[Ideational Ontarian]

The fact that they are erecting such a vulgar eyesore in one of the most beautiful places in the world is something to be disturbed by.

There is nothing chauvinistic about calling someone a fat moron.
1. He was out of shape.
2. He failed at many times and many of his plans were disastrous.

Most likely, he doesn't deserve to be referred to as such but I am angry that the Chinese would defile a beautiful place with such a vulgar statement of cultural imperialism. And you really need to get your adjectives straight because I haven't said anything rhetorical in this thread.

[Eauz]

The fact that they are erecting such a vulgar eyesore in one of the most beautiful places in the world is something to be disturbed by.

According to...? I know people who think that city buildings are an eyesore on the landscape and environment of the region. What about the building of oil extraction zones in the Arctic, oceans, Africa, Texas Desert, etc? Are these, according to you "structures of beauty"? What about the harbours built for specific purpose, such as Crab Fishing, or fishing industry in general? They only destroy the "beautiful places in the world". You're whole argument is hollow, in terms of sentimental idea of "eyesore" and "beautiful places".

2. He failed at many times and many of his plans were disastrous.

And I asked you, the expert in Chinese history, Mr. Liberal, to provide some examples. I'm not saying you are "wrong", I am only asking you to back up "claims".

[Ideational Ontarian]

You're whole argument is hollow, in terms of sentimental idea of "eyesore" and "beautiful places".

So to you a fishing port is the same thing as building a giant Mao statue in Tibet where he has zero significanse? What a poor arguement. All this is a vulgar statement of imperialism by the Communist Party.

And I asked you, the expert in Chinese history, Mr. Liberal, to provide some examples. I'm not saying you are "wrong", I am only asking you to back up "claims".

Try reading "China's Road to Disaster: Mao, Central Politicians, and Provincial Leaders in the Unfolding of the Great Leap Forward 1955-1959" by Teiwes & Sun. I have already posted why I feel Mao was much less than a socialist god.

[Eauz]

So to you a fishing port is the same thing as building a giant Mao statue in Tibet where he has zero significanse?

I am not defending the presence of the statue, either, however, for certain people, seeing the "ports" in place of "nature" is a form of eyesore. On top of this, due to the fact that over fishing has occurred, many of these places remind people of the times that used to be, and the sorrow they have gone through. I'm bringing the analysis down to the fact that it is a "structure" being built over "nature". Sure, for certain people, the port resembles great things, but there are those in the province of Tibet, that the Mao statue represents great things too. To assume that EVERYONE hates the statue would be ridiculous. I am opposed to the statue, because it only hides the "reality" of the Chinese Bourgeois class, by throwing images of Mao around. We've seen the reality of their policies, as they have been against the working class. The statue only helps "hide" the image, to prevent any "major uprising" of the ruling classes position in society.

Try reading "China's Road to Disaster: Mao, Central Politicians, and Provincial Leaders in the Unfolding of the Great Leap Forward 1955-1959" by Teiwes & Sun. I have already posted why I feel Mao was much less than a socialist god.

Thanks for, FINALLY, providing something. Did it hurt to post that? In addition, I'm not sure who here, is suggesting Mao is a socialist god.

[Ideational Ontarian]

A fishing port provides jobs. A statue of Mao is built for one purpose: to humiliate the conquered. It would be like the U.S. invading Iran and erecting a statue of Abraham Lincoln in Tehran.

[Ombrageux]

A fishing port provides jobs. A statue of Mao is built for one purpose: to humiliate the conquered. It would be like the U.S. invading Iran and erecting a statue of Abraham Lincoln in Tehran.

Maybe it would be more appropriate to erect Abe where Saddam used to be... oh the irony.

[Eauz]

A fishing port provides jobs. A statue of Mao is built for one purpose: to humiliate the conquered. It would be like the U.S. invading Iran and erecting a statue of Abraham Lincoln in Tehran.

