• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Chinese dissident Liu wins Nobel Peace Prize

A revolution would be the worse thing to happen. People hail the fall of the Soviet Union like it was a wonderful step forward, but it was probably one of the worse outcomes. You guys who wax poetic about some romantic notion of the corrupt tyrannical regime falling under a sea of flowers, presuming you do not prefer a sea of blood, and people in China like Liu Xiabo who feed into that with their empty demands and anti-Chinese rhetoric only make the chances of that sea of blood higher.

You presume that I know nothing about Chinese history. Not only am I very familiar with the Tang Dynasty onward, I have lived in China and I speak the language. Every transitional era in Chinese history has been paid for with the blood of millions. I am in no way suggesting that a future revolution would happen under a "sea of flowers"; I think the Chinese people are well aware that if they want democracy, it is not going to be an easy battle. They are accepting the status quo right now because the Communists are providing development and prosperity. The second that goes away, there will be widescale rebellion. There are already riots in the countryside now in epic proportions because the poor are getting extremely poor, and are not being made part of the new prosperity seen in the cities.

The only thing keeping the Communists in power right now is a relatively stable and growing middle class. If that ever ends, the regime is doomed.
 
You presume that I know nothing about Chinese history. Not only am I very familiar with the Tang Dynasty onward, I have lived in China and I speak the language. Every transitional era in Chinese history has been paid for with the blood of millions. I am in no way suggesting that a future revolution would happen under a "sea of flowers"; I think the Chinese people are well aware that if they want democracy, it is not going to be an easy battle. They are accepting the status quo right now because the Communists are providing development and prosperity. The second that goes away, there will be widescale rebellion. There are already riots in the countryside now in epic proportions because the poor are getting extremely poor, and are not being made part of the new prosperity seen in the cities.

The only thing keeping the Communists in power right now is a relatively stable and growing middle class. If that ever ends, the regime is doomed.

But you don't understand --- people like him, who don't speak Mandarin and can't read Chinese understand China and the Chinese better than those of us who do...
 
A revolution would be the worse thing to happen. People hail the fall of the Soviet Union like it was a wonderful step forward, but it was probably one of the worse outcomes. You guys who wax poetic about some romantic notion of the corrupt tyrannical regime falling under a sea of flowers, presuming you do not prefer a sea of blood, and people in China like Liu Xiabo who feed into that with their empty demands and anti-Chinese rhetoric only make the chances of that sea of blood higher.

The only anti-Chinese rhetoric is see is from those who think that the Chinese and other Eastern peoples can't handle openness, human rights, and democracy... That is racist, not those of us who support the aspirations of the Chinese people.
 
You presume that I know nothing about Chinese history. Not only am I very familiar with the Tang Dynasty onward, I have lived in China and I speak the language. Every transitional era in Chinese history has been paid for with the blood of millions. I am in no way suggesting that a future revolution would happen under a "sea of flowers"; I think the Chinese people are well aware that if they want democracy, it is not going to be an easy battle. They are accepting the status quo right now because the Communists are providing development and prosperity. The second that goes away, there will be widescale rebellion. There are already riots in the countryside now in epic proportions because the poor are getting extremely poor, and are not being made part of the new prosperity seen in the cities.

The only thing keeping the Communists in power right now is a relatively stable and growing middle class. If that ever ends, the regime is doomed.

I think the problem here is you do not really understand China, despite everything you say. Living there does not give you some unique insight because ultimately you cannot know the inner workings of the government or about every incident in the country and how it is dealt with simply by living there.

You think China is like Poland and that idea is ultimately rooted in the ill-conceived notion that China is some centralized dictatorship. Also it requires you to believe the groups against China's current government are benign. People making reckless proclamations like this, Xiabo has himself made some reckless proclamations, do no service to their supposed cause.

The only anti-Chinese rhetoric is see is from those who think that the Chinese and other Eastern peoples can't handle openness, human rights, and democracy... That is racist, not those of us who support the aspirations of the Chinese people.

This seems to be the usual response, but I think your response only goes to prove my point. I say China should not adopt the West's system (i.e. the system white people made) and you immediately assume I am saying China should not have democracy and human rights. What is implied by your comment is that human rights, openness, and democracy are white European concepts with no basis in Chinese culture. This is in fact the same drivel we find in the Charter '08 Xiabo was involved in drafting and the alleged reason he was imprisoned. You call what I said racist, but your comments are reminiscent of the ideas espoused by someone else I have talked about this with who blatantly said that it was Europeans (white people) who invented the idea of freedom.
 
