posted
Okay disclaimer, this is actually in answer for an exam question that an acquaintance is about to take today that he just happened to post on a forum elsewhere, so I, with too much freetime on my hands decided to answer it as I would if I was taking the same exam.
quote:Here is my exam question, so you guys have something to worry your mind with in my absence
It’s in the course called; Geographic Politics, so I would think it wouldn’t bore an EU3 audience to much. (bare in mind that this is my take on a translation to English from the question makers original language; Danish.)
***
(Intro)
*It’s been twenty years since The Cold War ended. It has become a generally accepted consensus that The Cold War defined a relatively well defined world order. But it is still being discussed which geopolitical order that has taken place after The Cold War. The suggestions aren’t but many, they are also very diverse.
(actual questions)
* Explain the Geopolitical world order under The Cold War.
* Discuss two or more suggestions of which geopolitical world order that has replaced that of The Cold War.
***
So here's my response.
quote: [QUOTE=Cwuelty;12246828]Here is my exam question, so you guys have something to worry your mind with in my absence
It’s in the course called; Geographic Politics, so I would think it wouldn’t bore an EU3 audience to much. (bare in mind that this is my take on a translation to English from the question makers original language; Danish.)
***
(Intro)
*It’s been twenty years since The Cold War ended. It has become a generally accepted consensus that The Cold War defined a relatively well defined world order. But it is still being discussed which geopolitical order that has taken place after The Cold War. The suggestions aren’t but many, they are also very diverse.
(actual questions)
* Explain the Geopolitical world order under The Cold War.
* Discuss two or more suggestions of which geopolitical world order that has replaced that of The Cold War.
***
The Geopolitical world order of the Cold War Was a period beginning unofficially with the implementation of the Marshall plan and officially with the Berlin airlift. Although in some cases Churchill's 1945 "Iron Curtain" speech could be arguably the earliest possible beginning as the forewarning of whats to come.
quote: From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic an "iron curtain" has descended across the Continent. Behind that line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe. Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest and Sofia; all these famous cities and the populations around them lie in what I must call the Soviet sphere, and all are subject, in one form or another, not only to Soviet influence but to a very high and in some cases increasing measure of control from Moscow.
Very telling and very accurate words as events came to pass (with the exceptions of Austria, Yugoslavia and Albania) and the world had finished transforming from the multipolar world that marked the 16th to 19th centuries of European politics and finally solidified as a bipolar arrangement with the Soviet Union and the United States as not only the conclusive military winners of World War II but also the strategic victors who now had their boots on world affairs.
The Superpowers:
The Former Soviet Union was a superpower Eurasian political entity and country that spanned from the Carpathian mountains in eastern Europe to the pacific ocean, had at its height the third world's largest population (after India and China) and possessed the world's largest military machine with over 7 million soldiers, tens of thousands of tanks and thousands of aircraft and special forces operatives and secret police paramilitary. The Russian Federal Soviet Republic was the most powerful constituent state and through Russification decisively controlled the politics of not only the Soviet Union as a whole (and its "Inner Empire" of constituents such as Ukraine, Belarus, Khazakstan, etc) but also its "Outer Empire" of Satellite Communist states imposed on the various governments of Eastern Europe liberated from Nazi occupation by the Red (name changed to 'Soviet Army' circa 1945) Army.
Economically it was a Socialist Command economy that relied on centralized planning by State Bureaucrats and it forgoed liberalistic free trade for a more neomercantalist barter according to fixed prices with its satellites. While growth was impressive while resource manpower intensive resource extraction was relatively cheap it was extremely wasteful and the inability to quickly adapt to changing market circumstances and meet supply and demand would eventually as the economy matured and switched to a more hi tech based platform was failing to keep pace with the West leading eventually to the failed Koysgin & Andropov Reforms and to the failed Gorbachev Perestroika and Glasnot that collapsed the Soviet Union.
Politically it was a totalitarian security obsessed government that would after the ever cautious Stalin died embarked on an ambitious foreign policy to gain a strategic foothold in the third world and to export Socialist/Communist revolutions around the globe to compete with principally American interests, along side political game of oneupmanship in the United Nations (a task made significantly easier with the Independance movements of the 1960's which swelled the General Assembly with more sympathetic quasi-Socialist african states that had a somewhat justified grudge against Imperialism and its source).
The United States in the opposite corner is similarly to Russia (a fact well noted by international politics philosophers during the mid 19th century) a continent spanning nation from the Pacifc to the Atlantic sharing a large number of different climates and ethnic groups (mostly immigrants) within its border, it also experience rapid population and economic growth during the period but this is where the comparison ends. Whereas most of Russia is significantly further north in a considerably more inhospitable climate that is harsh on agriculture except in a few "bread basket" regions the United States is considerably more favourable for agriculture. Resulting in it being a net exporting of cheap food stuffs to a transcontinental market for much of its economic history.
A laissez-faire economy that encouraged individualism and free market forces allowed the US to expand rapidly westards developing the land swiftly as it did so with high rates of urbanization driving up real wages and industrialization the United States quickly gained one of the worlds highest standards of living for the time as well as significant gains in energy consumption. Oddly until the American Civil War and the first and second world wars the US was a military pigmy, always keeping its military to a incredible minimum and through its isolationist politics kept out of nearly all European affairs.
The American Civil War showed just how massive its industrial growth had been (especially relative to the south) and also showed that if the US wanted to it could easily field one of the world's most powerful militaries but reduced it back to minimum levels once the South was defeated. This changed partially with the first world war in that while the US did once more cut back the military it still maintained a decently powerful and up to date navy and even prior to the outbreak of European hostilities Congress had authorized the expansion of the air and ground forces putting them, relative to their first world war counterparts in a much better position to fight the second.
In 1945 there was no doubt that the US was not only clearly the world's most powerful nation but it was here to stay, it has over 50% of the combined world's GDP had over twelve million men in uniform and possessed a navy second to none of dozens of fleet carriers, millions of tonnes in merchant shipping, and hundreds of surface combat ships. This time the US now found itself taking on a host of strategic globe spanning obligations and commitments "the US security umbrella" beginning with the Marshall plan and the berlin airlift to the defense of nations against communist attack perceived or otherwise (Korea, Vietnam, etc). Finding itself putting its considerable affluence into pouring billions of funds in aid and loans to nations around the world to combat what it found to be the growing menace.
On stage joining alongside the superpowers are the respective military defense blocs of the Warsaw Pact (Soviet aligned) and NATO (US aligned) that were military defense pacts designed by their respective founders as (in theory) purely defensive arrangements to collectively defend themselves from attack by the opposing party.
Offstage schizophrenically taking part or not taking part according its whims China and the non-aligned movement generally did their best to antagonize both sides while swapping back and forth according to which side offered the most aid and military assistance.
The New World Order
The collapse of the Soviet Union not only ended the Cold War but also began America's "Pax Americana" (American Peace ala 'Pax Romana') but this arrangement was (and is) illusory, a result of a power vacuum instead of any real shift in the global balances, a shift that points to a completely difference picture.
Even during the height of Cold War tensions the writing was on the wall that the BiPolar political arrangement of the Cold War was unsustainable, trends that saw America's and Russia's considerably economic clout slowly eroded by the uncaring economic reality of the rest of the world slowly either in the case of Europe recovering from the economic disaster of the first world war or in the case of everywhere else seeing the world gradually industrialize with China leading the pack for first world/North Gap power and living standards.