And, I wasn't limiting my conclusion to "a fishing port". Aside from this point, it is the fact that it was built on land, which may have been "beautiful" to someone, just as the land of Tibet did to you. On top of this, building this structure did provide jobs, unless you believe that it will create itself out of nothing. Canada has built dams, roads, buildings, all sorts of structures on Native land, some of which was done, not in the need for it, but because it would create a profit. Is all of this not just an insult? Why does Mount Rushmore exist? The mountain and the surrounding environment were much more beautiful, before the carvings.

A statue of Mao is built for one purpose: to humiliate the conquered.

Well, considering they've been conquered for some time now, I don't think you would feel "humility' anymore. Through the help of Cultural Hegemony, it has been able to coerce the people in the region to come under their rule of law. I find it ironic on your part, that you complain about Chinese Imperialism, saying how "horrible" it is, yet I don't hear you complaining about the land stolen from Natives by Europeans.

[Ombrageux]

On top of this, building this structure did provide jobs, unless you believe that it will create itself out of nothing.

Digging holes and then filling them up with dirt creates jobs too. Few people that extreme of Keynesianism all that seriously. The point was that the structure itself must useful not a way of rubbing victory in.

Well, considering they've been conquered for some time now, I don't think you would feel "humility' anymore. Through the help of Cultural Hegemony, it has been able to coerce the people in the region to come under their rule of law. I find it ironic on your part, that you complain about Chinese Imperialism, saying how "horrible" it is, yet I don't hear you complaining about the land stolen from Natives by Europeans.

Are you referring to the Americas? That was a long time ago, and China practised the same sort of imperialism in her West under the Manchus as well. (that's how she acquired Mongolia, Tibet and Xinjiang to begin with) Americans have been in America long enough to "rightfully" say it's her own, unless you're going to stary arguing that Russia should give Siberia back the natives. No this is just an obnoxious argument.

The only point that needs stating with regard to Han chauvinism in Tibet is that China is coercively eradicating their culture by colonizing the area. It's not unlike what the Israelis are doing in certain parts of the West Bank.

Feel free to cry "hypocrisy" for the crimes of a long dead Western generation if that makes you feel better though.

[Eauz]

The point was that the structure itself must useful not a way of rubbing victory in.

It is being useful. It can be a form of Tourist attraction, sign of "cultural hegemony" as I've stated. As for jobs, I'm sure people did more than "dig holes". The Statue had to be constructed before it was erected. Unless, you can show me that magic constructed this statue, "jobs" were created in building this.

Are you referring to the Americas?

I was referring to Soviet Canuckistan.

Americans have been in America long enough to "rightfully" say it's her own

Interesting point. So, as long as China continues to occupy Tibet, and hundreds of years pass, it is acceptable for them to "rightfully" say it's their own?

I'm not trying to turn this into a "Commie vs. Cappie" fight, as I oppose the structure too (in different ways). All I'm saying is I personally don't care what it's supposed to mean, but it was argued that the statue destroys the "beauty" of the land, while it is acceptable to put up buildings and structures in our society (some which are never torn down, just left to rot). These structures can be a sign of "hegemony" as well, in relation to the political structure of society.

[Vladimir]

americans have been in America long enough to "rightfully" say it's her own, unless you're going to stary arguing that Russia should give Siberia back the natives. No this is just an obnoxious argument.

Russia has never practiced genocide against the siberian natives; there were never wars against them. West Siberia was then under the brutal rule of the golden horde, and russians came as liberators for the horde. All locals welcomed russians, and nations lived side by side, not interfering with each others' customs. Most of central and east Siberia were very loosely populated, and predominantly by nomads. When russians came, they settled in villages, and were occupied with agriculture. Again, the worlds did not interfere. The vast majority of cenral asian peoples (again, a lot were nomads) accepted and welcomed russian rule.
The only acceptions were the Caucasus (a relatvely small region), where Chechens and other southerners have fought russians, Crimea (though the conflict was largely due to imperialist conflict), and maybe parts of Poland.
If opposed to america, this is an idyllic process. English imperialists brutally slaughtered natives, erased their culture and customs, flooded their lands with criminal scum and slaves, and so on. American natives have every reason to take their lands back.