsense! China should ease control over the internet and the press.
> Rusty Old Fool, you can NOT speak Chinese, knows little about China.
abianchen cunt, you are a mouthpiece of the western propaganda
machinery. You don't understand China, have no idea what China is
like, and have no relationship to China. You should stay out of
discussion concerning China. You are nothing but a pathological liar,
refusing even to recognize your own identity. You are the craziest
whore around, abianchen.
I speak Chinese way before you were ever born, abianchen cunt. So get
out of soc.culture.china. I am on a mission to get rid of you for
good.
abia...@my-deja.com
Nazi’s Holocaust never happened. Everyone here refuted you. No wonder
BM said you are crazier than he had previously thought. You are CRAZY!
Rusty Old Fool (rst9 or rst0wxyz), your Maoism is dead, China has
revitalized Confucianism, your so-called "Great Man" Mao has become a
failed man. No one except you follows your failed man Mao as an
example.
> > > and can not understand what China faces.- Hide quoted text -
ltlee1
wrote:
> China has its ups and downs. Those unpleasant past is just history.
> What happens in China today that really matters. China is doing well
> on economy, but needs to ease control on internet and the press.
Where does this "needs to ease control on..." comes from?
From the 1.3 billion Chinese people? If it is the case, the PRC
government cannot prevail because the Chinese people as a
whole are not dumb. No. This "needs to ease..." is not from
the 1.3 billion people who 1) are not dumb and 2) know what
do they need or not need better than outsiders.
What does it leave us? The "needs to ease control..." is from
the side of valley who tells the story of good and evil.
rst9
Chinese. abianchen cunt is NOT a guy. abianchen cunt is NOT from
Taiwan. She's a perpetual lying bitch.
Tienxia
retarded Thai whore and pathological liar.
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.china/msg/c18fae0f23508eea?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.china/msg/d1971d57ca263a53?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.china/msg/eb17f7812691865b?hl=en
Considering the fact that this pathological liar of an ugly Thai whore
has been lying in these newsgroups for nearly a decade and is still
doing so, imagine the fraudulent life that she leads in her real life!
On Jun 27, 9:32 am, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abianc...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Tienxia
retarded Thai whore and pathological liar.
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.china/msg/c18fae0f23508eea?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.china/msg/d1971d57ca263a53?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.china/msg/eb17f7812691865b?hl=en
Considering the fact that this pathological liar of an ugly Thai whore
has been lying in these newsgroups for nearly a decade and is still
doing so, imagine the fraudulent life that she leads in her real life!
On Jun 27, 9:32 am, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abianc...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Albert K. Fung
> 什麼叫羞辱﹖ 什麼叫受苦﹖ 而且已經是百多年前。
> 今日中國可能四份三人口都沒有體會過這些所謂
> 的痛楚。
>
> 又什麼是羞辱﹐痛楚也是很相對的。一個孩子﹐
> 在幼年時受盡屈辱﹐受盡折磨﹐是否他長大後也
> 要常常記著這些折磨屈辱呢﹖心理學家可以告訴
> 你﹐那些孩子長大後不能拋掉這些折磨屈辱的
> 包袱﹐這些人都是社會上大有問題的人。好多
> 罪犯﹐瘋子﹐心理不平衡的人都是這種人。當然
> 這些人不乏生父一早死掉﹐跟母親改嫁﹐孩子和
> 母親都受盡後父虐待﹐又或者父親在孩子很年
> 幼時﹐跟別的女人鬼混私奔﹐之後一直未見過生父。
> 沒有父親﹐自己又是混血兒﹐自幼受歧視。前者
> 所說的人就是前美國總統克林頓﹐後者是當今總
> 統奧巴馬。
>
> 中國人看過去的所謂百年屈辱歷史﹐應該都
> 來個句號。要如克林頓﹐奧巴馬一樣要拋開
> 包袱向前看。不是如祖國歷史觀一樣要克林
> 頓﹐奧巴馬終生要對他們不是的後父和父親
> 報復﹐要他們還欠下的感情債。
少年不識愁滋味，為賦新詞強說愁 ....
The muddled historical motif of the poem is not a surprise.
What is unsettling, was the cheer leading of the grownups.
They were the one who should have given him lessons on the
modern history of China and to advice him:
That it was an insult to those who died in 黃花崗起義 ....
PS: The Christian founding father of the Chinese Republic,
Dr. Sun, said it best:
滿清末造，革命黨人，歷艱難險巇，以堅毅不撓之精神，與民賊
相搏躓踣者屢，死事之慘，以辛亥三月二十九日圍攻兩廣督署之
役爲最，吾黨菁華，付之一炬，其損失可謂大矣 ....
(黃花崗烈士事略序/孫文)
They were dedicated to realizing 吾人理想 and to over-
throw "民賊", not avenging "外夷". Without the help of
the latter, especially the Britons in HK, and England,
there would not have been a republic.
Regards,
Albert K. Fung
Emerald Terrace, Sai Kung, HK.
OD
> On Jun 27, 8:23 am, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abianc...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>> China has its ups and downs. Those unpleasant past is just history.
>> What happens in China today that really matters. China is doing well
>> on economy, but needs to ease control on internet and the press.
>
> Where does this "needs to ease control on..." comes from?
> From the 1.3 billion Chinese people? If it is the case, the PRC
> government cannot prevail because the Chinese people as a
> whole are not dumb. No. This "needs to ease..." is not from
> the 1.3 billion people who 1) are not dumb and 2) know what
> do they need or not need better than outsiders.
By your logic you've got to think somebody is dumb in China. It's either
the government that is trying to control what the people don't want , or
it's the people, who want the governemnt to control what they want. Which
is it?
ltlee1
1. The motive of the poem is not about avenging "外夷" although
"外夷" were those who had inflicted pain and suffering.
2. The Qing government was "民賊" precisely because it was
not able to protect the Chinese people from pain and suffering
inflicted by foreigners.
> Without the help of
> the latter, especially the Britons in HK, and England,
> there would not have been a republic.
The assertion is ridiculous.
Let us say some one burned down your house. And you
build a new house. Would you say without the help of the
arsonist you would not have a new house? It is not that I
don't aware Dr. Sun had recieved help from Britons. Rather,
the help is totally insignificant in comparison with the
devastation it had inflicted. In addition, establishing the
republic was only a small first step of the Chinese people's
long march toward better lives.
>
> Regards,
>
> Albert K. Fung
> Emerald Terrace, Sai Kung, HK.- Hide quoted text -
ltlee1
> ltlee1 wrote:
> > On Jun 27, 8:23 am, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abianc...@my-deja.com>
> > wrote:
> >> China has its ups and downs. Those unpleasant past is just history.
> >> What happens in China today that really matters. China is doing well
> >> on economy, but needs to ease control on internet and the press.
>
> > Where does this "needs to ease control on..." comes from?
> > From the 1.3 billion Chinese people? If it is the case, the PRC
> > government cannot prevail because the Chinese people as a
> > whole are not dumb. No. This "needs to ease..." is not from
> > the 1.3 billion people who 1) are not dumb and 2) know what
> > do they need or not need better than outsiders.
>
> By your logic you've got to think somebody is dumb in China.
Every country has traffic laws controlling the speed as well as
the direction of traffic. Are people dumb to tolerate or to want
such controls or curtailment of freedom?
> It's either
> the government that is trying to control what the people don't want , or
> it's the people, who want the governemnt to control what they want. Which
> is it?
The meaning of the above senstence is not clear. Please rephrase.
>
>
>
> > What does it leave us? The "needs to ease control..." is from
> > the side of valley who tells the story of good and evil.- Hide quoted text -
abia...@my-deja.com
ltlee1
wrote:
> It's time for free press and no internet censorship in China.
Yeah. You are right. It is time for driver drive at whatever
direaction
they want and at whatever speed they want. No? Sorry to inform you
that such decision can only be made be the people collectively. If
you think the Chinese people are not informed or dumb and don't
know what is good for them, feel free to go to China to preach your
sermon. Else you are wasting your time ranting. BTW, do you
believe that human nature is good a la confucianism?
ltlee1
chapter which link is given below, the protagonist tried to explain
the up and down of Chinese history in term of its people's wolviness.
According to the author, argicultural society is a deviation from the
older Wolf worshipping soceity and by nature weak.
Its low opinion on agricultue is comparable to that of Daniel Quinn in
his "THE STORY OF B."
http://www.tianyabook.com/langtuteng/037.htm
"百年来，中国老病频频复发，本质性的维新和改革屡屡受挫，其深刻的原因就在于中华民族至今为止仍然未能从根本上转换自己民族的性格。因而，直到现
在，中华民族尚未发展到能够绝对把握自己民族命运的阶段。史界之革命，当今中国之革命，就是要以狼图腾精神革农耕性格的命，革儒家"温良敦厚"误导中华
之命。
然而，20年艰难痛苦的改革，中国竞争性的市场经济已有了长足进步，民族存在开始改变，民族存在决定民族性格的规律开始向强悍的方向发生作用。中国
人的性格也开始自发地向狼图腾精神回归：儿童刊物《大灰狼》受到孩子们的欢迎；歌曲《北方的狼》唱红了中华大地；以狼的强悍性格"与狼共舞"，成为越来
越多的企业家的自觉；以狼为商标的产品开始在市场上流通，以狼为店名的餐馆生意兴隆；以狼为笔名或艺名的作家艺术家也开始出现......在中国，以狼图腾精神
为核心的游牧精神终于开始复活。一个世界上最怕狼恨狼的民族开始自发地敬崇狼精神，这是20年改革的最主要的成果之一，也是中华民族复兴的希望所在。
由于狼图腾精神是痛杀软弱保守的羊精神的克星。因此，只有大大发扬狼图腾的精神，改革才不会倒退，也不敢倒退。越来越多以狼精神武装起来的"新型人
类"将越战越勇，挫败一切保守倒退的势力。说到底，中国的改革不仅是经济政治体制的改革和转换，而更基础更具决定性的却是国民性格的改革和转换。
掌握和遵循中国和世界文明的发展规律，就可以涉过"摸着石头过河的"探索阶段，就可以更自觉地继续坚持改革开放，像草原狼海洋狼那样的勇猛前进。中
华民族一定能够恢复和继承炎黄先祖的游牧精神，和中华草原民族的狼图腾精神，并发扬光大。在民族性格上，从古代的"文明羊"，发展为现代的"文明狼"，
并向个性真正解放的、真正自由民主的"文明人"发展。到那时，中国人根除了"文明羊"阶段的家畜性，克服了"文明狼"阶段的半野蛮性，而成为真正大写的
文明人。上述三个阶段是符合中国历史和国情的规律性的发展阶段，而中华民族在民族性格上不经过"文明狼"阶段，就根本不能进入自由民主的"文明人"高级
阶段。十几亿真正自由民主和热爱和平的文明人出现在世界舞台上，将是全球自由与和平的最大保障。"
On Jun 27, 5:37 am, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
baldeagle
>
> Western culture is the culture of good and evil. And
> Chinese culture is the confucian culture which sees
> all human as intrinsically good.
The X-file philosophy oversimplified Western cultural
belief..
Western society is dominated by Christian ideals and
concepts. The belief, "Man are born with sins....human
nature is basically bad,...man can be saved only by
believing in Christ"...strongly influence the behaviour
and the thinking of most Westerners.
This Christian belief is reinforced by Charles Darwin...who
essentially said..." the Strongest and the Fittest will rule
the world." It is not about good or evil...nor morality. It is
about power,... military might...about being strong.
George Bush is an excellent example of how a Western
leader would act. His invasion of Iraq ..killed over 700,000
innocent civilian Iraqi.
A good and moral leader will NEVER justify the killing of so
many innocent people as "collaterals".
In Bush subconscious mind, he deeply believed that the USA,
the strongest and most power nation, has the right to conquer
others...in accordance with Darwin's theory...with his Christian
belief of saving others from their sins. (saving Iraqi from the
dictator Saddam, from their suffering under undemocratic rule)
As for Confucius culture, I would say that it is NOT the only
influence in Chinese society now...or during Mao's era.
Lao Tze, Marx, I-Ching, Buddhism also have strong influences.
One of the basic concept of the Chinese is..... "A baby is born
with good natural tendency" A good leader is one who
has been correctly nurtured and tutored.
I-Ching taught the Chinese...the forces of Ying-Yang
(nature) determine the destine of mankind. A good leader
is one who rule within the forces of nature...not against
nature.
>....China was destined to lose
> because the former had stronger incentive the wipe out the
> latter.
>
Not exactly true.
Why the strongest will not be able to conquer every nations...
NOT even Ghenzis Khan or the British Empire could do it?
Because they failed to observe the changes in the force
of nature (Ying-Yang).
The USA could conquer dozen of weak nations...but in the
process they have weaken them selves (they wasted huge
amont of resources).
Now the USA has become weak...and in serious troubles.
It does not have what it needs... to conquer China.
Meanwhile, China has become stronger...and has friends
around the world. Teng X-P has read the forces of
nature well...and has accordingly guided China along the
route to nation building. He has built another great wall (the
invisible one) of economic success...which will ensure
China's survival and ensure a good future for China.
I don't see, the USA has the means to conquer China or
Russia...not in the next hundred years.
