Jackie Chan: Chinese people need to be controlled

[Athena]

I think hes wrong, but I think there is logic in what he is saying.

Yes, people need to have strong rulers--left to their own devices they can create a very unruly society. In China wheere the population is so large it is difficult to manage, there is need for control.


However, they need gradual freedoms given to them, because making everything happen at once may do nothing to help the situation.

Wow, you are right. China has a huge population of young single males. Not only do they have a huge population of young single males, but they have moved off the farm and migrated to city. They are now rootless, and without the land and families ties that once gave China its social control, as well as young with testosterone flooding them, and their brains not fully developed, nor their thoughts shaped by tradition. This is a threatening situation.

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

The USA is still a helluva lot more liberal than China!!

How so? In what way? How is the USA a lot more liberal than China? Can you describe the ways and shew us all some examples?

I'm sure Jackie knows more about his own country then the rest of us do.

You would think?

They know what lifestyle they are comfortable with, they know which freedoms and restrictions they have to live with....

You would think?

There are good things and bad things involved in every system of government today and if one system was perfect above all others, wouldn't we all be using that system now around the world?

And we are; it’s called Democracy. Every nation has instituted their own type of Democracy.

Our Western societies are just as different as China's society, just as different as the middle east.

If there's a problem with too much freedom being given away in China, maybe that's true.... we all see just how much of a drastic reaction this can have in Afghanistan and Iraq..... you have people who are used to one way of life, suddenly pulled into a totally different way of life.

And judging by the appearance of the restrictions in America, there must also be a problem of too much freedom being given away in America.

1. Obama sets executive pay limits

2. Congress restricts military chaplains' sectarian prayers

3. U.S. Congress Restricts Toxic Plastics Softener in Toys

4. National Cold Medicine Restrictions Take Effect

5. Sanctions Sought Over Online Gambling Law
WTO May Punish U.S. Over Restrictions On Foreign Internet Gaming Sites

6. Anger at new US restrictions on HIV+ visitors

7. Indian banks face restrictions in US, says Chidambaram

8. Sun chief slams H1-B visa restrictions

9. US considers new restrictions on exports to China(07/29/05)

This can be quite devistating when not taking into account their previous beliefs and way of life..... esspecially when something new contradicts something old.

Quite an interesting observation. But hey, who really cares about that. We have to force them to live like America. Who says that father knows best? Instead of father knows best, maybe it should be America knows best. Maybe America is really everybody’s father?

Maybe Chan has a point.

You would think?

That's what I'm wondering. Are Chinese more comfortable with being subservient to authority? If so, why? Is it in their genes?

Well, one is wondering the same thing about you: Why are you {more} comfortable with being subservient to authority? Is it in your genes?

Secondly, what isn’t in the genes?

[tinybear]

Wow, Mr. M, you don't know how the USA is more liberal than China? You're kidding me, right?

[Athena]

Well Tiny Bear, it isn't in their genes, but is in their culture, which makes it a sense of who they are.

I think the bigger argument is, how are humans the same and how are they different? Then we question what makes them different. Another question we can ask is, how are people changed and what are the ramifications of change?

Depending on nature for crops and depending on the crops for everything else in ones life, will result in a different culture, than nomadic herders and hurters have. Living in the city, where humans are disconnected from the forces of nature, and all the power seems to human power, results in a different culture. China has major problems to resolve, and is a culture in rapid change. China has associated change with threat for centuries. In fact, perods of rapid social change present both opportunity and danger.

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

In China you don't get marches and there is no real resistance or note, maybe a few organised tame resistances, but nothing like terrorist level resistance.

You say this as if China is the only country where you don’t get what you want to define as {“real”} resistance or {“terrorist“} level resistance? With the exception of some of the countries in the Middle East, where else do you get the {high} level of resistance to government that you are speaking of?

By the way, China has its marches and protests:

1. Masses march against China

2. Tens of thousands march to protest China hostility

3. Tibetan students protest in China

…and China has its share of those who are called {“terrorists“}

4. U.S. labels group in China 'terrorist'
Muslims seeking independence put on list

5. China Foils Beijing Olympics Terror Plot

This must mean the people accept it, and when the people accept the government then the government can get on with making money.

Actually, this would mean that what is seen as a {majority} of the people accept it, or a {certain} group of people accept the government. And when those people accept the government, they can get on with making money.

Is this good for the people?

Evidently it is for the people who accept it. Otherwise, those individual would not accept it.

If there was a real problem then they wouldn't be on the G8, so there are no real abuses to speak of.

Depends on what you see as an abuse. For example, having to eat turkey for 5 straight meals may be seen as a form of abuse by some.

6. Jailbirds Complain About Turkey Diet

An election would be great because then the different parties - probably all communist - could pitch their promises to people and follow up to get re elected. But if a democratic party came up and said a million of them would be out of work under their rule, and they didn;t say which of them it would be, then they would all look around and wonder if that is a good idea for them personally - to run that risk - then they would certainly not take the chance. It is better for all the people to have food from the leadership point of view. Most people in democratic countries were told they could feed the poor, then they wouldn;t vote for it because people are by nature selfish, so it is hard to move towards that electorably, aswell as from it. The poor would all join hands out of fear and suppress a democratic system that would affect a lot of them, especially them personally.

