CCP snubbed by the Nobel committee

lol, come live in Beijing for a while, then tell me how it feels. Give me a break, politics is the last thing I care about, but if you want to stay, you got to play.

Just for the freaking record, I am Canadian, if that makes a freaking difference.

Are you going to be another brainwashed zealot trying to preach to me the glory of the party and its leaders?

Target CCP/negative thing? You sound like a human rights representative. They do something stupid, I mock it, it's one of the few entertainment I have left. Personal crusade? Don't make me laugh, how old are you? You still believe in making a difference? Give me a break, after all the BS has come and gone, China still has enough leverage to resist the world wide pressure to force it to increase its currency. The US can't do jack shit about it. China is also flexing its economical muscle by inflating all the Asian currency around it to lessen any impact that cheap USD might cause it. Japanese Yen might hit record high because of China. What can Japan do about it? Diddly squad.

And before I get completely off topic (seriously, if you have problem with me personally, pm me, don't make vague insults in public threads -

Seriously, come live here for a while, I am sure you would be able to enjoy yourself here with that attitude.
 
Seriously, come live here for a while, I am sure you would be able to enjoy yourself here with that attitude.
Click to expand...

Granted, there's some restrictions on public speech, and censorship, but you don't even feel it on a day-to-day basis unless your life goal is being a political/human rights activist. Quite a lot more mild than pre-glasnost censorship in Warsaw-pact countries.
 
In hindsight yes I should have just PMed you, my mistake. I am assuming this is where all the hostility is coming from?

But honestly I have not seen any other person so interested about the CCP and willing to post on every little thing the CCP does.

In regards to me defending the CCP. I guess it was like that but for me it was more to balance out you and welshes arguments. You make it seem as if nobody else has ever done the same thing (atleast haven't mentioned it) so I decided to interject. But that was a LONG time ago.

PS: I am American chinese dude. Dealing with my dad is like dealing with life in china (mao generation0. Always the fucking blacksheep because I didn't own half of Mongolia at 25 years old. I am not constatly looking for the next challenge (be it a person or goal) to knock down. Everything isn't good enough unless absolute fucking perfection. Honestly we have a lot in common besides what we discussed way back when and only because of the reasons stated above.
 
UniversalWolf said:
If I were the Chinese tyrants, I'd be more worried about how Chile just exposed their abysmal mining safety record.
Click to expand...

Yea it's funny how the supposed 'communist' nation has such poor worker safety standards. I think it's time China took worker rights seriously. :?
 
MutantScalper said:
I'd still prefer a more global prize system that wouldn't be governed by any couple of nations (Norway & Sweden). Don't expect any peace prizes given to people who oppose the wars those two nations take part in.
Click to expand...

The Nobel group is a NGO; they are not associated with thegovernment of either Norway or Sweden. Besides, the fact that it is not awarded by a nation is exactly what gives it its power.

And even if they were, please enlighten us as to the wars either country has involved itself in in recent history.

The purpose of the Peace Prize is more for people they perceive as trying to make a difference in the world. Hence the awards that time has shown to be dubious, like Arafat.
 
Murdoch said:
MutantScalper said:
I'd still prefer a more global prize system that wouldn't be governed by any couple of nations (Norway & Sweden). Don't expect any peace prizes given to people who oppose the wars those two nations take part in.
Click to expand...

The Nobel group is a NGO; they are not associated with thegovernment of either Norway or Sweden. Besides, the fact that it is not awarded by a nation is exactly what gives it its power.

And even if they were, please enlighten us as to the wars either country has involved itself in in recent history.

The purpose of the Peace Prize is more for people they perceive as trying to make a difference in the world. Hence the awards that time has shown to be dubious, like Arafat.
Click to expand...

The awards are given by these folks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_Academy

Those names look awfully swedish to me.

So do these.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Members_of_the_Royal_Swedish_Academy_of_Sciences

A committee from this Swedish medical university also takes part in giving the awards, haven't found the committees names but I betcha their swedish too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karolinska_Institutet

And these names look pretty Norwegian to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Nobel_Committee

So, like, what were you saying?

And about the wars, both Sweden and Norway are in Afghanistan right now and Norway fought in Iraq for a while. Don't expect awards to be given to folks like Hans Blix (even if he is Swedish).
 
