Miscellaneous News

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
Except China had slavery until the 20th century... You're apologetic of slavery, even denying it being such.

Social stability, sure, I don't disagree. The one thing is that it created fiscal deficits for the state - transferring revenues to the population - this is in line with socialism.
Wang Mangs reforms instead sought to maximize state revenues, without being a drain on the state - this is the exact opposite of socialism.
lolwut? Zhou freed the slaves in the bronze age from Shang. There was still penal servitude, which still exists in the US today and isn't considered by them to be slavery. There was still small scale slavery but the vast majority of the population was free, unlike in Rome or Confederacy where slaves made up 30%+ of the population.

Chattel slavery was officially abolished during the Qing Dynasty by Emperor Yongzheng in 1723.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

He argues instead that the watershed date is 1723, when Emperor Yongzheng "emancipated" those of hereditary debased status. Debased status groups included slaves, bondservants, actors, prostitutes, and yamen runners. Considered polluted because of their association with servile labor (the entertainment services of actors and prostitutes were viewed as a form of penal servitude), they were denied participation in the civil service examinations that were the gateway to positions of social status. Most scholars have viewed the abolishment of hereditary debased status as an emancipation, emphasizing the acquisition of the right to participate in the examination system.
Han was an iron age feudal society after all, so of course it wasn't 100% in line with 19th century ideals that were 1000+ years ahead of its time.
 

xypher

Senior Member
Registered Member

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


India plans to export electricity to SEA and East Asia. What about India's own electricity demand?
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
I mean India exports food despite 30% less calories per capita than China and worse starvation than sub-Saharan Africa.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
In 2021, India realized an $11.8 billion global trade surplus of agricultural and related products. Leading exports consisted of Basmati rice, prawns, shellfish, carabeef, spices, and refined sugar.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

48
23px-Flag_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China.svg.png
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
3,206

132
23px-Flag_of_India.svg.png
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
2,533

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

emblem21

Major
Registered Member
I completely disagree. Hollywood is a very powerful soft power tool and its reach extends to all 6 corners of this world, China doesn't have that level of soft power. Compared to the Cold War, Hollywood hasn't gone hard on China as it did to the Russians and that's because it doesn't want to piss off China, that's power. It's not about whether most people care, the truth is that you don't want a powerful tool to go against you, it shapes people's view and that will be a setback.

I've said this before: if China plays the same game the west is playing, it will lose. No doubt about that. making anti west films would be so counter productive. It's better for Hollywood to kowtow while China builds up its own film industry, heck the article mentions joint ventures, that should be the lane Chinese studios should enter in the short to medium term.
A soft tool that is starting to hemorrhage profits from the box office given how a lot of franchises like Disney and marvel are literally now literally running out of ideas but are really trying to shove wokism and the LGBTQ angle down everyone collective throats. If this is really the soft power of the west then this is pathetic since people of most persuasions will begin to true from this mainstream entertainment and will eventually turn to things that have some sanity to them. China should simply focus on being China and not try to copy western values in there entertainment, I mean look at Japan and South Korea and even India, sure is gives short term success but nowadays, one only needs to look at the general population to see how weak and deluded deep down they are. Besides, nowadays, I find Chinese films to be much more enjoyable when they actually tell a story with an actual theme rather then regurgitating that same tropes Hollywood has been pandering for the last 3 decades and if films in the west has taught me one thing, is that it can literally persuade people to become monsters
 

Sardaukar20

Captain
Registered Member
Hollywood may not have the same powerful influence it had in the past but the truth is that it's still a very powerful tool. It doesn't have to mitigate Asian hate, but it can kowtow to China because China's market, that's the real power. If Hollywood were to turn against China it will be another avenue the west can use to fuel even more hate. I'm not talking about a pro-China movie here, I'm talking about China having the ability to make Hollywood bow down and not cast China as the forever bad guys. Another thing that people have to be careful about is falling prey to this "anti-woke" nonsense, that language belongs to racist republicans. Having a black mermaid in a fantasy film should be treated like the insignificant issue that it is, it's no reason to start some weird ideological war.
What you're missing here is that Hollywood's failures in China are not the fault of China. If Hollywood makes movies that are offensive to China, it gets banned. If that movie passes the Chinese censors but still bombed in the Chinese box office, then its just not what they really want to watch. Mission Impossible made it through the Chinese censors, but still fell behind local Chinese films. This is neither the fault of the CPC nor the Chinese audiences. Its just the nature of the Chinese box office.

I disagree that the anti-woke agenda is only exclusive to the Republicans. That is what the Democrats would like to have you believe. I hate the Republicans, but I can't be anti-woke at the same time? That's Democrat nonsense. The fact is that wokeism is not accepted by the vast majority of people on this planet. Wokeism is virtue signaling that has been hijacked by the American elites. It is unnatural, it is forced, and it is destructive to society.

Let's talk about The Little Mermaid and what is truly wrong about it. The black mermaid is not the issue here, the issue here is that the filmmakers insisted, that Ariel must be black. Ariel was well-established as white character in the 1989 film and the original book. The ironic thing is that Disney had created original female character of colour with great success before. The Princess and the Frog, Moana, and Mulan were good examples. Most people don't dislike a black Ariel any more than they dislike a white Motoko Kusanagi in Ghost in the Shell. Hollywood should just stick to making things simple. A white character is played by a white actor, a black character is played by a black actor, and an Asian character is played by an Asian actor. LGBT should be respected, but not pushed in to our faces. Then maybe, things might get a little better for Hollywood in the future.