Politicians and Statesmen such as Nixon and Kissinger were first in line to state what was increasingly becoming obvious (paraphrased) "the world can be divided into 5 economic regions; Europe, North America, Asia, Africa and Russia" echoing Mao's earlier words "the path to global revolution lives in Beijing, Calcutta and Cairo". The world was slowly resplintering and it seemed that the bipolar world order would soon reveal itself an artificial construct one to fall into the dustbin of history.
As such the post cold war world order was a unipolar arrangement of the United States taking up in the absence of a strategic competitor increasingly frequent police actions around the globe to combat threats to the "New World Order" of terrorism, proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction and unprovoked aggression. These wars however were expensive and for the first time the economy of the US is showing the weaknesses of laissez-faire in the new global economy and the problems of inconsistency and partisan obstructionism in its politics.
With the US showing weakness others are tentatively entering the fray and marking their territory and what is soon to be a new multipolar arrangement that will inevitably reappear in America's absence as a unipolar superpower.
The Challengers:
China is an ancient civilization over 5000 years old, it has a long history of depotism and absolute authoritarianism along with an entire cultural inertia behind its confucian and neolegalist traditions that keeps authoritarianism a viable (or at least tolerable) political alternative to either Soviet totalitarianism or Parliamentary Western democracy to its over one billion citizens, an overwhelming 92% of which are Han Chinese of whom all share a single written language and a large majority speak Mandarin Chinese. China's recent history was that of constant challenge, humiliation and defiance that led to the overthrow of its absolutist Monarchy in 1911 a brief period of civil war and finally standing shakily once more on the world stage in 1949 as the "People's Republic" of China and finally standing strong in 1979 when it took its perceived proper place on the UN Security Council.
Economically it achieved respectable growth on average (with obvious exceptions during periods of instability or illogical growth efforts like the GLF or the PCR) in both industry and agriculture during the Mao years, a logical result considering its low level of development and finally achieved both domestic and external peace and tranquility and explosive growth with the introduction of open market reforms and "Socialism with Chinese characteristics" (Doesn't matter if the cat is white or black as long as it catches mice) by Paramount Leader Deng Xiaoping and impressive growth has been kept up until now and is expected to continue for the intermediate future.
Politically China is an Authoritarian Socialist nation with a hybrid economic system of some command economic characteristics in spheres of national interest and free market everywhere else with an active interventionist policy to keep jobs growing with population and graduation rates. Leadership is chosen through a "Selectorate" of where the different political factions of the Chinese Communist party and the Bureaucracy (and the Military) choose the next leader based on some aggregate consensus, there's some 1600 members of the Selectorate.
Post Mao China has taken a fairly low key approach to politics, rarely using its Security Council veto and generally post Russian economic and political recovery has usually followed the Russian lead internationally and keeping in close touch with US foreign policy and generally avoiding unnessasary conflict, the exception of course being sabre rattling over Taiwan. The Taiwan issue is a complex one that often pre2008 (when the pro-Unification parties won the election) made the Chinese military and think tanks feel helpless internationally resulting mid 1990's in the first significant increases in Chinese military spending since the Deng cutbacks of the 1980's.
Currently the PRC has a military of some 5 million regular soldiers, reservists (People's Liberation Army, PLA) and paramilitary (People's Armed Police, PAP) and has been actively developing its military-industrial complex to supply the army with the equipment needed to fight a "Hi tech war under local conditions" in a truly impressive degree of improvement in the armed forces. Currently the PLA now sports advanced main battle tanks (along with thousands of older models in reserve), hundreds of new 4th generation multiroll combat aircraft, its first stealth fighter and will in the next few years be deploying its first carrier battlegroup. Is this the finally long awaited resurgence of Chinese maritime power since Zheng He some would wonder?
Chinese sheer size both economic and demographic would paint a picture of a return to a bipolar world strategic arrangement, but American sluggishness and other trends point the opposite picture, other challengers are rising to stake their claims too.
Europe: The European Union has a long history, beginning with the Treaty of Rome that saw Germany, Italy, France and Britain align their core industries to a common standard along with NATO that allowed Europe to forgo their unsustainable intercompetitive militaries to share a common economic and defense arrangement achieving growth rates, and freed up funds for investment that were improbably prior to then. Soon the EEC (European Economic Community) widened this to include several other European nations until finally it was official with the European Union; that Europe intends to walk towards a common future together.
Together ignoring for the moment the question and controversy of european "integration" of "Deepening" versus "Widening" the freer tarrif barriers, free movement of persons across European borders, the availiability of huge sources of new capital investment, confidence in the European markets and the huge new amounts of funds towards R&D as well as their combined military and manpower totals all points and paints a compelling picture. That Europe as a whole if trends of European deepening continue Europe can within a few years be a convincing new supernational participant in a [u]multipolar[/u] international world order.
Brazil: Brazil has a large population, impressive economic growth and relative stability as well as an interest in joining the UN Security Council and developing its armed forces. It's a sure bet that within the next 50 years as it develops its economy Brazil will be a significant force in international politics.
India: India is a large nation with a rich culturally diverse history, the birth place of two major world religions, the second world's largest population of over a billion people a few hundred million behind China. It has a large military that benefit from a long friendship to both the Eastern and Western blocs, a nuclear arsenal that secured its voice is heard when in talks with the other great powers, and full head on plunge into carrier aviation gives India a unique position in the Indian ocean and South Asia geopolitically.
It's also relatively secure, the himalaya mountain range helps insulate it from China and the independence of Bangaladesh from Pakistan removed the spectre of a two front war from its political abbacus with Pakistan.
Economically India tries a whole host of methods in its economy and its unique position in the global economy of cheap manufacturing costs coupled with a large english people skilled workforce of computer technicians puts India uniquely in a position to benefit and to pursue economic growth.
On the other hand India is plagued by a whole host of problems, it has the most terrorist attacks commited than any other country, its hundreds of languages and ethnic groups makes national cohesian difficult to achieve and caste differences makes discontent rampant and easy recruitment grounds for Maoist gurrillas.
The "largest democracy" has many challenges it will need to overcome before it can truly join as a great power able to independently pursue its own interests but the potential is there and only a matter of time.
Russia has had a bad few decades, stagnation from the Breznev years, political collapse from its superpower status during perestroika, then years of rampant reckless privatization by controlling oligarchs in an all encompassing kleptocracy.... But the new Russian of unique democratic authoritarianism of "Putinism" in which the former KGB cadres have regained control of government and the economy seems to have some new hope for Russia. Foreign investment and improved equipment has allowed Russia to exploit its untapped mineral and energy wealth in ways never before done during the Soviet years becoming a sort of "Energy Superpower" as Russian oil and natural gas allows Russia to refund its military suffering from years of neglect, and to tentatively pursue Russian geopolitics on the world stage through weaponized energy policies.
Politically the new government in Russia maintains popular support as it rides the revanchist card for all its worth, and the deep connections of the Russian intelligence community gives Russia a fairly established insiders politics that lends itself to a sort of equillibrium that works along side Russia's developing democracy.
Military the Russian military has much to be proud of, most Russian equipment while poorly maintained is still decent for its operational needs especially in small arms and heavy equipment. Russian R&D and its educational establishments following the "Russian Tradition" of excellence is of the world's best and finest and turns out Europes largest share of graduates.
The South Ossetia conflict showed that while there's still teething issues and questions regarding Russian professionalism it has recovered nicely from its Chechnya slump and quite capable of handling regional threats and prosecuting a war on its own terms, the Russian air industry kept alive by Chinese procurement orders has finally recieved the funding needed to turn out (albeit with cooperation with india) new technology demonstrators and advanced 5th generation planes. The navy has also gotten significant love with the launch of the Borei-class of ICBM carrying subs, the launching of several new advanced guided missile destroyers and LACS craft.
Russia's nuclear deterrent, its primary claim to Great Power status is also undergoing modernization and refurbishment with the acquisition of the new MIRV capable Topol-M missiles.
But Russia's resurgence may not be sustainable, its energy economy is vulnerable to price shocks, the Russian financial sector is still development and having well documented difficulties with adjusting to the new climate (such as anectdotes of various new buildings in the financial sector being too expensive for offices and left empty, major firms preferring the outskirts), Russian law and order has serious issues of corruption with hundreds of energetic businessmen having to leave the country due to illegal searches and shakedowns and intimidation tactics by corrupt Russian officials.
Even more seriously there's been significant backwards slide in industrialization in modern Russia with widespread primitivation of its former major manufacturing sector, a result of its overreliance on its new energy sector. Worryingly its lead in excellence in education may also be erroding as government reforms cuts out various major courses and programs from the curriculum (such as astronomy and various language courses), none of this helped at the same time by long standing demographic nightmares of its aging population, skewed by the Great Patriotic War that has embraced acholism with widespread depression and violence makes even downtown Suzhou safer than even rural suburbia Russia!
On a high note Russian birth rate has finally begun to exceed the deathrate possibly ending its demographic crisis that was threatening Russian long term viability.
Russia's future is murkey but the potential is still here, will the next generation of Russian leadership be able to keep Russia on the right track?
The Decline of American Power
We had briefly above spoken about the growing sluggishness in the US economy, but now it is time to discuss the other factors that make the relative decline of the US from a position as a superpower to that of a Great Power inevitable.
Firstly the US's share of world GDP has shrunk from its artificial highnote of ~50% in 1945 to around 25% and is continuing to shrink as the share of the rest of the world continues to grow at the US's expense. This is natural as the US's own geographic size and population could only possess a modest share of the world's GDP.
At the sametime as the US's GDP relative share decreases the US is finding that its many perfectly reasonable world wide defense obligations it took on (and in some cases took over from the British) are no longer sustainable with their world share of GDP that it could afford back in the 1950's. While US power is sufficient to hand any one or few potential hotspots or crisis'es it can no longer afford to handle all said hotspots simultaneously.
Further complicated that US foreign interests lack an easy consistent answer or singlular policy that can sufficiently handle it, especially regionally with the Arab world that have so many potential contradictory flashpoints and issues that in the words of one US foreign policy expert "leaves on breathless". And the issue isn't much better in other troublesome regions like Asia and only partially alleviated with the Soviet collapse and the much appreciated "peace dividend" in Europe with the withdrawal of significant US forces from Europe.
In short one can't help but look at the map and see a similar spread of US forces and interests as the British empire held a century previous, while the US currently has a better relative position in which to handle these commitments than the British ever did (as its base share of world GDP is larger than the British's and its geographical position more naturally secure) it is clear the US even in the late 80's was suffering acutely from Imperial overstretch, and the issue is only getting worse as the world catches up and the US falls behind.
With a consistent foreign policy direction, and a consistent willingness to sit down and and bring all the interdepartmental conflicts on hold long enough to hammer out a solution all of this, COULD have been alleviated further, or at least the shocks of losing superpower status minimized, but with rampant partisanism in US politics and the polarization of American life between the right and the left it seems more impossible than ever for the US to allocate the proper resources to solve its myriad problems.
So in conclusion the world order during the cold war went from a bipolar arrangement with the Eastern bloc in opposition to the Western bloc led by the US to an artificial grace period with the US as a unipolar superpower and world policeman ostensibly with support by the UN and abstaination of opposition, and is no trending towards a new multipolar world arrangement between five to six powers consisting of the USA, European Union, Russia, China, Brazil, and India who for the next fifty to eighty years can be expected to work within a balance of power equilibrium until world economic trends once more and new challengers arise to shake up the status quo.
[/quote]
So I answered it as I would on an exam, only 2 hours time limit (roughly) though I didn't do any prior research/studying for it.
Hypothetically I'ld lose marks on not knowing enough about India and Brazil but then again if I was actually taking this test and knew it ahead of time I'ld have swatted up on Brazil etc.
IP: Logged |
posted
With a quibble or two, that's not a bad summary. I notice you failed to include any of the obvious problems that China has in its march towards greatness, while going on at length about Indian, Russian, and American problems. Surely you must admit that its current growth rate isn't sustainable, and it has severe problems of political oppression and unrest.
I'd also argue against the rather surface treatment comparison of the British empire at collapse to the current US position. I see the parallels in the way you frame them, but when you get a little deeper, I don't think it holds as well. The relationship between America's disposition of forces and the political relationship between their deployment and status is a lot different from Britain's. America's "empire" was always more about economic and political control than it was about control of actual land, which is dramatically different than Britain's role.
I wonder if you answered the questions as completely as you could have though. You defined the world as falling under the American or Soviet power umbrella, but you didn't give much more than lip service to the existence of all the other countries of the world. What about Containment? What about the struggle for control of Africa? You might not have had a great deal of time to go into those things, but I think the question asked for a bit more complexity than simply naming and describing the most powerful nations of the world at any given time, I think you needed to do a better job of defining the relationships between these countries.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: While US power is sufficient to hand any one or few potential hotspots or crisis'es it can no longer afford to handle all said hotspots simultaneously.
quote: or at least the shocks of losing superpower status minimized, but with rampant partisanism in US politics and the polarization of American life between the right and the left it seems more impossible than ever for the US to allocate the proper resources to solve its myriad problems.
I did something back in college that my dad suggested to me as a tool for helping me to focus my arguments. I wrote a sentence on a piece of paper, and placed it on the wall above my writing desk. He was a lawyer, and it was a mantra of his.
It said: "Do Not Assume Facts Not in Evidence."
These conclusions are surmise, but more importantly, they are based on your perceptions, and not rooted in actual fact. Were you to delve into the facts of some of these matters (and this goes for a lot of what you have to say about geopolitics), you would not be making these kinds of conclusions at all. Were you to present them as surmise, or as speculation (which you do only with the latter above quote here), you might maintain some credibility, even if you couldn't then massage your opinions into sound conclusive statements.
For instance:
quote: This is natural as the US's own geographic size and population could only possess a modest share of the world's GDP.
This is assuming facts which are not in evidence. The first being that a country's size and population are adequate determinants of its potential gross domestic product, in relation to that of other nations. This is a patently ridiculous conclusion, and it's proved wrong by the 3rd largest economy in the world, Japan, which has so few natural resources, and such a modest share of population, that it, by all rights according to your logic, should never have ascended to its current economic position. This conclusion also assumes that US currently comes close to exhausting its natural resources or its territory. This is patently false. The US population density is something like 1/5th of the global average, and it is one of the world's largest energy producers, and largest food producers. The reason the population has not increased drastically (although a 200% increase in a century is dramatic) as the GDP has continued to rise is that the US is economically powerful. Were it to become less powerful, its population would likely increase, as would its exploitation of its own natural resources and land. The US population is low *because* the nation is economically powerful. This is not an aberration.