Under communism everybody has, but under democracy some have more.
There is no way people are willing to take that chance, but, if it were forced upon them, there would be no going back, as most of the poor would be better off and that would sway the vote the democratic way.

Now Mr. Charlatan, it appears that you are saying that one of the characteristics of a Democracy is the fact that [{some} of the individuals who are in such a state have {more?}] So, questions: Does everyone in a communist regime exist with the {exact same} amount of things? Are there not people under Communism who exist with {more?} And if so, then doesn’t this mean that the Democratic characteristic of [{some} people having more] exists in Communism? And if not, why?

Seeing as how it is up to the people, and there is comeradarie born out of selfishness, there will never be voted in a system of democracy, but it would be healthy for the people to vote for different communist parties, as then they would be given voice.

Who are you to tell them what is {healthy} for them? Who are you to tell them that they are not already in their Democracy? Haven’t they already chosen how they wish to run their government? Haven’t they already spoken? Is the ability of the people to choose how they will vote and how they will run their government not what Democracy is about? Or is Democracy based on how you want them to vote and how you want them to run their government?

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

No. All humans have the genetic capacity to be free spirited or subservient, and it would take a more systematic approach than has ever been instituted to breed a subservient race of humans.

Such as? What type of system would it take to breed a {more} subservient race of humans?

I know American/Canadian Chinese who were raised in the West, and normally they don't behave differently from other American teenagers -- they are free spirited and opinionated, often a good deal more so than me. And those who do behave differently were raised in more traditionally Chinese homes.

And so, your argument must be, that those American/Canadian Chinese teenagers who were raised in the West, are more {free-spirited} and more opinionated than those Chinese teenagers who were raised in China or more traditional Chinese homes.

Question: Could it be that it is actually the other way around? That is to say, that those American/Canadian Chinese teenagers are not as {free-spirited} as you may have come to believe? In other words, could it be that those Chinese teenagers who were raised in China or more {traditional} Chinese homes are more {free-spirited} and more {opinionated} than those American/Canadian Chinese teenagers who were raised in the West?

Now, the reason why the question is asked is for a simple fact:

To state that the American/Canadian Chinese who were raised in the West are {free-spirited} after one has stated that these same teens do not behave differently from other American teenagers, appears to be a contradiction. This stems from the simple fact that, to be {free-spirited} means that one is a {nonconformist} or one is an individual who has not conformed to an established way of life. But here is the Thing:

The American way of life is an established way of life in America or the West. And by your own words you have stated that the American/Canadian Chinese who were raised in the West are normally no different than the other American teenagers who were raised in the West.

In other words, in terms of Actions and Behaviors, those American/Canadian Chinese teens who were raised in the West, have [conformed] to the established American way of life. And their level or degree of conformation is such that you can’t even tell the difference between their Actions and Behaviors and the Actions and Behaviors of other American teens.

Now, on the other hand, we have the other Chinese teenagers. These are those teenagers who were raised in China or more traditional Chinese homes. And as you have stated, those Chinese teenagers behave differently than their American counterparts. That is to say, that those teens do not Act and Behave according to the established American way of life.

In other words, in terms of Actions and Behaviors, in America, these Chinese teens who were raised in China or more traditional Chinese homes, have not [conformed] to the established American way of life. And this level or degree of non-conformation is such that you can tell the difference between their Actions and Behaviors and the Actions and Behaviors of other American teens.

So in actuality, it would appear that these teens who were raised in China or more {traditional} Chinese homes are the {free-spirits.} This is because, unlike the other Chinese teens, they have resisted. And in resisting, they have not conformed to the established American way of life. And their level of non-conformation is such that you notice a difference between them and other Americans or Westerners. Is this not so Mr. MoralityGames? Do you agree or do you believe this to be inaccurate? Feel free to respond at any time?


1. Free Spirit


2. free spirit

In the end, it is a matter of culture; for reasons primordial, collectivism is a standard facet of Chinese culture, it is in the habits that are passed from generation to generation in families, and consequently expected in the work places, schools, and general public, assumed as part of political policy.

And is collectivism endemic to China? Is collectivism restricted to China? Is it not found in America also?

[tinybear]

Ermm...can you summarise the above in 30 words or less please?

[Cruella]

Are Chinese-Americans different to Chinese people raised in China. A very long way of expressing what is actually a truism.

[RisingPhoenix]

Freedom is two-fold; having the ability to choose how you want to live your life and then being able to actually do so. As long as what you want to do is not harming another person, or infringing on their freedom, most think that it should be allowed.

The trick with Chan's comments about China is that they are similar to the situation in Iraq. When a population voices dissent but does not take action, they are basically agreeing to whatever shape the government has taken in order to exercise its authority over them.

From the outside, it's easy to look and pass judgement on how a population is governed. But internally, if they don't mind their goverment, whose to say it is wrong?

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

One could also relate it to how people can be trained and become acustomed to certain aspects of a job.

