China's Rise

[Opakidabar]

Read more newspapers then. It may be hard to believe, but China is not the same as the Soviet Union.

I do not want to read more newspapers on China, I was just expressing my surprise.

"Chinese"? Which of the hundred different ethnicities inhabiting the nowadays country of China would you mean then? Did they really all unifie B.C.? Or is the Chinese country mainly the successor of different countries or nations that sometimes were united and sometimes weren't?

First, The Han Chinese are the largest ethnic group, where some 91.59% of the population was classified as Han Chinese (~1.2 billion). So you can have your rest of 99 ethnicities or 8% of population
Second, have no idea if they ALL unified B.C., unfortunately I did not find the map of their dynasties in wiki. Most likely Tibet was out and some other places were not included, maybe it was only half of modern China. I do not think it matters.
Third, your last question makes little sense. What you said earlier was China was united by Mongols and then conquered by West.
Well, Mongols did unify North and South China, which had huge difference - different king (maybe even from the same dynasty, need to check, have no time).

Again, read newspapers, inform yourself over the internet, or ask any NGO or human rights organisation.

I do not care what they say. Define fair trial and then we speak. You can use their (human rights org) definition for that. I really do not know the definition for that.

If they dominate via migration, maybe the Chinese people are influencing or dominating culture, but it's no longer China (the country) that is dominating. Apart from that, you cannot be serious when you say that Irish culture ("bad quality of life in Ireland") dominated the world through the USA, Canada and Australia.

If there was no Irish migration to USA then USA would speak German today. IMO.

[Amazeroth]

First, The Han Chinese are the largest ethnic group, where some 91.59% of the population was classified as Han Chinese (~1.2 billion). So you can have your rest of 99 ethnicities or 8% of population

You have 55 other officially (by the Chinese government that is) regocgnised ethnicities, and about 15-20 other who aren't officially recognised, but nevertheless different. Apart from that you'd notice that the Han themselves are not a coherent ethnicity, but consist of different groups that have been partly called Han because it's easier that way - apart from the fact that this statistics would have been made either by the Chinese government or under its supervision. Seeing that said government favours some kind of national identity, it is not really a surprise that different ethnicities are "assigned" to the Han.

Second, have no idea if they ALL unified B.C., unfortunately I did not find the map of their dynasties in wiki. Most likely Tibet was out and some other places were not included, maybe it was only half of modern China. I do not think it matters.

If it doesn't matter, why bother discussing it in the first place. I'd say it was about half to three thirds of modern China.

Third, your last question makes little sense. What you said earlier was China was united by Mongols and then conquered by West.
Well, Mongols did unify North and South China, which had huge difference - different king (maybe even from the same dynasty, need to check, have no time).

Different dynasties, northern one were Chi'in, southern ones not. With my last question I wanted to express my opinion - that todays China is the successor of different empires, not one "body" of a nation that basically hasn't changed since 4000 BC (or so).

I do not care what they say. Define fair trial and then we speak. You can use their (human rights org) definition for that. I really do not know the definition for that.

Since I won't give a complete definition - as my time is also limited - I will just state a few points that seem crucial to a fair trial to me, if you don't think so, maybe their trials are fair to you after all.

"Fair" trials, in my opinion, can only be had, if:

- the accused has some kind of legal aid
- the verdicts rely on evidence rather than witnesses or confessions
- torture is not applied

which are just the main points I can think about now. I don't know what the Chinise constitution or sub-constitutional law says, but according to about every human rights organisation, these points are de facto not met. In addition one could say that there is the death penalty for ridiculously "low" offences, like "aggravated theft of vegetables" or production of pornographic material - but this has less to do with fair trials than with the law.

If there was no Irish migration to USA then USA would speak German today. IMO.

And language = culture?

[JuliaAJA]

New things I learned from the thread -
China has unemployment (it is a surprise for me, there was no such thing in Soviet Union, everyone had to have job)
Thousand of "Confucius Institutes" in Latin America and Africa (yeah, never thought of Chinese much, same for Africa and Latin America)
I had impression Chinese unified B.C., but it appears they unified only when Mongols conquered them and later Western powers
Also it is interesting that there are no fair trials in China. What is the definition of fair trial would be the best question then.

One other point to give is that poor and hungry people can be enormous force to culturally dominate the rest of the world by migration. If my historical knowledge is correct hunger/bad quality of life in Ireland was one of reasons that made USA, most of Canada and Australia English speaking.

I also learned all the same, except I knew about a lack of unification from computer games about Ancient China.

I agree.

If there was no Irish migration to USA then USA would speak German today. IMO.

I wish we spoke German or at least more Germanic English.

[Opakidabar]

Second, have no idea if they ALL unified B.C., unfortunately I did not find the map of their dynasties in wiki. Most likely Tibet was out and some other places were not included, maybe it was only half of modern China. I do not think it matters.

If it doesn't matter, why bother discussing it in the first place. I'd say it was about half to three thirds of modern China.

It does not matter because if we had Roman Empire that lasted for centuries and doubled its territory still keeping same culture/language/laws then we could say that Roman Empire was united before and is united now. That was my reasoning when saying it did not matter. Another thing (I am not sure about this but have feeling) is that most of population of ancient China was united then. Except Tibet and dessert. But I need to check that.

Different dynasties, northern one were Chi'in, southern ones not. With my last question I wanted to express my opinion - that todays China is the successor of different empires, not one "body" of a nation that basically hasn't changed since 4000 BC (or so).

Well if you look at this kingdom/empire wise you are right. When you look at this language (at least written language wise), culture (songs, tales, religion), laws (Confucius) then (I might be wrong again, and I only have this feeling) I always felt of China being one unit.
I know today there is this large Islam Uighur minority etc, but they are small % of China (part of those 8% that are not Han Chinese).