Secondly, this assumes that GDP is predicated upon population and landspread, and not geography. And yet geography plays a *major* role in US political and economic domination, because the US has a strategically ideal geographic location, with access to all major sea lanes of the west and east, and no land routes connecting it to any other major powers. The ascent of Pacific based trade in the mid-19th century was a key element of the decline of the British Empire, and the British Empire's own rise was based greatly on the fact that it controlled the atlantic trade, and occupied a relatively secure geographic position in Europe. You haven't considered these elements at all here. You should. You should ask yourself how the US *ever* came to economic and political domination, and assess whether or not you can actually reasonably conclude that this power is waning. Because everything you've presented here, regarding the US, has been based on a series of very shaky assumptions.
I could go through your whole essay and apply this principle, but I won't, because I don't think it would help. I think it would be great for you to go back and study the history of the US, and how and why it came to power, and what that power actually entails. It was not a series of accidents. That is the failure of your view, in opinion, and it colors everything you have to say about the global situation.
I recommend, as interesting reading on the topic, The Next 100 Years, which is George Freedman's most recent book. It's about as American Fanboy as you aren't, but it's more sensibly argued.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
@Lyr: I was already sorta pressed for time so I didn't think to go back and provide more even handed treatment for all nations, for example Brazil I didn't speak of any of its problems either (though mostly because I don't know what they are!) an actual exam I would've been more thorough, as it was I had 2 hours until my appointment, bored at my computer and too much time on my hands.
Proper exam enviroment and actual courses, me more thorough.
Such that as it is, the US-UK parallel is a little stronger when you think of it in terms of stresses at their influence regardless of informal/formal empire vs simply military commitments the point is there that both took on multitudes of military and political commitments, that were all reasonable and pressing at the time, that eventually just weren't affordable as global trends worked against them.
The imperial juggling act is there, the policy debates with different branches thinking of different foes in mind is all there, all in conflict that now, in a time more partisan than ever before is harder to hammer out an effective elaborate geostrategy.
As for containment during the Cold War the only nation that could independently work apart from the system was China and the other clever neutrals in the non aligned movement who swapped backers as it was politically expediant to do so.
Any other nation that would've worked with the US to "contain" the USSR could only do so with significant American aid and gaurantees without it they would've turned to the USSR for patronage.
Thus the RotW with a few exceptions is irrelevant to the bipolar dichotomy as independent actors for without either Soviet or American support their contribution to a great coalition war would be nill. I did touched upon this struggle for influence however.
What WAS important however was the growing trends back towards a multipolar world such as the growing economic clout of the EEC as an independant supernational bloc, India's and China's industrialization and more recently Brazil entering the stage. Such as they are important and capable of independent action I talked about them.
The smaller nations, being "minors" were irrelevent as they would tend to gravitate towards whoever has the political and economic clout to attract them.
As for Chinese sustainability 10-15% may not be sustainable but 6-8% they could keep up for the indefinite future especially if they keep up their progress in energy efficiency and nuclear/hydro should make it possible.
I believe your exaggeration the issues of political oppression, they have alot of think tanks and quite alot of debate on policy.
IP: Logged |
posted
"Any other nation that would've worked with the US to "contain" the USSR could only do so with significant American aid and gaurantees without it they would've turned to the USSR for patronage."
I Will Not Assume Facts Not in Evidence.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote: It said: "Do Not Assume Facts Not in Evidence."
Just about all the important details are covered in detail of which I've paraphrased from Paul Kennedy's Rise and Fall of the Great Powers.
The point is that by being an exam question, it is a test on ones analysis of observations, getting facts and figures "exactly" right don't matter in this context only what I can remember off hand, if it was a thesis paper it would be a different story.
quote: This is assuming facts which are not in evidence. The first being that a country's size and population are adequate determinants of its potential gross domestic product, in relation to that of other nations. This is a patently ridiculous conclusion, and it's proved wrong by the 3rd largest economy in the world, Japan, which has so few natural resources, and such a modest share of population, that it, by all rights according to your logic, should never have ascended to its current economic position. This conclusion also assumes that US currently comes close to exhausting its natural resources or its territory. This is patently false. The US population density is something like 1/5th of the global average, and it is one of the world's largest energy producers, and largest food producers. The reason the population has not increased drastically (although a 200% increase in a century is dramatic) as the GDP has continued to rise is that the US is economically powerful. Were it to become less powerful, its population would likely increase, as would its exploitation of its own natural resources and land. The US population is low *because* the nation is economically powerful. This is not an aberration.
My assertions are from my reading of Paul Kennedy's opus which I consider to be more credible than your disagreement for the sake of disagreement.
Didn't you quit the forums?
quote: "Any other nation that would've worked with the US to "contain" the USSR could only do so with significant American aid and gaurantees without it they would've turned to the USSR for patronage."
I Will Not Assume Facts Not in Evidence.
My international politics class and my observation of the actual history would disagree with you.
I do not believe for a second, that any nation would've had the willingness to join in containment of the USSR without American gaurantees and the nuclear & security umbrella to back it up.
There is plenty of facts to back this up, there may be evidence against it, or you could argue and quibble regarding intentions but you cannot honestly claim that there's zero evidence behind this.
Otherwise you have no credibility.
That and the fact that your post is just one massive hard on for nitpicking, your not actually touching the hypothesis or addressing the question and my answers to it.
IP: Logged |
posted
"The point is that by being an exam question, it is a test on ones analysis of observations, getting facts and figures "exactly" right don't matter in this context only what I can remember off hand, if it was a thesis paper it would be a different story."
I didn't talk about you getting your facts right. That's trivia. You are assuming things that you do not know to be true. That's different. When you make conclusions like the ones your making, you need to be sure that the basic assumptions you are making are workable ones. These were not workable assumptions.
"My assertions are from my reading of Paul Kennedy's opus which I consider to be more credible than your disagreement for the sake of disagreement."
You talk a lot about credibility. You have none to throw around, but you talk about it a lot. You shouldn't. I haven't read the book, but I assure you that if it is as sloppy as your reiteration of it is, I wouldn't pay it much regard. I doubt it is. I am not making an argument, really. I'm telling you why your arguments don't work. And the reason they don't work is not because the arguments they are based on are so bad- it's probably because you are doing a fairly bad job of understanding them. They may be wrong, but I'm guess they are more convincing. I am allowed to do this. In fact, you posted your essay on this forum inviting people to look at it, and, one might reasonably guess, criticize it. And you react like a child who has been told he's had enough sweets when you're told it isn't as brilliant as you might have hoped. Not really my problem Blayne. There's a good reason why he spent hundreds of pages making these arguments, and it's because if he hadn't, he wouldn't have convinced anybody. What you do is lean on his work and act as if the fact that you read it is justification for making a lot of very broad statements you don't even seem to fully understand. Whether that's an issue of style or of analysis, it's an issue. Your piece reads, as most of your work reads, as overconfident and amateur, and absolutely in love with itself. Don't worry, we all suffer from this at times. It will be okay. Probably.
You can come back at me and bitch about me nitpicking you, but I'm not. If I wanted to, I could. These are very broad assumptions you are making, and they are very weak ones. You don't appreciate the difference, I can see that- but there is a difference. I'm sorry you lack the maturity to take criticism where it is due, but again, not my problem.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote: You are assuming things that you do not know to be true.
