If India starts to make progress, India will also be targeted. In a country divided by many languages and cultures, India is very vulnerable for social conditioning. The case of missing nuclear scientists is one of them.
If India starts to make progress, India will also be targeted. In a country divided by many languages and cultures, India is very vulnerable for social conditioning. The case of missing nuclear scientists is one of them.
What about all the journalists and activists who are arrested, harassed, tortured and disappeared in China? Is it right for their progress?
Among the state and non state actors, China is deeply disliked by global journalists too. It is also deeply disliked by Human Right Propagandists/Upholders, and the so called "global civil society on the internet". The problem is that these people have an ultra large impact on the perception because these are the people who control media, and a general person's access to information. They have abject monopoly over access to knowledge, and are deeply ideological. So much so that, these people are often found lobbying the United States and on the internet forums for policies that may harm the world. But they have huge power in Western discourse, and if they get pissed, they will start a whole ideological parade against their perceived nuisance. For US, it is simply their loss of influence that they are worried about.
The biggest people, and the most vocal, which leads to this perception, are the Global Civil Western Society, who just can't tolerate a state like China's to succeed. It is against their almost fanatically religious form of worship for some ideas, systems, and ideologies most of them tend to be under the guise of pro humanitarian but in reality is borderline jealousy and the fear of losing out. This also should be read in tandem with the fact that this is the very same society which supports the NRA, African American suffrage etc.
A similar phenomenon happened in the 1980s and 90s with Japan. The United States, not the world, was desperately concerned that Japan would not just pass over them in the future, but had already done so economically and culturally. The American mindset is extremely fickle, superficial, paranoid, and shortsighted when it comes to the possibility of foreign rivals. They just cant stand the very thought of competing in a global economy.
I'm curious what theoretical model has the best outcome for everyone, not just for the few people in power and their group. It would be nice if the model included controls for previous failures.
The Enlightenment began with the belief that all people are equal. ALL. Doesn't matter if you are white or black or asian or indigenous, or what family, race, gender or sexual orientation you happened to be born into. The Enlightenment has torn down the institution of slavery, overthrown monarchies, revoked state-run monopolies, and given franchise to women and minorities. And it has brought monumental progress to ALL of humankind, including basically all modern technology and medicine. And we are still moving forward, this juggernaut of progress, and we are doing so BECAUSE we have freedoms. The history of the world is that of brief stints of progress being flamed out by oppressive regimes until at long last the scientific revolution took hold. I won't apologize for standing with the Enlightenment and judging governments by how well they achieve these goals for their citizens. As China seeks to control its people, it does so at the detriment of future progress not in service of it.
China's anti-liberty actions and policies are regressive and on the wrong side of history. And to say that it is somehow just an expression of different culture is insulting to the Chinese people who deserve freedom and personal liberty, and dishonor to the memory of those like Sun Yat-sen and others who fought for and achieved societal revolution towards Enlightenment ideals in China and with the support of the Chinese people. There's nothing uniquely Chinese about totalitarian oppression, or anything unique about the Chinese people that make them ineligible for our sympathies.
I find it really sad when some people think that the basic ideas of the Enlightenment are somehow "Western". They originated in the West, but they are absolutely and in no way linked to any notion of "Western culture".
As some that's mildly libertarian leaning, I'd say the core ideals of Enlightenment are universal moral principles that are objectively good, and workable for any human society.
For example, the principle of free speech boils down to this simple concept: Don't commit acts of violence against someone because they __said__ something you don't like (with emphasis on "said"). This is not a hard concept to grasp.
When some culture claims that such a principle (like free speech) is not "compatible" with their culture, it's a cop-out, and an excuse for some group of people to continue maintaining power, or something like it.
Sure.
> [the ideas of the Englightenment] originated in the West
I would say they first took root and lasted long enough to have impact in the West. As you say, the ideas of the Enlightenment are universal moral principles that aren't really tied to specific culture, a sort of political version of the Golden Rule. It might even have been the state of nature before agriculture and townships gave rise to kingships and states. We didn't used to be slaves to The Man.
To harp on the theme of this thread, things could have gone very differently if Mo Di's philosophy became the official state belief instead of Confucius' legalism: