1421: The year the Chinese discovered America

[peter2002]

Much of the proof of maps dated before Columbus sailed to the West Indies in 1492 has sat in museums for years. The Chinese discovered the "Americas" 70 years before Columbus. But they gave up development because at about the same time, China got a new emperor that closed the door on contacts with the outside world.

European critics are pissed. They want to take all the credit for the rape, pillage and genocide of the Incas, and the other native indians that had been here for 10,000 years.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/book...421/index.html

http://www.1421.tv/

Pete

[lmalave]

Check this out:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/book...421/index.html

Mind-blowing if it's verified.

Man, the Emperor Zhu Di kicked all ass! Completing the Great Wall, building the Forbidden City, and now possibly presiding over the Chinese circumnavigation of the globe. Not a bad resume!

[lmalave]

Ha, sorry dude, looks like we were typing at the same time. (My message is timestamped 2 minutes after yours.

[Shrek]

Ya, I read that already. Pretty lame when you think about it.

But we all know the Indians were here first.

[lmalave]

Originally posted by Shrek
Ya, I read that already. Pretty lame when you think about it.

But we all know the Indians were here first.

Dude, it took me, like, 2 minutes to decipher your comment. I though you meant India got the the Americas before China. But you actually mean Native Americans, right? Yeah, ironically Native Americans (in North America, at least), have been traced to two genetic strains: one group that left from China, and another that left from Japan (native Japanese islanders). I think they also theorize that Native Americans from South America trace back to Southeast Asian peoples (like the same people that were on Easter Island).

[Shrek]

Originally posted by lmalave

But you actually mean Native Americans, right?

Yes, that's what I mean.

[ddtlm]

The idea that the Chinese undertook such a huge expedition is neat, but I don't think it takes anything away from either the Americian Natives or from the Europeans.

peter2002:

European critics are pissed. They want to take all the credit for the rape, pillage and genocide of the Incas, and the other native indians that had been here for 10,000 years.

Oh common, thats a bit unfair, isn't it? Genocide? Disease was certainly a huge killer, and the treatment of the natives was quite poor, but I am unaware of any effort to actually round up natives and kill them.

Shrek:

But we all know the Indians were here first.

It's not about who was here first, it's about who was the first nation/people to undertake a huge sea voyage. The natives presumably got here by humble means (migration).

lmalave:

Man, the Emperor Zhu Di kicked all ass!

Yeah, he did get a lot done didn't he!

[idkew]

Originally posted by lmalave
Yeah, ironically Native Americans (in North America, at least), have been traced to two genetic strains: one group that left from China, and another that left from Japan (native Japanese islanders). I think they also theorize that Native Americans from South America trace back to Southeast Asian peoples (like the same people that were on Easter Island).

The funny thing is, is that most people think that "Native Americans" were truely native to this land, instead of immigrates like the rest of us.

Someone obviously was here before Colombus, or the Chineese, there were humans here already. I don't get what is so big about rideing a boat across a sea when others walked across a landbridge thousands of miles to populate a new land.

[Shrek]

IMHO, the Native Americans didn't migrate from somewhere else. They were here and are still here today because God put them here. 'Nuff said.

[Ifeelbloated]

It's such a shame. Who knows what the Far East would be like if Chang Kai Shek had beaten Mao for political control of China. China had so much promise, but communism has stunted the people for so many generations. Pity.

[lmalave]

Originally posted by ddtlm
Oh common, thats a bit unfair, isn't it? Genocide? Disease was certainly a huge killer, and the treatment of the natives was quite poor, but I am unaware of any effort to actually round up natives and kill them.

Well, treatment of Native Americans varied from region to region, which is why some areas still have large native american populations (Central America, Peru/Bolivia/Ecuador/Brazil), whereas they are almost nonexistent in other areas (Caribbean, U.S.). In my native Puerto Rico, for example, all the natives were wiped out within 100 years. About 2/3 died from European diseases, but the rest were enslaved and died from forced hard labor and neglect. A very, very, very few were assimilated.

