恭祝女王陛下万寿无疆～

syqwin 发表于 2013-5-2 14:19
one remarkable feature of UK ideology is its evolution.

hundreds of years ago, the royal famil ...

"hundreds of years ago, the royal family stands for capitalism, colonialism, jingoism, racialism...all the ugly things, you name them.

but after hundreds of years, the ugly and savage UK ideology is disappeared. It becomes a civilized and progressive ideology."

I would attribute that change to the progress of the society and its people. USA and France, without a royal family also managed to change their society to today's standard. It is ultimately the people that influence the society and not the royal family, even in UK (it is a constitutional monachy where the royal family has little to no influence, remember?). Don't attribute the great progress made by the people to the royal family. You are the people, a part of the society and you contribute to the society and social change for the better as well. Don't be so humble and let Elizabeth and her relatives take all the credit. That credit goes to the people, that means you too!

"a report from southern china morning post shows that 'many' (I won't mention the miserable number) HK citizens want hk to be a british overseas territory.

why? do they want to abandon their motherland and become slaves of a foreign monarch? of course not. as I said before, monarch only bears the title, behind the crown, it is a world of freedom, democracy, human rights...which ‘many’ long to share. besides, it just shows the governance failure of "dynasty of heaven" in hk."

I certain don't feel that way. There is noting more shameful than being colonized. I don't understand why Chinese in HK are willing to be BNO. It is true HK is not as democratic as it used to be because of the influence from CCP. But HK was not a true democracy to start with. The governor of colonial HK was appointed by Elizabeth. People are nostalgic about the better colonial time and prefer HK under GB than HK under CCP because in comparison, HK under GB is better than HK under CCP. But don't forget, there is an alternative. If mainland China becomes a democratic republic, then HK will have it's own elected representative in Beijing as well as the right to vote for the president of China, their very own Chinese president.  I'd rather see China become a democratic republic and Hong Kong be a part of it. That would be the ultimate democratic goal that Chinese should aim for. "dynasty of heaven" is a failure not just in HK but in mainland China and at the international stage. You don't need to remind me of that. Their single party state government, open corruption, poor quality control is just failure after failure. CCP can't fix what they have on their plate and now they are trying to fix things in HK, that idea is laughable.

Like I said before, I'd rather see us Chinese starting our own democratic republic. People can be and should be responsible for their own world of freedom, democracy, human rights, etc. There is no need for the royal family to support it (e.g. France and USA). The royal family used to oppress the people. The royal family now stands for a world of freedom, democracy, human rights because they know the true power rests on the people. The people is something they can't oppose. If they oppose the people, they will be goner a long time ago. So they choose what can save their asses and "give" democracy back to the people. And look! People still thinks they are great and special, the royal family can demand respect and have loads of money, even when they serves no real purpose in today's society. A foregin monachy gave the people of HK something better than what they have now should not be a reason for people to stop. We Chinese can have a democratic republic and we tried in 1989. I have no doubt there will be another and successful one in the future.

"H.M the queen gives the rights to her people, the people can even use those rights to rebel the queen. but in the so called "dynasty of heaven", people don't have a monarch, and people don't have rights neither. H.M the queen bears the title only, 'the people's republic' only bears the title either."

The royal family "gave" democracy to the people, that is undeniable. But if her ancestor didn't they will end up like the French royal family. So it is not a difficult choice. The people were screaming, "Give me freedom or I give you death!". Now that people have their freedom, the people are kind enough and they live up to their end of the bargin. That's people in UK and their choice. I don't want that, I want a republic as I see absalutly no point on having a royal faimly. I am entitled to have my own opinion in a democracy. I am aware that the United Kingdom is not a dictatorship ruled by the king, and I am aware of PRC is not a republic of the people. What I am talking and I want you to be aware of is that I am talking about a true republic like that of USA and France. They were and are great nationals and without a monarchy. That just shows how irrelevent a monarchy is in today's world. The monarchy serves no real purpose. You even said they are in names only. Yet, they require our respect (I am not going to give them any) and they still keep the wealth they took from the people. The monarchy is as great as how much the people give credit to them, they are nothing without the people. The people is what makes a country great, so why not just have the people?

This is starting to sound like 孫中山 vs. 梁啟超.