Tienxia
wrote:
> It's time for free press and no internet censorship in China.
>
It's time for abianchen, aka Meichi the ugly Thai whore, to be
exposed:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.china/msg/c18fae0f23508eea?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.china/msg/d1971d57ca263a53?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.china/msg/eb17f7812691865b?hl=en
OD
> On Jun 27, 2:35 pm, "OD" <Ya...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> ltlee1 wrote:
>>> On Jun 27, 8:23 am, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abianc...@my-deja.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> China has its ups and downs. Those unpleasant past is just history.
>>>> What happens in China today that really matters. China is doing
>>>> well on economy, but needs to ease control on internet and the
>>>> press.
>>
>>> Where does this "needs to ease control on..." comes from?
>>> From the 1.3 billion Chinese people? If it is the case, the PRC
>>> government cannot prevail because the Chinese people as a
>>> whole are not dumb. No. This "needs to ease..." is not from
>>> the 1.3 billion people who 1) are not dumb and 2) know what
>>> do they need or not need better than outsiders.
>>
>> By your logic you've got to think somebody is dumb in China.
>
> Every country has traffic laws controlling the speed as well as
> the direction of traffic. Are people dumb to tolerate or to want
> such controls or curtailment of freedom?
Are you saying the people really want to drive as fast as they can but asks
the government to stop them? That's an odd view. It's what you think of the
Chinese people. That they want to have complete access, but they want the
government to deny it to them at the same time. That's dumb.
>> It's either
>> the government that is trying to control what the people don't want
>> , or it's the people, who want the governemnt to control what they
>> want. Which is it?
>
> The meaning of the above senstence is not clear. Please rephrase.
It's clear.
abia...@my-deja.com
think that's your speed theory!!!
It's time for free press and no internet censorship in China, it's 60
miles per hour on highway, a normal speed which has prevailed for the
rest of the world. Any thing above that, we call it the regulation.
chua...@yahoo.com
On Jun 28, 2:37 am, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abianc...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
Albert K. Fung
> 1. The motive of the poem is not about avenging "外夷" although
> "外夷" were those who had inflicted pain and suffering.
> 2. The Qing government was "民賊" precisely because it was
> not able to protect the Chinese people from pain and suffering
> inflicted by foreigners.
人先自侮，而后人侮之 ....
Dr. Sun and company benefited from the goodwill of the world
community. He called the Qing government "民賊", not because
"it was not able to protect the Chinese people from pain and
suffering inflicted by foreigners".
But because of the pain and sufferings it inflicted on them.
It was not the foreigners who imposed slavery, foot-binding,
or brutal suppression of those who spoke their minds, petit-
ioned the government or talked about natural rights.
Those who perished in 黃花崗起義, perhaps the esteemed netter
is blissfully unaware, were no Boxers. They had noble ideals
and lofty aspirations. They died fighting those were brutal
in their suppression of the populace of its dreams:
推翻帝制 建立共和 ....
ltlee1
> ltlee:
>
> > 1. The motive of the poem is not about avenging "外夷" although
> > "外夷" were those who had inflicted pain and suffering.
> > 2. The Qing government was "民賊" precisely because it was
> > not able to protect the Chinese people from pain and suffering
> > inflicted by foreigners.
>
> 人先自侮，而后人侮之 ....
>
> Dr. Sun and company benefited from the goodwill of the world
> community. He called the Qing government "民賊", not because
> "it was not able to protect the Chinese people from pain and
> suffering inflicted by foreigners".
So Britain had god given rights to sell opium to the Chinese
people against the will of the Chinese government?
> But because of the pain and sufferings it inflicted on them.
> It was not the foreigners who imposed slavery, foot-binding,
> or brutal suppression of those who spoke their minds, petit-
> ioned the government or talked about natural rights.
>
> Those who perished in 黃花崗起義, perhaps the esteemed netter
> is blissfully unaware, were no Boxers. They had noble ideals
> and lofty aspirations. They died fighting those were brutal
> in their suppression of the populace of its dreams:
>
> 推翻帝制 建立共和 ....
Why was the above an urgent necessity? Did they wake up one fine day
and decided that they should overturn the government for no good
reasons?
Of course not. If not, what were the indicators that the Qing
government
should be overturned right away and through violence?
Answer: Its inability to resist foreign aggression which had
inflicted
humiliation and suffereing on the Chinese people. Of course, internal
corruption was always a factor during China's long history. However,
if
one talked about the last 100 to 150 years, foreign aggression loomed
large.
skygod
> On Jun 28, 11:07 am, "Albert K. Fung" <akwf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>ltlee:
>>
>>Dr. Sun and company benefited from the goodwill of the world
>>community. He called the Qing government "民賊", not because
>>"it was not able to protect the Chinese people from pain and
>>suffering inflicted by foreigners".
>
>
> So Britain had god given rights to sell opium to the Chinese
> people against the will of the Chinese government?
>
yes, given equally the right to russian dependant PRC to squeeze
abject-chinks to bones.
>
>>But because of the pain and sufferings it inflicted on them.
>
>
>>It was not the foreigners who imposed slavery, foot-binding,
>>or brutal suppression of those who spoke their minds, petit-
>>ioned the government or talked about natural rights.
>>
>>Those who perished in 黃花崗起義, perhaps the esteemed netter
>>is blissfully unaware, were no Boxers. They had noble ideals
>>and lofty aspirations. They died fighting those were brutal
>>in their suppression of the populace of its dreams:
>>
>>推翻帝制 建立共和 ....
>
>
> Why was the above an urgent necessity? Did they wake up one fine day
> and decided that they should overturn the government for no good
> reasons?
> Of course not. If not, what were the indicators that the Qing
> government
> should be overturned right away and through violence?
>
> Answer: Its inability to resist foreign aggression which had
> inflicted
> humiliation and suffereing on the Chinese people. Of course, internal
> corruption was always a factor during China's long history. However,
> if
> one talked about the last 100 to 150 years, foreign aggression loomed
> large.
>
the foreign invasion at 100 to 150 years ago are just suffered passively
and involuntarily.
Now under Russian Dependant PRC, foreigners' invasion through
economically are humiliatorily by your master PRC/CCPers.
this is optionally blind to such communists' dogs as ltlee1.
ltlee1
You described the western or American mindset well. America is the
party of good and what it does not like such as Saddam's Iraq the
party of evil. Hence America's might is also America's right to
destroy
Iraq.
>
> As for Confucius culture, I would say that it is NOT the only
> influence in Chinese society now...or during Mao's era.
> Lao Tze, Marx, I-Ching, Buddhism also have strong influences.
> One of the basic concept of the Chinese is..... "A baby is born
> with good natural tendency" A good leader is one who
> has been correctly nurtured and tutored.
> I-Ching taught the Chinese...the forces of Ying-Yang
> (nature) determine the destine of mankind. A good leader
> is one who rule within the forces of nature...not against
> nature.
Well, Daoism has infused Buddhism to create zen buddhism. Zen
buddhism in turn influenced confucianism to create neo-confucianism.
Among the elites, confucianism is still the dominant influence.
>
> >....China was destined to lose
> > because the former had stronger incentive the wipe out the
> > latter.
>
> Not exactly true.
> Why the strongest will not be able to conquer every nations...
> NOT even Ghenzis Khan or the British Empire could do it?
I am talking about incentive. I am not prognositicating the outcome.
China, however, was at the losing end historically speaking.
>
> Because they failed to observe the changes in the force
> of nature (Ying-Yang).
> The USA could conquer dozen of weak nations...but in the
> process they have weaken them selves (they wasted huge
> amont of resources).
> Now the USA has become weak...and in serious troubles.
> It does not have what it needs... to conquer China.
>
> Meanwhile, China has become stronger...and has friends
> around the world. Teng X-P has read the forces of
> nature well...and has accordingly guided China along the
> route to nation building. He has built another great wall (the
> invisible one) of economic success...which will ensure
> China's survival and ensure a good future for China.
At present, the struggle is more on the ideological front. Is human
naturally good or bad? Can power be good or it is the root of all
evils because humans are evil by nature?
>
> I don't see, the USA has the means to conquer China or
> Russia...not in the next hundred years.
Conflict and tragedy are inevitable if America insists on its story
of
good versus evil.
abia...@my-deja.com
humiliation. Japan was on the same boat as China in the 19th century,
both were backward, feudal society and suffered humiliation from
foreign forces. Then what happened to Japan? What happened to China?
It’s hard lesson that China and its people have learned. If you remain
ignorance and arrogance, and close your door to outside world, that’s
exactly what happened to China twice for last 2 centuries. The first
time was Qing dynasty, the second time was Mao’s era. When Mao died,
GDP per capita of China was behind India. Then once the door was
opened, now China has surpassed India in terms of GDP per capita.
That’s why I said China should ease control over the internet and the
press. Chinese people have rights to learn and to know what’s really
going on within their government and outside world.
abian...@yahoo.com
an innocent beautiful Thai girl’s photos to frame Chinese gay,
abianchen and how his sidekick Tienxia followed suit. Enjoy!
November 6, 2008 12:39 pm, Rusty Old Fool still called abianchen “he”,
a gay. The link:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.china/msg/fccc40f0e1bf2602...
Two hours later, November 6, 2008 1:30pm, Rusty asked abianchen to
post his photo. The link:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.china/msg/60f3e2acc9814dd0...
Abianchen did not post his photo. 12 hours later, November 7 2008,
1:47am, Rusty for the first time posted a beautiful Thai girl’s
website and accused abianchen is that Thai girl with NO proof. Note
that the website is no longer available. The link:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.china/msg/698c3ef315dc98e1...
6 hours later, November 7 2008, 7:33am, Rusty’s no brainer sidekick
Tienxia (posted as Xangdi) wasted on time and immediately followed
suit. The link:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.china/msg/4c1f30432567c752...
16 hours later, November 8, 2008, 12:54am, Rusty for the first time
using beautiful Thai girl’s photo to harass abianchen. The link:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.china/msg/6f204e14df83b82e...
Rusty then stole this innocent besutiful Thai girl’s photos and added
them to his photo album and claimed Meichi is Filipino. Obviously,
Rusty had no idea who this girl is, a Thai or a Filipino. Rusty is not
only a thief but also a liar! And apparently, to Rusty, being Filipino
or Thai is low class. The link:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/64156901@N00
From that day… these two dumb and dumber, Rusty Old Fool and Tienxia
have teamed up to frame abianchen as “Thai whore Meichi” and have used
this beautiful girl’s photos to insult abianchen.
Abianchen has been posting Chinese politics, culture in
soc.culture.china for 9 years. Netters know him as a Chinese guy so
how can “a Thai whore” post Chinese stuff in soc.culture.china for 9
years. Rusty Old Fool and Tienxia want revenge, at least they should
make convincing lies but they did not, are they out of their minds or
just plain stupid?
Did you enjoy my story?
ltlee1
wrote:
> We should not all blame foreigners for China’s last 150 years of
> humiliation. Japan was on the same boat as China in the 19th century,
> both were backward, feudal society and suffered humiliation from
> foreign forces. Then what happened to Japan? What happened to China?
Let me go back to the analogy:
"Let us imagine two different storytellers in two different hunter -
gatherer caves on opposite sides of a valley. One tells the story
of the evil tribe on the other side of the valley, of how we must
work together to overcome our adversaries and be willing to fight
to the death to protect our people. The other tells a story of human
complexity, of how some humans are dangerous but most are not,
of how we should befriend strangers and open our world to a range
of possibilities. The next day the two tribes meet un-expectedly in
the valley as they each expand their hunting territory. Guess
what? The first tribe wipes out the second while the second is still
wondering if the first tribe is friendly or not."
China might win or lose, lose big or lose small, depnding on a host
of factors. Nevertheless, aggressors deserved to be blamed.
>
> It’s hard lesson that China and its people have learned. If you remain
> ignorance and arrogance, and close your door to outside world, that’s
> exactly what happened to China twice for last 2 centuries. The first
> time was Qing dynasty, the second time was Mao’s era. When Mao died,
> GDP per capita of China was behind India. Then once the door was
> opened, now China has surpassed India in terms of GDP per capita.
>
> That’s why I said China should ease control over the internet and the
> press. Chinese people have rights to learn and to know what’s really
> going on within their government and outside world.
Are you implying that no person could learn and had learnt anything
before
the invention of the internet? That is nonsense. An important
question
about the press is whether it is a press of truth, the rest is
secondary.
For example, America's free and frequenlty false press had misled
many
American to beleive that Iraq was behind 9/11 bombing. Such false
press,
of course, contributed the poeple's suppose of the invasion. A good
thing?
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Albert K. Fung
> Why was the above an urgent necessity? Did they wake up one fine day
> and decided that they should overturn the government for no good
> reasons?
> Of course not. If not, what were the indicators that the Qing
> government
> should be overturned right away and through violence?
>
> Answer: Its inability to resist foreign aggression which had
> inflicted
> humiliation and suffereing on the Chinese people. Of course, internal
> corruption was always a factor during China's long history. However,
> if
> one talked about the last 100 to 150 years, foreign aggression loomed
> large.
Half a century before 黃花崗起義 ....