"Fair" trials, in my opinion, can only be had, if:
- the accused has some kind of legal aid
- the verdicts rely on evidence rather than witnesses or confessions
- torture is not applied

I guess they are more into punishing suspects than treating them well. The comparison of West and East trials could be another topic. West is obsessed with idea of not punishing innocent. East is obsessed with idea of not letting guilty ones unpunished.

And language = culture?

Well you tend to choose the cultural heritage that is based on your language. You read books that are printed in your language (mostly), you suck in values that come from your culture through fairy-tales and stories written in your language. Is not the same but..

[elryacko]

Okidabar.... China has turned Capitalist. Of course there's unemployment. Although in the Soviet Union, technically half the population was unemployed, since they didn't actually work...

[Opakidabar]

Okidabar.... China has turned Capitalist. Of course there's unemployment. Although in the Soviet Union, technically half the population was unemployed, since they didn't actually work...

I know, I know. I just had this impression that they run some kind of economic mixture of communism and capitalism and that they give state jobs to those failing to have one under capitalist system. I was wrong.

On Soviet Union, "technically half the population was unemployed since they didn't actually work", em, where your info comes from? Because my own memories are not like that. People worked but not the Western way of doing late hours working for endless promotions, they worked the Soviet way - doing minimum to get the salary, spending rest of their time for non-officially paid activities - like playing chess (not for money), growing flowers (big money), growing children (not instant money), drinking vodka (em, yeah)
But maybe my memories are like that because I looked at teachers, doctors, librarians, civil engineers. And I was too young to ever work myself (except for mandatory "talka"s on the potatoes field for school). Spent my time on reading books and playing with other kids.

Well on the other hand, not working the Western way might be seen as not working at all. That is a fair point

[elryacko]

Okidabar.... China has turned Capitalist. Of course there's unemployment. Although in the Soviet Union, technically half the population was unemployed, since they didn't actually work...

I know, I know. I just had this impression that they run some kind of economic mixture of communism and capitalism and that they give state jobs to those failing to have one under capitalist system. I was wrong.

On Soviet Union, "technically half the population was unemployed since they didn't actually work", em, where your info comes from? Because my own memories are not like that. People worked but not the Western way of doing late hours working for endless promotions, they worked the Soviet way - doing minimum to get the salary, spending rest of their time for non-officially paid activities - like playing chess (not for money), growing flowers (big money), growing children (not instant money), drinking vodka (em, yeah)
But maybe my memories are like that because I looked at teachers, doctors, librarians, civil engineers. And I was too young to ever work myself (except for mandatory "talka"s on the potatoes field for school). Spent my time on reading books and playing with other kids.

Well on the other hand, not working the Western way might be seen as not working at all. That is a fair point

Why would they give state jobs in it's free economic zones? And who wouldn't take a cushy job? I don't think you understand how welfare works.

Well. Yeah. Although that sounds more like the European way. But I've heard that towards the latter days of the Soviet Union it was hard maintaining worker discipline, and many came to work drunk.

[Opakidabar]

Why would they give state jobs in it's free economic zones? And who wouldn't take a cushy job? I don't think you understand how welfare works.

Well. Yeah. Although that sounds more like the European way. But I've heard that towards the latter days of the Soviet Union it was hard maintaining worker discipline, and many came to work drunk.

I never said they would give state jobs in free economic zones, but I thought (and I was wrong apparently) that those who could not find job in free economic zones would have no problems to get state job somewhere else for way lower salary, like working in a rice field.

About discipline you were right. Many came drunk. Not the half of population (I personally knew few people, which represented like 5% of my known adult sample size), not every day (well of course not), but they came. But Russians can work under alcochol I know. They still do.

[Molotov]

Well if you look at this kingdom/empire wise you are right. When you look at this language (at least written language wise), culture (songs, tales, religion), laws (Confucius) then (I might be wrong again, and I only have this feeling) I always felt of China being one unit.
I know today there is this large Islam Uighur minority etc, but they are small % of China (part of those 8% that are not Han Chinese).

Don't. Imagine China before the nationalists as like Western Europe ruled by a Portuguese Emperor.

China, even today, has many different languages - despite the efforts of the nationalists and communists to enforce Mandarin. It had more in the ancient times, and the cultures/religions/myths etc. were more divergent then than now, but they're still pretty divergent now.

If there was no Irish migration to USA then USA would speak German today. IMO.

Unlikely, on the basis that the most important colonies which formed the United States were English speaking, and the founding fathers were English speaking. Although I suppose you could say that the Irish immigration meant that the English speakers came to overwhelmingly outnumber the German speakers, cementing English as the language. And there are a lot of similarities in the way the Irish speak English and the way the Americans speak English, I keep thinking Irish people I meet are American, both are ugly accents and there are dialectal similarities. So perhaps you're right.

Still, language definitely does not equal culture.

[JuliaAJA]

On Soviet Union, "technically half the population was unemployed since they didn't actually work", em, where your info comes from? Because my own memories are not like that. People worked but not the Western way of doing late hours working for endless promotions, they worked the Soviet way - doing minimum to get the salary, spending rest of their time for non-officially paid activities - like playing chess (not for money), growing flowers (big money), growing children (not instant money), drinking vodka (em, yeah)
But maybe my memories are like that because I looked at teachers, doctors, librarians, civil engineers. And I was too young to ever work myself (except for mandatory "talka"s on the potatoes field for school). Spent my time on reading books and playing with other kids.

Well on the other hand, not working the Western way might be seen as not working at all. That is a fair point

I think the Soviet way of working sounds great. It has potential as a cure for unemployment.