“WE WANT the Chinese to leave and the old colonial rulers to return,”

[Golden Dragon Shining]

A surprising headline ha! @_@ from 2011
 

“WE WANT the Chinese to leave and the old colonial rulers to return,” said the populist Michael Sata. “They exploited our natural resources too, but at least they took good care of us. They built schools, taught us their language and brought us the British civilisation…at least Western capitalism has a human face; the Chinese are only out to exploit us.”  Michael Chilufya Sata (5th President of Zambia)

http://www.economist.com/node/21531021

Edited September 2, 2016 by Sionnach

[Karl]

I'm afraid we are too busy bathing our faces in strong bleach, sewing shut our mouths with rough chord and laying our naked bodies on sharp beds of nails. You won't see our like again, we are erasing ourselves out of existence with a scrubbing brush of shame and a bucket filled to the brim with contrition.

Edited September 2, 2016 by Karl

[Golden Dragon Shining]

Hopefully we find ourselves before it's too late ha. I am doubtful a Chinese dominated world is desirable. It would seem world power is shifting that way though? Not saying we should recolonize ha, personally I think we should withdraw, isolate, inward focus and develop renewable plant based technologies.



 

Edited September 2, 2016 by Sionnach

[Karl]

Hopefully we find ourselves before it's too late ha. I am doubtful a Chinese dominated world is desirable. It would seem world power is shifting that way though? Not saying we should recolonize ha, personally I think we should withdraw, isolate, inward focus and develop renewable plant based technologies.

 

Freedom, individual rights and laissez faire capitalism.

 

Will we do it ? I have my doubts, but some global shock might force it upon us if we don't recede fully back into the dark ages of magical thinking and tribal tyranny

[Marblehead]

Well, not too many years ago any country that had a little power took advantage of the Chinese.  This could maybe be called "Getting even."

[Karl]

Well, not too many years ago any country that had a little power took advantage of the Chinese.  This could maybe be called "Getting even."

Perhaps its time to unleash something I have held in reserve for just such a comment (and this might answer some questions about what an Objectivist is doing on a Tao forum :-) ):

 

 

12/23/2009Murray N. Rothbard

[This article is excerpted from Economic Thought Before Adam Smith. An MP3 audio file of this article, read by Jeff Riggenbach, is available for download.]

 

 

The three main schools of political thought: the Legalists, the Taoists, and the Confucians, were established from the sixth to the fourth centuries BC. Roughly, the Legalists, the latest of the three broad schools, simply believed in maximal power to the state, and advised rulers how to increase that power. The Taoists were the world's first libertarians, who believed in virtually no interference by the state in economy or society, and the Confucians were middle-of-the-roaders on this critical issue. The towering figure of Confucius (551–479 BC), whose name was actually Ch'iu Chung-ni, was an erudite man from an impoverished but aristocratic family of the fallen Yin dynasty, who became Grand Marshal of the state of Sung. In practice, though far more idealistic, Confucian thought differed little from the Legalists, since Confucianism was largely dedicated to installing an educated philosophically minded bureaucracy to rule in China.

 

By far the most interesting of the Chinese political philosophers were the Taoists, founded by the immensely important but shadowy figure of Lao Tzu. Little is known about Lao Tzu's life, but he was apparently a contemporary and personal acquaintance of Confucius. Like the latter he came originally from the state of Sung and was a descendant of lower aristocracy of the Yin dynasty. Both men lived in a time of turmoil, wars and statism, but each reacted very differently. For Lao Tzu worked out the view that the individual and his happiness was the key unit of society. If social institutions hampered the individual's flowering and his happiness, then those institutions should be reduced or abolished altogether. To the individualist Lao Tzu, government, with its "laws and regulations more numerous than the hairs of an ox," was a vicious oppressor of the individual, and "more to be feared than fierce tigers." Government, in sum, must be limited to the smallest possible minimum; "inaction" became the watchword for Lao Tzu, since only inaction of government can permit the individual to flourish and achieve happiness. Any intervention by government, he declared, would be counterproductive, and would lead to confusion and turmoil. The first political economist to discern the systemic effects of government intervention, Lao Tzu, after referring to the common experience of mankind, came to his penetrating conclusion: "The more artificial taboos and restrictions there are in the world, the more the people are impoverished — The more that laws and regulations are given prominence, the more thieves and robbers there will be."

 

The worst of government interventions, according to Lao Tzu, was heavy taxation and war. "The people hunger because theft superiors consume an excess in taxation" and, "where armies have been stationed, thorns and brambles grow. After a great war, harsh years of famine are sure to follow."