There is zero basis to this, Lyrhawn has for example said that it's not a bad summary, so clearly at least one other person doesn't find my observations objectionable.
You are not here to criticize in good faith, you're dishonest in your motivations and there's zero reason to believe that you have shaped up.
Throwing around baseless subjective criticisms like "absolutely in love with itself" is just the kind of biased tangent that you would throw in there just to get a rise along with "acting like a child", more baseless ad hominems just for the sake of being well, you.
My response to Lyrhawn was reasoned, calm and understanding of where he was coming from, I don't think there's a single "childish" response in any of my posts here.
However what can be considered childish, is you coming in here and being disagreeable for the sake of being disagreeable.
Let us return to the facts;
1) This is something that I put together on the drop of a hat in 2 hours just as an fun exercise, under what I deemed exam writing conditions, your criticisms about "sloppyness" would only be valid in any other context of where a fully researched and methodically put together research paper had to be handed in.
2) Let's revisit the questionable assertion of that somehow my assumptions/assertions whatever aren't workable, arguable or accurate, have you provided even a single counter argument that anything I've said is false? No. At best you've misinterpreted the argument about a country only having a certain amount of landmass for a certain amount of GDP and attacked on that basis alone.
I do not make up anything, I made observations based on my knowledge of history and from the insights by Paul Kennedy (a very respectable professor) of whom I've paraphrased for a few of the above claims. I would dig up the precise statements but I loaned the book to a friend who was researching a paper on the economic causes of the second sino-Japanese war.
Your entire post reeks of dishonesty and just a wish to try to rile me up because of your blatant grudge against me, I can easily quote your words from Sakeriver or from the other thread here ("feces" smearing?) that would provide more than sufficient evidence to show that when it comes to constructive criticism you've long since lost the right to say "I was only just trying to be constructive!" You lost that trust, you have to reearn it and "tough love" isn't going to cut it.
Repeat after me "Just because I do not believe what this person says to be true, doesn't mean its false."
You think I'm wrong, thus I have to be wrong or talking out of my ass, that's your rationale.
IP: Logged |
quote:As for containment during the Cold War the only nation that could independently work apart from the system was China and the other clever neutrals in the non aligned movement who swapped backers as it was politically expediant to do so.
Any other nation that would've worked with the US to "contain" the USSR could only do so with significant American aid and gaurantees without it they would've turned to the USSR for patronage.
Thus the RotW with a few exceptions is irrelevant to the bipolar dichotomy as independent actors for without either Soviet or American support their contribution to a great coalition war would be nill. I did touched upon this struggle for influence however.
What WAS important however was the growing trends back towards a multipolar world such as the growing economic clout of the EEC as an independant supernational bloc, India's and China's industrialization and more recently Brazil entering the stage. Such as they are important and capable of independent action I talked about them.
The smaller nations, being "minors" were irrelevent as they would tend to gravitate towards whoever has the political and economic clout to attract them.
Wow, way to write off half the globe. Discussing treatment of the second and third world is essential in the discussion of the switchover from a two-power Cold War to the more globalized world we have today where there aren't just two factions. You're acting as if instead of only two powers, there are maybe a half dozen . . . but the world doesn't just align itself by one to one alliances. There isn't a China bloc, and a US bloc, and an EU bloc, and a Russia bloc, anymore. And for that matter relationships are based as much today on access to economic advantages as they are on geopolitical concerns. Arguably, we care a lot more today about access to minerals and open markets than we do political affiliations, but even that was back and forth during the Cold War. Had we played our cards differently in the 50s and 60s, we could likely have secured Ho Chi Minh as an ally and avoided the entire Vietnam War, but we didn't because of domestic politics that saw all Communists as the same, and all evil. On the other hand, we were totally in favor of supporting brutal dictatorships in Africa by paying them off for access to minerals and for supporting us and keeping Soviets out, based entirely on geopolitics. But our foreign policy doesn't work that way anymore. And China's sure as hell doesn't. There's has zero to do with moralistic leanings, or even political leanings, and everything to do with supporting their rise as an economic and regional power.
I think you're missing any sense of nuance to Cold War relationships, and you're failing a great deal to recognize these nuances in the changes from Cold War to the new world order. It's not just about naming off the big boys, it's about defining how power structures between nations work. Things are a lot more ad hoc than they were during the Cold War.
quote:I believe your exaggeration the issues of political oppression, they have alot of think tanks and quite alot of debate on policy.
If you remove the word "think" in there, you're a lot closer to nailing their actual domestic political reality. "quite a lot" as compared to what? Is there freedom of the press? of expression? of access to information? right to assemble? democracy? freedom of speech? self-determination for all parts of the country? You can't answer yes to any of those honestly. And if you don't think people in China want those things, especially as they gain access to a modern western lifestyle, you're nuts.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:There is zero basis to this, Lyrhawn has for example said that it's not a bad summary, so clearly at least one other person doesn't find my observations objectionable.
Well I suppose that's one way to interpret Lyrhawn's remarks. I wonder if even the Chinese think they can sustain 6-8% growth for the 'indefinite' future...and if so, how credible that belief is considered to be by the rest of the world that isn't ardently pro-PRC?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote: Wow, way to write off half the globe. Discussing treatment of the second and third world is essential in the discussion of the switchover from a two-power Cold War to the more globalized world we have today where there aren't just two factions. You're acting as if instead of only two powers, there are maybe a half dozen . . . but the world doesn't just align itself by one to one alliances. There isn't a China bloc, and a US bloc, and an EU bloc, and a Russia bloc, anymore. And for that matter relationships are based as much today on access to economic advantages as they are on geopolitical concerns. Arguably, we care a lot more today about access to minerals and open markets than we do political affiliations, but even that was back and forth during the Cold War. Had we played our cards differently in the 50s and 60s, we could likely have secured Ho Chi Minh as an ally and avoided the entire Vietnam War, but we didn't because of domestic politics that saw all Communists as the same, and all evil. On the other hand, we were totally in favor of supporting brutal dictatorships in Africa by paying them off for access to minerals and for supporting us and keeping Soviets out, based entirely on geopolitics. But our foreign policy doesn't work that way anymore. And China's sure as hell doesn't. There's has zero to do with moralistic leanings, or even political leanings, and everything to do with supporting their rise as an economic and regional power.
I think you're missing any sense of nuance to Cold War relationships, and you're failing a great deal to recognize these nuances in the changes from Cold War to the new world order. It's not just about naming off the big boys, it's about defining how power structures between nations work. Things are a lot more ad hoc than they were during the Cold War.
I do not believe your understanding me here, I pointed out that the signs of a reemerging multipolar world was present during the Cold War.
However I am absolutely correct when I say that the USSR and the USA were in general the only powers worth discussing, it took the implementation of the trident missile system and its equivilent in France before the USSR took Britain and France as seriously as the US and only then on that technicality alone, not a single European Great Power was strong enough on its own to possibly have on its own challenged the USSR or significantly delayed the advance of the Soviet Army, these are just economic and military realities.
NATO's existence depending on the lynchpin of US involvement and ALL NATO plans hinged on the success of Operation REFORGER (Return Forces to Germany), NATO didn't expect for much of the Cold War without resorting to tactical nuclear weapons to actually have a chance to hold off the Soviets.
Only with the EEC and European NATO nations taken as a whole circa 1980's did the situation start to change and the European power balance began to look more favourably for NATO but can't be accounted for at the time as a multipolar setup because the EEC lacked the pannational cohesian (and still don't) that would qualify them as a military and economic power in their own right.