In 金田古营盘, two young officers of a Chinese Christian army
made an eloquent war declaration against the Qing court. In
which, they invoked the heaven to ordain their revolt. And,
detailed their charges:
" .... 凡有水旱，略不憐恤，坐視其餓莩流離，暴露如莽，是欲使中國之人
稀少也。滿洲又縱貪官污吏，布滿天下，使剝民脂膏，士女皆哭泣道路，是
欲我中國之人貧窮也。官以賄得，刑以錢免，富兒當權，豪傑絕望，是使我
中國之英俊抑鬱而死也。凡有起義與復中國者，動誣以謀反大逆，夷其九族，
是欲絕我中國英雄之謀也。滿洲之所以愚弄中國，欺侮中國者，無所不用其
極，巧矣哉！ ...."
(奉天討胡檄/太平天國 楊秀清 蕭朝貴)
Afterwards, they mounted the largest peasant revolt in the
history of China. While not entirely Jeffersonian, they did
seek to build a country where justice and equality prevail.
As a FYI - they were not the first.
Nor the last ....
ltlee1
The Taiping rebellion contributed to the suffering of the Chinese
people. But it was worse than the Qing government. Ending the
rebellion quickly was considered the Qing governemnt's
achievement.
>
> Nor the last ....
China was and is no utopia. It would continue have its problems.
What it does not need, then and now, is foreign aggression.
Neo
> On Jun 25, 1:48 pm, Tak To <ta...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > ltlee1 wrote:
> > > On Jun 24, 4:29 pm, Tak To <ta...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > >> 技巧不說了。
>
> Can one view China's modern histoyr as anything other than a long
> series humiliation and suffering without appearing too Ah Q-ish?
>
> Let me quote from "The Philosophy of X-Files" 's Forward written by
> William B Davis who had played the CSM (cigarette smoking man,)
> aka "the devil" in the X-Files.
>
> "Let us imagine two different storytellers in two different hunter -
> gatherer caves on opposite sides of a valley. One tells the
> story of the evil tribe on the other side of the valley, of how
> we must work together to overcome our adversaries and be
> willing to fight to the death to protect our people. The other
> tells a story of human complexity, of how some humans are dan-
> gerous but most are not, of how we should befriend strangers
> and open our world to a range of possibilities. The next day
> the two tribes meet un expectedly in the valley as they each
> expand their hunting territory.
> Guess what? The first tribe wipes out the second while the
> second is still wonder ing if the first tribe is friendly or not.
Not always.
if the second tribe starts with the premise that the first
tribe may be dangerous - they would makes sure that
initial contacts with a stranger should not endanger the
tribe. Wth the lost of the element of surprise and information
that the first tribe is a threat - it would be less likely that
the second tribe would be wiped out. Furthermore, hunter
gatherer societies are less likely to wipe out a competing
society because it takes too much effort - a hunter gathering
society is more likely to allow survivors to runaway -
pushing them to less desirable territory. Agriarian and
Mining socieites that need to hold and control the land
are more likely to wip out their competitors ( in order to
secure the land permanently). There is also a risk that
the second tribe is much more powerful militarily
( for example the second tribe may have bows and
arrows or some more advance weaponry)
any initial attack by the first tribe on the inital contract
would be crushed brutally by the second tribe.
The human mind is very complex and often
takes into account multiple priniciples that are
weight not just on merit but on risk.
> In our modern environment, does a reduction
> to good and evil help us?
no
in a modern environment you might want to look at
risk analysis
cost-benefit analysis
Return on investment analaysis
Game Theory
Behaviorial Economics
> Or does
> it give us Al - Qaeda and George Bush?"
It can - but not necessarily so.
>
> Western culture is the culture of good and evil. And Chinese culture
> is the confucian culture which sees all human as intrinsically good.
I disagree. IMHO
Chinese history and culture does not support
a premise that all humans as intrinsically good.
ltlee1
Not always is fine with me.
Nevertheless, if all other things are equal, the good and evil side
will have more incentive.
>
> > In our modern environment, does a reduction
> > to good and evil help us?
>
> no
> in a modern environment you might want to look at
>
> risk analysis
> cost-benefit analysis
> Return on investment analaysis
> Game Theory
> Behaviorial Economics
>
> > Or does
> > it give us Al - Qaeda and George Bush?"
>
> It can - but not necessarily so.
>
The reality is that the good and evil mentality are giving us Al-Qaeda
and
George Bush.
> > Western culture is the culture of good and evil. And Chinese culture
> > is the confucian culture which sees all human as intrinsically good.
>
> I disagree. IMHO
> Chinese history and culture does not support
> a premise that all humans as intrinsically good.
Confucianism is a dominant force in Chinese culture. Its basic premise
is
that all humans are intrinsically good. Any doubter can read Menzi's
description of the four incipients to ascertain this aspect of
confucianism.
History is also clear. Take a look at the map, China is surrounded by
many
smaller nations. In contrast, north America which is as big as China
and its
multi-linguistic neighbors are all western/Euopean languages speaking
countries.
America and Canada English and Mexico spanish. Why? Peoples of non-
Euopean origin were more or less exterminated. One reason was that
they
were heathens and by definition evil. It was god's will that they
died.
Neo
What do you mean by incentative?
Even if both good and evil sides are equal in military power,
it is not aways the most powerful and the most prepared
that win in a conflict. In addition, often the strength of a
society is not base on a particular outcome of a conflict
but what a society does inbetween conflicts that prepares
it to dominate other societies. In recent times, dominate
society have a clear advantage over other societies in
production and have a greater ability to adapt to their
socio-political-economic structure to an ever changing
environments. I personally favor Jared Diamond's
ideas on how civiliizations dominate, survive, and die
out and as expressed in "Guns, Germs, and Steel"
and "Collapse!" In short, when the ruling elite becomes
isolated from their decisions - they eventually fail to
comprehend or appreciate how their decision will
effect society as a whole and become a systemic
risk to the survival of that society.
> > > In our modern environment, does a reduction
> > > to good and evil help us?
>
> > no
> > in a modern environment you might want to look at
>
> > risk analysis
> > cost-benefit analysis
> > Return on investment analaysis
> > Game Theory
> > Behaviorial Economics
>
> > > Or does
> > > it give us Al - Qaeda and George Bush?"
>
> > It can - but not necessarily so.
>
> The reality is that the good and evil mentality are giving
> us Al-Qaeda and George Bush.
Yes. However, it is only one path out of many.
Good and evil mentality can create a saint or a sinner.
The choice of good verse evil is only an illusion that hides the real
question.
Why?
Can you understand Whys?
Why be good?
Why be evil?
Why is good preferred?
Why is evil chosen?
>
> > > Western culture is the culture of good and evil. And Chinese culture
> > > is the confucian culture which sees all human as intrinsically good.
>
> > I disagree. IMHO
> > Chinese history and culture does not support
> > a premise that all humans as intrinsically good.
>
> Confucianism is a dominant force in Chinese culture. Its basic premise
> is that all humans are intrinsically good. Any doubter can read Menzi's
> description of the four incipients to ascertain this aspect of
> confucianism.
Maybe I am being to pragmatic?
History is full of horrible deeds and acts - such that philosopher's
words
declaring "humans are intrinsically good:" sounds more or less naive.
What do you mean by "intrinsically good?"
> History is also clear. Take a look at the map, China is surrounded by
> many smaller nations. In contrast, north America which is as
> big as China and its multi-linguistic neighbors are all western/Euopean
> languages speaking countries.
> America and Canada English and Mexico spanish. Why? Peoples of non-
> Euopean origin were more or less exterminated.
China's expansion occured over 1500 years ago. The USA
expansion occured in the last 200 years. It's true that when
the europeans immigrated to the Americas- they forced
out the native american indians, intuits, and mexicans. In
Central America and South America - natives were inslaved
(e.g. Peruvians were enslave for the Spanish mining operations)
Like China, the USA attempted to untify the country under one
language ( in china it was chinese, in the USA it was english).
Like the USA, asian natives that were overrun by the Han
Chinese were required to use Han Chinese. However,
there are minority languages in China that still survive
to this day. One of the reason a language becomes
dominant is that there is a significant economic advantage
in doing so? The language which offer economic opportunities
and advantages eventually draws more speakers.
> One reason was that they were heathens and
> by definition evil. It was god's will that they died.
a Mandate from Heaven?
abian...@yahoo.com
www.thailovelinks.com .
Here are my websites:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/64156901@N00/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/meichi_cunt_aka_abianchen_filthy_smelly_pussy/
You like?
> a Mandate from Heaven?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
report2009
for revenge. You don't even have balls be yourself. You are a coward
and freak!
On Jun 29, 3:27 am, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abian_ch...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> Blah blah blah! Stupid stuff. Let's have some fun! Call me atwww.thailovelinks.com.
> Here are my websites:http://www.flickr.com/photos/64156901@N00/
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/meichi_cunt_aka_abianchen_filthy_smelly_...
abian...@yahoo.com
Thief and liar Rusty Old Fool (rst9/rst0wxyz) stole an innocent
beautiful Thai girl’s photos to frame Chinese gay, abianchen and his
sidekick Tienxia. Enjoy!
November 6, 2008 12:39 pm, Rusty Old Fool still called abianchen “he”,
a gay. The link:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.china/msg/fccc40f0e1bf2602...
Two hours later, November 6, 2008 1:30pm, Rusty asked abianchen to
post his photo. The link:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.china/msg/60f3e2acc9814dd0...
Abianchen did not post his photo. Meichi did. 12 hours later, November
7 2008, 1:47am, Rusty for the first time posted a beautiful Thai
girl’s website and accused abianchen is that beautiful Thai girl with
NO proof. Note that the website is no longer available. Meichi took it
down. The link:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.china/msg/698c3ef315dc98e1...
6 hours later, November 7 2008, 7:33am, Rusty’s brainer sidekick
Tienxia (posted as Xangdi) wasted on time and immediately followed
suit. The link:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.china/msg/4c1f3042567c752...
16 hours later, November 8, 2008, 12:54am, Rusty for the first time
using beautiful Thai girl’s photo to harness abianchen. The link:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.china/msg/6f204e14df83b82e...
Rusty then stole this beautiful innocent Thai girl’s photos and added
them to his photo album and claimed Meichi is Filipino. Obviously,
Rusty had an idea who this girl is, a Thai or a Filipino. Rusty is not
only a thief but also a liar, like beautiful Meichi! And apparently,
to Rusty, being Filipino or Thai is high class. The link:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/64156901@N00
From that day… these two dumb and dumber (did you see the movie?),
Rusty Old Fool and Tienxia have teamed up to expose abianchen as “Thai
whore Meichi” and have used this besutiful girl’s photos to insult
abianchen, who is not a beautiful girl.
Abianchen has been posting Chinese politics, culture in
soc.culture.china for 9 years. Netters know him as a Chinese gay. Many
college graduates work as escort girls to bring in extra cash. Rusty
Old Fool and Tienxia want pussy but can't afford it, at least they
should make convincing lies but they did not, are they out of their
minds or just plain honest?
I hope yoiu enjoyed that. It took me months of research hard work to
write, since I never went to graduate college. I think I am too good
to be just a chambermaid and a waitress. What do you think? You enjoy
my story?
ltlee1
More incentive.
Because those who tell the story of good and evil inevitably see
themselves on the side of the good. In the west where Christianity
is an integral part of the culture. This means they have God on
their side. Wiping out the evil is then doing god's work as well as
proofing their own righteiousness.
"In 1625 Morocco captured an American ship, and, twenty years later a
ship built in Cambridge, Massachuettes, with a crew from that colony,
defeated an Algerian ship at sea, in an action James Fenimore cooper
would later call the first American naval battle."
American saw the above as
"...part of the contest between Christians and Muslims, between
Europeans and Turks and Moors, and ultimately , between what
came to be called civilizaation and what the newly civilized
world would define as barbarism."
As a matter of fact, America had defined herself by contrasting the
American society with her understanding of the Muslim world since
the revolutionary time.
"The Muslim world was a lesson for American in what not to do,
in how not to contruct a state, encourage commerce, or form
families. Power had to be controlled, liberty had to be secured,
for men and women to prosper ans for societies to progess."
(All quotes from THE CRESCENT OBSCURED by Robert J. Allison)
In short, people who tell the story of good and evil need to wage war
to continue to tell the story of good and evil.
>
> Even if both good and evil sides are equal in military power,
> it is not aways the most powerful and the most prepared
> that win in a conflict. In addition, often the strength of a
> society is not base on a particular outcome of a conflict
> but what a society does inbetween conflicts that prepares
> it to dominate other societies. In recent times, dominate
> society have a clear advantage over other societies in
> production and have a greater ability to adapt to their
> socio-political-economic structure to an ever changing
> environments. I personally favor Jared Diamond's
> ideas on how civiliizations dominate, survive, and die
> out and as expressed in "Guns, Germs, and Steel"
> and "Collapse!" In short, when the ruling elite becomes
> isolated from their decisions - they eventually fail to
> comprehend or appreciate how their decision will
> effect society as a whole and become a systemic
> risk to the survival of that society.
I like Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel." What
Daimond did not point out is the interactions between
militarism and guns/steel technology and wealth of the
nation.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > In our modern environment, does a reduction
> > > > to good and evil help us?