In the U.S., the governent committed specific genocidal acts such as wiping out the buffalo from the American plains. The buffalo were NOT exterminated for profit or to clear land for crops or cattle. The extermination of the buffalo on such a grand scale had but one motive: the extermination and subjugation of the natives, whose culture and economy revolved around the buffalo. Those few that survived were isolated into concentration camps. No, it's not a pretty picture, but unfortunately that's an important part of the legacy of the U.S.'s rise to power.

[lmalave]

Originally posted by Ifeelbloated
It's such a shame. Who knows what the Far East would be like if Chang Kai Shek had beaten Mao for political control of China. China had so much promise, but communism has stunted the people for so many generations. Pity.

Umm, in case you haven't been following the news for the last couple decades, China is now widely regarded by economists as the most successful economic development story in all of human history. The recent past has seen the rise of millions of Chinese from abject poverty to the middle class (relatively speaking). Go to Shanghai and then come back and tell me if the Chinese are "stunted".

And please don't start comparing mainland China to Hong Kong and Taiwan. Taiwan and Hong Kong were populated by wealthy, educated people fleeing Mao's revolution. Same reason why Cubans emigrants to the U.S. have a higher standard of living than the U.S. average - because they're the people that had money to begin with. Same reason why Americans have a stereotype that Chinese are smarter - not realizing that on average Chinese immigrants were the elite of their country, and thus cannot be viewed as representative of the average Chinese person...

[Ifeelbloated]

I should've clarified myself. I meant in reference to timeline. What if and what could China be now if the communists hadn't won. They'd definitely be a superpower. They'd give the U.S. and Japan and the E.U. a run for the money.

[lmalave]

Originally posted by Ifeelbloated
I should've clarified myself. I meant in reference to timeline. What if and what could China be now if the communists hadn't won. They'd definitely be a superpower. They'd give the U.S. and Japan and the E.U. a run for the money.

Can you be so sure? Would they be a superpower, or just a regional power like India? I mean, you really can't compare China at the time of Mao's revolution to Japan at all. China was an agrarian country, whereas Japan had already been an industrial power for decades (as demonstrated by the weaponry they were already displaying at the time of WWII). Would China have been better off? Sure, but hardly a superpower.

[macktheknife]

Originally posted by lmalave


Umm, in case you haven't been following the news for the last couple decades, China is now widely regarded by economists as the most successful economic development story in all of human history. The recent past has seen the rise of millions of Chinese from abject poverty to the middle class (relatively speaking). Go to Shanghai and then come back and tell me if the Chinese are "stunted".

And please don't start comparing mainland China to Hong Kong and Taiwan. Taiwan and Hong Kong were populated by wealthy, educated people fleeing Mao's revolution. Same reason why Cubans emigrants to the U.S. have a higher standard of living than the U.S. average - because they're the people that had money to begin with. Same reason why Americans have a stereotype that Chinese are smarter - not realizing that on average Chinese immigrants were the elite of their country, and thus cannot be viewed as representative of the average Chinese person...

You are definitely correct in that China has become--on the whole--an economic success story. However, I must say that the recent economic success of China came from the reversal of previous failed policies. The Hundred Flowers Campaign, the Cultural Revolution, and the Great Leap Forward all took their toll on the Chinese populace.

Also, your characterization of Hong Kong and Taiwan being "populated by wealthy, educated people fleeing Mao's revolution" is not exactly accurate. While many educated and wealthy did flee to HK and Taiwan, it was the closure of the vast Mainland Chinese labor market from the global economy that allowed HK and Taiwan to succeed. The fact that the British colonial government and the KMT kept their hands largely off of the economy didn't exactly hurt either.

[macktheknife]

I have not read the book in question, so I cannot comment on the author's findings. However, there have already been many theories on the Chinese reaching the North American continent even before 15th century. One archaeologist in the Southwest, for instance, found a burial site with features similiar to a Shang Dynasty (1766-1050 BC) burial site. He found even some writing in the Southwestern site that bore an uncanny resemblence to ancient Chinese writing. When the archaeologist traveled to China to show Chinese scholars his findings, the Chinese scholars were able to decipher the writing easily and were initially not impressed, noting that there was nothing special about the simple jia guwen (ancient Chinese script). They were, however, very surprised when the archaeologist informed them that the writings were found in a burial site in the Southwest, rather than China. I will try to find the original source were I read this.