This seems to be the usual response, but I think your response only goes to prove my point. I say China should not adopt the West's system (i.e. the system white people made) and you immediately assume I am saying China should not have democracy and human rights. What is implied by your comment is that human rights, openness, and democracy are white European concepts with no basis in Chinese culture. This is in fact the same drivel we find in the Charter '08 Xiabo was involved in drafting and the alleged reason he was imprisoned. You call what I said racist, but your comments are reminiscent of the ideas espoused by someone else I have talked about this with who blatantly said that it was Europeans (white people) who invented the idea of freedom.

The West didn't have a history of democracy either, until it decided to be democratic. I am not saying that China should take on Western-style systems, but let's face the facts: China is part of a globalized world. It is completely interfacing with western nations economically. It is inviting scores of foreigners to come to its doorstep to teach their people English; it wants foreign business, and thus it caves to foreign customs. The young people there are increasingly curious about the outside. Does modernization have to equal westernization? The jury is still out on that one. I don't think though that just because China would seek a democratic system that it is caving to foreign culture. Democracy is just a way of doing things. The west didn't invent it, it just popularized it.

You also forget (or maybe you didn't know) that during the KMT era, elections were held. It was mostly for the rich to vote in China, and men, but that kind of proto-democracy was the way we originally did it before the system evolved.

I frankly don't get what your beef is. You seem to just be arguing for the sake of arguing, and making up points that I never even said. :shrug:
 
Liu Xiabo is not Nelson Mandela. Sure not everyone can be, but it is not like this was as close as they could get.

Yeah, you're right there, he hasn't advocated violence to achieve his goals like Mandela. I thought that is something you'd rather avoid?
 
This seems to be the usual response, but I think your response only goes to prove my point. I say China should not adopt the West's system (i.e. the system white people made) and you immediately assume I am saying China should not have democracy and human rights. What is implied by your comment is that human rights, openness, and democracy are white European concepts with no basis in Chinese culture. This is in fact the same drivel we find in the Charter '08 Xiabo was involved in drafting and the alleged reason he was imprisoned. You call what I said racist, but your comments are reminiscent of the ideas espoused by someone else I have talked about this with who blatantly said that it was Europeans (white people) who invented the idea of freedom.

Who said that a democratic China has to have a Western system of government? Taiwan has a working democratic system that borrows some elements from the west but also retains distinct Chinese characteristics. That makes Taiwan different from China and that it is democratic and respects the rights of citizens (and non-citizen residents) of the country but also different from Western democracies in that its processess have distinctive eastern character -- including the presence of FIVE branches of government rather than the more common three. Japan, South Korea and Mongolia are all states in this part of the world with functioning democracies. All of them take elements from Western systems -- the parts that they can benefit from -- along with retaining some ideas and customs of their own. That can work in China, given the chance. China's government is authoritarian and it's citizens are denies basic human rights that those of us living in civilized states (like the US, Canada, Taiwan and many others) take for granted.
 
Gosh what a great thing to give the prize to someone whose life will only get worse, at least in the short term.

It was really a stupid thing to do to, not for someone you are supposed to respect?

I would expect nothing better from the truly mentally challenged morons who gave the prize last year to someone for being the totally incompetent greatest appeaser since Neville Chamberlain, and we know how great Neville's efforts ended.

This is sad really.
 
My rediculous bias against anything Chinese?!!? That is why I speak nearly fluent Chinese as a fourth language AND married an ethnic-Chinese wife... yeah, biased against the Chinese... :doh

'Chinese' is not a language

Chinese is not a language. Although treated as a language for political reasons by the governments in Beijing and Taipei eager to unify a culturally diverse country, or as something less than a language by governments in Hong Kong and parts of Southeast Asia, it is in fact a language group (yuzu), one of four such groups in the Sino-Tibetan language family (Mair 1991). Within this group of languages, most experts (Yuan 1960, Zhan 1981, DeFrancis 1984, Ramsey 1987, Norman 1988) recognize 7 or 8 mutually unintelligible varieties which in any other context would be considered languages in their own right. They include: (1) Mandarin, spoken in northern China, where the capital at Beijing is located, and western China; (2) Wu used by some 80 million speakers in the eastern part of China focusing on Shanghai; (3) Northern and Southern Min used on Taiwan, in China's Fujian Province, and in parts of Southeast Asia; and (4) Yue, often called Cantonese, used in China's south. There are also at least three "transitional" varieties (Gan, Xiang, and Hakka) spoken mainly in China's interior.