Please name a single country other than China and India that could've seriously challenged the USSR on its own sans US support?
quote: but the world doesn't just align itself by one to one alliances. There isn't a China bloc, and a US bloc, and an EU bloc, and a Russia bloc, anymore.
I never said there was, I only stated that there's trends for a multipolar world consisting of the six I've named.
quote: But our foreign policy doesn't work that way anymore. And China's sure as hell doesn't. There's has zero to do with moralistic leanings, or even political leanings, and everything to do with supporting their rise as an economic and regional power.
What are you arguing against?
Did I say this was the case or still the case?
quote: I think you're missing any sense of nuance to Cold War relationships, and you're failing a great deal to recognize these nuances in the changes from Cold War to the new world order. It's not just about naming off the big boys, it's about defining how power structures between nations work. Things are a lot more ad hoc than they were during the Cold War.
There's different viewpoints that severely disagree on just exactly which viewpoints are accurate, neorealism vs neoliberalism for example, my paper reflected the neorealist viewpoint where much of the nuance is unnecessary distraction from a much more discrete calculus of hard power calculations and balance of power politics.
quote: If you remove the word "think" in there, you're a lot closer to nailing their actual domestic political reality. "quite a lot" as compared to what? Is there freedom of the press? of expression? of access to information? right to assemble? democracy? freedom of speech? self-determination for all parts of the country? You can't answer yes to any of those honestly. And if you don't think people in China want those things, especially as they gain access to a modern western lifestyle, you're nuts.
Have you read Susan L Shirks "China Fragile Superpower" yet? It is pretty much the modern "China! Inside the People's Republic" by the Committee of Concerned Asian Scholars.
Essentially she goes into great detail of examining and explaining how China's internal politics work and would point out to you that China is simply too big for the kind of targeted oppression you speak of to be as widespread as you think it is.
That and its arguable as to how "oppression" is anything at all a real impediment to economic or scientific growth, Confucianism has a fairly ingrained cultural impetus towards Heirarchy, and the Chinese have generally been willing to accept their government as legitimate so long as their not excessively cruel and violent.
"If the choice is between being feared and loved and you cannot choose both than it is better to be feared than loved so long as you strive to avoid being hated." - Machiavelli.
They have a functioning market economy, huge investment in R&D, a massive educational establishment, 98% literacy and a functional higher education that churns out plenty of competent well trained engineers and scientists and thousands arrive back home from foreign schools every year.
Every key to continued success is there; stability, attractive to foreign investment, attractive for the return of overseas students and researchers and attactive to overseas talent, huge serious funding in commercial and double use R&D and a top-down willingness to experiment and to cut down on corruption, graft and waste.
Everything they've managed to successfully do requires a indepth understanding on how the different parts of government interrelate, determination to see things through, a willingness to experiment with new ideas and a skillful handling of the economy. So far its really hard to see the "oppression" as anything other than a necessary sacrifice for national greatness.
quote: self-determination for all parts of the country?
How would this increase GDP? Or make the people as a whole more prosperous? Also its unconstitutional for Quebec to leave Canada or for any state to leave the Union (Northwest Ordinance) so how is self determination of any importance?
quote: "quite a lot" as compared to what?
North Korea, former Soviet Union, the Mao era, etc. Political 'purity' is of less importance, so long as you're effective at what you do (and knowing a few friends higher up helps!)
quote: of access to information?
Many countries actively promote or partake in censorship, it isn't a uniquely Chinese issue nor can you state in which way would it seriously infringe on their ability to grow their economy or conduct ground breaking research.
quote: of expression?
There are over 70,000 protests a year in China, my contacts there talk often of random guys with protests signs in Tianamin Square, usually their escorted off the square firmly but not as far as they've seen cruely, and often see them back there the next day.
quote: Is there freedom of the press?
As long as criticism doesn't challenge one party rule pretty much everything is aside from the same stuff that gets gag orders in the UK or the US routinely. There's alot of wiggle room in what the printed media can openly discuss, far more than you've given it credit for since its been long since accepted that some open criticism is needed to make effiency gains. Once more read Susan Shirk.
quote: And if you don't think people in China want those things, especially as they gain access to a modern western lifestyle, you're nuts.
They want great power status and their place in the sun more than they want those things which they see as the logical extension and result of said place in the sun.
Besides none of those truly gaurantee a western standard of living, and actions that would achieve that, hard work, innovation, entrepreneurship, having a business, they can do all of these things fairly freely, in fact arguably freer than in the US as there's less regulation! :v:
The sacrifice of some political freedoms for huge amounts of economic freedoms has been the unofficial public contract between the government and the people, "let us rule, and you can do whatever you want." To put it simply. All of China's efforts for increasing GDP and jobs to keep pace with growth has been to avoid discontent, all of their efforts to develop the interior and the poorer north has been to keep the people content with their job.
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:There is zero basis to this, Lyrhawn has for example said that it's not a bad summary, so clearly at least one other person doesn't find my observations objectionable.
Well I suppose that's one way to interpret Lyrhawn's remarks. I wonder if even the Chinese think they can sustain 6-8% growth for the 'indefinite' future...and if so, how credible that belief is considered to be by the rest of the world that isn't ardently pro-PRC?
I believe you're conflating two different statements, Orincoro's remarks have been that the paper as a whole and its base assumptions were not reflected by reality which I took Lyrhawns remarks to agree that in the broad strokes my observation of cold war trends to be correct or at least arguable.
As for 'indefinate' my definition is probably at least until 2050 (when most analysts predict China would have reached something close to a first world standard of living). Afterwhich is anyones guess.
The main point though is that China's specific issues were actually address by Paul Kennedy, they are typically the same problems encountered by all developing nations and they are not insurmountable difficulties and don't require too much analysis.
India's I addressed because on the surface due to their ethnic and linguistic diversity is much worse by comparison.
IP: Logged |
posted
On political oppression, there was a good article by Melissa Chan from Al Jazeera, the whole thing is worth reading, but here's a brief excerpt:
quote:"Call me if there's a revolution."
That's what I told my friend, also a journalist, as he headed to central Beijing. I did not go. Not because I've become a lackadaisical journalist, but because I was pretty certain nothing would happen and that it would be a waste of my Sunday afternoon ... -- People in China have a lot to complain about. But consider the many Americans who complain about how their country is going downhill these days. It's not quite the same, but it's a good enough comparison to give you a better idea of how dissatisfied people here are with their government. In other words - people will complain, but few would actually do anything to change the system, because the system is just good enough. Most people have food, shelter, clothing, the basics - and still remember a time when things in China were much poorer.
quote:So you might ask... why does all the news out of China seems to always talk about repression, dissatisfied people, worker protests, and the whole lot that suggests this is a country on the brink?
The best way I can explain it is partly the nature of news - that old adage that "no news is good news". As a journalist, I sometimes worry about all the focus on negative news - and we do occasionally try to bring you a fun, uplifting report. But part of the purpose of our jobs, I think, is to hold truth to power and play a watchdog role in the countries we cover. Otherwise, how can institutions and governments improve and thereby improve the lives of ordinary people?
And the other part of the explanation, is that the gross human rights violations, protests, and injustices which occur in this country happen to a small minority of the 1.3 billion people here. As I have mentioned already - people here complain, but they're usually not so worked up about it to actually do anything. China is a place where the rule of law is weak. But what this means is that if you're an ordinary person, just like an ordinary person anywhere else, you will not likely in your lifetime see the inside of a courtroom or a police station or feel the need to retain a lawyer. Life is humdrum with its natural ups and downs for most.