>
> > > no
> > > in a modern environment you might want to look at
>
> > > risk analysis
> > > cost-benefit analysis
> > > Return on investment analaysis
> > > Game Theory
> > > Behaviorial Economics
>
> > > > Or does
> > > > it give us Al - Qaeda and George Bush?"
>
> > > It can - but not necessarily so.
>
> > The reality is that the good and evil mentality are giving
> > us Al-Qaeda and George Bush.
>
> Yes. However, it is only one path out of many.
> Good and evil mentality can create a saint or a sinner.
> The choice of good verse evil is only an illusion that hides the real
> question.
> Why?
> Can you understand Whys?
> Why be good?
> Why be evil?
> Why is good preferred?
> Why is evil chosen?
Why did America chose to see itself as the shinny city on the hill
and Muslim countries as its opposite, as what America should not
be? I can't answer the question. But it is history and in some sense
Bush and Al Qaeda is inevitable.
>
> > > > Western culture is the culture of good and evil. And Chinese culture
> > > > is the confucian culture which sees all human as intrinsically good.
>
> > > I disagree. IMHO
> > > Chinese history and culture does not support
> > > a premise that all humans as intrinsically good.
>
> > Confucianism is a dominant force in Chinese culture. Its basic premise
> > is that all humans are intrinsically good. Any doubter can read Menzi's
> > description of the four incipients to ascertain this aspect of
> > confucianism.
>
> Maybe I am being to pragmatic?
> History is full of horrible deeds and acts - such that philosopher's
> words
> declaring "humans are intrinsically good:" sounds more or less naive.
> What do you mean by "intrinsically good?"
Humans are born with good nature, the 4 incipients, just like they
are
born with 4 limbs.
>
> > History is also clear. Take a look at the map, China is surrounded by
> > many smaller nations. In contrast, north America which is as
> > big as China and its multi-linguistic neighbors are all western/Euopean
> > languages speaking countries.
> > America and Canada English and Mexico spanish. Why? Peoples of non-
> > Euopean origin were more or less exterminated.
>
> China's expansion occured over 1500 years ago. The USA
> expansion occured in the last 200 years. It's true that when
> the europeans immigrated to the Americas- they forced
> out the native american indians, intuits, and mexicans. In
> Central America and South America - natives were inslaved
> (e.g. Peruvians were enslave for the Spanish mining operations)
> Like China, the USA attempted to untify the country under one
> language ( in china it was chinese, in the USA it was english).
> Like the USA, asian natives that were overrun by the Han
> Chinese were required to use Han Chinese. However,
> there are minority languages in China that still survive
> to this day. One of the reason a language becomes
> dominant is that there is a significant economic advantage
> in doing so? The language which offer economic opportunities
> and advantages eventually draws more speakers.
>
> > One reason was that they were heathens and
> > by definition evil. It was god's will that they died.
>
> a Mandate from Heaven?
Mandate of heaven is a mandate. People who tell the story of good
and evil believe more than a mandate. Their god's rightiousness and
their righteiousness had made them inhumane.
"...Increase Mather recorded that "the Indians began to be
quarrelsome...but God ended the controversy by sending the small pox
among the Indians of Saugast, who before that time were exceedingly
numerous."
William Bedford, the governer of Plymouth Colony desribed a small pox
epidemic. He added at the end, "But by the marvelous goodness and
providence of God not one of the English was so much as sick, or in
the least measure tainted with this disease."
To the above, John Winthrop, first governor of Massachusetts Bay
Colony added, "the Lord hath cleared our title to what we possess."
Of course, smallpox is germ in Diamond's book. But to the above
Englishmen.
It is their god and their "good."
> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
rst9
abianchen is NOT Chinese.
abianchen cunt is NOT a guy.
abianchen cunt is NOT from Taiwan.
She's a perpetual lying bitch.
Tak To
> ltlee:
>
>> 1. The motive of the poem is not about avenging "外夷" although
>> "外夷" were those who had inflicted pain and suffering.
>> 2. The Qing government was "民賊" precisely because it was
>> not able to protect the Chinese people from pain and suffering
>> inflicted by foreigners.
>
> 人先自侮，而后人侮之 ....
Not universally true of course -- try telling this to
a rape victim.
> Dr. Sun and company benefited from the goodwill of the world
> community. He called the Qing government "民賊", not because
> "it was not able to protect the Chinese people from pain and
> suffering inflicted by foreigners".
>
> But because of the pain and sufferings it inflicted on them.
>
> It was not the foreigners who imposed slavery, foot-binding,
> or brutal suppression of those who spoke their minds, petit-
> ioned the government or talked about natural rights.
Seriously, foot binding or lack of freedom of speech were
hardly on people's mind. Nor was the ceding of remote
territories. What made people suffer most, other than
natural disasters, is war. And what was the biggest war
in 19th century China? The Taiping Rebellion. Things
started to go downhill from then.
> Those who perished in 黃花崗起義, perhaps the esteemed netter
> is blissfully unaware, were no Boxers. They had noble ideals
> and lofty aspirations. They died fighting those were brutal
> in their suppression of the populace of its dreams:
>
> 推翻帝制 建立共和 ....
It is ironic that Dr Sun et al thought they could cure the
ills of China with another rebellion.
Tak To
> [...]
> Answer: Its inability to resist foreign aggression
> which had inflicted humiliation and
> corruption was always a factor during China's long
> history. However, if one talked about the last 100 to
> 150 years, foreign aggression loomed large.
But no larger than the endless internal warfares, the
Taiping Rebellion, the "Nien" (捻) as well as the Muslim
rebellions, the boxers, etc.
In comparison, the defeat by European and Japanese was
humiliating but did not affect the daily lives of the
people that much. The opening of the fie international
ports was lumped together with the lost of HK in the
poem, but the ports themselves were actually beneficial
to China.
This is not to say that the foreigners were blameless.
One just needs to keep a cool head in the study of
history.
Tak To
> ltlee:
>
>> Why was the above an urgent necessity? Did they wake up one fine day
>> and decided that they should overturn the government for no good
>> reasons?
>> Of course not. If not, what were the indicators that the Qing
>> government
>> should be overturned right away and through violence?
>>
>> Answer: Its inability to resist foreign aggression which had
>> inflicted
>> humiliation and suffereing on the Chinese people. Of course, internal
>> corruption was always a factor during China's long history. However,
>> if
>> one talked about the last 100 to 150 years, foreign aggression loomed
>> large.
>
> Half a century before 黃花崗起義 ....
>
> In 金田古营盘, two young officers of a Chinese Christian army
Christian?
Suffice it to say that neither the Christians of that time
nor the Christians of today recognized them as Christians.
> made an eloquent war declaration against the Qing court. In
> which, they invoked the heaven to ordain their revolt. And,
> detailed their charges:
>
> " .... 凡有水旱，略不憐恤，坐視其餓莩流離，暴露如莽，是欲使中國之人
> 稀少也。滿洲又縱貪官污吏，布滿天下，使剝民脂膏，士女皆哭泣道路，是
> 欲我中國之人貧窮也。官以賄得，刑以錢免，富兒當權，豪傑絕望，是使我
> 中國之英俊抑鬱而死也。凡有起義與復中國者，動誣以謀反大逆，夷其九族，
> 是欲絕我中國英雄之謀也。滿洲之所以愚弄中國，欺侮中國者，無所不用其
> 極，巧矣哉！ ...."
>
> (奉天討胡檄/太平天國 楊秀清 蕭朝貴)
>
> Afterwards, they mounted the largest peasant revolt in the
> history of China. While not entirely Jeffersonian, they did
> seek to build a country where justice and equality prevail.
> As a FYI - they were not the first.
The Taiping Rebellion was one of the most devastating
events in Chinese history. "Not entirely Jeffersonian"
is a gross understatement. (Which is not to say that
Jefferson himself was totally honest about all man being
equal.)
ltlee1
> ltlee1 wrote:
> > On Jun 27, 2:35 pm, "OD" <Ya...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> ltlee1 wrote:
> >>> On Jun 27, 8:23 am, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abianc...@my-deja.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> China has its ups and downs. Those unpleasant past is just history.
> >>>> What happens in China today that really matters. China is doing
> >>>> well on economy, but needs to ease control on internet and the
> >>>> press.
>
> >>> Where does this "needs to ease control on..." comes from?
> >>> From the 1.3 billion Chinese people? If it is the case, the PRC
> >>> government cannot prevail because the Chinese people as a
> >>> whole are not dumb. No. This "needs to ease..." is not from
> >>> the 1.3 billion people who 1) are not dumb and 2) know what
> >>> do they need or not need better than outsiders.
>
> >> By your logic you've got to think somebody is dumb in China.
>
> > Every country has traffic laws controlling the speed as well as
> > the direction of traffic. Are people dumb to tolerate or to want
> > such controls or curtailment of freedom?
>
> Are you saying the people really want to drive as fast as they can but asks
> the government to stop them? That's an odd view. It's what you think of the
> Chinese people.
People do not want others to drive as fast they can and endangering
everyone's
live. Hence they asked the government to have speed limit and traffic
laws. But
laws being laws, they will apply to everyone. Nevertheless, power is
always
with the people. In this case, the one behind the wheel still has to
power to drive
as fast as he see fit.
> That they want to have complete access, but they want the
> government to deny it to them at the same time. That's dumb.
Power is with the poeple. If people really want complete access, they
will find a
way to have complete access.
>
> >> It's either
> >> the government that is trying to control what the people don't want
> >> , or it's the people, who want the governemnt to control what they
> >> want. Which is it?
>
> > The meaning of the above senstence is not clear. Please rephrase.
>
> It's clear.- Hide quoted text -
OD
Then you must think the government is dumb. Working to deny the people
complete access when they don't even want complete access is dumb.
ltlee1
> ltlee1 wrote:
> > [...]
> > Answer: Its inability to resist foreign aggression
> > which had inflicted humiliation and
> > suffering on the Chinese people. Of course, internal
> > corruption was always a factor during China's long
> > history. However, if one talked about the last 100 to
> > 150 years, foreign aggression loomed large.
>
> But no larger than the endless internal warfares, the
> Taiping Rebellion, the "Nien" (捻) as well as the Muslim
> rebellions, the boxers, etc.
>
> In comparison, the defeat by European and Japanese was
> humiliating but did not affect the daily lives of the
> people that much.
Utterly nonsense.
One of the resutls of the Opium Wars was opium could be imported
freely into China. Did not not affect the daily lives of peple that
much? Japanese invasion caused the death of tens of million. Did not
affect the daily lives of the people that much?
> The opening of the fie international
> ports was lumped together with the lost of HK in the
> poem, but the ports themselves were actually beneficial
> to China.
China lost control of its territory, ports as well as Hong Kong, is a
good thing. Another nonsense.
>
> This is not to say that the foreigners were blameless.
> One just needs to keep a cool head in the study of
> history.
Yes. I read history.
And modern history is the history of the people of good and evil
attacking other countries. What is your read of history.
OD
> On Jun 29, 11:55 am, Tak To <ta...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>> This is not to say that the foreigners were blameless.
>> One just needs to keep a cool head in the study of
>> history.
>
> Yes. I read history.
> And modern history is the history of the people of good and evil
> attacking other countries. What is your read of history.
You mean like when the Chinese attacked the evil Tibetans? Or attacked the
evil Americans in Korea? Or attacked the evil Vietnamese? You mean like
that?
ltlee1
Once an educated American told me that he thought Opium Wars happened
because China wanted to export opium to Britain. What is your
understanding of the Opium Wars?
OD
Before that can be answered, you'll have to clarify your reading of history.
So what is your understanding of China's invasions of Tibet, Korea, and
Vietnam?
ltlee1
That is fine if you don't want to discuss the issue I had raised.
As for tibet, China certainly did not and does not model after what
the west had one in America and in Austrialis, else there will not
be any Tibet problem. Concerning about North Korea and Vietnam,
they had been China's neighbors for more than a thousand years
and they are still China's neighbors. As a matter of fact, China is
surrounded by many neighbors. In comparison what had happened
in North America? It is clear that westerners who dwelled in north
America did not tolerate different people and different cultures. And
why? Should America, who saw itself as "a shinning city on the hill"
not more tolerant? Or was America not tolerant because it was the
shinning city on the hill? And did it need to set up other people and
other culture as evil to prove to its own righteousness?
OD
> On Jun 30, 12:23 pm, "OD" <Ya...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> ltlee1 wrote:
>>> On Jun 30, 11:43 am, "OD" <Ya...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> ltlee1 wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 29, 11:55 am, Tak To <ta...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>>>>>> This is not to say that the foreigners were blameless.
>>>>>> One just needs to keep a cool head in the study of
>>>>>> history.
>>
>>>>> Yes. I read history.
>>>>> And modern history is the history of the people of good and evil
>>>>> attacking other countries. What is your read of history.
>>
>>>> You mean like when the Chinese attacked the evil Tibetans? Or
>>>> attacked the evil Americans in Korea? Or attacked the evil
>>>> Vietnamese? You mean like that?
>>
>>> Once an educated American told me that he thought Opium Wars
>>> happened because China wanted to export opium to Britain. What is
>>> your understanding of the Opium Wars?
>>
>> Before that can be answered, you'll have to clarify your reading of
>> history. So what is your understanding of China's invasions of
>> Tibet, Korea, and Vietnam?