So you speak Chinese huh. One Chinese, Two Chinese, Three Chinese, Four Chinese.

You know, most people on these boards are mature enough to understand that sometimes people do things that they don't agree with but other times they do. I am not one of those who knee-jerk opposes the position of a person or a group because they are on one side of the political divide or the other -- unlike a couple of radical knee-jerk types I know on these boards...

Oh but you are not. We know. You thought the Nobel Peace Prize and the committee which awarded was and I quote 'nutty' when they gave it to Obama, Gore but not when they gave it to somebody who supports your anti-China propaganda. But you go on speaking your 'Chinese' Taipei Man.
 
Last edited:
(heck, Obama won one and the only thing he did was have a D next to his name and be the president).

It was a little more significant than that. Under Bush, the rest of the free world had (quite appropriately) come to view the United States as an authoritarian rogue state, and people both here and abroad were apprehensive of whether it was even institutionally possible anymore to dislodge Republicans from power. There was also the minor fact that Obama is black, which believe it or not gave about a billion people around the world a sudden sense that their options are broader than they thought. Obama deserved the Nobel Prize for all of his accomplishments put together, which have brought more positive change to the world than anyone since Nelson Mandela. Liu, while having shown tremendous personal courage and made terrible sacrifices for his people's freedom, has not been anywhere near as influential - though I say the Nobel is still well-deserved.
 
Last edited:
It was a little more significant than that. Under Bush, the rest of the free world had (quite appropriately) come to view the United States as an authoritarian rogue state, and people both here and abroad were apprehensive of whether it was even institutionally possible anymore to dislodge Republicans from power. There was also the minor fact that Obama is black, which believe it or not gave about a billion people around the world a sudden sense that their options are broader than they thought. Obama deserved the Nobel Prize for all of his accomplishments put together, which have brought more positive change to the world than anyone since Nelson Mandela. Liu, while having shown tremendous personal courage and made terrible sacrifices for his people's freedom, has not been anywhere near as influential - though I say the Nobel is still well-deserved.

The rest of the free world also relies on America to defend them. Obama did nothing to merit the Peace Prize. It should be awarded by action, not by skin color or party affiliation. It was given out based off of the fact that Obama wasn't Bush by a bunch of liberal committee members. I've probably done more for peace and good in the world than Obama, so has Bush.
 
The rest of the free world also relies on America to defend them.

Hence the global anxiety when our government fell under the control of irrational aggressors.

Obama did nothing to merit the Peace Prize.

This is not a thread about Obama's Nobel, but just off the top of my head: Defeated a Republican Party that had nearly melded itself with the state; defeated a Republican candidate who had all but promised to start a war with Iran; pursued diplomatic engagement with the Muslim world, including Iran; kept to Iraq withdrawal timelines; demolished global assumptions about race and the prospects of minorities; and has actively pursued nuclear disarmament. I would say that merits the Prize more than most of the people who've ever received it, but you're welcome to your own standards.

It was given out based off of the fact that Obama wasn't Bush by a bunch of liberal committee members.

And I'm sure the Chinese government is being similarly dismissive of Liu's award. You and they can both insist the award is political, but it remains obvious who is standing up for what's right and who isn't.

I've probably done more for peace and good in the world than Obama

Then your efforts have been sadly underappreciated.

so has Bush.

Only if war were peace and evil good, but this is not Oceania - Fox News notwithstanding.
 