So in the end, I think that the predictions that political oppression will seal the end for the CCP are barking up the wrong tree. The bigger problem, as pointed out in the essay, is the lack of rule of law. People aren't going to riot anytime soon because the government fu**ed them for being political activists. There just aren't that many people who give a care about politics.
People will riot because some dude with more connections fu**ed them and the government *won't* intervene because either the dude is too big to fail or has too many government officials in his pocket. I think thats the bigger thing to watch out for, when people start to think that they're getting a raw deal.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Which completely proves my point.
You need to take a look at what you've actually been saying. There is NO response to anything you have to say that doesn't warrant, in your mind, a diarrheal explosion of excuse making, victim playing, screaming and moaning, and histrionic weeping. And if you don't get a response, it "proves your point." Your point, I assume, is that you are totally incapable of hearing anything you don't want to hear, and will do whatever it takes not allow anyone to question you, ever. I agree with you on that. You are in the major leagues when it comes to denial.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
So in short your incapable of acting like a human being. Glad you take your profession as a troll seriously.
posted
Blayne: I would seriously consider not saying your last two sentences. If you really meant them that's something you'd say by email not on a public forum.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I generally believe when your angry with someone you throw at them whatever would happen to hurt the most.
IP: Logged |
posted
The other issue is that when you're merely throwing whatever *you think* would happen to hurt the most (as opposed to what really would), that tends to be pretty prone to missing or backfiring.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Try breaking up some of those run on sentences. Ex:
quote:Politically it was a totalitarian security obsessed government that would after the ever cautious Stalin died embarked on an ambitious foreign policy to gain a strategic foothold in the third world and to export Socialist/Communist revolutions around the globe to compete with principally American interests, along side political game of oneupmanship in the United Nations (a task made significantly easier with the Independance movements of the 1960's which swelled the General Assembly with more sympathetic quasi-Socialist african states that had a somewhat justified grudge against Imperialism and its source).
My eyes get lost in all the uninterrupted data. Minimize parentheticals; simplify everything.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
@Rivka Derp.
quote: My eyes get lost in all the uninterrupted data. Minimize parentheticals; simplify everything.
Well its more akin to a free writing exercise than a research paper. The challenge was to write something in under 3 hours and I rarely have time to proof read.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: *shrug* Being reasonable didn't work.
You weren't.
And even if you had been, the reaction to not getting your way in a conversation should not be a reversion to childishness.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:this is actually in answer for an exam question that an acquaintance is about to take today that he just happened to post on a forum elsewhere, so I, with too much freetime on my hands decided to answer it as I would if I was taking the same exam.
posted
I'm not offended. I hope you will learn from this, and it makes me sad when you resist learning from these threads, but I am not offended.
I see no reason to take it personally, after all.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:I rarely have time to proof read.
Au contraire:
quote:this is actually in answer for an exam question that an acquaintance is about to take today that he just happened to post on a forum elsewhere, so I, with too much freetime on my hands decided to answer it as I would if I was taking the same exam.
Aha but you forget that the free time I had ~3 hours is the time I allocated to writing! that I have potentially more time afterwards isn't pertinent, I had a self imposed deadline!
IP: Logged |
quote:Well its more akin to a free writing exercise than a research paper. The challenge was to write something in under 3 hours and I rarely have time to proof read.
Y'know Blayne, at this point it's more than a little dishonest, this habit of yours to ask for input and then when you get it, reject it while making excuses. You've put your work up on a discussion board for comment by a variety of people, and invited commentary and criticism on it. (Yes, that's what you did.)
If it happened once in awhile, that'd be one thing, but it's so common now that you're almost synonymous with it, and I'm not even counting your dysfunctional interactions with Orincoro where the behavior of a jerk online entitles you to throw a tantrum like not just a toddler but a badly-behaved toddler.
Ugh. You 'rarely have time to proof-read'? Blayne, there isn't a person on this forum who participates very often who knows that is a very weak excuse indeed. Could you perhaps save Hatrack some time and include at the beginning, or perhaps even in the thread title, a little subtext? Something like 'serious constructive criticism wanted' or the much more usual 'only fluffy support need apply'.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Or how about you actually read the context of what I wrote.
"I rarely have time to proof read" as in When writing the god damn exam in the time provided.
Goddamnit man, show some common sense, actually look at it from my perspective and what I've been constantly trying to say; it isn't dishonest, there isn't any 'weak excuses' its the facts; I don't actually have an exam or a course that I would've had studied for, so its natural that there's some portions that would be missing or lacking detail, the goal was to just write something at little chunks at a time.
Are they actually excuses or are they understandable circumstances based on the context I provided?
"OKAY I have three hours lets write something on this random question I just read on the internet somewhere GO GO GO GO THREE HOURS REMAINING!?"
At some point certain criticisms that I've already pointed out are simply not relevant in this context, yeah, I know I could do a better job, if I had three weeks and peer review.
I presented PLENTY of subtext, and provided elaboration of the situation surrounding the exercise you either completely ignored the opening portion of my post and jumped straight to the controversy or you're being blatantly unfair.
IP: Logged |
posted
Well, you're right about one thing: I did ignore the opening portion of your post. That's because it was about geopolitics in general and China in particular. I've learned - so, I suspect, have many others around here, but I can only speak for myself - that it's rarely productive to talk about either topic with you, much less both together.
And then Orincoro gets involved, and in a discussion involving you, China, geopolitics, and Orincoro, well. Eventually it came down to you pointing out that when you're angry, the thing to do is say what you think is the most hurtful thing possible. I think my decision not to go point-for-point is pretty understandable given the outcome.
But hey, you're right. The majority of people around you are simply being unfair-this isn't your fault. And it doesn't really matter how you present your thoughts, that's not relevant. People shouldn't comment on that, that's not helpful (certainly not on a discussion board)! You're vindicated. People are being unfair, as is almost always the case when they're saying you've done something wrong.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Or how about you actually read the context of what I wrote.
"I rarely have time to proof read" as in When writing the god damn exam in the time provided.
You need to budget your time better. Three hours is plenty of time to answer those questions and still have a little time left over to go back through and fix grammar, use, and sentence stuff. Obviously you can't restructure the whole essay at that point, but you can break up run-ons, fix small errors, and insert small changes if need be. Professors know you don't have time or space to really polish like you can at home, but they still expect most of the stylistic errors to be rooted out. Save yourself 15 min next time.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"yeah, I know I could do a better job, if I had three weeks and peer review."
Many people don't ever finish anything, because if they did, they would have to sack up and defend a finished work. But if they just keep generating a lot of unfinished, unpolished, rushed and harried one-offs, it's a lot easier to feel defensive about everybody just not "getting it" or being "unfair" about an unfinished work. People who publish and hold public readings of their works do not get to stand over the reader's shoulder and explain how it would be so much better if only, if only, if only. But many people are more comfortable with the prospect of doing a half-assed job that doesn't represent an actual commitment of one's full energy and reputation. Because if they do that, and the work fails, they really are a failure at what they are trying to do. I can tell you as someone who is published as a writer, it is scary to sign your name to a finished product- you can't make any excuses for it, you can't argue with someone who doesn't find it appealing. It's done. And there will still always be those who don't like it.
