So why don’t they have them, then?
[quote=“blueeee11”][quote=“Elegua”]
So where exactly did Japan get their modern constitution after the military government?
[/quote]
Does writing the constituition means human rights is guranteed in the country? Were Americans being sent to Japan to build up its infrastructure, civil and political society?
[/quote]
Uh, yes they were. It’s called reconstruction. Please learn some history.
[quote]
If you had bothered to read the previous sentence, you would know “denying citizenship” refers to the Chinese in Australia in the past…1960s or 70s…under the “Chinese Exclusion Act” or something like that[/quote]
Parsing your grammar is not exactly easy.
[quote]
It is not even about theories of economics, it is just about basic economics knowledge. I am neither a historian nor an economist. Let me guess, you are a wise ass genius know-it-all.
There is something called “common sense” which you could learn.[/quote][/quote]
If you did know anything about economics, then you would know what people hold as, “common sense”, doesn’t really hold true at the macro level. A wiser man than me one said, It’s not what you, but what you know that ain’t so that will get you in trouble.
I think no one knows what you are trying to say Elegua.
I don’t think masses of Americans were sent to Japan to build buildings, to work in government and to draft laws. The Japanese developed their country themselves. They are a very conservative and closely knitted society. Even today, they still tend to keep to themselves.
I think you meant “praising” and not “parsing”. Perhaps, the same “praising your grammar is not easy” could be said for you. Irony abounds Alegua, irony abounds.
As for the economics comment, once again, no one knows what you are talking about, because you don’t express yourself well. Here’s a tip Alegua, if you want to bash someone’s language fluency for no reason and appear intellectual at the same time, at least write in a manner where people can understand what you are driving at.
I quote…“A wiser man than me one said, It’s not what you, but what you know that ain’t so that will get you in trouble.”
What are you talking about? Bad grammar aside…
Human rights is a univesal concept, but it has been best defined and propagated through western culture. It is often associated with the concept of NGO’s, which became most prominent in Western Europe and NA. The whole thing has it’s formal intellectual roots in the 18th century humanists, Rousseau and all those French dudes that helped inspire the French and American revolutions. Asian cultures were and still are more focused on groups as opposed to individuals, so the idea of individual rights is less developed, except in those countries that had European / American governance / influence, like HK, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, Taiwan etc.
Blueeee11 is just yanking your chain. He knows all this.
Blueeee11: Are you the same guy that used to post as ac_dropout but got banned for trolling?
[quote=“BigJohn”]
Blueeee11: Are you the same guy that used to post as ac_dropout but got banned for trolling?[/quote]
Nope. But given how delusional you are, I wouldn’t be surprised that you think I am. I think that is the third time you are calling me “troll ac_dropout”…so…:loco:
Once upon a time there was this thing called WWII, where the Japanese did something less than keep to themselves. After it, Japan was non-functioning as a modern industrial society. Lots of US eggheads went to Japan armed with economics and law textbooks to re-build it. Along they way they made decisions like the emperor should not abdicate and gave it a constitution and legal system. This forms the basis of what the Japanese have built today. In it human rights are enshrined. The US did enforce the use of this set-up until at least 1952.
Parse it is. Not praise. You English is average, but your overall education seems poor.
Never read much Mark Twain have we? The proper quote should be: “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”
Apologies for the poor paraphrasing. I tend not to review what I’ve written.
[quote=“blueeee11”][quote=“BigJohn”]
Blueeee11: Are you the same guy that used to post as ac_dropout but got banned for trolling?[/quote]
Nope. But given how delusional you are, I wouldn’t be surprised that you think I am. I think that is the third time you are calling me “troll ac_dropout”…so…:loco:[/quote]
Not delusional, because you are so much like him: Deliberately irritating and insulting, using your intelligence to confuse or incite rather than inform or inspire, basically just trying to be a jackass online and snickering away somewhere in real space about how no one can hold you to account for being so…until you get banned.