Anyhow, don't forget that Leif Erikson "discovered" the New World back in 1001 AD, almost 500 years before Columbus or this supposed Chinese expeditionary party.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by lmalave


Umm, in case you haven't been following the news for the last couple decades, China is now widely regarded by economists as the most successful economic development story in all of human history. The recent past has seen the rise of millions of Chinese from abject poverty to the middle class (relatively speaking). Go to Shanghai and then come back and tell me if the Chinese are "stunted".

And please don't start comparing mainland China to Hong Kong and Taiwan. Taiwan and Hong Kong were populated by wealthy, educated people fleeing Mao's revolution. Same reason why Cubans emigrants to the U.S. have a higher standard of living than the U.S. average - because they're the people that had money to begin with. Same reason why Americans have a stereotype that Chinese are smarter - not realizing that on average Chinese immigrants were the elite of their country, and thus cannot be viewed as representative of the average Chinese person...

No, the most successful economic development in all of human history would probably be the US. Remember, between us and Europe, we invented everything the Chinese are building now.

And don't tell me Cuban immigrants have money. These people build rafts and risk drowning to come to this country. And if you don't want to talk about Hong Kong or Taiwan, how about Singapore?

I should also note that in the past couple of centuries, ever since Nixon went to China, China's built an economy based on using slave labor from political prisoners to build cheap plastic crap to sell to the United States. Think about that when you see products labeled "Made in China".

[lmalave]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac


No, the most successful economic development in all of human history would probably be the US. Remember, between us and Europe, we invented everything the Chinese are building now.

Oh come on! Did the U.S. rise from an impoverished agrarian country to an industrial powerhouse in 20 years? Of course not because 1) the U.S. was NEVER impoverished. It has ALWAYS been one of the most prosperous areas in the world since colonial times. and 2) The U.S. never had a 20-year stretch of development like China has had in the last 20 years.

And don't tell me Cuban immigrants have money. These people build rafts and risk drowning to come to this country. And if you don't want to talk about Hong Kong or Taiwan, how about Singapore?

Well here's a quote that speaks to both those points. The common thread between Miami, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Singapore: they were populated by an educated and wealthy class that was escaping Communist persecution:

"One of the best cases in favor of immigration is the Cuban miracle in Miami, Florida. Here was potentially one of those disasters that Peter Brimelow talks about. In the early 1960s some 200,000 penurious immigrants thronged this stagnant urban community, more than the total black unemployed youths in all America's urban areas at the time. It was the most rapid and overwhelming migration to one American city. Few spoke English and virtually none had jobs or housing. Yet in less than a decade, these Cuban immigrants revived Miami's stagnant inner city and transformed the entire Miami economy. Even with another 125,000 boat people fleeing to Miami in the early 1980s, Dade County continued to have one of the lowest rates of unemployment in the state of Florida. George Gilder, who has chronicled the Cuban miracle, concludes, "As long as the United States is open to these flows from afar, it is open to its own revival."
There are many examples in other parts of the world where refugees and immigrants have transformed their new homes. Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Singapore come to mind. Foreign tyranny has led to much economic and social progress in exile."

And observe that the quote above is talking about Cuban immigration in the early 1960's wher Castro took power. Come on, not all Cubans came over on a rickety boat after Castro took power - they were smart enough to get the hell out of Dodge before and during Castro's takeover of the country. When the next wave of 125,000 immigrants came in the early 1980's, as noted above, they already had a very strong support network in Miami, not to mention favorable treatment from a U.S. government that was (and still is) obsessed beyond all reason with embarrasing Castro.

I should also note that in the past couple of centuries, ever since Nixon went to China, China's built an economy based on using slave labor from political prisoners to build cheap plastic crap to sell to the United States. Think about that when you see products labeled "Made in China".

