Understanding China

Known_Unknown

Devil's Advocate
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
2,632
Likes
1,670
Hindus are not homogenous, not be race, not by ideology, not by language and not by culture. Let's not divert this thread :namaste:
Hindus are homogenous due to their common religion. Not all nations need to have a common ethnicity, language and ideology as a condition of existence. By that measure, the UK wouldn't exist-the Scots, Irish, Welsh and English are separate ethnicity and languages. Neither would Canada which has 2 official languages and hundreds of minor ones. France exists through a common language though there is no "French" ethnicity, France has been a melting pot of ethnicities for a thousand years.

Nations define their nationalism on various grounds. For some, it is religion, for some, it is language, for some, it is ethnicity, and for some it is ideology. China's nationalism is based on her majority ethnicity, India's on her majority dharmic culture.
 

LurkerBaba

Super Mod
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
7,770
Likes
7,143
Country flag
Hindus are homogenous due to their common religion. Not all nations need to have a common ethnicity, language and ideology as a condition of existence. By that measure, the UK wouldn't exist-the Scots, Irish, Welsh and English are separate ethnicity and languages. Neither would Canada which has 2 official languages and hundreds of minor ones. France exists through a common language though there is no "French" ethnicity, France has been a melting pot of ethnicities for a thousand years.

Nations define their nationalism on various grounds. For some, it is religion, for some, it is language, for some, it is ethnicity, and for some it is ideology. China's nationalism is based on her majority ethnicity, India's on her majority dharmic culture.
Completely agree, but this thread is not about the "Idea of India" vs the "Idea of China"
 

Known_Unknown

Devil's Advocate
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
2,632
Likes
1,670
Completely agree, but this thread is not about the "Idea of India" vs the "Idea of China"
My comments were in response to questions raised about my assertion that when discussing China, we should leave aside it's "psyche", which may include the ethno-cultural, geographic or linguistic divides within that country, but focus on individuals or at the very least, focus on the historical evolution of the CCP and it's role in China today.

I agree with Ray that in order to fight and win against your enemy, you have to first understand your enemy, know his strengths and weaknesses. However, India's enemy is not the Chinese psyche or Han ideology but the vicissitudes of the power politics and ambitions within the Chinese Communist Party and PLA. Since the Chinese government is not representative, the wishes and feelings of individuals matters little when formulating state policy, what matters is the background and personality of individuals in high power positions within the CCP.

With this plea, I bow out of the discussion. :namaste:
 

Naren1987

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
438
Likes
97
Can we stop it with the China-bashing, this is supposed to be Defenceforumindia, right?
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,133
Likes
23,788
Probably the reason why there is enough dissent in China. Their policy, both internal and foriegn, is not universally accepted by the entire nation. In fact if 1.4 billion people were given a voice, I am sure the CCP would be out on the street begging.
If there is collective psyche, it could only be in their hatred of the Japanese, on pretty much everything else I am sure their thoughts are as diverse and subjective as any other nation.

In fact even Pakistan is diverse in thought and ideology, its just that the Mullahs are using violence as a means to subjucate everyone else. Its our way or we send suicide bombers. In some ways, its the same thing that the CCP does. The difference is the CCP also has core interests in self preservation of the nation and themselves, whereas the mullahs want to die so they can get their 72 virgins. :laugh:
The answer lies in Han culturalism and the Theory of Legalism.

Pysche of individuals matters, not that of a diverse bunch of people as the Chinese. I believe in individuality, and personalities of individuals in positions of power determine their roles and actions. A Mao and a Deng Xiao Peng were both Chinese, yet their differing individual psyches resulted in either millions of starvation deaths and cultural genocide versus progress and "relative" freedom.

Psyches of nations matter only when the overriding source of identity for the individual is derived from the ideology of the nation, such as in cases like Pakistan. For the Chinese, their source of identity is not very different than that of Indians, which is derived from their ancient civilization and a belief in their future greatness.
Individuals do matter.

However, there can be a study of people which give a general idea of how they would react.

If one has read of Han culturalism, one would realise that they claim a common heritage, even though that is not true in the strictest sense, but owing to years of historical assimilation of various people and convincing them to follow the Han culture and discard their own, they have built a mindset that is nearly common, unlike that of India (since you raise the issue).

In China, there is the North South divide, but not so clear cut as you mentioned about India. It is very subtle.Even the language which has differences have been reduced through pressures of Han culturalism to be accepted as dialects and not separate language. It maybe mentioned that though the script is same, yet the language spoken is mutually unintelligible! That is why to ensure total assimilation as Han, they have gone in for simplified Chinese.

