Re: Gettin' Our Scots-Irish Up
-- On 16 Nov 2004 at 10:17, Bill Stewart wrote: > The music that I associate with National Review is distinctly > not country-western - it's Bach's Second Brandenburg > Concerto, used as the theme music for Bill Buckley's program > Firing Line. > > They may be putting on country-boy airs, but they're still > elitists... Perhaps, but it is characteristic of american conservatives to claim to be rednecks or hillbillies - and characteristic of american leftists to condemn their opponents as trailer park trash, rednecks, hillbillies, and sister fuckers. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG KvBpkRgMY1EaRdittHLTuKxpXHzlpZNo6UE55J9v 4c1dfn1oWWGKl5Zmmwoij539ww8jvi8JqwMuasWVW
Re: Gettin' Our Scots-Irish Up
At 07:29 PM 11/15/2004, R.A. Hettinga wrote: The National Review November 15, 2004, 8:24 a.m. Gettin' Our Scots-Irish Up Country music reflects America's spirit. The music that I associate with National Review is distinctly not country-western - it's Bach's Second Brandenburg Concerto, used as the theme music for Bill Buckley's program Firing Line. They may be putting on country-boy airs, but they're still elitists... Bill Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Iraq II, Come to think of it (was...China's wealthy)
James Donald wrote... Bullshit. Everyone knew that which the regime decided they must know. And if true, which I very much doubt, you are not only arguing that Qin's legalism was a different thing than communism/nazism, This is where the "Simplistic Grid" comes in. The momentum of Chinese culture will oalways outlive any short-term despotism, and the Chinese on many levels know this. When it comes to China, even some of the Han-dominated areas are incredibly difficult to get to, and when you start talking about Southern parts of Yunnan, most parts of Tibet, and places like Qinhai and Xinjiang, the idea of a lightening-fast and efficient despotism starts to sound dubious. Indeed, these areas are only barely under Beijing control today. It's also a main reason why Burma and the Golden triangle find it very easy to ship heroin overland through China to Hong Kong rather than go at it via a more direct route. When, during the great leap forward, Peking commanded unreasonable grain requisitions from the provinces, *all* provinces contributed, and *all* provinces suffered starvation. Anhui and central China suffered far more than other parts of China. I'd guess that 70% of the deaths due to starvation during 58 to about 64 occurred in that part of Central China. The obvious reasons were: 1) Proximity and easy communicatuion with Beijing, and 2) Large tracts of previously arable land (ie, you don't bother exerting despotism over an area that can't do much anyway). you are also arguing that Mao's communism was a different thing than Stalin's communism. No, I am arguing that Chinese communism was a different thing from Soviet commusim, for the precise reason that the weight of Chinese history would be fairly quick to erase Chinese commusim. Any China hand could have predicted exactly that, and indeed that's precisely what happened. Our decision to back the far-more corrupt Chiang regime all the way to 1973 or whenever, was a major blunder, if for no other reason then to accelerate the isolation of the Soviets. Mao would have been very hip to the manuever, and I bet would have welcomed it (The Soviets were never very useful to the Chinese communists). In other words, even a smart rabid anti-communist should have recognized that backing Mao's "Bandits" was at some point obvious, but most were far too blinded by their ideology to see that. The same thing's happening with Iraq and Iran. Iran's making overtures that we consistently ignore because were too darned dumb and power-oriented to see the opportunity. -TD Both used ruthless terror to establish extraordinary control over a far flung empire that had formerly been ruled by relatively light hand, and then used that extraordinary control to extort extraordinary resources from the peasantry. The difference between Stalin's frequent references to the poor peasants (who were supposedly carrying out the liquidation of the kulaks in revolutionary zeal) and Mao's similar references is merely that Mao was more thorough in creating the simulation of a mass movement. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG xGYJrVMJ5Hx9Dgyly/Lt7Vk6TKJAugVqAcp3+7mq 4rvMXJ51mdk2UqHkU40M50T9s5aAMzX99JW0hQGT/
Re: Iraq II, Come to think of it (was...China's wealthy)
-- On 14 Nov 2004 at 12:33, Tyler Durden wrote: > When it comes to China, even some of the Han-dominated areas > are incredibly difficult to get to, and when you start > talking about Southern parts of Yunnan, most parts of Tibet, > and places like Qinhai and Xinjiang, the idea of a > lightening-fast and efficient despotism starts to sound > dubious. I have never suggested that any despotism was lightning fast or efficient, and totalitarianism, such as that of Mao and Qin, is even slower and less efficient. It is not travel distance that makes for slow reactions, but the fact that everything has to be cleared with the top, the fact that low level people are forbidden to think. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG 56D0bYHQzFhVoqs5hSQzS0qvgik5OwJHVAMVGSfz 4FvsMZXY2Yed7To20MoGIPJ3rszxf79ZaE6XvYlpG
Re: Iraq II, Come to think of it (was...China's wealthy)
That seems improbable: Qin had a cult of personality, in
which every single person subject to his control had to
participate. A subject of Qin, like a subject of Mao, was
more aware of Qin, than he was of his mother and father.