Hence the global anxiety when our government fell under the control of irrational aggressors.
Our government incorrectly responded to irrational aggressors (Al Quaida). However, when we started the war on terror most of the world was in support of us and recognized the threat. The wars could have gone better, but America was not an irrational aggressor.
This is not a thread about Obama's Nobel, but just off the top of my head: Defeated a Republican Party that had nearly melded itself with the state; defeated a Republican candidate who had all but promised to start a war with Iran; pursued diplomatic engagement with the Muslim world, including Iran; kept to Iraq withdrawal timelines; demolished global assumptions about race and the prospects of minorities; and has actively pursued nuclear disarmament. I would say that merits the Prize more than most of the people who've ever received it, but you're welcome to your own standards.
Obama made a lot of promises but didn't do any of that. Actions speak louder than words, and their vision of "peace" is not what I see as true peace. As it seems, we can't diplomatically reason with an irrational aggressor like Iran. Withdrawal timelines are one of the most foolish things any nation can do during a war as well. Obama is seen as a peace maker because the European left agrees with his illogical concept of peace and achievement foreign policies. Obama's actions do not merit the Nobel Peace Prize. It was all for a political statement by partisan liberal Europeans.
And I'm sure the Chinese government is being similarly dismissive of Liu's award. You and they can both insist the award is political, but it remains obvious who is standing up for what's right and who isn't.
I have stated in a previous post that I agreed with Liu's award, but typically disagree with who receives the Peace Prize. China's opposition to Liu's prize is not the same as mine to Obama's. China is in opposition because it brings attention to their horrible human rights reccord. I am in opposition because of Obama's merit-less gift from a liberal committee simply because he wasn't a Republican (Bush).
Then your efforts have been sadly underappreciated.
I don't do it because I want to be appreciated or for an award. I do it because I want to help others. I'm just saying I would be more qualified than Obama when it comes to being awarded a Peace Prize based on merit and actions.
Only if war were peace and evil good, but this is not Oceania - Fox News notwithstanding.
Bush was one of the biggest givers of aid to poor African nations. He didn't start the War on Terror without the support of Congress and most of the free world. Obama can't even support his poor aunt or poverty stricken brother in Kenya.
 
Our government incorrectly responded to irrational aggressors (Al Quaida).

The invasion of Iraq was not a response to al Qaeda - it had been planned from the earliest days of Bush's first term, and lacked only particulars of timing and pretext. The attempt to manufacture a connection to 9/11 didn't start until every more plausible lie had been exhausted.

However, when we started the war on terror most of the world was in support of us and recognized the threat.

I refer exclusively to the invasion of Iraq, not operations in Afghanistan.

The wars could have gone better, but America was not an irrational aggressor.

I agree, America was not an irrational aggressor - the people running its military and foreign policy were.

Actions speak louder than words, and their vision of "peace" is not what I see as true peace. As it seems, we can't diplomatically reason with an irrational aggressor like Iran.

Iran's transgressions against its neighbors have been pretty tame compared to what you just dismissed as an "incorrect response." And there is no basis for such a blanket dismissal of diplomacy.

Withdrawal timelines are one of the most foolish things any nation can do during a war as well.

Not when they're insisted on by the elected host government.

Obama is seen as a peace maker because the European left agrees with his illogical concept of peace and achievement foreign policies.

In other words, he's seen as a peacemaker because he makes peace. Yes, I can see that.

China is in opposition because it brings attention to their horrible human rights reccord. I am in opposition because of Obama's merit-less gift from a liberal committee simply because he wasn't a Republican (Bush).

The difference in human rights records between Bush and the Chinese government was merely a matter of degree, and Barack Obama has been a lot more influential in affecting change both domestically and internationally than Liu. Whatever your reasons for harping on this, your objections are simply and obviously invalid.

I'm just saying I would be more qualified than Obama when it comes to being awarded a Peace Prize based on merit and actions.

And you're perfectly welcome to make such vague, unchallengeable statements.

Bush was one of the biggest givers of aid to poor African nations.

1. Source?
2. With what strings attached?

Obama can't even support his poor aunt or poverty stricken brother in Kenya.

Your comment confirms my assessment of the level of your debate. That's unfortunate.
 
The West didn't have a history of democracy either, until it decided to be democratic. I am not saying that China should take on Western-style systems, but let's face the facts: China is part of a globalized world. It is completely interfacing with western nations economically. It is inviting scores of foreigners to come to its doorstep to teach their people English; it wants foreign business, and thus it caves to foreign customs. The young people there are increasingly curious about the outside. Does modernization have to equal westernization? The jury is still out on that one. I don't think though that just because China would seek a democratic system that it is caving to foreign culture. Democracy is just a way of doing things. The west didn't invent it, it just popularized it.

You also forget (or maybe you didn't know) that during the KMT era, elections were held. It was mostly for the rich to vote in China, and men, but that kind of proto-democracy was the way we originally did it before the system evolved.

I frankly don't get what your beef is. You seem to just be arguing for the sake of arguing, and making up points that I never even said. :shrug:

You only say that because you disagree with me. I am arguing this point because of people like you putting forward these absurd and irresponsible notions about China. Advocating violent revolution in China today is just reprehensible. Treating China like it is no different from the Soviet Union or Cuba is detrimental to progress rather than beneficial to it.