Therefore, while individuality cannot be ruled out, yet the Han culture rules supreme and that is why they claim that 95% of the Chinese people are Hans. Imagine such a huge land mass, which had different races, cultures, language, traditions, customs etc etc today claim that they are all Hans and follow the Han culture!! Therefore, the comparison of the Chinese people with others is misplaced!
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,133
Likes
23,788
China's topography has historically encouraged regional separatism, but Han culturalism provided unity for the Chinese. Han Chinese culturalism arose to distinguish between the culture of the Han, or inner people (nei ren) and the 'barbarians', the outer people (wei ren), Chinese social institution and feelings of cultural and aesthetic superiority have provided reassurance for the Han Chinese in the face of barbarian penetration and conquest.

The concept of Han culture began with the Shang dynasty, 1750 -1040 BC, whose political centre was located north of the Yellow River. The Shang provided China's first written history as well as the assertion of central cultural superiority over the surrounding people by designating as barbarians everyone who did not yet acknowledge the central government supremacy. The Chinese distinguished between 'raw barbarians' (shengfan) or the unassimilated people and the 'cooked barbarians' (shufan) or assimilated taxpayers who enjoyed the fruits of Chinese culture. For example, Han Chinese officials separated the 'cooked' Li of the coast of Hainan, who enjoyed the benefits of Chinese civilisation, from the wild 'uncooked' Li of the central forests, far from the influences of Han culture.


Barbarians were given generic names in the Chinese classics and histories: the Yi barbarians to the east, the Man to the South, the Rong to the west and Di to the north (when westerners arrived by sea, they were officially designated until the late 19th century as Yi). Until the 1930s, the names of outgroups (wai ren) were commonly written with an animal radical: the Di, the northern tribe, were linked to the Dog; the Man and the Min of the south were characterised with reptiles; the Qiang was written with a sheep radical. This reflected the Han Chinese conviction that civilisation and culture were linked with humanity; alien groups living outside the pale of Chinese society were regarded as inhuman savages. To be labelled a barbarian was a cultural rather than racial distinction.

That the custom of sharply distinguishing went along with calling China the Middle Kingdom (zhong guo), , which began by ruling the Central Plain (zhongyang) in North China. Rather than using outright military conquest of outsiders, the theory of 'using the Chinese ways to transform the barbarians' (yongxiabianyi) was promulgated. By Chinese cultural absorption or racial integration through intermarriage, a barbarian could become Han Chinese (hanhua). To be counted within China, groups accepted the rituals and cosmology that gave the Han dynastic state the Mandate of Heaven to rule over mankind. Non acceptance of this politicised culture left one outside of Zhongguo or China
 

LurkerBaba

Super Mod
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
7,770
Likes
7,143
Country flag
Can we stop it with the China-bashing, this is supposed to be Defenceforumindia, right?
There is no bashing, understanding your largest neighbour and future power is very important to India's defence

My comments were in response to questions raised about my assertion that when discussing China, we should leave aside it's "psyche", which may include the ethno-cultural, geographic or linguistic divides within that country, but focus on individuals or at the very least, focus on the historical evolution of the CCP and it's role in China today.

I agree with Ray that in order to fight and win against your enemy, you have to first understand your enemy, know his strengths and weaknesses. However, India's enemy is not the Chinese psyche or Han ideology but the vicissitudes of the power politics and ambitions within the Chinese Communist Party and PLA. Since the Chinese government is not representative, the wishes and feelings of individuals matters little when formulating state policy, what matters is the background and personality of individuals in high power positions within the CCP.

With this plea, I bow out of the discussion. :namaste:
Okay, but a semi offtopic post from me.

Nations define their nationalism on various grounds. For some, it is religion, for some, it is language, for some, it is ethnicity, and for some it is ideology. China's nationalism is based on her majority ethnicity
And that makes China a different kind of nation...let's look at America. If you take up American Values, adopt their culture (conversion to Protestant Christianity is a bonus :D) you become a citizen (more or less) ! This is not true for China. Similar is the case with Japan, one would still be considered Gaijin, even after citizenship (which is very hard to get)

Since the Chinese government is not representative, the wishes and feelings of individuals matters little when formulating state policy, what matters is the background and personality of individuals in high power positions within the CCP.