 

The wisest course is to keep the government simple and inactive, for then the world "stabilizes itself."

 

As Lao Tzu put it: "Therefore, the Sage says: I take no action yet the people transform themselves, I favor quiescence and the people right themselves, I take no action and the people enrich themselves—"

 

Deeply pessimistic, and seeing no hope for a mass movement to correct oppressive government, Lao Tzu counseled the now familiar Taoist path of withdrawal, retreat, and limitation of one's desires.

 

Two centuries later, Lao Tzu's great follower Chuang Tzu (369–c.286 BC) built on the master's ideas of laissez-faire to push them to their logical conclusion: individualist anarchism. The influential Chuang Tzu, a great stylist who wrote in allegorical parables, was therefore the first anarchist in the history of human thought. The highly learned Chuang Tzu was a native of the state of Meng (now probably in Honan province), and also descended from the old aristocracy. A minor official in his native state, Chuang Tzu's fame spread far and wide throughout China, so much so that King Wei of the Ch'u kingdom sent an emissary to Chuang Tzu bearing great gifts and urging him to become the king's chief minister of state. Chuang Tzu's scornful rejection of the king's offer is one of the great declarations in history on the evils underlying the trappings of state power and the contrasting virtues of the private life:

 

A thousand ounces of gold is indeed a great reward, and the office of chief minister is truly an elevated position. But have you, sir, not seen the sacrificial ox awaiting the sacrifices at the royal shrine of state? It is well cared for and fed for a few years, caparisoned with rich brocades, so that it will be ready to be led into the Great Temple. At that moment, even though it would gladly change places with any solitary pig, can it do so? So, quick and be off with you! Don't sully me. I would rather roam and idle about in a muddy ditch, at my awn amusement, than to be put under the restraints that the ruler would impose. I will never take any official service, and thereby I will [be free] to satisfy my own purposes.

Chuang Tzu reiterated and embellished Lao Tzu's devotion to laissez-faire and opposition to state rule: "There has been such a thing as letting mankind alone; there has never been such a thing as governing mankind [with success]." Chuang Tzu was also the first to work out the idea of "spontaneous order," independently discovered by Proudhon in the nineteenth century, and developed by F.A. von Hayek of the Austrian School in the twentieth. Thus, Chuang Tzu: "Good order results spontaneously when things are let alone."

 

But while people in their "natural freedom" can run their lives very well by themselves, government rules and edicts distort that nature into an artificial Procrustean bed. As Chuang Tzu wrote, "The common people have a constant nature; they spin and are clothed, till and are fed — it is what may be called their 'natural freedom.'" These people of natural freedom were born and died themselves, suffered from no restrictions or restraints, and were neither quarrelsome nor disorderly. If rulers were to establish rites and laws to govern the people, "it would indeed be no different from stretching the short legs of the duck and trimming off the long legs of the heron" or "haltering a horse." Such rules would not only be of no benefit, but would work great harm. In short, Chuang Tzu concluded, the world "does simply not need governing; in fact it should not be governed."

 

Chuang Tzu, moreover, was perhaps the first theorist to see the state as a brigand writ large: "A petty thief is put in jail. A great brigand becomes a ruler of a State." Thus, the only difference between state rulers and out-and-out robber chieftains is the size of their depredations. This theme of ruler-as-robber was to be repeated, as we have seen, by Cicero, and later by Christian thinkers in the Middle Ages, though of course these were arrived at independently.

 

Taoist thought flourished for several centuries, culminating in the most determinedly anarchistic thinker, Pao Ching-yen, who lived in the early fourth century AD, and about whose life nothing is known. Elaborating on Chuang-Tzu, Pao contrasted the idyllic ways of ancient times that had had no rulers and no government with the misery inflicted by the rulers of the current age. In the earliest days, wrote Pao, "there were no rulers and no officials. [People] dug wells and drank, tilled fields and ate. When the sun rose, they went to work; and when it set, they rested. Placidly going their ways with no encumbrances, they grandly achieved their own fulfillment." In the stateless age, there was no warfare and no disorder:

 

Where knights and hosts could not be assembled there was no warfare afield — Ideas of using power for advantage had not yet burgeoned. Disaster and disorder did not occur. Shields and spears were not used; city walls and moats were not built — People munched their food and disported themselves; they were carefree and contented.

