Jackie Chan: China Has A Problem With Its “Suzhi”(paulmidler.com)
paulmidler.com
Jackie Chan: China Has A Problem With Its “Suzhi”
http://www.paulmidler.com/jackie-chan-china-has-a-problem-with-its-suzhi/
23 comments
The people are uneducated. In order to protect them from themselves, a strong government must control them. Since a strong government controls the people, there is no need to educate them. The people are uneducated...
Our own country was organized to be run by an elite of educated landowners. Many of our founding fathers felt that the masses were not educated enough to participate in self-rule.
Fortunately, many of our founders also believed in the ideals of the Enlightenment, and this led to the United States strongly favoring universal education.
Arguably, the current Communist regime in China was founded on ideals that also favor universal education.
Fortunately, many of our founders also believed in the ideals of the Enlightenment, and this led to the United States strongly favoring universal education.
Arguably, the current Communist regime in China was founded on ideals that also favor universal education.
> this led to the United States strongly favoring universal education.
I'm all in favor of folks getting as much education as they want.
I question, though, whether the current system of universal education is really doing all that much educating, or whether it's mostly a jobs program for unionized teachers.
I'm all in favor of folks getting as much education as they want.
I question, though, whether the current system of universal education is really doing all that much educating, or whether it's mostly a jobs program for unionized teachers.
There's no direct english translation, but the term "su zhi" has class, cultural, economic and even ethical implications beyond that of just education level.
It (very) roughly means something like "basic cultural quality level."
To focus on the "education" inflection of that word could result in misunderstood arguments like the Chinese government wants to keep its population uneducated. If anything, their basic educational policies over the past few decades have been the complete opposite of that.
It (very) roughly means something like "basic cultural quality level."
To focus on the "education" inflection of that word could result in misunderstood arguments like the Chinese government wants to keep its population uneducated. If anything, their basic educational policies over the past few decades have been the complete opposite of that.
Your Internet is almost as ignorant as your statement, but I take it you already knew that given your factual characterization of some people not from the west.
As long as the sentiment like this is taking precedence over, and please pardon my French, the fucking world-wide web then I'm afraid the Zap Brannigans of America will continue to control all of you.
Oh and I almost forgot to mention this. . .Mathematics and Science Achievement of U.S. Fourth- and Eighth-Grade Students in an International Context: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009001_suptables.pdf
As long as the sentiment like this is taking precedence over, and please pardon my French, the fucking world-wide web then I'm afraid the Zap Brannigans of America will continue to control all of you.
Oh and I almost forgot to mention this. . .Mathematics and Science Achievement of U.S. Fourth- and Eighth-Grade Students in an International Context: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009001_suptables.pdf
I think you misinterpreted my comment. I wasn't saying anything about China or its citizens specifically, I was just showing that governmental paternalism for an uneducated/low/dumb/weak/however-disadvantaged population can wind up being its own justification. I could've been a bit clearer about that, but then my comment wouldn't have sounded so wise ;)
So "the education-preventing government control will continue until education improves?"
In my experience, Chinese people tend to be more critical in general (and correspondingly less affected by criticism.) Maybe that's a massive overgeneralization, but if you transplant this taxi driver to the United States, he would have the same complaints about Americans.
I'm not sure if it's being more critical or just being more honest (or less tactful) when talking to or about people.
I think people everywhere in the world are also critical of others but don't show it because it's not politically correct or tactful or whatever reason...
A bit OT, but I find it rather interesting how much the definition of being tactful when talking about people changes according to countries... In Japan for example, it's considered a bit tactless to point out your mistake in Japanese whereas in France or in China, they are much more likely to correct you whenever you make a mistake without considering that as being impolite.
I think people everywhere in the world are also critical of others but don't show it because it's not politically correct or tactful or whatever reason...
A bit OT, but I find it rather interesting how much the definition of being tactful when talking about people changes according to countries... In Japan for example, it's considered a bit tactless to point out your mistake in Japanese whereas in France or in China, they are much more likely to correct you whenever you make a mistake without considering that as being impolite.
Managing a country is just like parenting --
A child should not be given absolute freedom before he/she is grown up enough to act responsibly.
However, using the above as an excuse to control the child forever will certainly result in catastrophic failure (for both the child and the parents).
A child should not be given absolute freedom before he/she is grown up enough to act responsibly.
However, using the above as an excuse to control the child forever will certainly result in catastrophic failure (for both the child and the parents).
A lot of middle class Indians would agree with the sentiment that democracy causes chaos.
In the brief period of time India was undemocratic (the Emergency), anecdotal evidence suggests that the middle class was happy with the way things were. The poor, meanwhile, were miserable, and they responded by voting out the incumbent govt by a record margin.
So it won't be very surprising if middle class China actually supports the lack of freedom.
In the brief period of time India was undemocratic (the Emergency), anecdotal evidence suggests that the middle class was happy with the way things were. The poor, meanwhile, were miserable, and they responded by voting out the incumbent govt by a record margin.
So it won't be very surprising if middle class China actually supports the lack of freedom.
You've hit the nail on the head.
This is the first time that China's really HAD much of a middle class. Most of this newly minted middle class has moved from being poor peasants to decently paid professionals, and they're quite happy with the current state of affairs.
The Chinese public definitely acknowledges problems with the system. However, for the past thirty years people have been getting richer, living longer, and quality of life has been hugely improved. It sure beats the period before, when they were dealing with war, famine, and the cultural revolution. So, when the government that's brought (relative) prosperity says that democracy is bad, people are inclined to just agree and go along with whatever the government says.
