I sit on my verandah, surveying the acres,
and wonder aloud,
where are the fakirs?
To whom can I sell,
all of my wheat now?
Which markets will takethe fruit of my plough?
They say it was needed,
it wasn’t a sin.
But I sit back and wonderat their hubris and grins.
Three hundred million,
that’s a mighty big whack.
It’d keep me still farm’ntill the bank got it back.
And the 600,000 they paid to that jerk?
You know …,
they told me it was one of the perks?
Straight out of my pocket.
From the sweat of my brow.
To a white collar executive.Where’s that bastard now?
A single desk trading was the answer they said.
We’d be so competitive,
on the world’s stage we’d tread.
Well, we’re bloody well there now,
Caught! do’in the deals,
besmirching the sweat from the wheat farmer’s brow.
So you Nationals and Liberals and Barnaby Joyce,
come out of y’ bunker
and give us a voice.
Stop grin’n, duck shovin’ and run’n around,
pretending you know nothing,
Not you, Joyce, we know your sound.
Sometimes your hard up for a rhyme you cant find,
So you grab any name,
even though it’s unkind.
I don’t give a bugger, I couldn’t care less,
what you bastards are up to;
how you clear up this mess.
So get on with it now. Try show some pride
for the honest wheat farmer,
you know, the one on whose back you bastards all ride.
Search the Web & Kaixin (Happy Heart)
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Murray turns to Slurry – our grandchildren’s legacy
How can a once mighty river be reduced to an environmental nightmare?
The original inhabitants of this island managed to look after it for 50,000 years and it was in pristine condition when the British arrived to nick the joint by force of arms and a legal fiction found in the Blackstone Chronicles.
Then it has taken just over 200 years to turn the mouth of the river into slurry.
The theft of Australia was legally justified on the basis that there was no-one wandering around, terra nullius. That was a legal fiction, a construct of the mind. A way of seeing things that justified an action that was, ironically, against the very basis of Britain’s Common Law, property. A further irony is that many of those first reluctant colonialists had been sent to Botany Bay for the theft of a ridiculously small amount of property, the Common Law finding such theft so morally repugnant. Yet they were co-opted into the grand larceny of a continent. It is interesting that the legal fiction was upheld by the courts in Australia until 1993 when the Mabo decision in the High Court said, effectively, ‘oh, alright, fair cop, we nicked it, but we are not giving it back because the other great pillar of the common law is that possession is nine tenths of it.’
Possession: OED (On-Line): noun 1 the state of possessing something. 2 a thing owned or possessed. 3 the state of being possessed by a demon, emotion, etc. 4 (in sport) temporary control of the ball by a player or team.
The original owners of Australia would identify with 3. ‘the state of being possessed by a demon …’
1 & 2, the state of possessing something, a thing owned. The British arrived, took possession of a tiny bit of it and using a legal fiction they magically used that possession to own all of it, to gain legal title (note, it was legal title under British law not the Aboriginal Law, the only smoking ceremony the British understood emanated from the barrel of a gun). The concept of property is ridiculous if you think about it. That an ephemeral organism with a really, really short lifespan can ‘own’ something that has a lifespan measured in millions of years, the planet. That a really, really small organism can ‘own’ a really, really big thing, the planet.
Still, when you believe in ghosts and believe that a ghost gave you dominion over the planet, well, I suppose you will believe anything…… and the British laughed at the Aboriginal Dreamtime?
I think the Aboriginal Peoples had it right, the land owned them. They were of the environment, not separate from it. They were born, lived and died leaving a very light footprint.
Enter the British and ‘possession’, which boils down to, “We own it and we can do what we bloody well like with it.”
The Common law recognises a whole bundle of rights vested in the notion of property. What the Common law did not do is demand any notion of custodianship in return. The rights were all one way, to exclude others, to be able to lay waste if so desired. It took Legislative initiative to wrest such absolute control from the Common law.
Rachel Carson kicked the whole environmental thing off in the 1960’s following ‘Fallen Spring’. People started to become aware that the environment could not be trashed indefinitely, that there was a tipping point.
For nearly 200 years we had calculated the price of bounty wrested from the land based on an economic model that did not include the ‘externality’ of environmental degradation. It was another flawed human construct. If you can’t see it then you don’t have to include it in the price. Economists and accountants really struggle with the concepts of price and value.
The hidden cost just kept adding up and up.
Now, ‘suddenly’, it is a big problem we have to solve. It is a huge cost we have to pay as a society. The Murray River has been allocated 10 Billion dollars. That’s a lot of money! It is almost a house in Zimbabwe (an economy the West seems to be trying to emulate at the moment).
The trouble is, it was economists who calculated the 10 billion dollar price tag, yet it was economists who got us into this mess in the first place. Then the price was ‘sanitised’ by politicians who hate to be the bearers of bad news, which is not good for their ‘Superannuation’ fund.