Into this idyll of peace and contentment, wrote Pao Ching-yen, there came the violence and deceit instituted by the state. The history of government is the history of violence, of the strong plundering the weak. Wicked tyrants engage in orgies of violence; being rulers they "could give free rein to all desires." Furthermore, the government's institutionalization of violence meant that the petty disorders of daily life would be greatly intensified and expanded on a much larger scale. As Pao put it:

 

Disputes among the ordinary people are merely trivial matters, for what scope of consequences can a contest of strength between ordinary fellows generate? They have no spreading lands to arouse avarice — they wield no authority through which they can advance their struggle. Their power is not such that they can assemble mass followings, and they command no awe that might quell [such gatherings] by their opponents. How can they compare with a display of the royal anger, which can deploy armies and move battalions, making people who hold no enmities attack states that have done no wrong?

To the common charge that he has overlooked good and benevolent rulers, Pao replied that the government itself is a violent exploitation of the weak by the strong. The system itself is the problem, and the object of government is not to benefit the people, but to control and plunder them. There is no ruler who can compare in virtue with a condition of non-rule.

 

Pao Ching-yen also engaged in a masterful study in political psychology by pointing out that the very existence of institutionalized violence by the state generates imitative violence among the people. In a happy and stateless world, declared Pao, the people would naturally turn to thoughts of good order and not be interested in plundering their neighbors. But rulers oppress and loot the people and "make them toil without rest and wrest away things from them endlessly." In that way, theft and banditry are stimulated among the unhappy people, and arms and armor, intended to pacify the public, are stolen by bandits to intensify their plunder. "All these things are brought about because there are rulers." The common idea, concluded Pao, that strong government is needed to combat disorders among the people, commits the serious error of confusing cause and effect.

 

The only Chinese with notable views in the more strictly economic realm was the distinguished second century B.C. historian, Ssu-ma Ch'ien (145-c.90 BC). Ch'ien was an advocate of laissez-faire, and pointed out that minimal government made for abundance of food and clothing, as did the abstinence of government from competing with private enterprise. This was similar to the Taoist view, but Ch'ien, a worldly and sophisticated man, dismissed the idea that people could solve the economic problem by reducing desires to a minimum. People, Ch'ien maintained, preferred the best and most attainable goods and services, as well as ease and comfort. Men are therefore habitual seekers after wealth.

 

Since Ch'ien thought very little of the idea of limiting one's desires, he was impelled, far more than the Taoists, to investigate and analyze free market activities. He therefore saw that specialization and the division of labor on the market produced goods and services in an orderly fashion:

 

Each man has only to be left to utilize his own abilities and exert his strength to obtain what he wishes — When each person works away at his own occupation and delights in his own business, then like water flowing downward, goods will naturally flow ceaselessly day and night without being summoned, and the people will produce commodities without having been asked.

To Ch'ien, this was the natural outcome of the free market. "Does this not ally with reason? Is it not a natural result?" Furthermore, prices are regulated on the market, since excessively cheap or dear prices tend to correct themselves and reach a proper level.

 

But if the free market is self-regulating, asked Ch'ien perceptively, "what need is there for government directives, mobilizations of labor, or periodic assemblies?" What need indeed?

Ssu-ma Ch'ien also set forth the function of entrepreneurship on the market. The entrepreneur accumulates wealth and functions by anticipating conditions (i.e., forecasting) and acting accordingly. In short, he keeps "a sharp eye out for the opportunities of the times."

 

Finally, Ch'ien was one of the world's first monetary theorists. He pointed out that increased quantity and a debased quality of coinage by government depreciates the value of money and makes prices rise. And he saw too that government inherently tended to engage in this sort of inflation and debasement.

[Marblehead]

Very good article Karl.

Perhaps its time to unleash something I have held in reserve for just such a comment (and this might answer some questions about what an Objectivist is doing on a Tao forum :-) ):

 

 

No, no surprises here.  I did mention not too long ago that your anarchism was showing.

 

It's just that you concentrate more on the economics of it than I do.

Edited September 2, 2016 by Marblehead

[Karl]

Very good article Karl.

 

 

No, no surprises here.  I did mention not too long ago that your anarchism was showing.

 

It's just that you concentrate more on the economics of it than I do.

Actually no, but then when I first plumped myself down in the Daobums armchair I was more anarcho-capitalist than objectivist. That change has occured over the span of time I began to post on the forum. The Tao isn't a complete philosophy in the sense objectivism is.