As far as what system, I am not entirely certain of your talk that they don't have to adopt a Western system. Ludahai apparently thinks a few surface changes is all it takes to say a state isn't adopting the Western system. Do you agree with what he said?

Who said that a democratic China has to have a Western system of government? Taiwan has a working democratic system that borrows some elements from the west but also retains distinct Chinese characteristics. That makes Taiwan different from China and that it is democratic and respects the rights of citizens (and non-citizen residents) of the country but also different from Western democracies in that its processess have distinctive eastern character -- including the presence of FIVE branches of government rather than the more common three. Japan, South Korea and Mongolia are all states in this part of the world with functioning democracies. All of them take elements from Western systems -- the parts that they can benefit from -- along with retaining some ideas and customs of their own. That can work in China, given the chance. China's government is authoritarian and it's citizens are denies basic human rights that those of us living in civilized states (like the US, Canada, Taiwan and many others) take for granted.

You really do not get it. The differences between the systems in Taiwan or Japan and the system in the United States are about as significant as the differences between the system in the United States and the systems in France or Germany. A system is rarely identical to another, but if you think there is any significant difference between these systems than you are either fooling yourself or not very informed.

Yeah, you're right there, he hasn't advocated violence to achieve his goals like Mandela.

Congratulations. Your opinion on this is now completely meaningless to me.

A better example would have been Ghandi - however Mandela did renouce violence while in prison and his goals were eventually acheived peacefully and through negotiation.

Of course, Ghandi never got a Nobel Peace Prize.
 
Congratulations. Your opinion on this is now completely meaningless to me.

Bizarrely, it's you who has offered nothing meaningful to this discussion. You've made a non too subtle play of the race card. You can't name a Chinese dissident who isn't in jail. If Hu got the prize you would be making the same arguments you are now and that's the only person you could name. Are you incorrectly claiming that Mandela didn't advocate violence or are you saying Liu does advocate violence, presumably using the same Sinophile sources that told you that past winners hadn't been under arrest and were unable to collect the prize? Maybe you were just making **** up and hoping to get away with it. Or are you hiding under your slippery slope, consequentialist nonsense when applying conditions to how the PRC should act when you would never make such a defence of a Western nation (check out how often you use the word "ultimately" in post 21 to justify China's preemptive removal of an individuals rights).
 
Last edited:
'Chinese' is not a language

So you speak Chinese huh. One Chinese, Two Chinese, Three Chinese, Four Chinese.

That's really nitpicky dude, even for you. In Mandarin you can ask someone if they speak Chinese 中文 as a blanket term, and then you can specify: 普通话 (Mandarin), 粤语 (Cantonese), etc. "Chinese" is just an umbrella term to ask if you speak one of the languages of their land, since there are many.

So yeah... you can ask someone if they speak Chinese, and it makes perfect sense. You just have to clarify later which language in the Chinese family you speak.
 
You've made a non too subtle play of the race card.

That is because the dynamic isn't all that subtle.

You can't name a Chinese dissident who isn't in jail.

That is just absurd. I said I do not have names that I can pull off the top of my head and the implication from you that every Chinese dissident is in jail just proves how little you know about China.

Are you incorrectly claiming that Mandela didn't advocate violence or are you saying Liu does advocate violence, presumably using the same Sinophile sources that told you that past winners hadn't been under arrest and were unable to collect the prize?

None of the past winners were in prison and that is just the truth. The reason your opinion is illegitimate is that you seem to think Mandela orchestrating a campaign of sabotage operations that rarely resulted in harm to any human being somehow is enough to negate his many successes to the point where awarding the prize to Liu Xiabo, who has at best achieved nothing and at worst harmed the cause, actually becomes anything more than a political maneuver.

Or are you hiding under your slippery slope, consequentialist nonsense when applying conditions to how the PRC should act when you would never make such a defence of a Western nation (check out how often you use the word "ultimately" in post 21 to justify China's preemptive removal of an individuals rights).

I was not justifying anything. Rather some people have the mistaken notion that it was all about preventing people form dissenting or disagreeing, but it is not that simple. This whole event serves as nothing more than a spectacle meant to incite some action.
 
'Chinese' is not a language



So you speak Chinese huh. One Chinese, Two Chinese, Three Chinese, Four Chinese.