Some people have no issue with being a doctor, a soldier, a janitor, a teacher, while other people couldn't even fathom doing any of those jobs for their own personal reasons.

Or it may be that the [issue] with the job is viewed from an angle where it is seen as being so {imperceptibly} small, that those individuals are seen as having {no issue} with being a doctor, a soldier, a janitor, a teacher, etc…

Some people can handle shooting a tank at other humans..... some people can handle cutting open someone and working on their organs, or dealing with a room full of 30 some odd kids..... and yet other people can't.

Or it may be that the [issue] of being able to do the job is subjective? Therefore, since an individual is viewed as being able to do the job, the [issue] of not being able to do the job is seen as something that is so {imperceptibly} small, that those individuals are seen as being able to handle the job.

Some people are musical, while others are painters.... yet other people couldn't make a decent tune or draw a straight line.

Or it may be that {musical} is subjective? Therefore, since an individual is seen as being {musical,} the [issue] of not being able to make a {decent} tune is being seen as something that is so {imperceptibly} small that those individuals are seen as {musical.}

In the expanded view of this conditioning, this is how we learn to accept various things in our lives.... morals, rights, wrongs, governments, beliefs..... it's all developed based on what we absorb and understand throughout our lives in regards to what is acceptable and what is interesting to you.

And therefore all subjective?

Secondly, then who or what is to say whose morals are {right} and whose morals are {wrong?} How is such a determination to be made? Does your experience make you the arbiter of all that is moral? And if so, why? Are you to determine for the next man or country that his morals are {wrong} and yours are {right?} And if so, then what gives you that authority? Who or what has placed you in the position to make that determination? What allows you to tell the people of China, Afghanistan, Iran, or any other country that their way is {wrong} and your way is {right?} What makes their experience {wrong} and yours {right?} Why should they be forced to accept those things which are acceptable and interesting to you? Why should they disregard their experiences for yours? Why should they disregard their way of governance and submit to your way of governance?

Someone in the middle east understands and accept their way of life, just as you and I do with our own..... yet I wouldn't expect them to understand or even accept our way of life, just as I imagine they wouldn't expect us to easily accept and adapt to their way of life.

Those who do accept our way of life, normally move here..... and vice versa.

And yet people are traipsing around expecting others to {easily} accept and adapt to their way of life. Interesting.

[tinybear]

Folks, June 4th is approaching. Let's see if there are any commemorative activities in China, shall we?

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

I did a long google search on Hong Kong chaos. There are over 50 google pages and they all seem to start with a back lash to what Jackie Chan said. His career will take a bad big hit.

Mr. Chan will take a hit for stating the obvious. That is always interesting to see. You know, it is ironic how those who champion the freedom of speech are the first to excoriate and punish those who exercise that freedom that they so champion. Maybe those who champion the freedom of speech should start to define it as what they really want it to be: the freedom to speak that which we want you to say?

The quote is from an old World Book Encyclopedia



This philosophy does not stand alone but is perhaps more detailed than say Hegel's philosophy of everyone submitting to the state and the state being God. Hegel built his thoughts on early Christian education about good and evil and getting to heaven. Around the world, and at least since the beginning of civilizations humans have concerned with concepts of law and order and the necssity of regulating our lives and this question of authority. It is a subject worthy of discussion.

Interesting Points; have not heard those in a while.

Pointing fingers at China and critizing the country, without much knowledge of China, or this whole question of how to organize humans and bring out the best in them, is not helpful, but leads to harmful, bad feelings and potentially war. Not a good path to follow.

Especially, when the criticism is directed towards a country whose people are doing the same as you: exercising their God-given {right} to live as they see fit. That is, unless of course there is no God? Because we all know that you can’t exercise a [God-given {right}] if there is [no God.] Hmm, that is quite interesting. Such a concept puts everything in a whole different light. It is all starting to make sense now. No Creator, no rights.

You don't have to know much about China to see that it's ruled by a bunch of corrupt bureaucrats who pay no regard to common decency or human rights, Athena.

Yes, Ms. Tinybear, one has to agree with you. After all, look at all of these articles about corrupt Chinese officials.

1. NY Gov. Spitzer linked to prostitute: report

2. L.A. mayor admits affair with TV reporter

3. Defense contractor pleads guilty in congressman bribery scheme

4. Congressman caught on tape will not resign

5. Ney to admit guilt in corruption probe

6. Abramoff pleads guilty to more charges

7. Safavian found guilty in lobbyist trial

8. Drugmakers go furthest to sway Congress

9. Officials accused of illicit ties to companies
Reports allege drug use, rigged contracts, sexual improprieties

10. Rep. Foley Quits In Page Scandal
Explicit Online Notes Sent to Boy, 16

11. Ex-senator joins lobbying firm as "senior adviser"

12. Lobbyists showing Congress the world

13. Rangel admits owing $5,000 to IRS over villa income
Head of House tax-code panel regrets 'errors'

For a man of Jackie Chan's fame & stature to then come out in public to endorse this kind of regime is nothing short of outrageous.

Well, evidently, it seems that Mr. Chan is not alone. There appears to be over a billion others who are endorsing this kind of regime. That is, unless you believe that their opinions do not count?