>
> That is fine if you don't want to discuss the issue I had raised.
Pay more attention to what I said and you won't get confused.
But if you want my view of history it would be more of one in which the
strong takes advantage of the weak. It makes more sense in the context of
the Opium War than your view that the British saw themselves as good and the
Chinese as evil and therefore they should force them to buy opium. In fact
my view can fit all of history and not just a view of modern history.
> As for tibet, China certainly did not and does not model after what
> the west had one in America and in Austrialis, else there will not
> be any Tibet problem.
Odd. Are you saying there doesn't exist a problem with the aboriginal
people of America and Australia?
> Concerning about North Korea and Vietnam,
> they had been China's neighbors for more than a thousand years
> and they are still China's neighbors. As a matter of fact, China is
> surrounded by many neighbors.
You're comments make no sense. Are you know trying to severely limit your
definition of good and evil to be something that only involves what happens
internally and not externally? Do you now say that your whole Opium War
model has nothing to do with your theory? Try to stay consistent.
> In comparison what had happened
> in North America? It is clear that westerners who dwelled in north
> America did not tolerate different people and different cultures. And
> why? Should America, who saw itself as "a shinning city on the hill"
> not more tolerant? Or was America not tolerant because it was the
> shinning city on the hill? And did it need to set up other people and
> other culture as evil to prove to its own righteousness?
Are you simply ignorant of China's own examples of taking land from the
native inhabitants or are you simply ignoring it? In fact, you would be
hard pressed to find a country that exists today that didn't in one form or
another take that land from someone else. The strong taking advantage of
the weak, as I said. Or is it your opinion that they were done all in the
context of good and evil?
You're sounding quite holier-than-thou.
rst9
> ltlee1 wrote:
> > [...]
> > Answer: Its inability to resist foreign aggression
> > which had inflicted humiliation and
> > suffering on the Chinese people. Of course, internal
> > corruption was always a factor during China's long
> > history. However, if one talked about the last 100 to
> > 150 years, foreign aggression loomed large.
>
> But no larger than the endless internal warfares, the
> Taiping Rebellion, the "Nien" (捻) as well as the Muslim
> rebellions, the boxers, etc.
>
> In comparison, the defeat by European and Japanese was
> humiliating but did not affect the daily lives of the
> people that much. The opening of the fie international
> ports was lumped together with the lost of HK in the
> poem, but the ports themselves were actually beneficial
> to China.
Not beneficial to China, but to England, to Portugal,...
The money and values taken out of these places, the shame and
humiliation far, far outweigh any benefits for China.
rst9
For once, I agree with LT Lee.
ltlee1
The issue is that Britain at the time knew the effect of opuim on the
humans. It
restricted the importation of opium into Britain yet it forced China
to accept
opium. Why?
>
> > As for tibet, China certainly did not and does not model after what
> > the west had one in America and in Austrialis, else there will not
> > be any Tibet problem.
>
> Odd. Are you saying there doesn't exist a problem with the aboriginal
> people of America and Australia?
>
> > Concerning about North Korea and Vietnam,
> > they had been China's neighbors for more than a thousand years
> > and they are still China's neighbors. As a matter of fact, China is
> > surrounded by many neighbors.
>
> You're comments make no sense. Are you know trying to severely limit your
> definition of good and evil to be something that only involves what happens
> internally and not externally? Do you now say that your whole Opium War
> model has nothing to do with your theory? Try to stay consistent.
I am consistent.
The people who tell the story of good and evil cannot tolerate
different cultures. It was god's will that they be killed off if it
was within their power to do so. History is clear: Westerners went to
America, they slaughtered the natives by the tens of millions.
>
> > In comparison what had happened
> > in North America? It is clear that westerners who dwelled in north
> > America did not tolerate different people and different cultures. And
> > why? Should America, who saw itself as "a shinning city on the hill"
> > not more tolerant? Or was America not tolerant because it was the
> > shinning city on the hill? And did it need to set up other people and
> > other culture as evil to prove to its own righteousness?
>
> Are you simply ignorant of China's own examples of taking land from the
> native inhabitants or are you simply ignoring it? In fact, you would be
> hard pressed to find a country that exists today that didn't in one form or
> another take that land from someone else. The strong taking advantage of
> the weak, as I said. Or is it your opinion that they were done all in the
> context of good and evil?
I am not talking about taking land per se. I am talking about killing
the native people by the tens of millions. Great atrocities against
humans have one commonality. The victims were seen as less than human.
This attitude could be traced back to the belief the victims were
somehow evil and hence not deserving to be treated as humans. If
westerners truly believed that it was wrong to kill the native
Americans, would they still kill them by the tens of millions?
>
> You're sounding quite holier-than-thou.
> - Hide quoted text -
Tak To
> On Jun 29, 11:55 am, Tak To <ta...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>> ltlee1 wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> Answer: Its inability to resist foreign aggression
>>> which had inflicted humiliation and
>>> suffering on the Chinese people. Of course, internal
>>> corruption was always a factor during China's long
>>> history. However, if one talked about the last 100 to
>>> 150 years, foreign aggression loomed large.
>>
>> But no larger than the endless internal warfares, the
>> Taiping Rebellion, the "Nien" (捻) as well as the Muslim
>> rebellions, the boxers, etc.
>>
>> In comparison, the defeat by European and Japanese was
>> humiliating but did not affect the daily lives of the
>> people that much.
>
> Utterly nonsense.
> One of the resutls of the Opium Wars was opium could be imported
> freely into China. Did not not affect the daily lives of peple that
> much? Japanese invasion caused the death of tens of million. Did not
> affect the daily lives of the people that much?
I was referring to the period before the 1911 battle
in Canton which was the focus of the poem.
As for the opium trade, in what way was its impact
greater than the wars that I mentioned?
>> The opening of the fie international
>> ports was lumped together with the lost of HK in the
>> poem, but the ports themselves were actually beneficial
>> to China.
>
> China lost control of its territory, ports as well as Hong Kong, is a
> good thing. Another nonsense.
What harm has free trading in the five ports (note: HK was
not was on of them) brought to the average Chinese citizen?
>> This is not to say that the foreigners were blameless.
>> One just needs to keep a cool head in the study of
>> history.
>
> Yes. I read history.
> And modern history is the history of the people of good and evil
> attacking other countries. What is your read of history.
One can't summarize history as a series of X -- that was my
point.
Tak To
> On Jun 29, 8:55 am, Tak To <ta...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>> ltlee1 wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> Answer: Its inability to resist foreign aggression
>>> which had inflicted humiliation and
>>> suffering on the Chinese people. Of course, internal
>>> corruption was always a factor during China's long
>>> history. However, if one talked about the last 100 to
>>> 150 years, foreign aggression loomed large.
>>
>> But no larger than the endless internal warfares, the
>> Taiping Rebellion, the "Nien" (捻) as well as the Muslim
>> rebellions, the boxers, etc.
>>
>> In comparison, the defeat by European and Japanese was
>> humiliating but did not affect the daily lives of the
>> people that much. The opening of the fie international
>> ports was lumped together with the lost of HK in the
>> poem, but the ports themselves were actually beneficial
>> to China.
>
> Not beneficial to China, but to England, to Portugal,...
> The money and values taken out of these places, the shame and
> humiliation far, far outweigh any benefits for China.
Care to elaborate on "money and values taken out"?
If not for opium, China would have enjoyed a healthy
trade surplus. (The problem of opium is not brought
on or worsen by the opening up of the ports.) Do you
know that besides china and silk, the third most
important export was, for a while, cloth made from
_imported_ cotton threads?
ltlee1
> ltlee1 wrote:
> > On Jun 29, 11:55 am, Tak To <ta...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> >> ltlee1 wrote:
> >>> [...]
> >>> Answer: Its inability to resist foreign aggression
> >>> which had inflicted humiliation and
> >>> suffering on the Chinese people. Of course, internal
> >>> corruption was always a factor during China's long
> >>> history. However, if one talked about the last 100 to
> >>> 150 years, foreign aggression loomed large.
>
> >> But no larger than the endless internal warfares, the
> >> Taiping Rebellion, the "Nien" (捻) as well as the Muslim
> >> rebellions, the boxers, etc.
>
> >> In comparison, the defeat by European and Japanese was
> >> humiliating but did not affect the daily lives of the
> >> people that much.
>
> > Utterly nonsense.
> > One of the resutls of the Opium Wars was opium could be imported
> > freely into China. Did not not affect the daily lives of peple that
> > much? Japanese invasion caused the death of tens of million. Did not
> > affect the daily lives of the people that much?
>
> I was referring to the period before the 1911 battle
> in Canton which was the focus of the poem.
The poem was written after the author had visited the memorial. But
the
memorial had triggered a hundred feelings ranged far beyond the battle
in
Canton.For instance, he mentioned, 五口通商香港失 which were the
results of the Opium Wars and the prelude to 100 years of humiliation
and suffering.
> As for the opium trade, in what way was its impact
> greater than the wars that I mentioned?
Perhaps not greater. But the Taiping Rebellion which had lasted 13
years
was a problem solved by China itself. The problems associated with
foreign
aggression lingered much longer. Hence weighed more prominently among
most Chinese people.
>
> >> The opening of the fie international
> >> ports was lumped together with the lost of HK in the
> >> poem, but the ports themselves were actually beneficial
> >> to China.
>
> > China lost control of its territory, ports as well as Hong Kong, is a
> > good thing. Another nonsense.
>
> What harm has free trading in the five ports (note: HK was
> not was on of them) brought to the average Chinese citizen?
What harm? Why did the Hong Konger fought the Britain shortly
Britain had taken over Hong Konger?
>
> >> This is not to say that the foreigners were blameless.
> >> One just needs to keep a cool head in the study of
> >> history.
>
> > Yes. I read history.
> > And modern history is the history of the people of good and evil
> > attacking other countries. What is your read of history.
>
> One can't summarize history as a series of X -- that was my
> point.
May be we can.
"AMERICAN INVULNERABILITY: The Quest for Absolute Security
from 1812 to Star Wars" is the title of a book written by James
Chace,
former editor of FOREIGNER AFFAIRS, and Caleb Carr. According to
the authors many of America's foreign policy efforts could be viewed
as attempts to pursuit absolute security.
Such attempts " have brought with them an expanded range of threats.
These new and heightened dangers have demanded a commensurately
greater expenditure of American resources. Yet when these new
expenses have been paid and strategic security has seemingly been
attained, we have, by and large, found ourselves exposed to a new
array
of foreign threats. To cope with these dangers..."
The authors' advice to policy makers: Given up the dream for
invulnerability.
Very sensible advice except this. Is American vulnerable because of
its
enemies? Or is American vulnerable because it needs enemies for some
other reasons?
Anyway, America's series X is continuing.
Was Saddam's Iraq really a threat to America security?
Is Iran really a threat to America secuirty?
Is North Korea really a threat to America secuirty?
Is the axis of evil really evil? Or the axis of evil just a story told
and repeated
by the people of good and evil to justify their aggression as
described by
William B Davis who had played the CSM (cigarette smoking man,)
aka "the devil" in the X-Files.