Oh, come on, what kind of propaganda are you reading? Do you really think China built a $100 billion export industry on prison labor? Undoubtedly prison labor was used, but realize that there are PLENTY of Chinese people ready, willing, and able to work for next to nothing. The average Chinese makes $100/month. Furthermore, don't talk to me about prison labor: the U.S. has an incarceration rate about 7 times that of China: 730 per 100,000 vs. 103 per 100,000 in China. In terms of total prison population, the U.S. has 1.8 million vs. 1.2 million for China, despite the fact that China's population is 5 times that of the U.S.

Look, does China have an oppressive government: absolutely. Are they an economic powerhouse: again, absolutely. Their growth outpaces: Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, you name it. The world just has not seen a country achieve such high economic growth for such a sustained period - and with no end in sight, mind you. Whatever you think or say about China will not change the fact that we will have to treat them as an economic and military superpower - if not now then definitely within the next 2 decades.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by lmalave


Oh come on! Did the U.S. rise from an impoverished agrarian country to an industrial powerhouse in 20 years? Of course not because 1) the U.S. was NEVER impoverished. It has ALWAYS been one of the most prosperous areas in the world since colonial times. and 2) The U.S. never had a 20-year stretch of development like China has had in the last 20 years.

Well here's a quote that speaks to both those points. The common thread between Miami, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Singapore: they were populated by an educated and wealthy class that was escaping Communist persecution:

"One of the best cases in favor of immigration is the Cuban miracle in Miami, Florida. Here was potentially one of those disasters that Peter Brimelow talks about. In the early 1960s some 200,000 penurious immigrants thronged this stagnant urban community, more than the total black unemployed youths in all America's urban areas at the time. It was the most rapid and overwhelming migration to one American city. Few spoke English and virtually none had jobs or housing. Yet in less than a decade, these Cuban immigrants revived Miami's stagnant inner city and transformed the entire Miami economy. Even with another 125,000 boat people fleeing to Miami in the early 1980s, Dade County continued to have one of the lowest rates of unemployment in the state of Florida. George Gilder, who has chronicled the Cuban miracle, concludes, "As long as the United States is open to these flows from afar, it is open to its own revival."
There are many examples in other parts of the world where refugees and immigrants have transformed their new homes. Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Singapore come to mind. Foreign tyranny has led to much economic and social progress in exile."

And observe that the quote above is talking about Cuban immigration in the early 1960's wher Castro took power. Come on, not all Cubans came over on a rickety boat after Castro took power - they were smart enough to get the hell out of Dodge before and during Castro's takeover of the country. When the next wave of 125,000 immigrants came in the early 1980's, as noted above, they already had a very strong support network in Miami, not to mention favorable treatment from a U.S. government that was (and still is) obsessed beyond all reason with embarrasing Castro.

Oh, come on, what kind of propaganda are you reading? Do you really think China built a $100 billion export industry on prison labor? Undoubtedly prison labor was used, but realize that there are PLENTY of Chinese people ready, willing, and able to work for next to nothing. The average Chinese makes $100/month. Furthermore, don't talk to me about prison labor: the U.S. has an incarceration rate about 7 times that of China: 730 per 100,000 vs. 103 per 100,000 in China. In terms of total prison population, the U.S. has 1.8 million vs. 1.2 million for China, despite the fact that China's population is 5 times that of the U.S.

Look, does China have an oppressive government: absolutely. Are they an economic powerhouse: again, absolutely. Their growth outpaces: Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, you name it. The world just has not seen a country achieve such high economic growth for such a sustained period - and with no end in sight, mind you. Whatever you think or say about China will not change the fact that we will have to treat them as an economic and military superpower - if not now then definitely within the next 2 decades.

China's economic growth was fully dependent on the West as a market for their goods produced by slave labor. Also realize that China's prison population is smaller because they have a higher rate of executions, many of them summary executions.

Those Cuban immigrants were illeriterate and poor! Read what you just posted! Yes, they were more intelligent, because they realized that communism was stupid before finding out the hard way. That's all they had going for them.