 

The concretisation of objectivist philosophy is quite naturally economics, we can talk here about spiritual gain, but that truly is a subjective, floating abstraction. When I read a recent thread -'are you happy' ? The problem here is clarified. As we used to say in NLP 'what's to stop you being happy right now' ? There is of course nothing to prevent an emotional feeling of happiness, it need not be grounded in reality, just as we might discover the gold we thought we had in our hands was fools gold. Our minds can play tricks and we are most often keen to live with the tricks, than to accept the reality. Sometimes, we are rather happy in our ignorance, or evasion, at least on the surface, but that is where the real conflicts are. Below the surface, our evasions and ignorance so are subconsciously known to us, we can avoid them for a while, but they will eventually round on us in quite horrifying ways. We can evade, but we cannot avoid the results of that evasion, we can, somewhat like the Fed, keep kicking the can down the road by magical thinking.

 

So, objectivism isn't an economic philosophy, it is a moral one. It just happens that epistemology joins the metaphysical at the only place it can really have a feedback effect on our philosophy and that is economically. I once expressed the opinion that "everything is economics", and, in the metaphysical, this is true for humans on a concrete level. We cannot have our cake and eat it, neither can we eat our cake before we have it. What's more important still, is that without 'cake' we die. So, then we must first have one value by which all others are manifest-this is the value of our lives. Our lives are ends in themselves, complete, without being sacrificed to another, or necessary for them to sacrifice to us. We need a set of principles which we call a philosophy - our own rule book for successful survival and the promotion of happiness, but, whatever principles we have must first bring us the values required to sustain life, our happiness is a result of obtaining those values by the philosophy we adopt.

[Marblehead]

Well, I stopped using "Peace & Happiness" in my signature some time ago.  "Happy" is mostly a fleeting thing.  Now happy, something happens, not happy.

 

My "Peace & Contentment" speaks more to our inner essence than to our manifest world.

 

Sure, economics plays an important part i my life as well.  I'm always doing "cost/benefit" analyses.  But that's because I know the value of value (to me).

 

So you found for your self a more complete philosophy for your manifest life.  That's great.  (But boring for some.)

 

It's good that you are here so that you can be subjected to some of the more spiritual thoughts presented.  You likely don't consciously accept most of it but it is still going into your subconscious mind.

[Karl]

Well, I stopped using "Peace & Happiness" in my signature some time ago.  "Happy" is mostly a fleeting thing.  Now happy, something happens, not happy.

 

My "Peace & Contentment" speaks more to our inner essence than to our manifest world.

 

Sure, economics plays an important part i my life as well.  I'm always doing "cost/benefit" analyses.  But that's because I know the value of value (to me).

 

So you found for your self a more complete philosophy for your manifest life.  That's great.  (But boring for some.)

 

It's good that you are here so that you can be subjected to some of the more spiritual thoughts presented.  You likely don't consciously accept most of it but it is still going into your subconscious mind.

Economics is the science of mans actions, so, without any actions there is no man. A living organism is about movement, economics is about that movement, once it stops, no movement, no life.

 

It's only boring if one is comitted to fishing without caring to catch any fish :-)

 

My mind was sufficiently filled with mysticism thank you. ;-) my cup fair overfloweth with the mysticisms. 50+ years of it man and boy. I doubt there is much I have not imbibed, practiced nor preached at one time or another. From gods as astronauts, to crystal healing, through positive thinking, manifest thinking, living in the now, meditating, astral flying, lucid dreaming, religions of several varieties to socialist collectivism, atheism, agnosticism. All colours and many T shirts. I still enjoy the complexities of men and to drop tiny pebbles on the roofs of their places of worship.

[Marblehead]

Economics is the science of mans actions, so, without any actions there is no man. A living organism is about movement, economics is about that movement, once it stops, no movement, no life.

 

I can't really argue with that.

 

It's only boring if one is comitted to fishing without caring to catch any fish :-)

 

I have done that.  I have even gone fishing without putting any bait on the hook.  It was the act of being with nature and being alone in my mind.

 

My mind was sufficiently filled with mysticism thank you. ;-) my cup fair overfloweth with the mysticisms. 50+ years of it man and boy. I doubt there is much I have not imbibed, practiced nor preached at one time or another. From gods as astronauts, to crystal healing, through positive thinking, manifest thinking, living in the now, meditating, astral flying, lucid dreaming, religions of several varieties to socialist collectivism, atheism, agnosticism. All colours and many T shirts. I still enjoy the complexities of men and to drop tiny pebbles on the roofs of their places of worship.

 

Hehehe.  Mystic overload.  Too much of too much.  Harmony works.