Of course, any reasonably intelligent person knows that if one refers to speaking Chinese, he/she is referring to Mandarin Chinese. This is a common convention in both Chinese and in English, along with other languages (including French, Bahasa Indonesia, Japanese and even Taiwanese and Hakka).

Oh but you are not. We know. You thought the Nobel Peace Prize and the committee which awarded was and I quote 'nutty' when they gave it to Obama, Gore but not when they gave it to somebody who supports your anti-China propaganda. But you go on speaking your 'Chinese' Taipei Man.

It was a nutty decision. BTW, I don't live in Taipei. Now, do you actually have anything CONSTRUCTIVE to add to the conversation?!?!?
 
You really do not get it. The differences between the systems in Taiwan or Japan and the system in the United States are about as significant as the differences between the system in the United States and the systems in France or Germany. A system is rarely identical to another, but if you think there is any significant difference between these systems than you are either fooling yourself or not very informed.

Sorry, but I am very well informed of these matters. It is you, who doesn't even speak Mandarin or read Chinese, who is ill-informed. The workings of the systems in Japan and Taiwan while ON THE SURFACE appear to have a lot in common with the West, in reality, they are not. Taiwan's system evolved here. Japan's system, while imposed on it by the victorious Americans, operates in a manner that is very Japanese. For you to be ignorant of this shows that it is you who is clearly misinformed. What do YOU propose for China? The group of thugs who control that country now has no moral right to behave in the way in which they do.
 
That is because the dynamic isn't all that subtle.

I'm at a loss. There's no race at issue in adopting a form of governance. Culture, yes, but biological determinance is not anything that was brought up in any shape or form but by yourself.

That is just absurd. I said I do not have names that I can pull off the top of my head and the implication from you that every Chinese dissident is in jail just proves how little you know about China.

You're on the internet. There's no such thing as "at the top of your head". There's no implication being made about China, just about you and getting a handle of what you consider a legitimate dissident to award.

None of the past winners were in prison and that is just the truth. The reason your opinion is illegitimate is that you seem to think Mandela orchestrating a campaign of sabotage operations that rarely resulted in harm to any human being somehow is enough to negate his many successes to the point where awarding the prize to Liu Xiabo, who has at best achieved nothing and at worst harmed the cause, actually becomes anything more than a political maneuver.

He advocated violence against the state (and spent extra time in jail for political purposes by not disavowing violence), nor am I negating anything he achieved, he deserves what he gets but perhaps not to the level of beatification that he has received. Mandela made a political manouver, Lutuli got an award in what could be considered a political manouver by the Committee against the South African state (and he is more admirable than Mandela if you ask me). Liu has achieved nothing like Mandela, but he is better in that he didn't advocate violence and much the same in that he provided no original ideas. Perhaps you should criticise Mandela for advocating "white" style governance for a "black" nation while you're at it.

I was not justifying anything. Rather some people have the mistaken notion that it was all about preventing people form dissenting or disagreeing, but it is not that simple. This whole event serves as nothing more than a spectacle meant to incite some action.

As many Nobel Peace Prizes were meant to. It in no way justifies any consequentialist judgment waged upon Liu's wife now or on Liu in the past. This is not anything you would explain away in another national circumstance.
 
That's really nitpicky dude, even for you. In Mandarin you can ask someone if they speak Chinese 中文 as a blanket term, and then you can specify: 普通话 (Mandarin), 粤语 (Cantonese), etc. "Chinese" is just an umbrella term to ask if you speak one of the languages of their land, since there are many.

So yeah... you can ask someone if they speak Chinese, and it makes perfect sense. You just have to clarify later which language in the Chinese family you speak.

Notice every time Hatuey gets busted on this nonsense, he bails...
 
link



I kind of felt like this was going to happen after China made its protest against this. There is nothing the Nobel committee likes less than to be threatened by a bully, which is exactly what China is... I wonder what they are going to do to Norway, withhold exports of plastic junk?!?!? lol...

Seriously, I heard this listening to the news on the car radio on the way home and I clapped my hands with excitement (I know, not recommended on the Freeway at 95 km/hr) but I really was happy with this choice... much better than last year's no doubt.

China has gotten a lot of bad press lately and it is about time. It's childish reaction to this, the row it created with Japan and the increasingly tense trade rows with the EU and the US, among other things, are starting to cause more and more people to wake up to the true nature that is China's government.

I applaud this win, however so many have made this prize worthless with meager political wins.
 
Back
Top Bottom