Im saying that it doesn't really matter ! It's the Confucianism+Legalism philosophy which encourages authoritarian state in East Asia. Look no further than Singapore, or even South Korea (it was authoritarian during it development, transition to democracy was recent). China is the baap of Confucianism :)
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,133
Likes
23,788
In Chinese history, Legalism (Chinese: 法家; literally "School of Law") was one of the main philosophic currents during the Warring States Period, although the term itself was invented in the Han Dynasty and thus does not refer to an organized 'school' of thought. Legalism was a utilitarian political philosophy that did not address higher questions like the nature and purpose of life.[1] The school's most famous proponent and contributor Han Fei Zi (韓非子) believed that a ruler should use the following three tools to govern his subjects:

Fa (Chinese: 法; pinyin: fǎ; literally "law or principle"): The law code must be clearly written and made public. All people under the ruler were equal before the law. Laws should reward those who obey them and punish accordingly those who dare to break them. Thus it is guaranteed that actions taken are systematically predictable. In addition, the system of law ran the state, not the ruler, a statement of rule of law. If the law is successfully enforced, even a weak ruler will be strong.
Shu (Chinese: 術; pinyin: shù; literally "method, tactic or art"): Special tactics and "secrets" are to be employed by the ruler to make sure others don't take over control of the state. Especially important is that no one can fathom the ruler's motivations, and thus no one can know which behaviour might help them get ahead, other than following the 法 or laws.
Shi (Chinese: 勢; pinyin: shì; literally "legitimacy, power or charisma"): It is the position of the ruler, not the ruler himself or herself, that holds the power. Therefore, analysis of the trends, the context, and the facts are essential for a real ruler.

Origin

The early thought behind Legalism was first formed by Shang Yang in the book of Lord Shang and was further developed by Li Si as a realist reform oriented philosophy meant to strengthen government and reinforce adherence to the law. Legalism fully emerged during the Warring States Period, a critical point in ancient Chinese history. The Warring States Period and the preceding were marked by frequent violence and war, and many new philosophies were founded to cope with the environment of the time including, Daoism, Confucianism, and Mohism.

One of the first adopters of Legalism was the statesman Shang Yang of the State of Qin. He was said to have borrowed the legal elements of his theories from the Canon of Laws, a legal code attributed to Li Kui of the State of Wei, but this book is now considered to be a later forgery.[2][3][4][5] Overall, Shang Yang advocated the belief that all people are fundamentally flawed and that stringent laws and harsh punishments are required to keep them in order. In addition, his theories thought all humanity was selfish and evil, which added towards the cause for Shang Yang becoming prime minister of the Qin under the rule of Duke Xiao of Qin and gradually transforming the state into a vigorously regulated machine, the sole purpose of which was the elimination of all rivals. The Qin Dynasty would eventually conquer six other feudal states and create what is regarded as the first true Chinese Empire. Shang Yang swept away the aristocracy and implemented a meritocracy – those who achieved could reach high places and birth privilege was reserved exclusively for the ruler of the state. Previously the army had been controlled by nobles and constituted of feudal levies. Now generals could come from any part of society, provided they had sufficient skill. In addition, troops were highly trained and disciplined. From then on, Qin was taking its shape to become the most powerful state in China before it eventually brought all of the six other states together (Qi, Chu, Han, Yan, Zhao, and Wei) under Qin Shi Huang.

Roles of the Rulers

Primarily members of the ruling class, the Legalists emphasized that the head of state was endowed with the "mystery of authority" (Chinese: å‹¢; pinyin: shì), and as such his decisions must always command the respect and obedience of the people. The state (country) comes first, not the individual. The emperor's very figure brought legitimacy. In emphasizing the power of rulership, Legalists such as Shen Dao (ca. 350 - 275 BCE) and Shen Buhai sought to devalue the importance of the charismatic ruler. Skillful rulers hid their true intentions and feigned nonchalance. To ensure that all of his words were revered, the wise ruler kept a low profile. Thus, theoretically, by cloaking both his desires and his will, the Emperors checked sycophancy and forced his subject to heed his dictates. While Shang Yang (the Prime Minister of Duke Xiao of Qin) would allow rulers to listen to musical instruments rather than focus on foreign policy, Han Fei (the Legalist scholar most admired by the First Qin Emperor, Qin Shi Huangdi) demanded more of the wise ruler. A good leader, by Han Fei's standards, must not only accept the advice of loyal ministers when shown to be in error, but must also extend courtesy to those beneath him or her and not be too avaricious. The adept ruler also understood the importance of strictness over benevolence. Although the ruler was expected to be paternalistic, the Legalists emphasized that being too kind would spoil the populace and threaten the state's internal order. Interestingly, according to Han's Grand Historian Sima Qian (ca. 145-86 BCE), while the First Qin Emperor hid himself from the rest of the world (perhaps due to a desire to attain immortality) and thus maintained a low profile, he did not necessarily follow all of the Legalists' advice on the role of the ruler.