What is the true cost of ignoring environmental degradation as a function of price? I fear our grandchildren will find out, if not our children. How moral is that?
I once heard an economist justify ignoring environmental degradation as an externality on the basis that mankind keeps on coming up with solutions when they need them, and they will this time. Let’s hope so.
The Aboriginal dreamtime spirits must be laughing at us.
The original inhabitants of this island managed to look after it for 50,000 years and it was in pristine condition when the British arrived to nick the joint by force of arms and a legal fiction found in the Blackstone Chronicles.
Then it has taken just over 200 years to turn the mouth of the river into slurry.
The theft of Australia was legally justified on the basis that there was no-one wandering around, terra nullius. That was a legal fiction, a construct of the mind. A way of seeing things that justified an action that was, ironically, against the very basis of Britain’s Common Law, property. A further irony is that many of those first reluctant colonialists had been sent to Botany Bay for the theft of a ridiculously small amount of property, the Common Law finding such theft so morally repugnant. Yet they were co-opted into the grand larceny of a continent. It is interesting that the legal fiction was upheld by the courts in Australia until 1993 when the Mabo decision in the High Court said, effectively, ‘oh, alright, fair cop, we nicked it, but we are not giving it back because the other great pillar of the common law is that possession is nine tenths of it.’
Possession: OED (On-Line): noun 1 the state of possessing something. 2 a thing owned or possessed. 3 the state of being possessed by a demon, emotion, etc. 4 (in sport) temporary control of the ball by a player or team.
The original owners of Australia would identify with 3. ‘the state of being possessed by a demon …’
1 & 2, the state of possessing something, a thing owned. The British arrived, took possession of a tiny bit of it and using a legal fiction they magically used that possession to own all of it, to gain legal title (note, it was legal title under British law not the Aboriginal Law, the only smoking ceremony the British understood emanated from the barrel of a gun). The concept of property is ridiculous if you think about it. That an ephemeral organism with a really, really short lifespan can ‘own’ something that has a lifespan measured in millions of years, the planet. That a really, really small organism can ‘own’ a really, really big thing, the planet.
Still, when you believe in ghosts and believe that a ghost gave you dominion over the planet, well, I suppose you will believe anything…… and the British laughed at the Aboriginal Dreamtime?
I think the Aboriginal Peoples had it right, the land owned them. They were of the environment, not separate from it. They were born, lived and died leaving a very light footprint.
Enter the British and ‘possession’, which boils down to, “We own it and we can do what we bloody well like with it.”
The Common law recognises a whole bundle of rights vested in the notion of property. What the Common law did not do is demand any notion of custodianship in return. The rights were all one way, to exclude others, to be able to lay waste if so desired. It took Legislative initiative to wrest such absolute control from the Common law.
Rachel Carson kicked the whole environmental thing off in the 1960’s following ‘Fallen Spring’. People started to become aware that the environment could not be trashed indefinitely, that there was a tipping point.
For nearly 200 years we had calculated the price of bounty wrested from the land based on an economic model that did not include the ‘externality’ of environmental degradation. It was another flawed human construct. If you can’t see it then you don’t have to include it in the price. Economists and accountants really struggle with the concepts of price and value.
The hidden cost just kept adding up and up.
Now, ‘suddenly’, it is a big problem we have to solve. It is a huge cost we have to pay as a society. The Murray River has been allocated 10 Billion dollars. That’s a lot of money! It is almost a house in Zimbabwe (an economy the West seems to be trying to emulate at the moment).
The trouble is, it was economists who calculated the 10 billion dollar price tag, yet it was economists who got us into this mess in the first place. Then the price was ‘sanitised’ by politicians who hate to be the bearers of bad news, which is not good for their ‘Superannuation’ fund.
What is the true cost of ignoring environmental degradation as a function of price? I fear our grandchildren will find out, if not our children. How moral is that?
I once heard an economist justify ignoring environmental degradation as an externality on the basis that mankind keeps on coming up with solutions when they need them, and they will this time. Let’s hope so.
The Aboriginal dreamtime spirits must be laughing at us.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Tactical Chaps
The following is with all due acknowledgement to T.S Elliot and the poem ‘Mungojerrie and Rumpelteazer’ from the collection ‘Old Possum’s Book of Practical Cats’. - or should I say
‘Tactical Chaps …’.
Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz are a very notorious couple
of chaps.
As knockabout clowns, quick-change comedians, tight-rope
walkers and acrobats
They have an extensive reputation. They make their home on
the Pennsilvania road –
That is merely their center of operation, for they are
incurably given to rove.
They are very well known in Afghanistan, in
Turkmenistan and in Baghdad Square –
They have really a little more reputation than a couple of chaps
can very well bear.