You are apparently simply unaware of the real size and terrain of China.
There were villages in remote parts of China that were unaware of Mao's
death into the early 1980s. Travel around in China for a while and you'll
get the picture. Just to give you an idea, short of renting out a
helicopter, there are plenty of parts of China that are more than a week
away from even me, living here in NYC.
The proposition that the chinese emperors ruled with a light
hand is historical revisionism. Some of them ruled with a
moderately heavy hand, some of them with an extremely heavy
hand, and Qin was as heavy as it gets
No, as usual you seem to think that because I disagree with the simplicity
of your "grid" that I must believe the opposite. Let's put it this way: The
Qin was absolutely despotic in areas that could be guessed at ("Burn Books
Kill Scholars"), as well as quite despotic in areas that would seem
pointless now (like bell volumes, because bells were also measurements for
grain). They also completely didn't care about other things that you would
think a despot would really care about.
A thing to think about was that Qin Shr Huang seemed to truly believe that
everything he did was necessary for the unification of China (which he
accomplished). YOU (not me) might argue that by unifying a large portion of
central China he actually prevented a lot more deaths due to "Barbarian"
incursion by "Unfree and uncivilized" Muslims...OOPS--Did I say that? I mean
"Unfree and backward people that should be killed".
-TD
I did not pack them in to one simplistic grid - I said that
legalism was much the same thing as communism/nazism, whereas
Confucianism is a mixture of that, and also of rule by social
conservatives. The rule of Qin was very similar to commie nazi
rule. The rule of Qianlong was substantially different. Both
were despots, but Qianlong was no totalitarian.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
k6s+2bFmGHKlU9v6wCbmGCo+6m4eAEfjtEfJ3b3W
4EcgDCvx/77or2uD2Vhx/20HURcJ8XVeRylOk8puI
Re: Iraq II, Come to think of it (was...China's wealthy)
-- James A. Donald: > > Qin had a cult of personality, in which every single person > > subject to his control had to participate. A subject of > > Qin, like a subject of Mao, was more aware of Qin, than he > > was of his mother and father. Tyler Durden: > You are apparently simply unaware of the real size and > terrain of China. There were villages in remote parts of > China that were unaware of Mao's death into the early 1980s. Bullshit. Everyone knew that which the regime decided they must know. And if true, which I very much doubt, you are not only arguing that Qin's legalism was a different thing than communism/nazism, you are also arguing that Mao's communism was a different thing than Stalin's communism. It was a lot harder to get to Afghanistan from Moscow than to get to any place in China from Peking, yet every Afghan child knew in painfully excessive detail what Moscow commanded them to know, and the regime was partially successful in preventing them from knowing what it wished them to not know. When, during the great leap forward, Peking commanded unreasonable grain requisitions from the provinces, *all* provinces contributed, and *all* provinces suffered starvation. It is often said that Mao's famine was an unfortunate accident, while Stalin's famines were intentional, but any differences are merely a matter of greater self deception. Both did the same things for the same reasons, but Stalin justified his actions by anti peasant rhetoric - "liquidation of the kulaks", whereas Mao justified his action by pro peasant rhetoric, but this is a mere difference in the emphasis in the rationalizations and propaganda, not any difference in means and ends. Both used ruthless terror to establish extraordinary control over a far flung empire that had formerly been ruled by relatively light hand, and then used that extraordinary control to extort extraordinary resources from the peasantry. The difference between Stalin's frequent references to the poor peasants (who were supposedly carrying out the liquidation of the kulaks in revolutionary zeal) and Mao's similar references is merely that Mao was more thorough in creating the simulation of a mass movement. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG xGYJrVMJ5Hx9Dgyly/Lt7Vk6TKJAugVqAcp3+7mq 4rvMXJ51mdk2UqHkU40M50T9s5aAMzX99JW0hQGT/