Pyree 发表于 2013-5-2 17:01
"hundreds of years ago, the royal family stands for capitalism, colonialism, jingoism, racialism.. ...

As a journalist, I hold Master Liang Qichao in high regard. He is the founding father of Chinese journalism. I even read his speech in Adelaide when he visited Australia in 1900 and I found we do share many commons.

The evolution in Britain started with The Great Charter in BC 1215, which is a law to balance power between the royal family and noble. In another sentence, there was nothing related to the people in Britain.

As for The Glorious Revolution in Britain, it is bloodless, not like you said 'freedom or death', in fact, it is more like a religion conflict than a people's revolution.

The one who did the 'freedom or death' is French. I love Victor Hugo's <les miserable> and its theme song <Do you hear the people sing?>, I give my respect to the uncompromising French people. But do you know how many lives were taken during the French Revolution? How much blood lost among fights? The purpose of revolution is to offer a better life not to send someone to the after life. Another French philosopher wrote a book to criticize the revolution -- <The old regime and the revolution>, feel free to read it.

and the USA. Forgive me, in my opinion, the independence of USA is just a joke. Why they want independence? the rise of a new race? the rebellion of colonialism? NO,NO,~ because they did not like the tax rate. How did they get independence? struggle of the people? lucky to have General George Washington? No, No~because the French Marquis Lafayette. (without Marquis Lafayette, George Washington and his colleagues would be convicts, they may even be sent to Australia )

back to "dynasty of heaven",

"I'd rather see us Chinese starting our own democratic republic" -- that is a real 'Chinese dream'

a dream that cannot be even dreamed at least in mid term future.

you may ask why?

in a sentence, what we have and only have is 'the people' rather than 'citizen'.

of course, 'the people' could evolve to ‘citizen’，but we got 1.3b population

it will be a long time.

syqwin 发表于 2013-5-2 18:25
As a journalist, I hold Master Liang Qichao in high regard. He is the founding father of Chinese j ...

"The evolution in Britain started with The Great Charter in BC 1215, which is a law to balance power between the royal family and noble. In another sentence, there was nothing related to the people in Britain."

I wouldn't call that a revolution. It is only a redistribution of power among the oppressors. Nothing was changed for the slaves and the serfs.

"As for The Glorious Revolution in Britain, it is bloodless, not like you said 'freedom or death', in fact, it is more like a religion conflict than a people's revolution."

I question whether this can really be called a revolution. It's a part invasion, part religious conflict and the constitutional monarchy was established, but the royalty still have a lot of power. Even Victoria, who reign much of the 19th century until she died in 1901, had a lot of influence on British politics.

In the 1860s, she went into secluded mourning  for her husband. She didn't do much for the people for many years and republican movement developed, theyquestioned her performance as their queen, and also thepurpose  of the monarchy itself. So that's the British demand for her to relinquish her power if she can not function properly and she did respond to it by meeting the the expectation of the general public again, as well as passing a series of changes that truely makes the people powerful, between 1860s-1880s. For example, reform Act 1867 that gives more people the power to vote, secret ballot in 1872 and Representation of the Peoples act in 1884 allowing people in the country to vote.

It is wise that the British monarch listen to the people and usually grant the royal assent, unlike the monarchs in continental Europe who ignore the paliment and the people. They made wise decision to allow the people to drive social reform. But you can see the British royal family was rather reluctant when giving up their power. They keep their influence on the paliment, that shows very clearly their determination to not relinquish their power. The process took several hundred years. That's several hundred years of power struggle between the people and the royal family. Not bloody, but a bloody long time.

"The one who did the 'freedom or death' is French. I love Victor Hugo's <les miserable> and its theme song <Do you hear the people sing?>, I give my respect to the uncompromising French people. But do you know how many lives were taken during the French Revolution? How much blood lost among fights? The purpose of revolution is to offer a better life not to send someone to the after life. Another French philosopher wrote a book to criticize the revolution -- <The old regime and the revolution>, feel free to read it."

I know it is very bloody. When I say I condamn violence in my first post, that is because I know the number of unessesary violent death in the French revolution. The French, they managed to form a functioning republic after several attempts. So the statment "The purpose of revolution is to offer a better life not to send someone to the after life." is valid when you are living during the time of revolution. When you do a before vs. after successful revolution comparison, the benefits become apparent. I think the lives saved in the long run, although will not replace those who were killed, will be better than continuous unjust persecution and famine of the people under a dictatorship (very much like NK now).