If the world looks easy when viewed from afar
But the results all to often resemble a war,
If a smile or two seems too full of tooth,
And the rationale ceases to be waterproof,
If their stories seem pulled out of the bottom drawer chests,
And you sit back in wonder at their hubris and jests,
Or after Baghdad one of the girls
Suddenly misses her Rice and her Perles
Then the world they all say: ‘It’s those horrible chaps!’
‘It was Donald Rumsfeld – or Paul Wolfowitz!’- but most of the
time they leave it at that.
Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz have a very unusual gift of the
gab
They are highly efficient cat-burglars as well, and remarkably
smart at a smash-and grab.
They make their home on the Pennsilvania road but are rather inclined
to Occupation.
They are plausible fellows, and like to engage a confused
U.N. in conversation.
When the military assembled, pronounced the clear winner,
No Saddam! No Ba’ath! then a huge Sunday Dinner.
Feasting on Oil, Reconstruction, Halliburton and greens,
And the clerics appear from behind the scenes
And say in a voice that is broken by sorrow:
‘I’m afraid you must wait and have dinner tomorrow!’
For there are to be no spoils of war –
No liberal democracy, no Secular State.
And the oil that you came for is now for the chop
and the flow you depend on all will soon stop.
And the world they will say. ‘It’s those horrible chaps!’
‘It was Donald Rumsfeld – or Paul Wolfowitz!’- but most of the
time they will leave it at that.
Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz have a wonderful way of
working together.
And some of the time you would say it was luck, and some of
the time you would say it was weather.
They go through a country like a hurricane, and no
sober person could take their oath
What was their reason – what was their cause? WMD’s, al-Qaeda,
or could you have sworn that it mightn’t be both?
And when you hear the incoming smash
through the women and children and terrorist trash,
Or from Abu Ghraib there comes a loud hush
broken by murmurs of ‘it was him, it was her, it was anyone but us.’
And the world they will say: ‘Now which was which chap?’
‘It was Donald Rumsfeld ! AND Paul Wolfowitz!’- And I’m terribly afraid
there’s nothing at all to be done about that!.
‘Tactical Chaps …’.
Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz are a very notorious couple
of chaps.
As knockabout clowns, quick-change comedians, tight-rope
walkers and acrobats
They have an extensive reputation. They make their home on
the Pennsilvania road –
That is merely their center of operation, for they are
incurably given to rove.
They are very well known in Afghanistan, in
Turkmenistan and in Baghdad Square –
They have really a little more reputation than a couple of chaps
can very well bear.
If the world looks easy when viewed from afar
But the results all to often resemble a war,
If a smile or two seems too full of tooth,
And the rationale ceases to be waterproof,
If their stories seem pulled out of the bottom drawer chests,
And you sit back in wonder at their hubris and jests,
Or after Baghdad one of the girls
Suddenly misses her Rice and her Perles
Then the world they all say: ‘It’s those horrible chaps!’
‘It was Donald Rumsfeld – or Paul Wolfowitz!’- but most of the
time they leave it at that.
Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz have a very unusual gift of the
gab
They are highly efficient cat-burglars as well, and remarkably
smart at a smash-and grab.
They make their home on the Pennsilvania road but are rather inclined
to Occupation.
They are plausible fellows, and like to engage a confused
U.N. in conversation.
When the military assembled, pronounced the clear winner,
No Saddam! No Ba’ath! then a huge Sunday Dinner.
Feasting on Oil, Reconstruction, Halliburton and greens,
And the clerics appear from behind the scenes
And say in a voice that is broken by sorrow:
‘I’m afraid you must wait and have dinner tomorrow!’
For there are to be no spoils of war –
No liberal democracy, no Secular State.
And the oil that you came for is now for the chop
and the flow you depend on all will soon stop.
And the world they will say. ‘It’s those horrible chaps!’
‘It was Donald Rumsfeld – or Paul Wolfowitz!’- but most of the
time they will leave it at that.
Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz have a wonderful way of
working together.
And some of the time you would say it was luck, and some of
the time you would say it was weather.
They go through a country like a hurricane, and no
sober person could take their oath
What was their reason – what was their cause? WMD’s, al-Qaeda,
or could you have sworn that it mightn’t be both?
And when you hear the incoming smash
through the women and children and terrorist trash,
Or from Abu Ghraib there comes a loud hush
broken by murmurs of ‘it was him, it was her, it was anyone but us.’
And the world they will say: ‘Now which was which chap?’
‘It was Donald Rumsfeld ! AND Paul Wolfowitz!’- And I’m terribly afraid
there’s nothing at all to be done about that!.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Childcare a different perspecitive
Things just don’t seem to change because society, through it’s politicians, are addressing the symptom not the disease.In today’s news: KEVIN Rudd's big idea for this weekend's 2020 Summit is a plan to help working families by setting up a national chain of government-run parent-and-child centres. The Australian
A quote from the Sydney Mornign Herald Article, Aug 2005
‘The cost of child care has escalated under the Howard Government, rising almost every quarter since it was elected nearly a decade ago.