I stand corrected. Didn't realize they were appointed by parliament.

Since no Nordic nation has been involved in a war of it's choosing since before WW2, except technical and other minimal actions, they are a credible source for an international peace prize.
 
There are radical and reactionary groups in every country in the world. Falun Gong in China is a counterexample. I don't consider the presence of small numbers of extremists as a disqualifier for making peace prize awards.

Are you arguing that nations outside of Europe and US aren't awarded the Nobel Peace Prize? Setting aside the fact that the award is typically made to individuals, never nations, a list of recipients would seem to disprove that. Or did you have a different point, it's hard to tell.
 
Well the Nobel prize system has been critized for being euro- and I guess US - centric, I think that's a fair criticism.

I don't think it would be that difficult to include more non-swedes and non-norwegians into the deciding bodies. That alone would be a huge step toward a more egalitarian and thus more just award system.
 
Oh, I see. You want non-Scandinavians in the Nobel deciding body.

I don't see that happening. The prize is essentially designed to reflect Scandinavian values, thus it's appropriate that it contain Scandinavians. Values of social responsibility, tolerance, and human rights. Hmm, doesn't sound all that Chinese does it?

Course, this doesn't mean China can't create it's own competing prize. Or Iran for that matter. People put value into the Nobel prizes specifically because of their history and core values, though, so I doubt anyone else's prize would be all the effective from a human rights, etc perspective.
 
One big system that has at least tried to achieve some kind of universal sense of equal representation has been the UN despite how some nations such as the US seem to dislike it and have tried to stop it from functioning. Even so it's still worth while to try to achieve organisations that, especially if they claim to act on a global level, should be truly global.

A swedish/norwegian prize is just a swedish/norwegian prize, not a global prize. Swedes and Norwegians should stop oppressing the native people (Sami) of their nations if they want to be called examples of "social responsibility, tolerance, and human rights". Oh yea and do something about those neo-nazi movements.

But I guess some people's standards are lower then others.
 
The UN ? Better not start about that. You know they fight against weapon trade and yet it is strange that the nations with a permanent seat are those that trade most arms in the world, including the United Kingdom, France, US, Russia and now with China slowly starting to catch up in that buisness.

I definetly prefer a not so perfect swedish nobel prize comitte to the "United Nations".
 
Crni Vuk said:
I definetly prefer a not so perfect swedish nobel prize comitte to the "United Nations".
Click to expand...
Me too. Ultimately the Nobel committee just offers an opinion. If you think it's a dumb opinion, you're free to laugh at it.

The UN not only has the outdated permanent security council, it provides a world-wide forum and prestige for two-bit dictators everywhere. Why does an organization founded on the idea of each nation getting to vote allow representation to dictatorships that deny voting rights to their citizens? It makes no sense. The thugs running Mianmar get representation equal to, say, Denmark or Costa Rica where the citizens can vote (at least indirectly) for their UN delegates?

The UN needs to be phased-out and replaced. Require voting rights and a free press for membership and ditch the security council. Move it out of New York City and put it somewhere remote and inhospitable like the Falkland Islands.
 
I mentioned the UN as an attempt to achieve some kind of of global system where every participating nation has a vote, at least in some cases. There is the inner circle that really runs things.

It might not work as well as it should but at least it's an attempt at a global system and not just outright old colonial dictatorial decision making by the old colonial powers like the Noble prize in reality is. I wonder how Americans would feel if, say, the Oscars (lol) were decided by the British, or something.

One type of global system would take into account not just the nation aspect but also population aspects. In that type of system nations with big populations like China and India and maybe Indonesia would be calling the shots, or at least they would have more say about things. I don't think China is a great nation, just that I can sort of see it's point of view when it might have a criticism about this type of 'holier then thou' - attitude coming from the old colonial powers of the west.
 
MutantScalper said:
It might not work as well as it should but at least it's an attempt at a global system and not just outright old colonial dictatorial decision making by the old colonial powers like the Noble prize in reality is. I wonder how Americans would feel if, say, the Oscars (lol) were decided by the British, or something.
Click to expand...
The U.N. was created by the old colonial powers.