 

[Marblehead]

My mind was sufficiently filled with mysticism thank you. ;-) my cup fair overfloweth with the mysticisms. 50+ years of it man and boy. I doubt there is much I have not imbibed, practiced nor preached at one time or another. From gods as astronauts, to crystal healing, through positive thinking, manifest thinking, living in the now, meditating, astral flying, lucid dreaming, religions of several varieties to socialist collectivism, atheism, agnosticism. All colours and many T shirts. I still enjoy the complexities of men and to drop tiny pebbles on the roofs of their places of worship.

BTW  Yep, you have had more challenges than I have.  Hehehe.  I was too busy living to do all that shit.

Edited September 2, 2016 by Marblehead

[Karl]

BTW  Yep, you have more challenges that I have.  Hehehe.  I was too busy living to do all that shit.

So was I, but I did it anyway.

[Karl]

 

Economics is the science of mans actions, so, without any actions there is no man. A living organism is about movement, economics is about that movement, once it stops, no movement, no life.

 

I can't really argue with that.

It's only boring if one is comitted to fishing without caring to catch any fish :-)

 

I have done that. I have even gone fishing without putting any bait on the hook. It was the act of being with nature and being alone in my mind.

My mind was sufficiently filled with mysticism thank you. ;-) my cup fair overfloweth with the mysticisms. 50+ years of it man and boy. I doubt there is much I have not imbibed, practiced nor preached at one time or another. From gods as astronauts, to crystal healing, through positive thinking, manifest thinking, living in the now, meditating, astral flying, lucid dreaming, religions of several varieties to socialist collectivism, atheism, agnosticism. All colours and many T shirts. I still enjoy the complexities of men and to drop tiny pebbles on the roofs of their places of worship.

 

Hehehe. Mystic overload. Too much of too much. Harmony works.

 

I'm always alone in my mind :-) twos definitely one too many. Nature is everywhere from our toe nails to the dog shit on the sidewalk. There is no need to 'go' anywhere to be with nature, but a stroll on a river bank, or climbing a rock face on a bright summer morning can be exhilarating. I don't do fishing, but I'm sure it's similar, alone with our thoughts, or no time for thinking. Motorcycling does it for me, can't go thinking off the job or bad things happen at high speeds.

 

I did all those 'spiritual' things over a very long time, not in the space of a few years. I was experimenting with 'out of body' experiences at the age of 11. Even read transactional analysis before I was 13. I had a mother that loved it all and still does. If she wasn't sitting under pyramids and chanting mantras, we were discussing Von danikin and every crank book we had lining the shelves. My brother has a blog on NDE, so you know, we lived that shit from dusk to dawn.

Edited September 2, 2016 by Karl

[Marblehead]

I guess the Chinese were busy so we forgot about them.

I'm always alone in my mind :-) twos definitely one too many. Nature is everywhere from our toe nails to the dog shit on the sidewalk. There is no need to 'go' anywhere to be with nature, but a stroll on a river bank, or climbing a rock face on a bright summer morning can be exhilarating. I don't do fishing, but I'm sure it's similar, alone with our thoughts, or no time for thinking. Motorcycling does it for me, can't go thinking off the job or bad things happen at high speeds.

 

True.  I don't fish anymore.  Stopped when I built my first pond and worked hard at trying to keep the fish healthy.  But yes, anything that takes us out in nature.  Oh, I don't ride any more either.

I did all those 'spiritual' things over a very long time, not in the space of a few years. I was experimenting with 'out of body' experiences at the age of 11. Even read transactional analysis before I was 13. I had a mother that loved it all and still does. If she wasn't sitting under pyramids and chanting mantras, we were discussing Von danikin and every crank book we had lining the shelves. My brother has a blog on NDE, so you know, we lived that shit from dusk to dawn.

 

I was raised Christian but lost it during my mid-teens.  Read Greek Mythology but knew it was just story-telling with a concept-message.

 

Tried a couple other things but none of it was "real" for me.  Therefore my Materialism.  (Some call it being a Physicalist.)

 

But Taoism asks questions that I really think I don't need to answer - just recognize the questions.  I enjoy that.

 

[joeblast]

eh, china, sdr?

 

but the sdr is a basket of shit sandwiches...

[Karl]

@ MH. ;-)

[dust]

Perhaps you should make a habit of reading articles past the first paragraph.

 

"But that was in 2007, when Mr Sata, as leader of the Patriotic Front, then Zambia's main opposition party, was eager to tap into growing resentment against Chinese investors..

 

...