"and the USA. Forgive me, in my opinion, the independence of USA is just a joke. Why they want independence? the rise of a new race? the rebellion of colonialism? NO,NO,~ because they did not like the tax rate. How did they get independence? struggle of the people? lucky to have General George Washington? No, No~because the French Marquis Lafayette. (without Marquis Lafayette, George Washington and his colleagues would be convicts, they may even be sent to Australia"

You can't blame the American people for rebelling. The "democratic" British paliment didn't have a seat for the Americans although America was their tertritory back then. The British paliment passed the Stamp Act without the opinion of the American people. If imposing taxation forcibally on the people is not enough reason for the people to rebel, then I don't know what is.

""I'd rather see us Chinese starting our own democratic republic" -- that is a real 'Chinese dream'

a dream that cannot be even dreamed at least in mid term future."

It wasn't a dream, we did it in 1911 although it was very fragile. We almost had it again in 1989.

"you may ask why?

in a sentence, what we have and only have is 'the people' rather than 'citizen'.

of course, 'the people' could evolve to ‘citizen’，but we got 1.3b population

it will be a long time. "

Yes, a lot of people. But did you see how quickly MZD made the people of China crazy and start idolizing him? That was when communication relied on printed media and were clumsy. He still managed to brainwash people in China with just his books and posters rather quickly. CCP was formed in 1921 and in 1949, they control mainland China, it took only 28 years. I am sure with communication a lot quicker now, the democratic movement will aslo be a lot quicker. Look at 1989, it only took many weeks for people to unite under the banner of democracy. The CCP knows how dangerous digital communication can be, that's why they are spending so much for "social stability".

I don't think we are ever going to agree on republic or constitutional monarchy, very much like 孫中山 and 梁啟超.

But one thing is sure, either way, it is better than "dynasty of heaven" as of now.

Pyree 发表于 2013-5-2 21:20
"The evolution in Britain started with The Great Charter in BC 1215, which is a law to balance pow ...

well, you are lucky because a republic now is the only practical way in real world.

Dr. Sun vanishes monarchy into history pages forever and history cannot make U turn.

but I still believe constitutional monarchy would be a better choice for China. Pity there is no qualified royal family.

if there was, they would defend Chinese culture and the culture revolution would never happen.

syqwin 发表于 2013-5-2 22:47
well, you are lucky because a republic now is the only practical way in real world.

Dr. Sun van ...

I don't think an emperor, or having a royal family in China can stop the Maoist cult from destroying our culture. Preserving the culture requires the dedication of everyone from that culture, just like destroying it, which MZD did managed to muster the whole country to do.

Pyree 发表于 2013-5-3 16:20
I don't think an emperor, or having a royal family in China can stop the Maoist cult from destroyi ...

The British Commonwealth has a royal family, they are not only guarding British culture & tradition, but also expanding their impact all over the world.

Japan has a royal family and they are the flame keeper of Nihon culture, even modern Japan has been firmly practicing the scenario of de-Asianization and Europeanization (脱亚入欧), which was introduced by a Japanese philosopher Fukuzawa Yukichi (the guy printed on 10k Jap Yin), Japan can still hold its own culture properly.

of course there are many examples beyond the above two. With the fact of UK and Jap, I think it is more than enough to say that royal family of constitutional monarchy is the defender of one country's culture and tradition.

If there was an entitled monarch, there would never be an uncrowned emperor (or shall I call it Dear / Great Leader),like M.

syqwin 发表于 2013-5-3 16:56
The British Commonwealth has a royal family, they are not only guarding British culture & traditio ...

How about France, Germany and Italy? No monarch, but still managed to keep their tradition and culturally very influential internationally.

"If there was an entitled monarch, there would never be an uncrowned emperor (or shall I call it Dear / Great Leader),like M."

People didn't like the Qing royal family and that's why ROC succeeded in their revolution. ROC didn't do too well so that why MZD made all sorts of promise to gain people's support. If the Qing royal family was so popular that MZD couldn't gather enough supporter to become a dictator, that would also probably mean Xinhai revolution failed and China remains an empire.