As for economic growth, China's going to have a larger GDP due to their population. In per capita GDP, however, China is $4,300, while Taiwan is at $17,200, Singapore is at $24,700, and Hong Kong is $25,000. China is *still*, essentially, a poor country.

[lmalave]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac

Those Cuban immigrants were illeriterate and poor! Read what you just posted! Yes, they were more intelligent, because they realized that communism was stupid before finding out the hard way. That's all they had going for them.

Oh, so not knowing how to speak and write English makes you illiterate, huh? I guess 80% of the world is illiterate
Well, as a Puerto-Rican born citizen I am quite offended. Here's another quote:

"B.__ Exile begins._ An estimated 800,000 people emigrate from Cuba to the U.S. between 1959 and 1980._ The first wave of Golden Exiles included about 215,000 of the social, political, and economic elites during the Batista regime._ They arrived in the U.S. without money or property; but they brought with them the skills, training, and knowledge that had served Cuban society, however exploitative."

Yes, of course the Cubans didn't have jobs and housing when they arrived. I mean, they didn't exactly do a round of job interviews before leaving Cuba - they were fleeing for their lives, for goodness' sakes! But that does not change the fact that they were, as the quote above says : "215,000 of the social, political, and economic elites".

And the same holds true for Singapore, Taiwan, and Hong Kong - it was the educated elite from China that populated those areas. What is so freakin' hard to understand about this? Look, if the top scientists and engineers from Russia moved to the U.S., they'd do very well. The fact is that although the level of wealth varies widely across the globe, the economic elite of any country will do well almost anywhere they go. Why? A host of reasons - better education, more self-confidence, greater ability to manage money and power. But it is an almost irrefutable fact.

And back to China, from the CIA World Factbook:

"In late 1978 the Chinese leadership began moving the economy from a sluggish Soviet-style centrally planned economy to a more market-oriented system. Whereas the system operates within a political framework of strict Communist control, the economic influence of non-state organizations and individual citizens has been steadily increasing. The authorities have switched to a system of household and village responsibility in agriculture in place of the old collectivization, increased the authority of local officials and plant managers in industry, permitted a wide variety of small-scale enterprise in services and light manufacturing, and opened the economy to increased foreign trade and investment. The result has been a quadrupling of GDP since 1978. In 2001, with its 1.27 billion people but a GDP of just $4,300 per capita, China stood as the second largest economy in the world after the US (measured on a purchasing power parity basis)."

China's growth is due to the market reforms it has undertaken, not because it's riding the backs of prison labor as you seem to imply. C'mon, get real. You can talk all you want about summary executions and prison labor, that's NOT the reason for China's economic growth. Do you really think it's prisoners working in Intel's chip factories? Or building consumer electronics? Please, get real. If prison labor is used, it's for unskilled labor, and a quite small factor in the economy.

And it's so freakin' hypocritical to single out China. The only reason we do is because we now see them as a rival. Do you ever think twice about where the products you buy come from? How is anybody in China worse off than someone working on a plantation in the dictatorships of Honduras or Guatemala? Are you going to boycott all products that aren't produced by democratic countries? Then prepare to pay a LOT more for a MUCH smaller product selection.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by lmalave


Oh, so not knowing how to speak and write English makes you illiterate, huh? I guess 80% of the world is illiterate
Well, as a Puerto-Rican born citizen I am quite offended. Here's another quote:

"B.__ Exile begins._ An estimated 800,000 people emigrate from Cuba to the U.S. between 1959 and 1980._ The first wave of Golden Exiles included about 215,000 of the social, political, and economic elites during the Batista regime._ They arrived in the U.S. without money or property; but they brought with them the skills, training, and knowledge that had served Cuban society, however exploitative."

Yes, of course the Cubans didn't have jobs and housing when they arrived. I mean, they didn't exactly do a round of job interviews before leaving Cuba - they were fleeing for their lives, for goodness' sakes! But that does not change the fact that they were, as the quote above says : "215,000 of the social, political, and economic elites".