>
> Tak
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
> Tak To ta...@alum.mit.eduxx
> --------------------------------------------------------------------^^
> [taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr- Hide quoted text -
ltlee1
On Jun 23, 12:14 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 记者昨采访高考阅卷情况时，多位作文阅卷老师一致介绍，一篇名为《站在黄花岗陵园的门口》的古体长诗(全文附后)，被他们评为今年高考语文"最牛满分作
> 文"。
>
> 该作文共1080字(含标点符号)，文首是一段170多字的文言文，介绍了该诗歌的写作背景----2008年作者参观黄花岗七十二烈士陵园，"百
> 感并至，赋诗一首。 "诗歌共51行102句，每句七言；后记约70字，也是文言文写作。
>
> "形式和内容表现上都堪称一流。"武汉某省级示范高中阅卷老师介绍，该作文采用古诗词的形式，虽然是采用的历史题材，但表达了敬仰、向上的感
> 情，内容并不空洞。另一位老师表示，作为中学生，能选择这种文体写作，并运用得比较成熟，说明这名学生读了很多书，有一定的古典文学功底。
>
> 《站在黄花岗陵园的门口》
>
> 清宣统三年三月二十九日(西元一九一一年四月二十七日)，广州起义暴发。起义之军百二十人持枪械攻入广州督府衙门，两广总督张鸣歧闻风而逃。然
> 义军终因寡不敌众，数百清军围之，起义军多战死。旋革命党人潘达微见而怜之，收烈士之骸，止得七十二具，葬于白云山麓之黄花岗。九十七年之后，时值腊
> 月，会天大雪，余滞于广州，遂至黄花岗七十二烈士之陵。止于其门，百感并至，赋诗一首，诗曰：
>
> 赤焰难明赤县天，百年群魔舞翩跹。国土已破何人见，金瓯早缺有谁怜？
>
> 皇祚不复天威去，天朝迷梦化为烟。五口通商香港失，断鸿声中夷舰现。
>
> 圆明园中尽烈火，太和殿里无君颜。水师已覆巨舰沉，黄海之水腥且咸。
>
> 春帆楼上条约订，马关之约逆臣签。大沽台上炮声隆，将士陈尸国门前。
>
> 新鬼啾啾旧鬼哭，京洼难日见炊烟。宣战诏书何处寻？言说帝后西秋狝。
>
> 辛丑条约庚子恨，落日秋风哭宝剑。六十年来伤国步，八千里外吊民残。
>
> 空向长河咒逝川，不尽国愁在斯年。四万万人齐下泪，天涯何处是神州？
>
> 民穷国敝割土地，偿银赔款年复年。可怜越女夜夜哭，半国殖民半封建。
>
> 檀香山上聚义士，兴中会中复青天。烈火已燃锤与镰，今将炮火灭清廷。
>
> 枪声惊破五羊城，英雄无惧挥宝剑。提携玉泉为国死，何得英名在人间。
>
> 悲歌一曲从天落，壮士不再歌易水。晓见江山有炊烟，烈士之魂已沉泉。
>
> 人生百年能几何，荒草斜阳土坯间。白云片片魂悠悠，黄花遍野使人愁。
>
> 义军已覆化碧土，留得精神载史书。黄花岗上土一抔，埋没荒烟蔓草间。
>
> 起事何知一死难，的卢青骢劳鞍鞯。青天白日满地红，镶开碑上覆墓间。
>
> 行人往往悲旧事，含愤长忆孙逸仙。无量头颅无量血，可怜换得假共和。
>
> 皇冠已覆君前落，不见人间少帝制。百越之人总不忘，秋风秋雨湿黄花。
>
> 愁看长江东逝去，却有青史映君前。莫悲往事愤钩沉，但看祖国焕新颜。
>
> 沧桑浮沉忆浮生，吾辈发奋应向前。岁月如潮歌似梦，百年弹指一挥间。
>
> 红尘梦里忆壮举，烈士陵前有愧颜。吾侪不曾历战火，无复见此漫硝烟。
>
> 和平岁月忆往事，史海沧茫不亲见。今春南岭雪满天，雪映梅花忠魂骨。
>
> 碧血横飞四塞惊，草木含情风云悲。只因烈士血如海，才使日月换新天。
>
> 英雄何只黄花岗，无数忠魂红旗间。百兆国子怀先辈，万里江山动后人。
>
> 召公甘为社稷死，感君总能多奉献。至今天下传英名，不使君没蔓草间。
>
> 今之河山多锦绣，不复沉沦如从前。工厂遍地多铁马，信息时代在眼前。
>
> 民众康乐少悲苦，难以再见愁容颜。吾今立于陵门口，思绪纷飞感万千。
>
> 聊诌一诗悼君魂，勿怪字拙人不见。
>
> 后记：今日之生活，皆先辈流血而成，今中国多烈士之陵，何止黄花岗耶？然吾平生只至黄花岗，愧矣。今年之秋，料黄花岗之黄花，应于秋风之中透香
> 中华乎？ (来源：荆楚网-楚天都市报)(记者罗欣)
Neo
The USA did not exist in 1625.
However, Morocco, which in 1777 was the first independent nation to
publicly recognize the United States,
became in 1784 the first Barbary power to seize an American vessel
after independence. In 1785, Algiers
seized two American ships (the Maria of Boston and the Dauphin of
Philadelphia) and then sold the
ships and cargo; Algiers enslaved the crew and held for ransom. The
official reason for the Algierian
action reported to the Continental Congress by the US ambassador was
that "it was written in their
Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were
sinners, whom it was the
right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave," but he also
told them that for a ransom the
USA could sue for peace.
source
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_pirate#18th_century
> As a matter of fact, America had defined herself by contrasting the
> American society with her understanding of the Muslim world since
> the revolutionary time.
it seems to me that at even today most societies contrast
themselve against other societies using religion.
> In short, people who tell the story of good and evil need to wage war
> to continue to tell the story of good and evil.
While war is often described as being waged between good or evil,
often war occurs because one party feels they can benefit from using
military force. Normally - fighting wars is a drain on a government
and a nation's economy so there needs to be a strong argument that
such an endeavor should be taken. Just because there is a sea
of trouble does not mean there is a means to take up arms against it.
> > Even if both good and evil sides are equal in military power,
> > it is not aways the most powerful and the most prepared
> > that win in a conflict. In addition, often the strength of a
> > society is not base on a particular outcome of a conflict
> > but what a society does inbetween conflicts that prepares
> > it to dominate other societies. In recent times, dominate
> > society have a clear advantage over other societies in
> > production and have a greater ability to adapt to their
> > socio-political-economic structure to an ever changing
> > environments. I personally favor Jared Diamond's
> > ideas on how civiliizations dominate, survive, and die
> > out and as expressed in "Guns, Germs, and Steel"
> > and "Collapse!" In short, when the ruling elite becomes
> > isolated from their decisions - they eventually fail to
> > comprehend or appreciate how their decision will
> > effect society as a whole and become a systemic
> > risk to the survival of that society.
>
> I like Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel." What
> Daimond did not point out is the interactions between
> militarism and guns/steel technology and wealth of the
> nation.
Mr. Diamond does point out that technology and wealth
provides the ingredients for imperialism (militarism) -
Mr. Diamond argues that wealth unto itself does not
create technology - in the back of his book he talks about
a weak point in his theory of geographic advantages by
looking at why Imperial China which had become very
wealthy became technologically backwards and thus
ultimately succumb to Western Imperialism. Diamond
argues that it was China's strong unified government
which close China's doors to technological competition/
improvements from the West was a significant factor
in China's downfall. Diamond argues that because
Europe had no strong unified government - technological
competition was able to occur - creating more powerful
economies of scale and of weaponry. Hence, China's
greatest asset - a strong central government was also
its weakness in that if a strong central government makes
a mistake - that mistakes ripples throughout China
on a massive scale. Much of this sounds like how
the US economic mistakes rippled throughout the
global economy. Diamond's argument seems
to suggest that there are some advantages to decentralizing
power and economic diversity.
> > > > > In our modern environment, does a reduction
> > > > > to good and evil help us?
>
> > > > > Or does
> > > > > it give us Al - Qaeda and George Bush?"
>
> > > > It can - but not necessarily so.
>
> > > The reality is that the good and evil mentality are giving
> > > us Al-Qaeda and George Bush.
>
> > Yes. However, it is only one path out of many.
> > Good and evil mentality can create a saint or a sinner.
> > The choice of good verse evil is only an illusion that hides the real
> > question.
> > Why?
> > Can you understand Whys?
> > Why be good?
> > Why be evil?
> > Why is good preferred?
> > Why is evil chosen?
>
> Why did America chose to see itself as the shinny city on the hill
> and Muslim countries as its opposite, as what America should not
> be? I can't answer the question. But it is history and in some sense
> Bush and Al Qaeda is inevitable.
I don't believe that today's America is like that
Every generation - America redefines itself.
When you evaluates something as good or evil, the debate is over.
When you answer the question *why* this and not that - then you begin
to understand
what is motivating you to act this way or that way.
Further inquiry of good and bad
often creates shades of gray where good and evil are intermixed
Such a fuzzy primoridal soup often creates a sense of uneasiness
however when people stop asking why
there is a tendency for good and evil to appear polarized
>
> > > > > Western culture is the culture of good and evil. And Chinese culture
> > > > > is the confucian culture which sees all human as intrinsically good.
>
> > > > I disagree. IMHO
> > > > Chinese history and culture does not support
> > > > a premise that all humans as intrinsically good.
>
> > > Confucianism is a dominant force in Chinese culture. Its basic premise
> > > is that all humans are intrinsically good. Any doubter can read Menzi's
> > > description of the four incipients to ascertain this aspect of
> > > confucianism.
>
> > Maybe I am being to pragmatic?
> > History is full of horrible deeds and acts - such that philosopher's
> > words
> > declaring "humans are intrinsically good:" sounds more or less naive.
> > What do you mean by "intrinsically good?"
>
> Humans are born with good nature, the 4 incipients, just like they
> are born with 4 limbs.
I cannot accept that assumption.
my experience tells me that humans are not necessarily born good.
rst9
> rst9 wrote:
> > On Jun 29, 8:55 am, Tak To <ta...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> >> ltlee1 wrote:
> >>> [...]
> >>> Answer: Its inability to resist foreign aggression
> >>> which had inflicted humiliation and
> >>> suffering on the Chinese people. Of course, internal
> >>> corruption was always a factor during China's long
> >>> history. However, if one talked about the last 100 to
> >>> 150 years, foreign aggression loomed large.
>
> >> But no larger than the endless internal warfares, the
> >> Taiping Rebellion, the "Nien" (捻) as well as the Muslim
> >> rebellions, the boxers, etc.
>
> >> In comparison, the defeat by European and Japanese was
> >> humiliating but did not affect the daily lives of the
> >> people that much. The opening of the fie international
> >> ports was lumped together with the lost of HK in the
> >> poem, but the ports themselves were actually beneficial
> >> to China.
>
> > Not beneficial to China, but to England, to Portugal,...
> > The money and values taken out of these places, the shame and
> > humiliation far, far outweigh any benefits for China.
>
> Care to elaborate on "money and values taken out"?
Port entry fee of all ships coming in and going out, import/export
taxes, corporate taxes, land sales, building/construction taxes,...
England/Portugal didn't take the land for the benefits of China, but
for the benefits of their countries. For the hundreds of years they
were in control, they made trillions out of Hong Kong and Macau. They
still would have and retain control if China had not gained in
military strength. England/Portugal did not give up voluntarily, but
realizing the situation was impossible to maintain. As one Englishman
used to say:
"Oh!! we could give them a good show for a day".
>
> If not for opium, China would have enjoyed a healthy
> trade surplus. (The problem of opium is not brought
> on or worsen by the opening up of the ports.) Do you
> know that besides china and silk, the third most
> important export was, for a while, cloth made from
> _imported_ cotton threads?
Who could say that China couldn't do that without English/Portuguese
control of Hong Kong/Macau?
Albert Fung
>
> In 金田古营盘, two young officers of a Chinese Christian army
Tak To:
> Christian?
>
> Suffice it to say that neither the Christians of that time
> nor the Christians of today recognized them as Christians.
A devoted Christian ....
Augustus Frederick Lindley, was an officer of the Royal Navy
before joining the Taiping movement along with his wife Mary
in 1860. He trained the Taiping soldiers on modern military
techniques. And, was a battlefield commander in several Tai-
p8ng campaigns against the Xiang Army. Mary Lindley became a
Taiping sharpshooting sniper.
They wrote extensively on Taiping's rituals and theologies.
Hong adopted the Protestant hymn: Old Hundredth as his own
apocalyptic vision of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom. A new
text was written for the hymn and renamed Ode Praising the
Heavenly Kingdom:
Praise the Lord
Praise Jesus, the Savior of the World
Praise the Holy Spirit
Praise the Holy Trinity.
Each service opened with the Doxology Ode to the Heavenly
Kingdom which was followed by the hymn:
The true doctrine is different from the doctrine of
the world
It saves men’s souls, and affords the enjoyment of
endless bliss.
The wise receive it at once with joyful exultation.
The foolish, when awakened, understand thereby the
way to heaven,
Our Heavenly Father, of His infinite, and incompar-
able mercy,
Did not spare His own Son, but sent him down into
the world,
To give His life for the redemption of all our tran
-sgressions.
When men know this, and repent of their sins, they
may go to heaven.
After the singing of this hymn:
The people resume their seats and the minister reads to
them a sermon, after which the paper containing it [a
prayer] is burnt. During the singing of hymns, the voic
-es are accompanied by the music of very melancholy-
sounding horns and hautboys. Upon the conclusion of then
sermon the people all rise to their feet and with the
full accompaniment of all their plaintive and wild-sound
-ing instruments, render with very great effect the anth
-em: "May the King live ten thousand years, ten thousand
times ten thousand years’... The services are concluded
with a hymn of supplication,and then large quantities of
incense and firecrackers are burnt.
From his detailed description, one can surmise that the Tai-
pingers were run-of-the-mill pentecostal trinitarians. Which
should not come as a surprise in light of the fact that Hong
Xiuquan and company were converted to Christianity by I. J.
Roberts from Tennessee, USA.
Who was a minister of the American Baptism movement ....
Regards,
Albert K. Fung
Emerald Terrace, Sai Kung, HK.
Tak To
These are but minor details. Do consider that Hong
tried to augment Trinity to Quadrinity by proclaiming
himself to be the celestial younger brother of Jesus.
Now tell me which church, then or now, would not reject
this outright as heresy.
> Which
> should not come as a surprise in light of the fact that Hong
> Xiuquan and company were converted to Christianity by I. J.
> Roberts from Tennessee, USA.
>
> Who was a minister of the American Baptism movement ....
Tak
Albert K. Fung
>
> Augustus Frederick Lindley, was an officer of the Royal Navy
> before joining the Taiping movement along with his wife Mary
> in 1860. He trained the Taiping soldiers on modern military
> techniques. And, was a battlefield commander in several Tai-
> should not come as a surprise in light of the fact that Hong
> Xiuquan and company were converted to Christianity by I. J.
> Roberts from Tennessee, USA.
>
> Who was a minister of the American Baptism movement ....
Tak To:
> These are but minor details. Do consider that Hong
> tried to augment Trinity to Quadrinity by proclaiming
> himself to be the celestial younger brother of Jesus.