 

Over the past decade, the Chinese have invested over $2 billion in Zambia, the GDP of which is only $16 billion. More than half of that came in last year. And China is committed to pouring in billions more. There are now about 300 Chinese companies in Zambia, most of them privately owned, employing around 25,000 locals. Standards differ: some companies treat their workers badly, but most of the big state-owned companies genuinely seek to respect local labour laws.

 

"We are learning," says Mr Zhou, with an apologetic smile. In the past, he admits, mistakes were made. An explosion at a Chinese explosives plant in 2005, which killed 51 Zambian workers, and last year's shooting of protesting Zambian miners by Chinese managers at the Collum coal mine, wounding 11, certainly tarnished China's image.

 

The Chinese are exasperated by the way in which they have been singled out for criticism, particularly in the Western press. Mr Zhou says this is mainly due to Western fears of China's economic and political resurgence. But cultural and linguistic barriers also play a role. The Chinese, most of whom do not speak English, tend to be reserved, to live separately in compounds behind high security walls and to go straight home after work rather than prop up the bar with the locals. Generally hard-working, disciplined and dedicated to getting the job done, they are often puzzled by what they see as the Zambians' often lackadaisical attitude to life."

 

 

They mention a couple of nasty things the Chinese have done. Perhaps it would interest you to look into the history of Northern Rhodesia under British rule.

 

Nobody should be defending China as a political or corporate entity, but in comparison European colonialism was still worse. The Portuguese essentially introduced the slave trade on a large scale, then the British went along and started grabbing minerals and disenfranchising the native population, killing quite a few people along the way. And that was an extremely tame version of British Imperialism.

[Marblehead]

Well, the Zambian government allowed the Chinese to enter the country, establish production, and add to the economy of the nation.

 

Trying to remain unbiased, but, ...  What more does Zambia want from China?

 

I suspect that the Zambian workers aren't treated much differently than are the Chinese workers in China.

[gendao]

Nobody should be defending China as a political or corporate entity, but in comparison European colonialism was still worse. The Portuguese essentially introduced the slave trade on a large scale, then the British went along and started grabbing minerals and disenfranchising the native population, killing quite a few people along the way. And that was an extremely tame version of British Imperialism.

European colonialism was FAR worse - there's just no comparison.  Aside from assorted atrocities and human/environmental abuses, the primary difference was that Europeans SEIZED natives' land and planted their flags in them.  IOW, rather than respectfully playing by the locals' rules as immigrants, they suddenly TOOK OWNERSHIP of their land and resources, claimed them as their own, and installed their own governments.  And then subjugated the dispossessed natives under them!!!

 

So, even WITHOUT any additional graphic abuses - such massive land grabs and regime change ALONE are abhorrent!!!

 

What the Chinese are doing is simply business with Africans - providing services for a fee (not free, of course).  Which they also have before in history.  This is no different than hiring someone to renovate your kitchen.  Fears of exploitation with them now are mainly just latent fears of repeating history with Europeans from centuries ago...  Which really has nothing to do with the Chinese, though.

Edited September 2, 2016 by gendao

[dust]

European colonialism was FAR worse - there's just no comparison.  Aside from assorted atrocities and human/environmental abuses, the primary difference was that Europeans SEIZED natives' land and planted their flags in them.  IOW, rather than respectfully playing by the locals' rules as immigrants, they suddenly TOOK OWNERSHIP of their land and resources, claimed them as their own, and installed their own governments.  And then subjugated the dispossessed natives under them!!!

 

So, even WITHOUT any additional graphic abuses - such massive land grabs and regime change ALONE are abhorrent!!!

 

What the Chinese are doing is simply business with Africans - providing services for a fee (not free, of course).  Which they also have before in history.  This is no different than hiring someone to renovate your kitchen.  Fears of exploitation with them now are mainly just latent fears of repeating history with Europeans from centuries ago...  Which really has nothing to do with the Chinese.

 

Well, yes.

 

I was trying to refrain from my exasperated/angry tone, because it doesn't usually help my case. But you've said pretty much what I wanted to say.

 

I almost linked this http://listverse.com/2014/02/04/10-evil-crimes-of-the-british-empire/ and various other examples of British atrocities and wrongdoings, but decided to try and be more moderate, mostly pointing out the fact that the article was taken out of context. Well, the cat's out of the bag now!

 

To be sure, though, China is still pretty indefensible in many areas, both at home and abroad... but abroad, no more so than anyone else, really. They haven't invaded any countries for a few decades now (the same not being said for certain Western powers..)