In the past 12 months, the average weekly cost of child care has shot up by 12.4 per cent - five times the rate of other goods and services - according to government figures compiled for the Opposition.
The average weekly fee paid by parents using private long-day-care centres is now $208, up from $154 in 1997. For community-run centres, the average weekly cost has jumped from $162 to $211.
Although the Government has substantially increased funding for child care, the growth in places has not kept up with demand. This gap will widen next year when single parents move into jobs because of the Government's welfare-to-work program.
"Families' budgets are under extra pressure, with child-care fees as high as $90 to $100 a day in capital cities," the Opposition's spokeswoman on child care, Tanya Plibersek, said.
The number of children in child care had risen from 544,700 in 1997 to 752,800 last year.’
Aren’t we treating the symptom not the disease?
Men, in particular, are responding to their perceived family responsibilities in one of two ways. Predominantly, they are working harder to give their children a material standard of living the parents deem to be necessary. In the minority, are men who have chosen to work less and spend more time with their children.
I know that promoting family values is not de rigor. However, what would be the net effect of having all families with one working partners and one at home? Would the economic world fall apart?
Note, I said ‘partner’. Also, I, as a male, am quite happy pottering around at home while my wife works, which she chooses to do. Although that is distorted somewhat as all the kids have left home.
Of more relevance is my son. He has chosen time with his family. They are as poor as church mice, materially, but as rich as kings in the things that matter. Just how do you replace time with your young family as they grow up? Here son, have another computer??
Why do you replace your values as parents with those of a person unknown? I hasten to add, I have every respect for child-care workers. However, you are not the parents. That role simply cannot be replaced.
So, why this desperate need to provide childcare support? It was an issue at the last election and the one before that and will be at the next one.
My daughter worked as a childcare assistant after she left school in 2000. She refused to go on the dole, although the wage she was paid was only marginally more each week.
A hearing on the wages paid to childcare workers finished shortly after. The decision was to raise their wages from what I considered to be subsistence levels to just must mere poverty levels. There was an outcry! How could two income families survive this terrible blow, which would inevitably mean higher fees? What they were in effect saying, was that one section of society should work at minimal wages so another section of society could afford to hire them.
Why? Because of the desperate need to have material things. I address the issue of the right for women to work below.
Then, of course, the trap of borrowing to have those material things and to have that house that is flying out of reach. Then the need to have several houses because that is the way to make money. Oh, and lets buy shares on margin, more money free of the bothersome need to work.
Then, you can’t get off the treadmill. Then the partner has to work and so on.
As a matter of interest, what is the benefit to females in having to work, as opposed to having the right to work?
In the end, it is simple economics. Take away the demand for childcare and the price will go down.
Is that possible?
Probably not, it would appear. Most families have mortgaged their future to the great god, consumerism.
A quote from the Sydney Mornign Herald Article, Aug 2005
‘The cost of child care has escalated under the Howard Government, rising almost every quarter since it was elected nearly a decade ago.
In the past 12 months, the average weekly cost of child care has shot up by 12.4 per cent - five times the rate of other goods and services - according to government figures compiled for the Opposition.
The average weekly fee paid by parents using private long-day-care centres is now $208, up from $154 in 1997. For community-run centres, the average weekly cost has jumped from $162 to $211.
Although the Government has substantially increased funding for child care, the growth in places has not kept up with demand. This gap will widen next year when single parents move into jobs because of the Government's welfare-to-work program.
"Families' budgets are under extra pressure, with child-care fees as high as $90 to $100 a day in capital cities," the Opposition's spokeswoman on child care, Tanya Plibersek, said.
The number of children in child care had risen from 544,700 in 1997 to 752,800 last year.’
Aren’t we treating the symptom not the disease?
Men, in particular, are responding to their perceived family responsibilities in one of two ways. Predominantly, they are working harder to give their children a material standard of living the parents deem to be necessary. In the minority, are men who have chosen to work less and spend more time with their children.
I know that promoting family values is not de rigor. However, what would be the net effect of having all families with one working partners and one at home? Would the economic world fall apart?
Note, I said ‘partner’. Also, I, as a male, am quite happy pottering around at home while my wife works, which she chooses to do. Although that is distorted somewhat as all the kids have left home.
Of more relevance is my son. He has chosen time with his family. They are as poor as church mice, materially, but as rich as kings in the things that matter. Just how do you replace time with your young family as they grow up? Here son, have another computer??
Why do you replace your values as parents with those of a person unknown? I hasten to add, I have every respect for child-care workers. However, you are not the parents. That role simply cannot be replaced.
So, why this desperate need to provide childcare support? It was an issue at the last election and the one before that and will be at the next one.