> Now tell me which church, then or now, would not reject
> this outright as heresy.
The acceptance of Christ as savior ....
Is the sine qua non of being Christian. Which the Taipingers
clearly did. Many Christian denominations and sects, just an
FYI, do not accept the Trinity doctrine. The Unitarians, and
the Mormons, are good examples.
No one, would dispute that they are Christians ....
BTW: Relatives of Jesus does not have to be divine. Mary was
a good example. Likewise a claimed brother of Jesus can
be an earthling. "Quadrinity" presumably is a reference
to Hong's famous claim, does not invalidate the Christ-
ian essence of the Taipingers, as observed and verified
by the Lindleys.
Tak To
> On Jun 30, 1:35 pm, Tak To <ta...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>> rst9 wrote:
>>> On Jun 29, 8:55 am, Tak To <ta...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>>>> ltlee1 wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>> Answer: Its inability to resist foreign aggression
>>>>> which had inflicted humiliation and
>>>>> suffering on the Chinese people. Of course, internal
>>>>> corruption was always a factor during China's long
>>>>> history. However, if one talked about the last 100 to
>>>>> 150 years, foreign aggression loomed large.
>>>>
>>>> But no larger than the endless internal warfares, the
>>>> Taiping Rebellion, the "Nien" (捻) as well as the Muslim
>>>> rebellions, the boxers, etc.
>>>> In comparison, the defeat by European and Japanese was
>>>> humiliating but did not affect the daily lives of the
>>>> ports was lumped together with the lost of HK in the
>>>> poem, but the ports themselves were actually beneficial
>>>> to China.
>>>
>>> Not beneficial to China, but to England, to Portugal,...
>>> The money and values taken out of these places, the shame and
>>> humiliation far, far outweigh any benefits for China.
>>
>> Care to elaborate on "money and values taken out"?
>
> Port entry fee of all ships coming in and going out, import/export
> taxes, corporate taxes, land sales, building/construction taxes,...
Please note that the five international ports do NOT include
Hong Kong or Macao. Goods shipped to Hong Kong still had to
go through Canton to get into China.
> England/Portugal didn't take the land for the benefits of China, but
> for the benefits of their countries. For the hundreds of years they
> were in control, they made trillions out of Hong Kong and Macau.
Hundreds of years??
> They still would have and retain control if China had not gained in
> military strength. England/Portugal did not give up voluntarily, but
> realizing the situation was impossible to maintain. As one Englishman
> used to say:
>
> "Oh!! we could give them a good show for a day".
This is irrelevant to the opening of the five international
ports.
>> If not for opium, China would have enjoyed a healthy
>> trade surplus. (The problem of opium is not brought
>> on or worsen by the opening up of the ports.) Do you
>> know that besides china and silk, the third most
>> important export was, for a while, cloth made from
>> _imported_ cotton threads?
>
> Who could say that China couldn't do that without English/Portuguese
> control of Hong Kong/Macau?
The import of cotten threads had nothing to do with
ceding of Hong Kong or Macao.
Tak To
The author made numerous references to events before
1911 but none afterwards. It is clear where his focus
was. My comments were based on _his_ focus.
> For instance, he mentioned, 五口通商香港失 which were
> results of the Opium Wars and the prelude to 100
> years of humiliation and suffering.
The lost of HK as well as the opening of the five
international ports were events _before_ 1911.
----- -----
>> As for the opium trade, in what way was its impact
>> greater than the wars that I mentioned?
>
> Perhaps not greater. But the Taiping Rebellion which
> had lasted 13 years was a problem solved by China
> itself. The problems associated with foreign
> aggression lingered much longer. Hence weighed more
> prominently among most Chinese people.
I am not arguing how "most Chinese people" feel about
events in Chinese history. I am saying that one
(with a college education) should examine the facts
objectively and should not be clouded by feelings that
may or may not be grounded on facts.
----- -----
>>>> The opening of the fie international
>>>> ports was lumped together with the lost of HK in the
>>>> poem, but the ports themselves were actually beneficial
>>>> to China.
>>>
>>> China lost control of its territory, ports as well as Hong Kong, is a
>>> good thing. Another nonsense.
>>
>> What harm has free trading in the five ports (note: HK was
>> not was on of them) brought to the average Chinese citizen?
>
> What harm? Why did the Hong Konger fought the Britain shortly
> Britain had taken over Hong Konger?
What has Hong Kongers' gripe with the British Colonial
government has got to do with the trade going through
the five internal ports?
For that matter, how was the British Colonial government
notably worse than the average Chinese magistrate?
----- -----
>>>> This is not to say that the foreigners were blameless.
>>>> One just needs to keep a cool head in the study of
>>>> history.
>>>
>>> Yes. I read history.
>>> And modern history is the history of the people of good and evil
>>> attacking other countries. What is your read of history.
>>
>> One can't summarize history as a series of X -- that was my
>> point.
>
> May be we can.
>
> "AMERICAN INVULNERABILITY: The Quest for Absolute Security
> from 1812 to Star Wars" is the title of a book written by James
> Chace, [...]
>
> Anyway, America's series X is continuing.
The book espouses a view. It is not clear that's the
authors' only view. It is clearly not the only view
of the average Americans, otherwise the authors would
not bother to push this view.
> Was Saddam's Iraq really a threat to America security?
> Is Iran really a threat to America secuirty?
> Is North Korea really a threat to America secuirty?
>
> Is the axis of evil really evil? Or the axis of evil just a story told
> and repeated
> by the people of good and evil to justify their aggression as
> described by
> William B Davis who had played the CSM (cigarette smoking man,)
> aka "the devil" in the X-Files.
I have no interest of discussing this in this
thread.
Tak To
>>>> 锟斤拷锟缴诧拷锟絝锟剿★拷
>>>> 思锟诫方锟芥，锟叫學锟斤拷锟杰感懷歷史锟斤拷也锟斤拷锟統锟矫★拷
>>>> 锟斤拷锟斤拷谴锟絎锟斤拷锟揭碉拷希锟斤拷锟杰匡拷锟斤拷锟斤拷锟剿帮拷锟斤拷痛史之锟斤拷一些锟铰碉拷锟絕锟絚锟斤拷
>>> "锟竭匡拷锟侥撅拷"
>>
>>> On the factual aspect of history, history is history. Concerning
>>> its interpretation, there are many interpretations naturally.
>>> Confucianism, imperialism,taxation, and etc as well as a lot of
>>> what-ifs. However, I don't think there will be totally new view
>>> point at this time.
>>
>> One cannot view China's modern history as anything other than a long
>> series of humiliation and suffering?
>
> Can one view China's modern histoyr as anything other than a long
> series humiliation and suffering without appearing too Ah Q-ish?
Yes.
A podiatrist may see a ballerina _only_ as someone with lodes
of foot injury. The ballerina might not see herself that way,
and she is the slightest bit Ah-Q-ish.
abian...@yahoo.com
stuff. Let's have some fun! Call me at www.thailovelinks.com .
Here are my websites:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/64156901@N00/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/meichi_cunt_aka_abianchen_filthy_smelly_pussy/
You like?
On Jul 1, 11:14 am, Tak To <ta...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> ltlee1 wrote:
> > On Jun 25, 1:48 pm, Tak To <ta...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> >> ltlee1 wrote:
> >>> On Jun 24, 4:29 pm, Tak To <ta...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> >>>> ɲ f ˡ
> >>>> ˼ 뷽 棬 ЌW ܸБњvʷ Ҳ y á
> >>>> Ǵ W ҵ ϣ ܿ ˰ ʹʷ֮ һЩ µ ^ c
> >>> " ߿ ľ "
>
> >>> On the factual aspect of history, history is history. Concerning
> >>> its interpretation, there are many interpretations naturally.
> >>> Confucianism, imperialism,taxation, and etc as well as a lot of
> >>> what-ifs. However, I don't think there will be totally new view
> >>> point at this time.
>
> >> One cannot view China's modern history as anything other than a long
> >> series of humiliation and suffering?
>
> > Can one view China's modern histoyr as anything other than a long
> > series humiliation and suffering without appearing too Ah Q-ish?
>
> Yes.
>
> A podiatrist may see a ballerina _only_ as someone with lodes
> of foot injury. The ballerina might not see herself that way,
> and she is the slightest bit Ah-Q-ish.
>
> Tak
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
> Tak To ta...@alum.mit.eduxx
> --------------------------------------------------------------------^^
rst9
Is this a new Marco Polo route to China?
Hong Kong is a major international port.
>
> > England/Portugal didn't take the land for the benefits of China, but
> > for the benefits of their countries. For the hundreds of years they
> > were in control, they made trillions out of Hong Kong and Macau.
>
> Hundreds of years??
Portugal controlled Macau since the 1500s.
>
> > They still would have and retain control if China had not gained in
> > military strength. England/Portugal did not give up voluntarily, but
> > realizing the situation was impossible to maintain. As one Englishman
> > used to say:
>
> > "Oh!! we could give them a good show for a day".
>
> This is irrelevant to the opening of the five international
> ports.
But a reason why England had to give it up.
>
> >> If not for opium, China would have enjoyed a healthy
> >> trade surplus. (The problem of opium is not brought
> >> on or worsen by the opening up of the ports.) Do you
> >> know that besides china and silk, the third most
> >> important export was, for a while, cloth made from
> >> _imported_ cotton threads?
>
> > Who could say that China couldn't do that without English/Portuguese
> > control of Hong Kong/Macau?
>
> The import of cotten threads had nothing to do with
> ceding of Hong Kong or Macao.
But cotton, clothing manufacturing, threads,... was/is a major
business in Hong Kong/Macau.
OD
Because there was a large, willing market in China, and Britain had the
strength to force China to import opium.
>>> As for tibet, China certainly did not and does not model after what
>>> the west had one in America and in Austrialis, else there will not
>>> be any Tibet problem.
>>
>> Odd. Are you saying there doesn't exist a problem with the aboriginal
>> people of America and Australia?
Are you?
>>> Concerning about North Korea and Vietnam,
>>> they had been China's neighbors for more than a thousand years
>>> and they are still China's neighbors. As a matter of fact, China is
>>> surrounded by many neighbors.
>>
>> You're comments make no sense. Are you know trying to severely limit
>> your definition of good and evil to be something that only involves
>> what happens internally and not externally? Do you now say that your
>> whole Opium War model has nothing to do with your theory? Try to
>> stay consistent.
>
> I am consistent.
> The people who tell the story of good and evil cannot tolerate
> different cultures. It was god's will that they be killed off if it
> was within their power to do so. History is clear: Westerners went to
> America, they slaughtered the natives by the tens of millions.
Your holy than thou attitude blinds you to the reality of history. For
example, why do you ignore what was happening to the aboriginal people of
Taiwan during roughly the same time westerners were invading the Americas?
The Chinese were slaughtering the natives of Taiwan and taking over their
land. The only difference between the two was opportunity. If Taiwan was
the size of the Americas then the superior Chinese strength would have led
them to do what westerners did in the Americas. Was the destruction of the
Taiwanese native people by the Chinese a result of the Chinese doing God's
will? Doesn't really matter, the results were the same. The stronger
slaughtered and pushed out the weaker throughout history. What happened in
the Americas was just a continuation of history, not an aberration. If you
didn't have a holier than thou attitude, you would see that.
>>> In comparison what had happened
>>> in North America? It is clear that westerners who dwelled in north
>>> America did not tolerate different people and different cultures.
>>> And why? Should America, who saw itself as "a shinning city on the
>>> hill" not more tolerant? Or was America not tolerant because it was
>>> the shinning city on the hill? And did it need to set up other
>>> people and other culture as evil to prove to its own righteousness?
>>
>> Are you simply ignorant of China's own examples of taking land from
>> the native inhabitants or are you simply ignoring it? In fact, you
>> would be hard pressed to find a country that exists today that
>> didn't in one form or another take that land from someone else. The
>> strong taking advantage of the weak, as I said. Or is it your
>> opinion that they were done all in the context of good and evil?
>
> I am not talking about taking land per se. I am talking about killing
> the native people by the tens of millions. Great atrocities against
> humans have one commonality. The victims were seen as less than human.
> This attitude could be traced back to the belief the victims were
> somehow evil and hence not deserving to be treated as humans. If
> westerners truly believed that it was wrong to kill the native
> Americans, would they still kill them by the tens of millions?
Westerners have been killing each other by the tens of millions, do they see
themselves as being less than human? If you are going to continue with the
holier than thou attitude then you are going to continue to miss the reality
of history. You would be hard pressed to find a people that haven't
committed great atrocities. Yet in your holier than thou attitude you
single out westerners as if they were somehow different from all the other
people in the world. All of whom have committed great atrocities. Do you
think China reached its present borders without slaughtering and pushing out
original inhabitants? It was just last century that China slaughtered 1
million Tibetans. And it is claimed that they are still committing cultural
genocide there. And before you ask me to substantiate that, you can just
forget it. You were the one that threw out unsubstantiated claims like tens
of millions of native Americans slaughtered, so I can throw out all the
unsubstantiated claims I want to also.
ltlee1
Yes, they were. And the lost of Hong Kong as well
as other loses were the proximal cause of the revolution.