But if you write something in three hours, and it ain't finished, you could do a better job in another three hours. You can do a better job in another 30 minutes. And if you can't bare to spend another three hours on it, then three weeks is going to be no help at all. Do it right, or don't do it. This in between stuff is sad.
(and lest we jump in with the "How can you expect me to spend 6 hours on everything I do until it's perfect, blah blah blah.) No. If you find the urge to post something, find it in yourself to be sure that you have done the best you can with it. If you haven't done the best you can, call it a work in progress, and *listen* to the criticisms. There's a choice there. You don't get to be sloppy and defensive all at once. Choose one.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Well, you're right about one thing: I did ignore the opening portion of your post. That's because it was about geopolitics in general and China in particular. I've learned - so, I suspect, have many others around here, but I can only speak for myself - that it's rarely productive to talk about either topic with you, much less both together.
And then Orincoro gets involved, and in a discussion involving you, China, geopolitics, and Orincoro, well. Eventually it came down to you pointing out that when you're angry, the thing to do is say what you think is the most hurtful thing possible. I think my decision not to go point-for-point is pretty understandable given the outcome.
1) Many times in the last several months whenever the discussion comes up I've presented facts, presented in depth arguments that I provided facts and citations to support; irregardless of whether its involving China or not plenty of things can be fact checked, plenty can be verified.
You entirely surrender the high ground to "lecture" me the second you actually skipped over parts of my argument because of "hurr durr he's talking about china again! :downs:"
quote: But hey, you're right. The majority of people around you are simply being unfair-this isn't your fault. And it doesn't really matter how you present your thoughts, that's not relevant. People shouldn't comment on that, that's not helpful (certainly not on a discussion board)! You're vindicated. People are being unfair, as is almost always the case when they're saying you've done something wrong.
2. You ignore an entire segment of my post and admit to it for reasons that are intellectually dishonest, you then go and conflate entirely different issues together and of course devolve yourself to degenerate worthless sarcasm and mockery that only pond scum should subject themselves to.
If you can't take the effort to write it in a constructive polite fashion than it isn't worth reading.
Look, I get angry, I'm sorry.
But your paragraph up there, it's degenerate. It's disgusting, vile vomit and you should be ashamed of yourself.
Apologize and then maybe we can get somewhere.
quote: Would someone taking this exam have been typing the essay on a computer or writing it by hand?
Usually by hand but that makes it harder to copy and paste.
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: "yeah, I know I could do a better job, if I had three weeks and peer review."
Many people don't ever finish anything, because if they did, they would have to sack up and defend a finished work. But if they just keep generating a lot of unfinished, unpolished, rushed and harried one-offs, it's a lot easier to feel defensive about everybody just not "getting it" or being "unfair" about an unfinished work. People who publish and hold public readings of their works do not get to stand over the reader's shoulder and explain how it would be so much better if only, if only, if only. But many people are more comfortable with the prospect of doing a half-assed job that doesn't represent an actual commitment of one's full energy and reputation. Because if they do that, and the work fails, they really are a failure at what they are trying to do. I can tell you as someone who is published as a writer, it is scary to sign your name to a finished product- you can't make any excuses for it, you can't argue with someone who doesn't find it appealing. It's done. And there will still always be those who don't like it.
But if you write something in three hours, and it ain't finished, you could do a better job in another three hours. You can do a better job in another 30 minutes. And if you can't bare to spend another three hours on it, then three weeks is going to be no help at all. Do it right, or don't do it. This in between stuff is sad.
(and lest we jump in with the "How can you expect me to spend 6 hours on everything I do until it's perfect, blah blah blah.) No. If you find the urge to post something, find it in yourself to be sure that you have done the best you can with it. If you haven't done the best you can, call it a work in progress, and *listen* to the criticisms. There's a choice there. You don't get to be sloppy and defensive all at once. Choose one.
Again you're completely missing the point of the exercise.
Not that you are ever capable of intellectual honesty, your entire existence on this forum at this point is just to be an ingrate and an exercise in your own knuckle biting frustration.
Careful, you might bang your keyboard too hard.
IP: Logged |
quote:But your paragraph up there, it's degenerate. It's disgusting, vile vomit and you should be ashamed of yourself.
Apologize and then maybe we can get somewhere.
What a silver tongue you have! Asked like that, I'm sure you'll get the apology you want.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Hedwig:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: You...can break up run-ons, fix small errors, and insert small changes if need be.
Not if you're writing by hand.
It depends a little on how you're writing, if you write double spaced and leave room it possible (though very messy), if you're limited to the number of blooklets you get and have to write singlespaced...
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:But your paragraph up there, it's degenerate. It's disgusting, vile vomit and you should be ashamed of yourself.
Apologize and then maybe we can get somewhere.
What a silver tongue you have! Asked like that, I'm sure you'll get the apology you want.
*shrug* I've made it known plenty of times how I feel about being made fun of via sarcasm and mockery, I consider it extremely physically painful to read.
If they at this point do not understand what I feel when I have to go through it then clearly my language isn't strongly worded enough.
IP: Logged |
posted
I am not missing the point of the exercise- you are missing the point of criticism. What I said was true, and it was valid whether you had written your "essay" in 5 minutes, or 5 months. I sense still that you have completely misunderstood what "do not assume facts not in evidence" even means- it has nothing to do with you actually taking the time to site specific facts for every point you make. Quite the opposite. I sense that the shading of language has tripped you up, because in plainer words it might have been expressed: "Do not take as a given in your arguments that certain assumptions you are making are going to be agreed upon from the outset, and therefore avoid basing sweeping conclusions on assumptions you are not sure of." In legal terms (as I prefaced, it is a Lawyer's mantra), this means that you cannot base an argument on a set of facts which have not been made available to all parties, and that you need to be quite clear on which facts are stipulated, and which are not. In the case above, you based a very broad conclusion on a set of facts that are not easily supportable. Furthermore, you based most of your work on the conclusions of another writer, whose conclusions you treated as facts. But they were not facts. They were not in the realm of agreed upon information. This is a common mistake, and one that you commit often.
But no matter. If you had taken 5 months to write it, you wouldn't have any excuses, and you would hate that, because excuses are *so* much easier than accepting any form of criticism.
Project your anger onto me if you want. It's easier to make me the villain of the piece. But I'm a lot better at this than you are, and were I you, I hope I would take the opportunity to learn something from everybody here who can say the same.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: You...can break up run-ons, fix small errors, and insert small changes if need be.
Not if you're writing by hand.
It depends a little on how you're writing, if you write double spaced and leave room it possible (though very messy), if you're limited to the number of blooklets you get and have to write singlespaced...
Pencil, erasable ink, or just crossing things out and replacing them with other things. You can do all that.
I tend to edit as I go, which makes for a slightly slower writing process with lots of crossed out words, but it looks a lot cleaner at the end. And I always go back through it again to double check one last time, where I usually catch a mistake or two that I cross out and scribble in a correction for.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I've made it known plenty of times how I feel about being made fun of via sarcasm and mockery, I consider it extremely physically painful to read.
Blayne, you're quite guilty of doing that yourself.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: And I always go back through it again to double check one last time, where I usually catch a mistake or two that I cross out and scribble in a correction for.
A sentence should not begin with a conjunction. "(B)ack through it again...one last time" is redundant. A sentence should not end in a preposition. "(W)here" is wrong.
Posts: 1794 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