My daughter worked as a childcare assistant after she left school in 2000. She refused to go on the dole, although the wage she was paid was only marginally more each week.
A hearing on the wages paid to childcare workers finished shortly after. The decision was to raise their wages from what I considered to be subsistence levels to just must mere poverty levels. There was an outcry! How could two income families survive this terrible blow, which would inevitably mean higher fees? What they were in effect saying, was that one section of society should work at minimal wages so another section of society could afford to hire them.
Why? Because of the desperate need to have material things. I address the issue of the right for women to work below.
Then, of course, the trap of borrowing to have those material things and to have that house that is flying out of reach. Then the need to have several houses because that is the way to make money. Oh, and lets buy shares on margin, more money free of the bothersome need to work.
Then, you can’t get off the treadmill. Then the partner has to work and so on.
As a matter of interest, what is the benefit to females in having to work, as opposed to having the right to work?
In the end, it is simple economics. Take away the demand for childcare and the price will go down.
Is that possible?
Probably not, it would appear. Most families have mortgaged their future to the great god, consumerism.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Answer to Geoff Wade
This is an answer by my wife, Zhou Xiaosui. See his comment on the post - 'The Beijing Olympics are an opportunity for the West to positively engage with China. Boycotts and ill-informed, empty rhetoric will destroy that opportunity.'
As I have consistently acknowledged, she showed me a new perspective on the issue of China/Tibet and on Chinese history and culture in general. She has told me the central points of her answer to Geoff Wade.
The main two are that she questions his understanding of Lu Xun. In particular the relevance of linking Lu Xun to the Tibetan issue. Xiaosui is well educated and, I understand from others who know, highly literate in Chinese. She also grew up immersed in History from her father.
I commend her reply to you. It was written out of respect for Mr Geoff Wade’s detailed reply to the Article and the arguments contained in that Article.
By Zhou Xaiosui
I read your comment. I want say is: English is my second language, I just use English one year, So I think the best way is I use Chinese reply to you..
作为一名中国人，我首先要谢谢你关注中国。其次我和你一样喜欢鲁迅的作品。所以我很乐意和你探讨关于中国，关于鲁迅。
下面是我就你的评论文章中提到的几个问题，谈谈我个人的观点：
一、我同意任何国家都要正确面对历史，我们往往能从历史中学到很多，从中吸取经验教训。这正是现代大部分国家中学以上的教育都开设有历史这一学科的原因。在世上没有人能篡改历史，真理永远是真理。
您正在研究亚洲历史，很感兴趣您如何看待日本侵华的历史和南京大屠杀的。日本在这段时期对中国人所犯下的罪行铁证如山，在这无需多谈，关心的是：日本人是否要正视这段历史，重写教科书呢?这并不是什么羞耻的事情，只是让新一代的日本人不要再做同样的事情。
二、中国上下五千年历史，用短短的几句话是不可能细述的。是的，中国最早起源于炎帝和黄帝，起源于黄河，所以，中国人称自己为炎黄子孙。但是用黄河来界定中国是违背历史的。
我们先谈中国国名的来源，“中国”就是“中央之城”或“中央之邦”。 自汉代开始，人们常把汉族建立的中原王朝称为”中国”，其他民族建立的中原王朝也自称为“中国”。严格地说，古代“中国”是一个形容词，而不是一个专有名词。当然，历史上的“中国”不等于今天“中国”的范围。我国古代各个王朝都没有把“中国”作为正式国名。直到辛亥革命以后，才把“中国”作为“中华民国”的简称。毛泽东建立新中国后，也把“中国”作为了“中华人民共和国”的简称。
司马迁的《史记》详尽记述了中国从传说中的黄帝开始，一直写到汉武帝元狩元年三千年左右的历史，从汉武帝到清末民国初年，也有着不同的书籍详细记载着中国的历史。
任何一个国家都有战争的历史，中国也不例外，中国五千年的历史改朝换代都经历了不同的战争，中国人的史书没有改写历史，愚蠢的人才改写历史。如果留意一下，你会发现史书上详细记载着中国和周边国家的战争。就拿元朝来说吧，元朝始祖忽必烈是蒙古人，他统一蒙古后进入中原，元朝统一全国后的疆域是：北到蒙古、西伯利亚，南到南海，西南包括今西藏、云南，西北至今新疆东部，东北至外兴安岭、鄂霍次克海，总面积约1200万平方千米，同样在史书上详尽记载着元与越南的战争。如果说中国入侵周边的小国的话，如何看待蒙古人进入中原的问题？
同样清朝也是满族人入关，同化了民族文化，如果说中国以黄河为界的话，清是否是中国呢？如果清朝不算是中国的话，那么清政府割让香港和澳门的历史为何世人认同？中国的历史本来就是多民族的历史，谁能说元，清历史不是中国的历史呢？？？
从上问题我想说的是，如果让中国改写历史是否要改写五千年的历史！
如果当今中国政府没有解决好中国民族内部的问题的话，我想政府官员真的要到山东面对祖先谢罪了。
三，关于鲁迅。 鲁迅（1881-1936）他生活在中国军阀割据的年代，他相当痛恨当时的政府、礼教、制度、传统。 他在日本仙台留学，修医学，鲁迅想通过医学启发中国人的觉悟。但他的这种梦想并没有维持多久，就被严酷的现实粉碎了。在日本，作为一个弱国子民的鲁迅，经常受到具有军国主义倾向的日本人的歧视。在他们的眼睛里，凡是中国人都是“低能儿”，鲁迅的解剖学成绩是59分，就被他们怀疑为担任解剖课的教师藤野严九郎把考题泄露给了他。这使鲁迅深感作为一个弱国子民的悲哀。有一次，在上课前放映的幻灯画片中，鲁迅看到一个中国人被日本军队捉住杀头，一群中国人却若无其事地站在旁边看热闹。鲁迅受到极大的刺激。这使他认识到，精神上的麻木比身体上的虚弱更加可怕。要改变中华民族在世界上的悲剧命运，首要的是改变中国人的精神，而善于改变中国人的精神的，则首先是文学和艺术，所以他弃医从文。
鲁迅的第一篇白话小说狂人日记，，是一篇彻底的反封建的“宣言”， 在狂人日记里的那段话：：“我翻开历史一查，这历史没有年代，歪歪斜斜的每页上都写着‘仁义道德’这个字。我横竖睡不着，仔细看了半夜，才从字缝里看出字来，满本都写着两个字是‘吃人’！”礼教就是吃人，仁义道德是礼教虚伪的面具，这就是鲁迅对封建道德的定义，也是他多年来思考和认识的结果，也是这篇作品最辉煌的成就。这篇小说凝聚了鲁迅从童年时起到那时为止的全部痛苦的人生体验和对于中华民族现代命运的全部痛苦思索。它通过“狂人”之口，把几千年的中国封建专制的和传统礼教历史痛斥为“吃人”的历史，向当时沉滞落后的中国社会发出呐喊。鲁迅先生的狂人日记是希望国人崛起，并没有对中国国家几千年的历史和国家版图置疑。
还有的就是鲁迅先生过世于1936年，当时日本还没有入侵中国。如果他在世，经历这些的话从鲁迅的强烈的希望中国崛起的愿望，想像一下，他会如何看待日本侵华的问题的。
再有，运用鲁迅先生的话来叫板中国的历史，我想说的是：先了解鲁迅先生的背景和鲁迅先生写狂人日记的背景。所以我们常说理解万岁。
更有趣的是，在台湾鲁迅的作品是被列为禁书，这又可以让我们从另一个角度去思考鲁迅文学。
时间让我们能正视历史，我不认同将日本侵华和中国西藏问题相题并论。鲁迅先生说：度尽劫波兄弟在，相逢一笑泯恩仇。这正是西藏问题的写照。
这是我对你的英文评论的理解的答复，如果有任何的误解，请赐教。再次感谢您的关注。
As I have consistently acknowledged, she showed me a new perspective on the issue of China/Tibet and on Chinese history and culture in general. She has told me the central points of her answer to Geoff Wade.
The main two are that she questions his understanding of Lu Xun. In particular the relevance of linking Lu Xun to the Tibetan issue. Xiaosui is well educated and, I understand from others who know, highly literate in Chinese. She also grew up immersed in History from her father.
I commend her reply to you. It was written out of respect for Mr Geoff Wade’s detailed reply to the Article and the arguments contained in that Article.
By Zhou Xaiosui
I read your comment. I want say is: English is my second language, I just use English one year, So I think the best way is I use Chinese reply to you..