And the same holds true for Singapore, Taiwan, and Hong Kong - it was the educated elite from China that populated those areas. What is so freakin' hard to understand about this? Look, if the top scientists and engineers from Russia moved to the U.S., they'd do very well. The fact is that although the level of wealth varies widely across the globe, the economic elite of any country will do well almost anywhere they go. Why? A host of reasons - better education, more self-confidence, greater ability to manage money and power. But it is an almost irrefutable fact.

And back to China, from the CIA World Factbook:

"In late 1978 the Chinese leadership began moving the economy from a sluggish Soviet-style centrally planned economy to a more market-oriented system. Whereas the system operates within a political framework of strict Communist control, the economic influence of non-state organizations and individual citizens has been steadily increasing. The authorities have switched to a system of household and village responsibility in agriculture in place of the old collectivization, increased the authority of local officials and plant managers in industry, permitted a wide variety of small-scale enterprise in services and light manufacturing, and opened the economy to increased foreign trade and investment. The result has been a quadrupling of GDP since 1978. In 2001, with its 1.27 billion people but a GDP of just $4,300 per capita, China stood as the second largest economy in the world after the US (measured on a purchasing power parity basis)."

China's growth is due to the market reforms it has undertaken, not because it's riding the backs of prison labor as you seem to imply. C'mon, get real. You can talk all you want about summary executions and prison labor, that's NOT the reason for China's economic growth. Do you really think it's prisoners working in Intel's chip factories? Or building consumer electronics? Please, get real. If prison labor is used, it's for unskilled labor, and a quite small factor in the economy.

And it's so freakin' hypocritical to single out China. The only reason we do is because we now see them as a rival. Do you ever think twice about where the products you buy come from? How is anybody in China worse off than someone working on a plantation in the dictatorships of Honduras or Guatemala? Are you going to boycott all products that aren't produced by democratic countries? Then prepare to pay a LOT more for a MUCH smaller product selection.

They were illiterate in the language of the country they were living in (the US). In the same sense that I would be illiterate in China (since I don't know any Chinese).

No matter how "elite" you are, if you come to the United States with nothing but the clothes on your back, that's all you have. I'm not taking anything away from these people, they were incredibly skilled, intelligent, and dedicated to create for themselves the standard of living they have.

The Cuban revolution was 40 years ago. The Chinese revolution was 50 years ago. There's been one or two new generations between the first people to escape from China.

As for China's economic growth, get real. On the average, each Chinese citizen produces about $6000 worth of value. The average citizen of most Western countries produce anywhere from twice to five times as much. If your country has a billion people, and each of them, on the average, produces only a fifth of what the average American produces, you'll have a large GDP. It's a larger country.

Should we be happy that China's made the reforms so their per capita GDP has gone from $3000 to $6000? Is it really that spectacular to come from a tenth of what the average American produces to a fifth of that? China is a wasteland of poverty, tyranny, and a destructive economic system. If China really had a strong economy, they wouldn't have the so-called "overpopulation" problem. And the simple fact is, in a single generation, China will probably become insignificant as its population plummets to less than a half of what it originally was.

[macktheknife]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
As for China's economic growth, get real. On the average, each Chinese citizen produces about $6000 worth of value. The average citizen of most Western countries produce anywhere from twice to five times as much. If your country has a billion people, and each of them, on the average, produces only a fifth of what the average American produces, you'll have a large GDP. It's a larger country.

Should we be happy that China's made the reforms so their per capita GDP has gone from $3000 to $6000? Is it really that spectacular to come from a tenth of what the average American produces to a fifth of that? China is a wasteland of poverty, tyranny, and a destructive economic system. If China really had a strong economy, they wouldn't have the so-called "overpopulation" problem. And the simple fact is, in a single generation, China will probably become insignificant as its population plummets to less than a half of what it originally was.

The emergence of China as an economic superpower will have reprecussions on the global economy in the next several decades. China is now able to produce almost everything and anything efficiently and cheaply. It now sucks up a ton of foreign investment, and many countries in Asia have already felt its impact. You can read two articles
here and
here.