I'd use a different analogy, too. The Oscars would probably be better if the British decided who won. :D

MutantScalper said:
One type of global system would take into account not just the nation aspect but also population aspects.
Click to expand...
I'd be open to that. You could accomplish representation based on population using a bicameral system like the U.S. government has. The lower house is based on population while the upper house has two senators for each state, to prevent California from using its advantage to bully North Dakota.

I wouldn't let China in unless they allowed elections and a free press though. Otherwise their delegates would only be representing the rulers and not the population.

MutantScalper said:
...I can sort of see it's point of view when it might have a criticism about this type of 'holier then thou' - attitude coming from the old colonial powers of the west.
Click to expand...
I'm really not sympathetic to that view at all. Times have changed, and people who constantly point the finger of blame at others are not to be trusted, because they're usually plotting something wicked.

The U.S. had a very close, friendly relationship with China before Mao took over, and if they ever decide to kick the fascist rats running their country out of power and go democratic, the U.S. and China will have a very close relationship again.
 
UniversalWolf said:
The U.N. was created by the old colonial powers.
Click to expand...

But at least there are some votes in it that every participating nation can take part in. Might not be fully democratic but at least it's a kind of a system that tries to operate on a global scale. Maybe it is headed the same way league of nations did, but if that happens I don't think it'll be replaced by a weaker system.

I'd use a different analogy, too. The Oscars would probably be better if the British decided who won. :D
Click to expand...

Yea maybe. But what I mean was that there would be any kind of interference in US politics by UK due to the fact that they would see themselves as superior to the US somehow. I don't think that would go down well in US.

I wonder how the US would have felt if, say, during the Vietnam war there would have been a Nobel peace prize given to the buddhist monks who protested against the war by burning themselves etc. Would have probably been recieved pretty negatively in the States. Or one given to native American activists. Or to Hans Blix, or any number of folks who IMO would deserve it but can be seen to be critical of the US and thus are scratched from the list of potential recipiants.

I wouldn't let China in unless they allowed elections and a free press though. Otherwise their delegates would only be representing the rulers and not the population.
Click to expand...

Yea free press. I don't think I've ever read a good definition of what exactly that is. The US doesn't have an absolutely free press, there's legislation in place in US that puts you behind bars if you publish the wrong thing. So, it's all relative.

I'm really not sympathetic to that view at all. Times have changed, and people who constantly point the finger of blame at others are not to be trusted, because they're usually plotting something wicked.

The U.S. had a very close, friendly relationship with China before Mao took over, and if they ever decide to kick the fascist rats running their country out of power and go democratic, the U.S. and China will have a very close relationship again.
Click to expand...

Well the US isn't a stranger to finger pointing, and that's what I see the whole Nobel prize being about, finger pointing.

I think we've on one level come to the 'end of history' in some sense, the west doesn't seem to have a clear 'mission' anymore, or at least it's pretty muddled. When a country like China becomes strong enough they can just say screw it to the Nobel prizes, which they are already doing.

And maybe rightfully so, I don't know. Like I said, I think they have a lot of faults as a nation, I'd like them to be more western but on the other hand "if every chinaman got a car/swimming pool/x-box/something the world would run out of resources". Good thing that same rule doesn't apply to the western nations.
 
MutantScalper said:
Well the US isn't a stranger to finger pointing...
Click to expand...
That's true, but I don't see the US consistently blaming one group. I mean, Bush might have pointed the finger at The Axis of Evil or islamic radicals, but Obama certainly isn't doing that. He's pointing the finger at completely different groups. :)

Meanwhile, there are plenty of people in the US pointing the finger at...the US!

China's government reminds me more of Germany in the 1930s than any other country in the world today. They've abandoned everything about "communism" in favor of their own brand of totalitarian, rapid-growth state-capitalism, and the population is largely going along with it. They also seem to have a similar feeling of being mistreated by the status quo, and a desire to reconquer lands they feel ought to be part of "Greater China", specifically Taiwan.

Obviously China is not Nazi Germany, and is not fated to become Nazi Germany, but they could ultimately choose to go that direction. What happens if they decide to invade Taiwan tomorrow?

MutantScalper said:
Yea free press. I don't think I've ever read a good definition of what exactly that is.
Click to expand...
True, but I don't think it would be that hard to come up with a reasonable standard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top