My Photo
Follow UselessTree on Twitter

Zhongwen

Nedstat



  • eXTReMe Tracker
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 07/2005

« Blindsight, The Movie | Main | Confucian Innovation »

June 23, 2008

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

My perspective!
My existence!
My goodness!
Perhaps I've done good, well!
*__-

"For every Perspective (you/me) there is an equal and opposite Perspective.
All Perspectives are Correct, all Perspectives are also incomplete (to some degree).
Existence is best 'known' as the sum total of all Perspectives." -Book of Fudd (1:1)

‘We came to Harvard as freshmen to change the world, and we’re leaving to become investment bankers — why is this?’


“is Zhuan Zhou butterfly, or butterfly Zhuan Zhou?”

1.
"Changing the world" (for the better): the elite mentality, we are the savior of the world, especially to the benighted " underdeveloped world" or the empire's underclass. You have to repeated the " changing the world" mantra to enter the elite club called Yale and Harvard, where the elite and snobbish of the world could united and against anybody else.

2.
Being " investment banker": the backbone of the empire, the beneficiary of the "globalization", the pickpocket in any other names; What is a investment banker if not living a high and fast life only upon creating speculative bubble and live upon it, in the mean times (unintentionally, of course) creating manmade famine, inflation, food crisis, oil hyperinflation, existentialistic challenges in the benighted third world countries (the real condition they need to save in their freshman years)...

What a successful education system?! What that German philosopher said once, whatever exists, and there must be its rationales...

Isha,
I always enjoy a good critique of capital, old Marxist that I am. But, surely, if we are going to mention famine, we must invoke the greatest producer of famine in the twentieth century: Mao Zedong. Credit where credit is due....

See here for discussion of the same article at EphBlog.

But how about some more gossip, Sam? How many people are in this entourage? How long is the trip? What is the purpose?

I am not interested in feeding your prurient interest in gossip.

The purpose of an official trip taken by the president of Williams and his senior staff is a secret not to be shared with interested alumni and students? Perhaps our definitions of "prurient" differ . . .

I would be happy to discuss the matter with a responsible and fair-minded person, but since you are neither I will refrain.

Sam:

We are talking about Harward education, but I am taking the bait on Mao.

Mao is the founder of PRC, the first country in the world that are making a huge third world country into a developed one, so the capital has to compete and not just exploit. So Mao has to be completely discredited so "Color Revolution" could operate.

Chinese know this, after the Russian case study.

The world demand is 8600 MM barrel,the world supply is 8700 MM barrel; the cost of production varies but should be around $ 20... where is the rest of the $120 goes to????!!!

Well, the Harvard educated elites provided the foot soliders for the Masters of the Universe and share some scraps...

Mao destoryed partially the cycle, tried something different and he failed but his memory and legacy lives...

Something about Rice... It is planned, organized and systemically implemented...

Mao is the founder of PRC, the first country in the world that are making a huge third world country into a developed one, so the capital has to compete and not just exploit.

Mao might have founded the PRC, but he took it down the same dead end road as North Korea. If China is developed now and competing with other Capitalist countries, it's only because China's leadership rejected Maoism.

Sam,
I enjoyed your essay and in fact, it inspired a small rant on my part. It really had more to do with the NY Times article, so I posted it over at Ephblog.

Best to you,

Peter:

When Washington was the first president of the United States, how many "indians" were in the North American continent? Care to enlighten me?

Isha: I've no idea, how is that relevant? I suppose you're trying to tell me that I don't have the right to criticise anything Chinese, because America did bad things in the past. That's rubbish; if we went by that principle, there would be very few nationalities able to criticise anyone. But I'm not American, so don't waste your breath talking to me about Indians. How many Vietnamese did Chinese soldiers kill over the centuries?

Peter:

That is a strong and logical response to an "irrelevant" factual question. You should be proud of the western education you have received.

Just out of curiosity, what is your response to the following NYtimes article:" China inspired interrogations at Guantánamo"
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/02/america/02detain.php

Care to enlighten me?

Thanks,

Isha

Isha:

It's a factual question, but the answer to it doesn't have any bearing on the question of whether or not Chairman Mao Zedong deserves any credit for China's economic development today. Perhaps this is an embarrassing question, so you felt that the appropriate response was to raise what you thought was an embarrassing question of your own? I still stand by my original argument: China is developing now because China's leadership wisely rejected his economic and social policies, which would have turned China into a bigger version of North Korea if they had continued. You might be on stronger ground if you had argued that he made China strong again and drove the foreign invaders out, despite the economic and social disasters he inflicted on his countrymen. But even here I'm not sure that he played as vital a role to China's destiny as is claimed. He did not defeat the Imperial Japanese Army, they only left China because of their defeat at the hands of America - and in any case the KMT probably did more of the fighting than his guerillas did. By the end of WW2, colonialism was a spent force. If former colonies throughout Asia and Africa were able to become independent, then it's not very likely that the foreign concessions in China could have lasted much longer than they did - with or without the CCP and Mao Zedong. In short, I don't think China would have been any worse off under Jiang Jieshi and it could have spared itself a great deal of pain and bloodshed if it had adopted capitalism from the get-go instead of experimenting with Maoism. Imagine how wealthier and happier China would be now if the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution had never happened?

If you would now like to respond to this by asking me about the Inquisition, or Spain's expelling of the Moors in 1492, please be my guest.

Peter

The comments to this entry are closed.

Aidan's Way

  • :


    Understanding disability from a Taoist point of view

Globalpost