Role of ministers in Legalist thought

To aid the ruler and help prevent misgovernance, for fifteen years – formalized the concept of shu , or the bureaucratic model of administration that served to advance the ideal Legalist ruler's program. To the Legalists, the intelligent minister was the ruler's most important aide. Where as the minister's duty was to understand specific affairs, the ruler was responsible for correctly judging ministers' performances. Stressing that ministers and other officials too often sought favours from foreign powers by abusing their positions, Han Fei urged rulers to control these individuals by the two handles of punishment and favour. Officials were required, through fear, to ensure that ministers' accomplishments were neither greater than nor inferior to the assigned undertaking. According to the eminent sinologist Robin Yates, newly discovered Qin Dynasty legal codes show that officials were required to correctly calculate the exact amount of labor expected of all artisans; if the artisan was ordered to perform either too much work or too little work, the official would be held accountable. Thus, in Legalist theory, ministers and other officials were prevented from performing some other official's duties and were punished if they attempted to blind the ruler with words or failed to warn the ruler of danger. One consequence of this situation was that the ministers could always be held accountable for royal misadventures while the ruler's name was never to be tarnished. By emphasizing performance, however, over sophistry, the Legalists hoped to eliminate bureaucratic corruption and intrigues amongst the officialdom through fear of being severely punished, exiled or executed.

Purpose of law

The entire system was set up to make model citizens behave and act how the dynasty wanted them to act against their will. The laws supported by the Legalists were meant to support the state, the emperor, and his military. They were also reform-oriented and innovative. In theory, the Legalists believed that if the punishments were heavy and the law equally applied, neither the powerful nor the weak would be able to escape state control. The Legalists especially emphasized pragmatism over precedence and custom as the basis of law. Guided by Legalist thought, the First Qin Emperor, Qin Shi Huang, would weaken the power of the feudal lords, divide the unified empire into thirty-six administrative provinces, and standardize the writing system. Reflecting Legalist passion for order and structure, Qin soldiers were only mobilized when both halves of tiger-shaped tallies (one held by the ruler and the other by the commanding general) were brought together. Likewise, all documents in the empire had to have recorded the year they were written, the scribe who copied them, and up to the exact hour of delivery. Accepting Shang Yang's earlier emphasis on the standardization of weights and measures, the Qin Shi Huang would also accept Shang Yang's philosophy that no individual in the state should be above the law (by ensuring harsh punishments for all cases of dissent) and that families should be divided into smaller households. While there is reason to doubt Sima Qian's claim that Qin Shi Huang did in fact divide households into groups of ten, certainly the other examples of standardization and administrative organization undertaken by the First Emperor reflect the importance of Legalist thought in Qin law. Based on promoting the interests of the state Qin, the law (Chinese: 法; pinyin: fǎ; literally "law, method, way") served as a vehicle to both control the populace and eliminate dissent.

Legalism and individual autonomy

The Legalist philosophers emphasized the primacy of the state over individual autonomy. The lone individual had no legitimate civil rights and any personal freedom had to strengthen the ruler. Han Fei, in particular, would be very caustic towards the concept of individual rights. Fundamentally, the Legalists viewed the plebeian (common people of lower class) and their actions as evil and foolish.

However, Legalism allowed the common people to gain in rank if they performed well. For example, soldiers would gain in rank according to the number of heads the soldiers collected. A soldier may even gain noble rank. In contrast, some other states allowed only the well-connected to gain higher ranks. An example of this would be Lü Buwei, who originally a merchant, was able to become Chancellor of China, an occurrence that would never happen in the other six states. He played a major role in King Zhuangxiang of Qin's rise to power.

According to Shang Yang's The Book of Lord Shang, the people themselves wanted a ruler to generate order. Social cohesion in the Legalist state mandated that the populace never escape punishment. The Qin dynasty used the people, for example, to maintain vigilant mutual surveillance over one another under threat of death.

