The transition to a bipolar world with a U.S. sphere and a Chinese sphere would be a huge shock to both sides. I don't know if it would be a fairer world or not; regardless, we all seem intent on doing this.
This article is another in a long line of very scary news about the U.S.-China tensions. I hope diplomacy and peace will prevail eventually.
I disagree with your suggestion that diplomacy is necessarily a form of submission. Peace can still be made while maintaining a position of strength. For example, U.S.-Soviet relations.
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
Can you explain what you mean by this? Japan, Taiwan and SK all moved up the value chain and are still US trade partners. I'm pretty sure it's the US that has "broken up" with china, not the other way around. Lastly, using the word slave to describe something other than slavery diminishes the value of the word. The US does not force China to make products for them.
What value does that word hold for you and why would it diminish it for you?
That word has been used to describe many things for many years in many different ways. It is not a holy or forbidden word and it wasn't used in anyway that deviated from standard use.
I don't think slave is a forbidden word. Maybe I was too strong in my own wording. I didn't mean "slave" specifically, but any word used incorectly, and especialy those with negative connotations, used as a quick way to "win" an argument.
>and it wasn't used in anyway that deviated from standard use.
Slave:[0]
1
a person held in forced servitude
2
disapproving : a person who is completely subservient to a dominating influence
a slave to fashion/technology
3
: a device (such as the printer of a computer) that is directly responsive to another
4
: drudge, toiler
While 4 could have been the intent here (2 has a negative conotation for the slave) if we only look at it's ability to descibe the relationship between China and the US, looking at the whole sentence:
In other words, slave moved up the value chain and no longer wants to slave for their masters.
It is clear that 1 is being used here. We are using slave as both a noun and a verb, and describing the US as the master. I should also note that 1 is by far the most common definition, and other dictionaries have only that one when used as a noun.[1]
Or future generations will look at ours as we look at the British who exploited India, or the Europeans who exploited the Americas, or the merchants of the triangular trade, or any of the other thousands of episodes of mass exploitation for profit. Fingers crossed for that and not a fascist uprising.
This is laughably absurd. The last few decades have seen a massive reduction in poverty in China. China has had a huge trade surplus with the US for decades, and probably the rest of the world too. How on earth is that exploitation?
Despite this, someone in the future will write their dissertation on this topic in the affirmative. They will be considered one of the great visionaries of their time in certain circles, despite being totally wrong.