Bottom line: The middle class in China won't support democratic reforms so long as life is improving without them.
This is the first time that China's really HAD much of a middle class. Most of this newly minted middle class has moved from being poor peasants to decently paid professionals, and they're quite happy with the current state of affairs.
The Chinese public definitely acknowledges problems with the system. However, for the past thirty years people have been getting richer, living longer, and quality of life has been hugely improved. It sure beats the period before, when they were dealing with war, famine, and the cultural revolution. So, when the government that's brought (relative) prosperity says that democracy is bad, people are inclined to just agree and go along with whatever the government says.
Bottom line: The middle class in China won't support democratic reforms so long as life is improving without them.
Someone else pointed this out before in a different thread but why should they want to change if life is improving without them? If you look at the US as an example of democracy then at the moment it doesn't make a lot of sense. That being said things are always changing and who knows what will happen in the next 20 years.
If things stop improving for most people in China then there will probably be social unrest and they may move to another form of government or the reverse could happen and the US might decide that it wants a nother form of goverment if things don't eventually improve.
If things stop improving for most people in China then there will probably be social unrest and they may move to another form of government or the reverse could happen and the US might decide that it wants a nother form of goverment if things don't eventually improve.
An uneducated good man is greater than an educated bad man.
Is he right? There are places in the world where democracy doesn't work very well. I'd say that this is the sort of question that deserves actual thought instead of the regular "Democracy Uber Alles!" platitudes that we get so often.
(Yes, I know what Churchill said about democracy. However, Churchill would have said the same thing about absolute Monarchy if it were still around. He was that sort of guy.)
(Yes, I know what Churchill said about democracy. However, Churchill would have said the same thing about absolute Monarchy if it were still around. He was that sort of guy.)
Yes, I know what Churchill said about democracy.
Funny enough, Churchill did not say what people think he said about democracy. He said, "it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time;" In other words, he was para-phrasing his opponents. Churchill was actually giving a speech defending the existence of the House of Lords! ( http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0105/0105chu... )
And while Churchill's misquote is famous, few have heard of Gibbon's quote:
--------------------------
OF the various forms of government which have prevailed in the world, an hereditary monarchy seems to present the fairest scope for ridicule. Is it possible to relate, without an indignant smile, that, on the father's decease, the property of a nation, like that of a drove of oxen, descends to his infant son, as yet unknown to mankind and to himself; and that the bravest warriors and the wisest statesmen, relinquishing their natural right to empire, approach the royal cradle with bended knees and protestations of inviolable fidelity? Satire and declamation may paint these obvious topics in the most dazzling colors, but our more serious thoughts will respect a useful prejudice, that establishes a rule of succession, independent of the passions of mankind; and we shall cheerfully acquiesce in any expedient which deprives the multitude of the dangerous, and indeed the ideal, power of giving themselves a master. In the cool shade of retirement, we may easily devise imaginary forms of government, in which the sceptre shall be constantly bestowed on the most worthy, by the free and incorrupt suffrage of the whole community. Experience overturns these airy fabrics, and teaches us that, in a large society, the election of a monarch can never devolve to the wisest, or to the most numerous, part of the people.
----------------------------------------
In other words, the principle of hereditary rule may be ridiculous, but it's the best way to keep the monsters out of power. And note, after Gibbon wrote this quote, many European countries proceeded to cast away their monarchs and elect monsters ( Robespierre, Napoleon, the Bolsheviks, Hitler, etc).
Funny enough, Churchill did not say what people think he said about democracy. He said, "it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time;" In other words, he was para-phrasing his opponents. Churchill was actually giving a speech defending the existence of the House of Lords! ( http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0105/0105chu... )
And while Churchill's misquote is famous, few have heard of Gibbon's quote:
--------------------------
OF the various forms of government which have prevailed in the world, an hereditary monarchy seems to present the fairest scope for ridicule. Is it possible to relate, without an indignant smile, that, on the father's decease, the property of a nation, like that of a drove of oxen, descends to his infant son, as yet unknown to mankind and to himself; and that the bravest warriors and the wisest statesmen, relinquishing their natural right to empire, approach the royal cradle with bended knees and protestations of inviolable fidelity? Satire and declamation may paint these obvious topics in the most dazzling colors, but our more serious thoughts will respect a useful prejudice, that establishes a rule of succession, independent of the passions of mankind; and we shall cheerfully acquiesce in any expedient which deprives the multitude of the dangerous, and indeed the ideal, power of giving themselves a master. In the cool shade of retirement, we may easily devise imaginary forms of government, in which the sceptre shall be constantly bestowed on the most worthy, by the free and incorrupt suffrage of the whole community. Experience overturns these airy fabrics, and teaches us that, in a large society, the election of a monarch can never devolve to the wisest, or to the most numerous, part of the people.
----------------------------------------
In other words, the principle of hereditary rule may be ridiculous, but it's the best way to keep the monsters out of power. And note, after Gibbon wrote this quote, many European countries proceeded to cast away their monarchs and elect monsters ( Robespierre, Napoleon, the Bolsheviks, Hitler, etc).
Which places are those? Also, not ll democracies are equal, maybe sometimes the system simply has flaws. For example, in Germany Hitler managed to rise to power even though his party did not even have the majority at the beginning. Since then, rules where introduced with the aim to prevent the same thing from happening again (I remember from school that for example a minimum share of votes became required to prevent too much fragmentation).