As for your comment of China being a "wasteland of poverty, tyranny, and a destructive economic system", you are dead wrong. China is transforming itself into a world-class economic superpower. Yes, there are pockets of poverty and political oppression, but remember the tortured path of economic growth the United States had to endure during the Gilded Age in the late 1800s and the early 1900s. We don't even need to mention the corruption and the oppression that existed then, do we?

Yes, on a per capita basis, China is lagging far behind the industrialized nations, but that will also change in the future. It took the United States 47 years from 1839 to 1886 to double per capita income. China managed to do that twice in the past thirty years. It took them 9 years from 1978 to 1987 to double per capita income and it took them another 9 years from 1987 to 1996 to double per capita income again. Your assertion that the "average citizen of most Western countries produce anywhere from twice to five times as much" shows you misunderstand how GDP is calculated. GDP is calcuated by taking the value of goods and services produced. A hair cut is bound to cost more in Europe than in China and will be recorded accordingly as part of GDP (under consumption). Does this mean that Western workers are more productive than Chinese workers?

In fact, Europe is no longer the economic powerhouse it once was now that it's strangled by overregulations and the continual drain of the Welfare State. In fact, Europe's GDP is not driven so much by manufacturing or value-added services like business services, etc., but more like "I'll cut your hair and you make me coffee." The United States has a huge competitive edge over the rest of the world, but we'll soon lose it if we don't invest more in education.

And as for your comment "If China really had a strong economy, they wouldn't have the so-called "overpopulation" problem", what, may I ask, are you basing this assertion on? Declining rates of fertility is a product of industrialization--industrialization does not depend on a small population. In fact, China's one-child policy has successfully slowed population growth. Yes, the policy is unfair and at times brutal, but the country has to take steps to ensure that its population doesn't consume all the gains from economic growth. By 2050, China is expected to get its population down to 700 million and its per capita income to match that of the United States'.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by macktheknife


As for your comment of China being a "wasteland of poverty, tyranny, and a destructive economic system", you are dead wrong. China is transforming itself into a world-class economic superpower. Yes, there are pockets of poverty and political oppression, but remember the tortured path of economic growth the United States had to endure during the Gilded Age in the late 1800s and the early 1900s. We don't even need to mention the corruption and the oppression that existed then, do we?

In fact, Europe is no longer the economic powerhouse it once was now that it's strangled by overregulations and the continual drain of the Welfare State. In fact, Europe's GDP is not driven so much by manufacturing or value-added services like business services, etc., but more like "I'll cut your hair and you make me coffee." The United States has a huge competitive edge over the rest of the world, but we'll soon lose it if we don't invest more in education.

And as for your comment "If China really had a strong economy, they wouldn't have the so-called "overpopulation" problem", what, may I ask, are you basing this assertion on? Declining rates of fertility is a product of industrialization--industrialization does not depend on a small population. In fact, China's one-child policy has successfully slowed population growth. Yes, the policy is unfair and at times brutal, but the country has to take steps to ensure that its population doesn't consume all the gains from economic growth. By 2050, China is expected to get its population down to 700 million and its per capita income to match that of the United States'.

Nothing in American history with the possible exception of slavery can even compare to Tianenmen Square, the persecution of the Falun Gong, Chinese summary executions, and routine torture. Amnesty International has all the details:

http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/countr...t=30&Expandall

The decline of Europe doesn't surprise me.

As for "overpopulation", my point was that a strong economy can support any degree of population possible. The world today produces more than enough food to feed the entire world. It is only dictatorships in North Korea and Africa that steal the food and feed only their armies, and poor, weak economies like China, in which starvation is a problem. The population density of Europe, Hong Kong, Japan, or American coastal regions is as dense or denser than China, yet only China feels they need forced sterilizations and forced abortions to enforce a "one child policy". The reason China is "overpopulated" is because they have an oppressive economic system that does not have the purchasing power to feed all their people. Economic growth does not depend on surgical rape, EVER.