This intrastate realpolitik would end up devouring the Legalist philosophers themselves. Shang Yang, in advocating the state's right to punish even the heir-apparent's tutor, would run afoul of the future King Huiwen of Qin (circa. 338 -311 B.C.). Whereas at one point, he had the power to exile his opponents (and, thus, eviscerate individual criticism) to border regions of the state, he died when torn into pieces by chariots. Similarly, Han Fei would end up being poisoned by his envious former classmate Li Si, who in turn would be killed (under the law he had introduced) by the aggressive and violent Second Qin Emperor that he had helped to take the thrones.

Decline

In later dynasties, Legalism was discredited and ceased to be an independent school of thought. However, both ancient and modern Confucian observers of Chinese politics have argued that some Legalist ideas have merged with mainstream Confucianism and still play a major role in government. The philosophy of imperial China has been described as a Confucian exterior covering a core of Legalism (Chinese: 儒表法裡; pinyin: rú biăo fă lǐ"‹; literally "Confucian, the external surface; Legalism, the interior"). In other words, Confucian values are used to sugarcoat the harsh Legalist ideas that underlie the Imperial system. During the Sui and Tang dynasty, Buddhist ideas were also part of the external face of the imperial system.

There was a brief revival of Legalism during the Sui dynasty's efforts to reunify China. After the Sui dynasty was replaced by the Tang dynasty, the Tang government still used the government structure left behind by the Sui dynasty, albeit with much reduced punishments.

More recently, Mao Zedong, who had some knowledge of ancient Chinese philosophy, compared himself with Qin Shi Huang[citation needed] and publicly approved of some Legalist methods. One such method approved in the 1980s under Deng Xiaoping administration is the reward and punishment, which has increased the size of the Beijing government in the process. However, since the 1990s the related concept of the rule of law has gained currency.

Related figures

The Confucian thinker Xun Zi is sometimes considered as being influenced by or having nourished Legalist ideas, mostly because of two of his disciples (Li Si and Han Fei).
Legalism (Chinese philosophy) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Last edited:

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,561
Likes
2,564
How to understand China?

For starters, look at the Chinese name for their country, Zhongguo. Literally "Middle Kingdom", i.e. a beacon of civilization surrounded by barbarians on the North, South, East, and West.

Ancient Indians had a very similar view of their country. For example, Chanakya describes mlecchas (people from outside the subcontinent) as "even worse than a chandala". But that view has disappeared long ago and has been replaced by worship of all things Western. In China, however, ethnocentrism remains as strong as ever.
 

Tianshan

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2011
Messages
675
Likes
249
1. China only understands the language of power, there is no concept of morality/Dharma/Karma. While this might seem obvious, for a State, but I'm extending it to a people i.e the Chinese

2. Chinese culture is based on deception. Judge them ONLY by their actions, and not their words (seems obvious, but it's true!)
amazing sir, now you truly know the inside of the chinese mind.

like you said above, we chinese people have no concept of morality, and our entire culture is based on deception.

this is what sets us apart from all other human beings.
 

LurkerBaba

Super Mod
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
7,770
Likes
7,143
Country flag
like you said above, we chinese people have no concept of morality, and our entire culture is based on deception.
.
I never said those were bad qualities ;)

Also

(Please refrain from "oh you're stereotyping, you're being racist" etc etc)
I know this thread is stereotyping Chinese, but IMO general trends can be found on a largely homogenous culture, especially on how the elites think
 

Tianshan

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2011
Messages
675
Likes
249
I never said those were bad qualities ;)
hahaha. so when you say that chinese people have no concept of morality, and our entire culture is based on deception... those are not bad qualities?

if so, our country should look like somalia.

this thread can hardly be classified as an "objective" analysis of anything.

not that i'm complaining. i'm just very shocked.
 
Last edited:

The Messiah

Bow Before Me!
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2010
Messages
10,810
Likes
4,613
hahaha. so when you say that chinese people have no concept of morality, and our entire culture is based on deception... those are not bad qualities?

if so, our country should look like somalia.

this thread can hardly be classified as an "objective" analysis of anything.

not that i'm complaining. i'm just very shocked.
You chinis have not done anything to prove otherwise.

I know a few chinis living in India who are regular people....one family always sends home made chinese food on chinese new year.
 

cir

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
1,996
Likes
269
Here are my thoughts/Views about China, after interaction with the Chinese and reading up some of the history


1. China only understands the language of power, there is no concept of morality/Dharma/Karma. While this might seem obvious, for a State, but I'm extending it to a people i.e the Chinese

2. Chinese culture is based on deception. Judge them ONLY by their actions, and not their words (seems obvious, but it's true!)