I’ve just checked an official PRC website and it appears that the Chinese did, in fact, invent the concept of human rights. However, they then decided it wasn’t any good so marked it up and sold it on to the western barbarians.
Once upon a time there was this thing called WWII, where the Japanese did something less than keep to themselves. After it, Japan was non-functioning as a modern industrial society. Lots of US eggheads went to Japan armed with economics and law textbooks to re-build it. Along they way they made decisions like the emperor should not abdicate and gave it a constitution and legal system. This forms the basis of what the Japanese have built today. In it human rights are enshrined. The US did enforce the use of this set-up until at least 1952.
Parse it is. Not praise. You English is average, but your overall education seems poor.
Never read much Mark Twain have we? The proper quote should be: “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”
Apologies for the poor paraphrasing. I tend not to review what I’ve written.[/quote]
Lol.
[quote=“BigJohn”][quote=“blueeee11”][quote=“BigJohn”]
Blueeee11: Are you the same guy that used to post as ac_dropout but got banned for trolling?[/quote]
Nope. But given how delusional you are, I wouldn’t be surprised that you think I am. I think that is the third time you are calling me “troll ac_dropout”…so…:loco:[/quote]
Not delusional, because you are so much like him: Deliberately irritating and insulting, using your intelligence to confuse or incite rather than inform or inspire, basically just trying to be a jackass online and snickering away somewhere in real space about how no one can hold you to account for being so…until you get banned.[/quote]
Lol sorry about that. I don’t dish out insults, I merely reply to them. Shouldn’t everyone have the right to defend themselves when attacked? I am just playing along. I assure you that it is all a laugh to me anyway. Never understood why people get angry over something written on the Internet. 
I think you’ve got it wrong…I am not intelligent by any stretch of imagination. Elegua is the resident intellect here, just look at the way he types :discodance:
Typing with two fingers means you’re an intellect??? Wow: I must be really amazing then, because I only use one finger at a time. that’s why i always have difficulty with the shift key.
lol? Is that the best retort you have for being shown to be completely ignorant?
[quote]
I think you’ve got it wrong…I am not intelligent by any stretch of imagination. Elegua is the resident intellect here, just look at the way he types[/quote]
Hey, I’m just a finance guy. It’s clear while they’ve taught you to type, they neglected everything else.
BigJohn: He’s not ac_dropout. AC actually knew his facts and was able to construct a proper argument.
We should be careful not to over feed him, though. Trolls like goldfish die when overfed.
[quote=“BigJohn”]Human rights is a univesal concept, but it has been best defined and propagated through western culture. It is often associated with the concept of NGO’s, which became most prominent in Western Europe and NA. The whole thing has it’s formal intellectual roots in the 18th century humanists, Rousseau and all those French dudes that helped inspire the French and American revolutions. Asian cultures were and still are more focused on groups as opposed to individuals, so the idea of individual rights is less developed, except in those countries that had European / American governance / influence, like HK, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, Taiwan etc.
Blueeee11 is just yanking your chain. He knows all this.
Blueeee11: Are you the same guy that used to post as ac_dropout but got banned for trolling?[/quote]
I’m not sure about this regarding Taiwan. I think Taiwanese people have an island mentality that has evolved on it’s own and pretty self sufficient in many ways, ‘nuli’ culture working hard for themselves and their families, their relative isolation over the last few decades reinforced a Taiwanese identity…I think democracy was an outgrowth of their growing belief in their own abilities for governance over many decades. What is still the favorite shared memory of most Taiwanese in the last fifty years…the little league baseball team that won the world championship in the US in the 60s…I think you can tell something from that. I don’t see America or Europe as ever having encouraged democracy in Taiwan or indeed of a lot of countries which they see within their strategic sphere of influence (Haiti being a good example at the moment).
