31–40 of 140 posts
This reminds me of the articles saying that germans like to use cash because of the inflation 100y ago. It's just not true and likely being written by someone who has never asked a single german/chinese.
I don't understand the motivation of the article. Does the author try to justify the Opium War? Or to remind 1+ billion Chinese that the intepretation of history always subject to rulers' agenda, which is clearly stated in Chinese textbook? To show off his not-so-sharp observation to his readers? Or, to warn USA not to abandon the free trade principle?
It is not true. It's just that politicians need official reasons to do what they do. And it's a great thing to use historical reasons because nobody can really counter them. Not a single Chinese person I know thinks about Westerners as sources of the Opium Wars and therefore as enemies. The opinions move between "West is so rich, let's be more like them" and "We are nearly back to our old glory, now also learn some o…
>> Westerners as sources of the Opium Wars and therefore as enemies The article is not wrong. Opium war, in the official narrative of recent Chinese history, is phrased as "the start of a hundred years of humiliation of China". It is heavily focused event in middle school history class. It definitely still shapes China in a lot of way, like the strictest drug prohibition may be in the whole world. In every day commun…
I don't understand the motivation of the article. Does the author try to justify the Opium War? Or to remind 1+ billion Chinese that the intepretation of history always subject to rulers' agenda, which is clearly stated in Chinese textbook? To show off his not-so-sharp observation to his readers? Or, to warn USA not to abandon the free trade principle?
Do you think "China" just shot up out of nowhere over the past 70 years because they had cheap labor? No. Their power could not have been created without the help of western nations. The most prolific mass murderer in the world, Mao Zedong, came out of Yale. Once he came to power, he had all sorts of help from non-Chinese.
The plot here is fairly simple and you can see it happening every day. China is the model for a new world government that will be implemented after the USA is wiped off the map. "Made in China" is the type of curse that the elite globalists who run things like to give people. They've been telling people what's going to happen for a long time and once it does happen, the people will get exactly what they paid for.
This reminds me of the articles saying that germans like to use cash because of the inflation 100y ago. It's just not true and likely being written by someone who has never asked a single german/chinese.
On the other hand, having traveled extensively in Europe the Americas, and Asia, Germany does use cash far more than other countries even in Europe, although yes not to the extent cash is preferred in Asia.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the other hand, having traveled extensively in Europe the Americas, and Asia, Germany does use cash far more than other countries even in Europe, although yes not to the extent cash is preferred in Asia.
Getting a MasterCard or Visa was harder in Germany than it should've been. They're optional and cost extra, standard debit cards for a checking account are Cirrus/Maestro, which can't be used to pay online or abroad or in many places. It was easier to just use them to withdraw cash. Sparkasse for some reason gave me a MasterCard that had it's own account, so I had to transfer money from the checking account to the ca…
Even national chains, until very recently, didnt accept credit cards.
Is there a name for this fallacy? It seems to come up a lot. I.e., when someone takes an action that has enormous and predictable negative effects for someone else and a comparatively tiny positive effect for themselves, they then argue along the lines that "I was motivated by my gain, not by your loss (even though I knew it would result from my action), so you have no right to complain!"
In this case, it can be both a "deliberate conspiracy" and a "pragmatic response". They deliberately conspired to hurt the Chinese for profit, judging their suffering to be a less important consideration than their own profits.
> Julia Lovell, a British historian, makes a similar point. In her book “The Opium War: Drugs, Dreams and the Making of China”, she says the move into opium by British traders was not, as claimed by many Chinese historians, a deliberate conspiracy to make narcotic slaves of the Chinese. “It was a greedy, pragmatic response to a decline in sales of other British imports,” she writes. Is there a name for this fallacy?…