3. China is NOT Dharmic/Buddhist ! Buddhism was wiped off during the Tang Dynasty, materialism is the the only thing they follow

4. China (and the Chinese) remain quite ethnocentric. This is not a civilization like USA which will spread culture and change people's/country's loyalties by promoting protestant Christianity. It is selfish and self-absorbed

5. Face (sociological concept) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, this is true for most East Asian societies though

(Please refrain from "oh you're stereotyping, you're being racist" etc etc)
The Chinese can sleep tight and sound if this is the best Indians can come up with. :rofl:
 

cir

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
1,996
Likes
269
For those Indians who try to eke out a living in China, the biggest barrier is to find a landlord who is willing to put up with the smell that is the result of curry eating day in and day out. I for one have turned down numerous potential tenants simply because he or she is Indian. Not racist, but simply can't stand the awful smell and the green yellowish stain.

Some are willing to pay good money($2500-$3000 a month) for my river-front flats in Shanghai, but NO, thanks, NO.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,263
Likes
19,531
For those Indians who try to eke out a living in China, the biggest barrier is to find a landlord who is willing to put up with the smell that is the result of curry eating day in and day out. I for one have turned down numerous potential tenants simply because he or she is Indian. Not racist, but simply can't stand the awful smell and the green yellowish stain.

Some are willing to pay good money($2500-$3000 a month) for my river-front flats in Shanghai, but NO, thanks, NO.
Does your house have a kitchen? If no, then yes, you will get the stench. Indian food is exactly as pungent as Chinese food that you get here:

I would like to share this picture that I had taken in 2007. There is an enclave in Calcutta (Kolkata) where lots of people of Chinese ancestry live. These people descended from Chinese who fled the Boxer Revolution. It is a very famous place for people to visit because of the excellent and authentic Chinese (Cantonese) food which is a delicacy in many parts of India. Similarly, traditional Chinese fountain pens, lamps, hand-fans and brollies are also very popular gift items and are held in much high esteem.

Roadside sign showing Tangra China Town in Calcutta (photo taken by me in July 2007):



Source: http://defenceforumindia.com/china-pakistan/18464-real-enemy-threat-china-13.html
I guess you are Chinese but not Cantonese. Neither are all Chinese same, nor their diet.
 
Last edited:

niceguy2011

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Jan 13, 2011
Messages
656
Likes
17
I m a Chinese first, then I m a cantonese. LOL



Does your house have a kitchen? If no, then yes, you will get the stench. India food is exactly as pungent as Chinese food that you get here:



I guess you are Chinese but not Cantonese. Neither are all Chinese same, nor their diet.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,263
Likes
19,531
I m a Chinese first, then I m a cantonese. LOL
It is good that you are dedicated to your country, so I will not laugh out loud, rather express my respects for you.

So, you guys do like spicy food, right?
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,263
Likes
19,531
I would also like to share this with my Chinese friends:



The China Town is famous for the Chinese (imported) goods and Chinese food.




Source:
INDIA ON WHEELS - A trip for pleasure!: Shopping Delights - KOLKATA - 33


Here are my thoughts/Views about China, after interaction with the Chinese and reading up some of the history
My take on the following observations and assumptions:

1. China only understands the language of power, there is no concept of morality/Dharma/Karma. While this might seem obvious, for a State, but I'm extending it to a people i.e the Chinese
I agree with the 'State' i.e. PRC, but not Chinese people per se. Perhaps most are like that, but surely not all.

2. Chinese culture is based on deception. Judge them ONLY by their actions, and not their words (seems obvious, but it's true!)
Deception is not the right word. It is also not obvious to me. I have Chinese friends whom I can trust.

3. China is NOT Dharmic/Buddhist ! Buddhism was wiped off during the Tang Dynasty, materialism is the the only thing they follow
Almost. Buddhism exists among small minority of non-Tibetan Chinese.

4. China (and the Chinese) remain quite ethnocentric. This is not a civilization like USA which will spread culture and change people's/country's loyalties by promoting protestant Christianity. It is selfish and self-absorbed
True.

5. Face (sociological concept) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, this is true for most East Asian societies though
Are you into face reading, palm reading or astrology? :D

Nothing wrong with it. I don't reject them either.

(Please refrain from "oh you're stereotyping, you're being racist" etc etc)
You probably did not intend to, but you did make a few generalisations that contradict my personal experience.
 
Last edited:

Latest Replies

Global Defence

Articles

Top