Well, the ROC’s consitution was based on a Western, democratic model of government. And Japan’s government was also largely based on a Western consitutional model. It was during the Japanese period that proto-democracy (representation in an assembly) began to develop as a goal in Taiwan. I’d say the aspirations of the Chinese people in the mainland ROC and in Taiwan were channeled through a Western model, that produced the modern democratic Taiwan.
It is based on a democratic model but not a western model…I think you are confusing democractic with western.
The US, taiwan’s biggest “western” buddy, doesn’t call its legislature the “Yuan”. The US’s legislature is bicameral…Taiwan’s is unicameral. A lot of things in Taiwan’s legislature are unique and different from the US …from the language used…to the system for passing bills. I would say the aspirations of the Chinese people in Taiwan were channeled through their own local model of liberal democracy.
Plenty for former British/American/French colonies have inherited “western” systems (westminister parliamentary system, common law or civil law from the French)…but many of them do not have human rights today. Whether human rights exists depends on what the local residents do with it. You can never force your system onto a sovereign nation and its populace. The people have to work for it themselves.
Taiwan didn’t inherit any western system. Being a young state, it took a few ideas from democratic countries and fused them with its own culture to come up with the Taiwan way of doing things.
Don’t be daft man: In Taiwan, there’s a president, a premier, a legislature, a supreme court, democractic elections, human rights, etc. They were all taken from 20th century European and American models. Of course they are Western. Who cares if they’re called yuan instead of branches?
Dum bass! :loco:
Taiwan had a connection with the US, and it continued the ROC’s Western-derived consitutional government, which also had a strong relationship with the US.
What the residents do is of course up to them, but that’s not the point. The point is that the model was there to serve as a vehicle for universal aspirations.
China never had that chance. The ROC consitution was thrown out, and replaced by the PRC one. That one had lots of rights and freedoms, but China was antipathetical to the West, so there there was no desire to emulate it. There was also the communist belief that the West was decadent.
[quote=“BigJohn”]Don’t be daft man: In Taiwan, there’s a president, a premier, a legislature, a supreme court, democractic elections, human rights, etc. They were all taken from 20th century European and American models. Of course they are Western. Who cares if they’re called yuan instead of branches?
Dum bass! :loco:
Taiwan had a connection with the US, and it continued the ROC’s Western-derived consitutional government, which also had a strong relationship with the US.
What the residents do is of course up to them, but that’s not the point. The point is that the model was there to serve as a vehicle for universal aspirations.
China never had that chance. The ROC consitution was thrown out, and replaced by the PRC one. That one had lots of rights and freedoms, but China was antipathetical to the West, so there there was no desire to emulate it. There was also the communist belief that the West was decadent.[/quote]
I think you are right actually.
Taiwan is a young state and it did take certain ideas from the US but it has tweaked the system to become a uniquely Taiwanese one. If you compare it with the US system, there are obvious significant differences.
But having the “model” doesn’t guarantee human rights, I guess that is what I am trying to emphasize. Like what I have said before, many countries even share the same Monarch as Britain but they dont have human rights. The populace must have the mindset that human rights is important before human rights will ever come to that country. These are things which takes time and sometimes, they just never happen, ever.
project-syndicate.org/commentary/buruma33
This is an interesting essay linking the lack of interest in human rights in Chinese culture to Confucious and the idea of ‘harmony’.
[quote=“blueeee11”][quote=“BigJohn”]Don’t be daft man: In Taiwan, there’s a president, a premier, a legislature, a supreme court, democractic elections, human rights, etc. They were all taken from 20th century European and American models. Of course they are Western. Who cares if they’re called yuan instead of branches?
Dum bass! :loco:
Taiwan had a connection with the US, and it continued the ROC’s Western-derived consitutional government, which also had a strong relationship with the US.
What the residents do is of course up to them, but that’s not the point. The point is that the model was there to serve as a vehicle for universal aspirations.
China never had that chance. The ROC consitution was thrown out, and replaced by the PRC one. That one had lots of rights and freedoms, but China was antipathetical to the West, so there there was no desire to emulate it. There was also the communist belief that the West was decadent.[/quote]
I think you are right actually.