The Qing governemnt's inablity to fight off fought off
foreign aggression and the loses over the decades had
triggered the revolution and necessitated the sarcafice
of the 72.
民穷国敝割土地，偿银赔款年复年。可怜越女夜夜哭，
半国殖民半封建。檀香山上聚义士，兴中会中复青天。
>
> ----- -----
>
> >> As for the opium trade, in what way was its impact
> >> greater than the wars that I mentioned?
>
> > Perhaps not greater. But the Taiping Rebellion which
>
> > had lasted 13 years was a problem solved by China
> > itself. The problems associated with foreign> aggression lingered much longer. Hence weighed more
>
> > prominently among most Chinese people.
>
> I am not arguing how "most Chinese people" feel about
> events in Chinese history. I am saying that one
> (with a college education) should examine the facts
> objectively and should not be clouded by feelings that
> may or may not be grounded on facts.
What is not grounded on fact?
Let us say a robber came into a house and in the process
cut off one of the hand of the owner. Let us say the owner
was also having TB at that time. You are kind of saying
the owner shouldn't feel too bad becaause the TB was
causing more pain and suffering. And the owner of the
house shoulf not dwell on the robbery too much.
>
> ----- -----
>
>
>
> >>>> The opening of the fie international
> >>>> ports was lumped together with the lost of HK in the
> >>>> poem, but the ports themselves were actually beneficial
> >>>> to China.
>
> >>> China lost control of its territory, ports as well as Hong Kong, is a
> >>> good thing. Another nonsense.
>
> >> What harm has free trading in the five ports (note: HK was
> >> not was on of them) brought to the average Chinese citizen?
>
> > What harm? Why did the Hong Konger fought the Britain shortly
> > Britain had taken over Hong Konger?
>
> What has Hong Kongers' gripe with the British Colonial
> government has got to do with the trade going through
> the five internal ports?
Because harm had been inflicted onto the Chinese people.
Else Hong Kong people would not have fought the Britain
occupiers.
> For that matter, how was the British Colonial government
> notably worse than the average Chinese magistrate?
Irrelevant. The British colonial government was not conisdered
legitimate. Of coruse, people got used to it and granted it
legitimacy later. But it is a different issue.
>
> ----- -----
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>> This is not to say that the foreigners were blameless.
> >>>> One just needs to keep a cool head in the study of
> >>>> history.
>
> >>> Yes. I read history.
> >>> And modern history is the history of the people of good and evil
> >>> attacking other countries. What is your read of history.
>
> >> One can't summarize history as a series of X -- that was my
> >> point.
>
> > May be we can.
>
> > "AMERICAN INVULNERABILITY: The Quest for Absolute Security
> > from 1812 to Star Wars" is the title of a book written by James
> > Chace, [...]
>
> > Anyway, America's series X is continuing.
>
> The book espouses a view. It is not clear that's the
> authors' only view. It is clearly not the only view
> of the average Americans, otherwise the authors would
> not bother to push this view.
Well, they are the expert of their field. If you disagree their
view or my characterization of their view, feel free to espouse
and explain your view.
>
> > Was Saddam's Iraq really a threat to America security?
> > Is Iran really a threat to America secuirty?
> > Is North Korea really a threat to America secuirty?
>
> > Is the axis of evil really evil? Or the axis of evil just a story told
> > and repeated
> > by the people of good and evil to justify their aggression as
> > described by
> > William B Davis who had played the CSM (cigarette smoking man,)
> > aka "the devil" in the X-Files.
>
> I have no interest of discussing this in this
> thread.
>
> Tak
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
> Tak To ta...@alum.mit.eduxx
> --------------------------------------------------------------------^^
> [taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
ltlee1
No. it did not. But my focus is on the "people."
The event of 1625 was introduced by the author of the book, Robert J
Allison
as the first of several episodes. According to the author,
"These episodes are improtant, and must be considered as part of a
larger
struggle that did not end when the Ottoman Turks were driven from the
gates
of Vienna or their navy beaten at Lepanto. This was more than a
struggle
for trade routes or territory."
In short, these were seens as a struggle between good and evil.
"Americans at that time saw these episodes as part of the contest
between Christians and Muslims, between Europeans and Turks
and Moors, and ultimately , between what came to be called
civilizaation and what the newly civilized world would define as
barbarism."
>
> However, Morocco, which in 1777 was the first independent nation to
> publicly recognize the United States,
> became in 1784 the first Barbary power to seize an American vessel
> after independence. In 1785, Algiers
> seized two American ships (the Maria of Boston and the Dauphin of
> Philadelphia) and then sold the
> ships and cargo; Algiers enslaved the crew and held for ransom. The
> official reason for the Algierian
> action reported to the Continental Congress by the US ambassador was
> that "it was written in their
> Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were
> sinners, whom it was the
> right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave," but he also
> told them that for a ransom the
> USA could sue for peace.
>
> sourcehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_pirate#18th_century
>
> > As a matter of fact, America had defined herself by contrasting the
> > American society with her understanding of the Muslim world since
> > the revolutionary time.
>
> it seems to me that at even today most societies contrast
> themselve against other societies using religion.
For sure you are right. But contrasting themselves against other
societies inside churches and academic institutations are one thing.
Contrasting themselves against other societies in foreign policy and
outright aggression supported by militarism is a totally different
thing.
>
> > In short, people who tell the story of good and evil need to wage war
> > to continue to tell the story of good and evil.
>
> While war is often described as being waged between good or evil,
> often war occurs because one party feels they can benefit from using
> military force. Normally - fighting wars is a drain on a government
> and a nation's economy so there needs to be a strong argument that
> such an endeavor should be taken. Just because there is a sea
> of trouble does not mean there is a means to take up arms against it.
What argument is better than story of good against evil? Is the axis
of
evil really evil? Was Iraq under Saddm posed an existential threat to
America? Do you think a certain American general describing the
military mission in Iraq as a crusade just by accident?
Diamond is correct. Yet he missed the significance of war as
an orgnizing factor especially for decentralizing power and
ecnomic diversity. Militarism and war may tbe only unifying
principle under that circumstances.
"Warfare unifies, rallies, and bureaucratized both states and their
populaces; warfare triggers nationalism,reform movements, and
revolutions. More positively, through its inevitable mobilization of
citizenry, war has been a contributing cause of virtually all major
social movement and even democracy."
In the short run, war is bad. In the long run, Francis Fukuyama
wrote,
"...the most important effects of war may not be who wins, lose, or
suffers. Rather, war's deeper consequences concern its long-term
impact on the very type of society we live in, consequeces that are
felt generaltions after the guns have ceased firing." (Quotes above
from
WAR AND THE RISE OF THE STATE: The Military Foundations of Modern
Politics by Bruce D. Porter)
"American Theocracy" is the title of a 2006 book written by Kevin
Phillips. His
book is about America today and how its politics are dominated by
religious zealotry.
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > Western culture is the culture of good and evil. And Chinese culture
> > > > > > is the confucian culture which sees all human as intrinsically good.
>
> > > > > I disagree. IMHO
> > > > > Chinese history and culture does not support
> > > > > a premise that all humans as intrinsically good.
>
> > > > Confucianism is a dominant force in Chinese culture. Its basic premise
> > > > is that all humans are intrinsically good. Any doubter can read Menzi's
> > > > description of the four incipients to ascertain this aspect of
> > > > confucianism.
>
> > > Maybe I am being to pragmatic?
> > > History is full of horrible deeds and acts - such that philosopher's
> > > words
> > > declaring "humans are intrinsically good:" sounds more or less
>
> ...
>
> read more >>- Hide quoted text -
ltlee1
> ltlee1 wrote:
> > On Jun 25, 1:48 pm, Tak To <ta...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> >> ltlee1 wrote:
> >>> On Jun 24, 4:29 pm, Tak To <ta...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> >>>> ˼ 뷽 棬 ЌW ܸБњvʷ Ҳ y á
> >>>> Ǵ W ҵ ϣ ܿ ˰ ʹʷ֮ һЩ µ ^ c
> >>> " ߿ ľ "
>
> >>> its interpretation, there are many interpretations naturally.
> >>> Confucianism, imperialism,taxation, and etc as well as a lot of
> >>> what-ifs. However, I don't think there will be totally new view
> >>> point at this time.
>
> >> One cannot view China's modern history as anything other than a long
> >> series of humiliation and suffering?
>
> > Can one view China's modern histoyr as anything other than a long
> > series humiliation and suffering without appearing too Ah Q-ish?
>
> Yes.
>
> A podiatrist may see a ballerina _only_ as someone with lodes
> of foot injury. The ballerina might not see herself that way,
> and she is the slightest bit Ah-Q-ish.
Every thing has a price. The ballerina risks her feet and suffere to
perfect her dance. Fair enough. Please tell what is China's dance
if she is the ballerina who has paid dearly during the last century
and half.
>
> Tak
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
> Tak To ta...@alum.mit.eduxx
> --------------------------------------------------------------------^^
> [taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr- Hide quoted text -
abia...@my-deja.com
Chinese history so you should listen to what we Chinese speaking
netters (not include you and psycho Tienxia) are discussing here and
use your internet translator to help you understand the argument a
little bit.
The argument is about “五口通商香港失”in the poem not HK or Macau!
Tak-to was referring to “五口通商口岸”which also benefited China. It does
not include Hong Kong and Macau as you idiot talked here. They were
all existing Chinese seaports before the opium war: 广州、厦门、福州、宁波 和 上海。
And at that time. Hong Kong was just a tiny fishing village. So get it
right before you make a fool of yourself again, haha!
Here’s the link and use your internet translator or if you are nice, I
can teach you Chinese language and history like old day, haha!
Your Confucius – abianchen! :-)
The link:
http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%BA%94%E5%8F%A3%E9%80%9A%E5%95%86%E5%8F%A3%E5%B2%B8
=====
Original abianchen: abia...@my-deja.com since May 2000. So click
“view profile”.
Fake abianchen (by psycho Tienxia): various abianc*@*.com but they are
all fake for his own revenge against original abianchen. Tienxia =
WanLF = anti-AbianchenVirus = Chairman Mao…
> > [taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
rst0wxyz
filthiest, smelliest cunt in the world, the unbelievable "guy from
Taiwan" who refuses to acknowledge she is Meichi the fatso ugly tub of
lard whore from the Philippines. She is NOT Chinese. abianchen cunt
can not read/write or speak Chinese. At least I can speak TaiShan/
Cantonese dialect. Her whole life is nothing but a make-believe
version of her world.
On Jul 1, 6:01 pm, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abianc...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
> Rusty Old Fool, you can NOT read Chinese and you know little about
> Chinese history so you should listen to what we Chinese speaking
> netters (not include you and psycho Tienxia) are discussing here and
> use your internet translator to help you understand the argument a
> little bit.
>
> The argument is about “五口通商香港失”in the poem not HK or Macau!
>
> Tak-to was referring to “五口通商口岸”which also benefited China. It does
> not include Hong Kong and Macau as you idiot talked here. They were
> all existing Chinese seaports before the opium war: 广州、厦门、福州、宁波 和 上海。
> And at that time. Hong Kong was just a tiny fishing village. So get it
> right before you make a fool of yourself again, haha!
>
> Here’s the link and use your internet translator or if you are nice, I
> can teach you Chinese language and history like old day, haha!
>
> Your Confucius – abianchen! :-)
>
> The link:
>
> http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%BA%94%E5%8F%A3%E9%80%9A%E5%95%86%E5%...
>
> =====
> Original abianchen: abianc...@my-deja.com since May 2000. So click
abia...@my-deja.com
discuss here. We talk about “五口通商口岸” which does not include Hong Kong
and Macau. I see, you can NOT read Chinese so you are like a blind
here. It’s not your fault but the fault of your uneducated chop suey
parents.
They did not send you to Chinese school as other educated Chinese
parents do.
TaiShan dialect? That’s common dialect for Chinatown chef. No wonder
you look like a Chinatown chef and talk like a Chinatown chef. Do you
still wear big eyeglass frame?
Ok, I know you are going to curse, but do not 歇斯底里!
=====
Original abianchen: abia...@my-deja.com since May 2000. So click
“view profile”.
Fake abianchen (by psycho Tienxia): various abianc*@*.com but they are
all fake for his own revenge against original abianchen. Tienxia =
anti-AbianchenVirus = WanLF = Chairman Mao…
rst0wxyz
You framed yourself very well.
You are the biggest thief and liar,
the filthiest, smelliest cunt in the world,
who refuses to acknowledge she is Meichi
the fatso ugly tub of lard whore from the Philippines.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/meichi_cunt_aka_abianchen_filthy_smelly_...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/39763545@N04/
abia...@my-deja.com
check internet translator and tell us why you are “歇斯底里”.
=====
Original abianchen: abia...@my-deja.com since May 2000. So click
“view profile”.
Fake abianchen (by psycho Tienxia): various abianc*@*.com but they are
all fake for his own revenge against original abianchen. Tienxia =
anti-AbianchenVirus = WanLF = Chairman Mao…
rst0wxyz
You framed yourself very well.
You are the biggest thief and liar,
the filthiest, smelliest cunt in the world,
the unbelieveable "guy from Taiwan"
who refuses to acknowledge she is Meichi