作为一名中国人，我首先要谢谢你关注中国。其次我和你一样喜欢鲁迅的作品。所以我很乐意和你探讨关于中国，关于鲁迅。
下面是我就你的评论文章中提到的几个问题，谈谈我个人的观点：
一、我同意任何国家都要正确面对历史，我们往往能从历史中学到很多，从中吸取经验教训。这正是现代大部分国家中学以上的教育都开设有历史这一学科的原因。在世上没有人能篡改历史，真理永远是真理。
您正在研究亚洲历史，很感兴趣您如何看待日本侵华的历史和南京大屠杀的。日本在这段时期对中国人所犯下的罪行铁证如山，在这无需多谈，关心的是：日本人是否要正视这段历史，重写教科书呢?这并不是什么羞耻的事情，只是让新一代的日本人不要再做同样的事情。
二、中国上下五千年历史，用短短的几句话是不可能细述的。是的，中国最早起源于炎帝和黄帝，起源于黄河，所以，中国人称自己为炎黄子孙。但是用黄河来界定中国是违背历史的。
我们先谈中国国名的来源，“中国”就是“中央之城”或“中央之邦”。 自汉代开始，人们常把汉族建立的中原王朝称为”中国”，其他民族建立的中原王朝也自称为“中国”。严格地说，古代“中国”是一个形容词，而不是一个专有名词。当然，历史上的“中国”不等于今天“中国”的范围。我国古代各个王朝都没有把“中国”作为正式国名。直到辛亥革命以后，才把“中国”作为“中华民国”的简称。毛泽东建立新中国后，也把“中国”作为了“中华人民共和国”的简称。
司马迁的《史记》详尽记述了中国从传说中的黄帝开始，一直写到汉武帝元狩元年三千年左右的历史，从汉武帝到清末民国初年，也有着不同的书籍详细记载着中国的历史。
任何一个国家都有战争的历史，中国也不例外，中国五千年的历史改朝换代都经历了不同的战争，中国人的史书没有改写历史，愚蠢的人才改写历史。如果留意一下，你会发现史书上详细记载着中国和周边国家的战争。就拿元朝来说吧，元朝始祖忽必烈是蒙古人，他统一蒙古后进入中原，元朝统一全国后的疆域是：北到蒙古、西伯利亚，南到南海，西南包括今西藏、云南，西北至今新疆东部，东北至外兴安岭、鄂霍次克海，总面积约1200万平方千米，同样在史书上详尽记载着元与越南的战争。如果说中国入侵周边的小国的话，如何看待蒙古人进入中原的问题？
同样清朝也是满族人入关，同化了民族文化，如果说中国以黄河为界的话，清是否是中国呢？如果清朝不算是中国的话，那么清政府割让香港和澳门的历史为何世人认同？中国的历史本来就是多民族的历史，谁能说元，清历史不是中国的历史呢？？？
从上问题我想说的是，如果让中国改写历史是否要改写五千年的历史！
如果当今中国政府没有解决好中国民族内部的问题的话，我想政府官员真的要到山东面对祖先谢罪了。
三，关于鲁迅。 鲁迅（1881-1936）他生活在中国军阀割据的年代，他相当痛恨当时的政府、礼教、制度、传统。 他在日本仙台留学，修医学，鲁迅想通过医学启发中国人的觉悟。但他的这种梦想并没有维持多久，就被严酷的现实粉碎了。在日本，作为一个弱国子民的鲁迅，经常受到具有军国主义倾向的日本人的歧视。在他们的眼睛里，凡是中国人都是“低能儿”，鲁迅的解剖学成绩是59分，就被他们怀疑为担任解剖课的教师藤野严九郎把考题泄露给了他。这使鲁迅深感作为一个弱国子民的悲哀。有一次，在上课前放映的幻灯画片中，鲁迅看到一个中国人被日本军队捉住杀头，一群中国人却若无其事地站在旁边看热闹。鲁迅受到极大的刺激。这使他认识到，精神上的麻木比身体上的虚弱更加可怕。要改变中华民族在世界上的悲剧命运，首要的是改变中国人的精神，而善于改变中国人的精神的，则首先是文学和艺术，所以他弃医从文。
鲁迅的第一篇白话小说狂人日记，，是一篇彻底的反封建的“宣言”， 在狂人日记里的那段话：：“我翻开历史一查，这历史没有年代，歪歪斜斜的每页上都写着‘仁义道德’这个字。我横竖睡不着，仔细看了半夜，才从字缝里看出字来，满本都写着两个字是‘吃人’！”礼教就是吃人，仁义道德是礼教虚伪的面具，这就是鲁迅对封建道德的定义，也是他多年来思考和认识的结果，也是这篇作品最辉煌的成就。这篇小说凝聚了鲁迅从童年时起到那时为止的全部痛苦的人生体验和对于中华民族现代命运的全部痛苦思索。它通过“狂人”之口，把几千年的中国封建专制的和传统礼教历史痛斥为“吃人”的历史，向当时沉滞落后的中国社会发出呐喊。鲁迅先生的狂人日记是希望国人崛起，并没有对中国国家几千年的历史和国家版图置疑。
还有的就是鲁迅先生过世于1936年，当时日本还没有入侵中国。如果他在世，经历这些的话从鲁迅的强烈的希望中国崛起的愿望，想像一下，他会如何看待日本侵华的问题的。
再有，运用鲁迅先生的话来叫板中国的历史，我想说的是：先了解鲁迅先生的背景和鲁迅先生写狂人日记的背景。所以我们常说理解万岁。
更有趣的是，在台湾鲁迅的作品是被列为禁书，这又可以让我们从另一个角度去思考鲁迅文学。
时间让我们能正视历史，我不认同将日本侵华和中国西藏问题相题并论。鲁迅先生说：度尽劫波兄弟在，相逢一笑泯恩仇。这正是西藏问题的写照。
这是我对你的英文评论的理解的答复，如果有任何的误解，请赐教。再次感谢您的关注。
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Can't make ends meet
An Article in On-Line Opinion
My reply
We live in a society which is based on consumption. The economies not only demand it, but require it. The whole focus of society is on how to consume. Lending institutions fall over themselves to facilitate it.