Taiwan is a young state and it did take certain ideas from the US but it has tweaked the system to become a uniquely Taiwanese one. If you compare it with the US system, there are obvious significant differences.
But having the “model” doesn’t guarantee human rights, I guess that is what I am trying to emphasize. Like what I have said before, many countries even share the same Monarch as Britain but they dont have human rights. The populace must have the mindset that human rights is important before human rights will ever come to that country. These are things which takes time and sometimes, they just never happen, ever.[/quote]
The model empowers people to use it. It makes using the laws that grant civil rights easy. That is why it has happened. But of course there is some hybridization, naturally. “Democracy with Taiwanese characteristics”.
[quote=“BigJohn”][quote=“blueeee11”][quote=“BigJohn”]Don’t be daft man: In Taiwan, there’s a president, a premier, a legislature, a supreme court, democractic elections, human rights, etc. They were all taken from 20th century European and American models. Of course they are Western. Who cares if they’re called yuan instead of branches?
Dum bass! :loco:
Taiwan had a connection with the US, and it continued the ROC’s Western-derived consitutional government, which also had a strong relationship with the US.
What the residents do is of course up to them, but that’s not the point. The point is that the model was there to serve as a vehicle for universal aspirations.
China never had that chance. The ROC consitution was thrown out, and replaced by the PRC one. That one had lots of rights and freedoms, but China was antipathetical to the West, so there there was no desire to emulate it. There was also the communist belief that the West was decadent.[/quote]
I think you are right actually.
Taiwan is a young state and it did take certain ideas from the US but it has tweaked the system to become a uniquely Taiwanese one. If you compare it with the US system, there are obvious significant differences.
But having the “model” doesn’t guarantee human rights, I guess that is what I am trying to emphasize. Like what I have said before, many countries even share the same Monarch as Britain but they dont have human rights. The populace must have the mindset that human rights is important before human rights will ever come to that country. These are things which takes time and sometimes, they just never happen, ever.[/quote]
The model empowers people to use it. It makes using the laws that grant civil rights easy. That is why it has happened. But of course there is some hybridization, naturally. “Democracy with Taiwanese characteristics”.[/quote]
You really don’t seem to get what I am saying…
Firstly, the Taiwanese have to WANT human rights and WANT to implement that model before it can be implemented. Because Taiwan is soverign. If Taiwanese want communism, they will implement a communist system no matter that the US says. The US can go take a hike.
Secondly, MANY MANY Countries (ex colonies etc) have systems that emulate the British or French but they do not have human rights. There are SO MANY of them. Ghana, a big part of Africa, Singapore, Jamaica, Tuvalu, Fiji, Papua New Guinea, India…etc etc…
Thirdly, it is not the system that dictates whether human rights or democracy exists. It is ultimately the citzenry and the local culture! They want it, therefore, they chose to have such a system in the first place. If they don’t want it, they will throw out the system the very next day through amendment of the constituition, reunification with China …etc etc.
The Taiwanese are not indebted to the Americans for human rights in their Country. They are indebted to themselves.
I get what you are saying, blueeee11, I just don’t agree.
I am saying India is democratic because that’s what Indians wanted, as interpreted through the lense of Western style concepts of politcal governance.
Taiwanese deserve a lot of credit. I am not saying that the credit should go elsewhere or that their “so far so good” execution of the only Chinese speaking democracy in history should be ascribed to Westerners. But let’s give credit where credit is due: The West is the main source of the concept of human rights, as applied to modern politcal models. It is the main source of modern political models.
No one has said that being colonized is an infallible source of becoming democratic. It’s just an overall trend. The old ways of kings and emperors were over, as those countries were defeated or outclassed by the modern powers. Those developing nations that attempted to modernize did so according to the modern i.e. Western model. These models created political spaces for human rights that previously hadn’t existed.
Of course the people who took advantage of these spaces deserve credit for their inspiration and dedicated efforts.