[lmalave]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac

Nothing in American history with the possible exception of slavery can even compare to Tianenmen Square, the persecution of the Falun Gong, Chinese summary executions, and routine torture.

Two words for you: Native Americans. Yes, the U.S. has always had a progressive government, but ONLY if it considered you human. If you were a "sub-human" African slave (hypocritically counted as 3/5 of a person in the census by Southern states), or a "savage" Native American, then good luck to you. The Native Americans were considered dangerous vermin that had to be exterminated to make room for "civilized peoples". Their lives were given no more consideration than an animal's - no more than a coyote who's killed by annoyed ranchers, for example. The buffalo were exterminated from the midwestern plains NOT for profit and NOT to make room for crops or cattle, but SPECIFICALLY to destroy Native Americans as a people. And congratulations, they succeeded. The Native Americans were left a broken people with no means to make their own livelihoods, and were rounded up into concentration camps (reservations) in the middle of the desert.

Oh, and don't even try to talk to me about how all the Native Americans were killed by disease. Of course many of them were, but that was the case throughout North and South America. So ask yourself, why do Mexico, Central America, and South America have such larger numbers of Native Americans? Because South American natives were less susceptible to European diseases? Yeah, right I'm no big fan of the Catholic Church, but at least their missionary religion saw Native Americans as souls to be converted for Jesus, and thus they were largely spared. The U.S., unfortunately for its Native Americans, was dominated by Puritans and Calvinists who were not missionary because they believed that God's Chosen were already predestined to be saved. Therefore you did not see missionary movements on the same scale as in South America, and therefore the U.S. natives were not spared.

Hey, I think the U.S. is the greatest nation in human history, but I think you have to get over your smugness - the U.S. is far from perfect. And I'll again state that I think it's hypocritical to single out China. You want to talk human rights, how about Saudi Arabia? At least in China women have equal legal rights. So you think it's OK to severely oppress half of the population? And what about the fact that the 30,000 members of the Saudi royal family have all the power and almost all the wealth in Saudi Arabia? You could argue that the Communist party leaders lord over China in the same way, but by almost any measure China is relatively egalitarian (especially economically) by world standards. China does many, many objectionable things, but c'mon, you have to keep both a global and historical perspective.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by lmalave


Two words for you: Native Americans. Yes, the U.S. has always had a progressive government, but ONLY if it considered you human. If you were a "sub-human" African slave (hypocritically counted as 3/5 of a person in the census by Southern states), or a "savage" Native American, then good luck to you. The Native Americans were considered dangerous vermin that had to be exterminated to make room for "civilized peoples". Their lives were given no more consideration than an animal's - no more than a coyote who's killed by annoyed ranchers, for example. The buffalo were exterminated from the midwestern plains NOT for profit and NOT to make room for crops or cattle, but SPECIFICALLY to destroy Native Americans as a people. And congratulations, they succeeded. The Native Americans were left a broken people with no means to make their own livelihoods, and were rounded up into concentration camps (reservations) in the middle of the desert.

Hey, I think the U.S. is the greatest nation in human history, but I think you have to get over your smugness - the U.S. is far from perfect. And I'll again state that I think it's hypocritical to single out China. You want to talk human rights, how about Saudi Arabia? At least in China women have equal legal rights. So you think it's OK to severely oppress half of the population? China does many, many objectionable things, but c'mon, you have to keep both a global and historical perspective.

As a part-Native American myself, I agree that while there were injustices, and while the greatest injustice, that of the reservations, continues to this day. However, the "extermination" of the Native Americans was due to a series of wars largely started by the Native Americans. The killings went both ways. It was a terrible, terrible race war, but that's what it was--war. Nothing noble about it, but it was mutual.

In America, there is another evil that is somewhat comparable to what the Chinese are doing--abortion. However, at least here, it's not mandatory.

I'm singling out China because this thread is *about* China. If this thread was about Saudi Arabia, I would certainly denounce them. Same with any other country that disrespects human rights.

In China, women have equal legal rights only because zero is equal to zero. They do, in fact, have less human rights, because it is the women, and not the men, who are forcibly sterilized.