You must have it and you must have it now and it must be really really big.
Just like your mortgage and your credit card and your care lease and your …… well, you get the picture.
To facilitate this we have inflation. A State run institution carefully managed by the Central Banks. It’s only 2/3% they say.
Bullshit.
Everyone knows that is a gigantic con job, just ask a pensioner.
Add inflation to the ‘must have it now’ syndrome and society is on a never ending catch-up. The banks love it.
Deflation is a bad, bad thing. Things go down in price. That is terrible say the economists.
So, if I have savings in my account and the thing I want to buy goes down in price, I am struggling to see how that is bad for me.
I have read about Austrian Economics. Most economists fall about laughing because it says that moderate deflation is not bad, it can be good. Also, that a healthy economy needs to be reamed out from time to time to restore itself. But what would I know, I am not an economist. Wheels within wheels they say.
No, say the economists, let us manage the problem, after all, we can count.
http://www.mises.org/
My reply
We live in a society which is based on consumption. The economies not only demand it, but require it. The whole focus of society is on how to consume. Lending institutions fall over themselves to facilitate it.
You must have it and you must have it now and it must be really really big.
Just like your mortgage and your credit card and your care lease and your …… well, you get the picture.
To facilitate this we have inflation. A State run institution carefully managed by the Central Banks. It’s only 2/3% they say.
Bullshit.
Everyone knows that is a gigantic con job, just ask a pensioner.
Add inflation to the ‘must have it now’ syndrome and society is on a never ending catch-up. The banks love it.
Deflation is a bad, bad thing. Things go down in price. That is terrible say the economists.
So, if I have savings in my account and the thing I want to buy goes down in price, I am struggling to see how that is bad for me.
I have read about Austrian Economics. Most economists fall about laughing because it says that moderate deflation is not bad, it can be good. Also, that a healthy economy needs to be reamed out from time to time to restore itself. But what would I know, I am not an economist. Wheels within wheels they say.
No, say the economists, let us manage the problem, after all, we can count.
http://www.mises.org/
Monday, April 14, 2008
World's new crisis: soaring food prices.
Surprise, surprise. This is the legacy of a corrupt financial system under the United States Federal Reserve. Last century the American people, through their elected representatives, gave Wall St the keys to the vault in the 1970’s. Greenspan then untied all the regulatory knots and opened the spigots pouring trillions of dollars into the worlds economies and letting the hedge funds loose.
The real wealth of the world has been debased by the U.S Fed (enthusiastically assisted by Reserve banks around the world) and then leveraged into the stratosphere.
All that money has to go somewhere.
It has been into tech stocks, into stocks in general, into housing, into metals.
Now, it is flowing into food, which to a hedge fund is just another commodity.
There is too much money and leverage in the world economy and it has to be taken out. The solution of the Fed Reserve is to pour more money on the fire. The politicians run around in circles crying, ‘do something’, but don’t inflict any pain on anyone.
The world probably has more people than it can feed easily. Hence it has come down to who can pay for what food there is.
That has implications for political and economic stability, implications for the environment, and now we see, implications that go to the very heart of humanity, having enough to eat.
The bright young thing at the hedge fund computer screen making and losing millions in a flicker has no connection with the starving child in Haiti.
Greenspan unbolted the shackles from Wall St. This is the result of letting an immoral monster loose with unlimited money through the Fed’s printing press and hedge fund leverage.
A humanitarian crisis
The Age Newspaper
The real wealth of the world has been debased by the U.S Fed (enthusiastically assisted by Reserve banks around the world) and then leveraged into the stratosphere.
All that money has to go somewhere.
It has been into tech stocks, into stocks in general, into housing, into metals.
Now, it is flowing into food, which to a hedge fund is just another commodity.
There is too much money and leverage in the world economy and it has to be taken out. The solution of the Fed Reserve is to pour more money on the fire. The politicians run around in circles crying, ‘do something’, but don’t inflict any pain on anyone.
The world probably has more people than it can feed easily. Hence it has come down to who can pay for what food there is.
That has implications for political and economic stability, implications for the environment, and now we see, implications that go to the very heart of humanity, having enough to eat.
The bright young thing at the hedge fund computer screen making and losing millions in a flicker has no connection with the starving child in Haiti.
Greenspan unbolted the shackles from Wall St. This is the result of letting an immoral monster loose with unlimited money through the Fed’s printing press and hedge fund leverage.
A humanitarian crisis
The Age Newspaper
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
