From: Zhang, Yangkun (Yangkun.Zhang@FMR.COM)
Date: Wed Nov 29 2000 - 09:07:45 PST
> If the article claimed the protesters were racists and used as evidence
> that they wanted to keep the poor poor, but the protesters do not, in
> fact, want to keep the poor poor, then the article does not tend to
> show that the protesters were racists --- only that the author of the
> article is lying or misinformed.
It was an editorial in which the author was stating his opinion--an opinion
that is very common in mainland China, that for whatever reason, both the
liberals and conservatives in the US tends take a hypocritical stand towards
China and other nations as well regarding trade issues. The left uses "labor
rights" its weapon of choice, and the right uses "forced abortions" and
"religious rights" as its weapons of choice. In this respect, liberals are
absolutely no better than conservatives. He was simply calling the American
left on their hypocrisy. Even if all the protesters, including the unions
(who were very much the bastion of conservatism during the 60s), are all
very PC and non-racists, you still have to deal with the perception in China
that they have ulterior motives.
> These beliefs are the foundation of conservatism; indeed, conservatism
> divides humanity far more finely than mere racism, asserting even that
And this is not a hate-filled statement? In my experience, all people have
shreds of racism in them, and the conservatives no more so than liberals.
> suggesting that some or most conservatives weren't racist; if racism is
> fallacious, conservatism is fundamentally nonsensical. (I suppose you
> can tell what I think about this.)
Yes, I can tell that you're extremely biased. You think that conservatives
are the only racist people on this planet and that modern liberals are
loving of all people, etc. You're also full of it. You're having the same
reaction to accusations of [possible] racism as conservatives do. (In case
you're wondering, conservatives think I'm a [social] liberal and liberals
think I'm an [economic] conservative.) I'm quite used to getting flack from
the right, and you're no better. It just so happens that on this list, the
discussions I've been getting into have been mostly economics oriented and
thus have been getting the most flack from leftist...
> I suspect public opinion in Hong Kong, Singapore, and Japan will tend
> to side with the US government and against the US left --- after all,
> nobody disputes that globalization helps wealthy countries like these,
> only whether it helps or harms poor countries like Malaysia, India,
> Indonesia, and mainland China.
I applaud your effort in finding the articles from Indian papers. Though I
must posit that many of the arguments against globalization is the same that
Singapore and mainland China uses against importing too much western
culture. It does not seem to me as being particularly anti-free-trade.
Globalization includes more than just trade issues, and it is certainly
plausible to be pro-trade but still be against certain aspects of
globalization. However, you must let each country decide for themselves, and
to have the US government or its citizens trying to pressure individual
countries to act a certain way with respect to trade or labor issues is
extremely arrogant.
Apropos, you're definitely wrong on mainland China. I've lived there for
years, and have many friends who just recently moved from there, and
certainly don't need you to tell me how mainland China feels about
free-trade. But perhaps I'm wrong, Kragen--perhaps you've lived in many
different third-world countries and have far more personal experiences than
I do. If so, do let me know.
Regarding HK, Singapore, Japan, ROC, South Korea et all, you seem to be
forgetting that these countries are only recently rich. They were dreadfully
poor only 50 years ago. Trade made these nations what they are today.
> to be full of these same inbred racist tendencies, Yangkun; your
> arrogant, paternalistic insistence that free trade is "what is good
> for" poor countries is roundly rejected by the inhabitants of those
> same countries.
I never took a "paternalistic insistence" on what is good for them. I am
simply ranting against those in THIS COUNTRY who want to force those in
third world nations to adapt what the US think is good labor-environmental
standards. If these countries want to adopt these standards on their own
(and I suspect they will want to eventually), kudos for them. But people
like you who want to cut them off from trade because they don't use the same
standards as you do is extremely arrogant.
> Whenever I take the time to take apart one of your venomous posts,
> Yangkun, your facts turn out to be inventions, your logic sophistry,
> and your ethics vapid. These are complex and difficult issues, and
> your simplistic, dishonest, hate-filled attacks only shroud the real
> problems in smoke and make rational discussion impossible.
And your personal insults and attacks against me doesn't make rational
discourse any more possible.
These are indeed complex issues, and I don't know what the solutions are. I
never claimed that I do. I *do know* that for a lot of first-world residents
to try to apply economic pressure on the third-world to act a certain way
smacks of the very "paternalistic insistence" you proscribe me for. Whatever
the solution should be, it should be decided by these individual countries,
and certainly not at Seattle by a lot of ranting 1st world protesters who
had never lived in any of these countries we mentioned above!
My attacks are hardly "venomous" or "hate-filled", as I am simply stating
that the left in this country are just as hypocritical as the
religious-right.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 29 2000 - 09:31:56 PST