People need to be careful, most here don't remember the old Cold War and just because China has become an economic super power some young folks are starting to get a bit arrogant. China's rise to the top isn't guaranteed and what could stagnate China's power is hubris by people who think China's rise is automatic. Play the game but don't play it the way your enemy wants you to play. What the US wants is a clear antagonist so they can rally everyone around, don't give that to them. Keep their businesses reliant on Chinese markets and embed the Chinese economy into the global system so much that any confrontation will be very costly. Pulling away and thinking China has reached a stage it can do everything on its own will be a mistake borne from arrogance.
What arrogance are you talking about? Have you see Chinese youths calling black people the "N" word? Have you seen a Chinese person stomping on the head of a white woman in China? Have you seen Chinese TV personalities proclaiming that China is gonna become a Superpower and bomb country X back to the stone age? Have you seen Chinese people proclaiming out loud that China must stomp on the US and Japan to become the no.1 power in the world?

I see plenty of arrogance. The vast majority of it is on the side of the Americans and its minions. Remember that this current US-China animosity was started by the US. Why? Because of its arrogance that China can be put down like Japan and the Soviet Union. China urged the US to come back to business as usual, but the US just wont have it. The US is hell bent to not only take China down, but to also tear it apart and crush its culture and values. China is under attack, this is an existential crisis for the nation and its people. With this going on, is it any mystery why American stuff and Hollywood is no longer as popular in China as it once was? Hollywood should blame the US politicians for its business issues in China, not China.

China's mistake was not that it was arrogant. China's mistake was it trusted too much into the Western-led global order to be somewhat fair and just. The Trade War, global Sinophobia, and the Indian backstab all needed time to sink-in for China. Now China is learning from that mistake. Diplomacy and words didn't work. China needs to become a badass to keep itself safe. Hence we see a massive upsurge in technological and military development.
 

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
Except China had slavery until the 20th century... You're apologetic of slavery, even denying it being such.
You seem to mistaken a slavery based economy with slavery in househood. That is very understandable from a western (non Maxism) perspective.

What China had up to Qing dynasty (20th century) was slavery in househood. Chinese economy had become free farmer based since the warring state era (later Zhou dynasty) when aristocratic class began to loose their grip of political power. Only the Shang dynasty (1600BC) was supposedly heavily rely on slave labour. Zhou dynasty was more similar to the serf system in later Europe where the farmers were attached to the aristocrats' land. But by the time of warring state era, many kingdoms had reformed, especially Qin which awarded common farmers with land if they served the army well. Qin also destroyed aristocrat class deliberately, the result is freeing serfs to be free farmers.

In the west, the Romans' economy began with algricultural based on free farmers (plebeian) and aristocrats (large land owners). The plebeian either works on the land themselves, or had some slaves working both in househood and the farm. The aristocrats relied solely on slave labours. With the land became more concentrated to the aristocrats, the Roman economy became mostly slave labour based. That is a slavery system in social-economy sense.

After the collapse of western Roman empire, Europe slightly improved into serf system which is a half-slavory system as the serfs are neither slave (private property of master), nor free (can't change their tenant contract to another piece of land). The only thing that Europe was "better" than China was that the house servants are not slaves any more. But that has no impact on how the whole society works.

If you are fed by western narrative, anything that doesn't fit that narrtive would look like apologitic and revisionism even though it reflect the true nature of China.
 
Last edited:

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
You seem to mistaken a slavery based economy with slavery in househood. That is very understandable from a western (non Maxism) perspective.

What China had up to Qing dynasty (20th century) was slavery in househood. Chinese economy had become free farmer based since the warring state era (later Zhou dynasty) when aristocratic class began to loose their grip of political power. Only the Shang dynasty (1600BC) was supposedly heavily rely on slave labour. Zhou dynasty was more similar to the serf system in later Europe where the farmers were attached to the aristocrats' land. But by the time of warring state era, many kingdoms had reformed, especially Qin which awarded common farmers with land if they served the army well. Qin also destroyed aristocrat class deliberately, the result is freeing serfs to be free farmers.

In the west, the Romans' economy began with algricultural based on free farmers (plebeian) and aristocrats (large land owners). The plebeian either works on the land themselves, or had some slaves working both in househood and the farm. The aristocrats relied solely on slave labours. With the land became more concentrated to the aristocrats, the Roman economy became mostly slave labour based. That is a slavery system in social-economy sense.

After the collapse of western Roman empire, Europe slightly improved into serf system which is a half-slavory system as the serfs are neither slave (private property of master), nor free (can't change their tenant contract to another piece of land). The only thing that Europe was "better" than China was that the house servants are not slaves any more. But that has no impact on how the whole society works.

If you are fed by western narrative, anything that doesn't fit that narrtive would look like apologitic and revisionism even though it reflect the true nature of China.
Not just that but even in banning household slavery, Emperor Yongzheng in Qing Dynasty did it 100 years before US or even UK.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Top