Shi Dakai (石達開) was one of the major leaders of the Taiping Rebellion, a failed peasant uprising against the corrupt Qing dynasty. After accepting defeat at the hands of the Qing army, Shi Dakai sacrificed himself in exchange for the lives of his troops:
A monument of Shi Dakai in Chengdu
“On 13 June, Shi Dakai negotiated with the Qing to spare his men’s lives if he turned himself in. He entered Qing camps with three followers, dressed in formal Taiping uniform, and spoke to the Qing fearlessly. He was questioned and imprisoned, and on the 25th he was executed by slow slicing in the Anshun Court.”
Though it might be stating the obvious, I want to clarify my stance on Zionism vs. compensation for Aboriginals:
I disagree with Zionism, but support heavy compensation in land and resources for the Aboriginal people. Obviously, it would have made more sense had America and Western powers funneled everything they had into creating a Jewish state into creating a high-quality living environment for the Aboriginal people.
The reason I disagree with Zionism is the same reason I don’t agree with the Hakka diaspora annexing a plot of land near the Yellow River to create a state for themselves at the expense of the people currently living there: roughly 2000 years is just too long a period of time, in my opinion. The people settled there likely having nothing to do with those who were responsible for the original loss of land. It’s too psychotic to commit slow genocide against an innocent population for crimes they are not connected to.
However, the Aboriginal people are still being victimized by the same overall energy (ie. general diaspora of people, general cultural mentality, etc.) that caused untold destruction and suffering to their populations upon its arrival to the Americas not that long ago. It’s a circumstance where one group of people seriously damaged the lifestyle of another group of people, are able to provide compensation, and probably should.
In a previous post, I discussed the phenomena of consensus which I felt was more common within the Eastern tradition. However, I don’t think it’s a good thing for people to sacrifice their actual opinion and thoughts and go along with the group because it destroys important dissenting and minority views that often are the greater truth.
It would be great if all people had good intentions and their natural stances were generally accurate, for the welfare of the group, and in agreement with everybody else, but that’s not always the case. The fairest thing is democracy where people vote in what they think. If by chance there is a consensus, then great, but if not, majority rule should prevail until people with a minority position make a compelling case to the general public long enough that it becomes the new majority stance.
Democracy is exhausting, but still the best way, in my opinion. I still disagree with the elitist set-up of the West which I barely even regard as democratic. Western states have destroyed true fledgling democracies in Southeast Asia, the Middle East, Latin America etc. I support direct democracy (because it’s a natural right and) since technology makes it particularly feasible now. Those who think the public are dumb need to work hard to explain things in a way people can comprehend. Often if it can’t be explained to the average person, one may not understand it well enough themselves.
These micro-communities were high-functioning (many equipped with sewage systems,) environmentally friendly, and adapt for self-defence.
“They are inscribed as exceptional examples of a building tradition and function exemplifying a particular type of communal living and defensive organization, and, in terms of their harmonious relationship with their environment, an outstanding example of human settlement.”
When I first stumbled across this memorial-sculpture on Google Image Search, I thought it was gorgeous until I realized it was of Mao Zedong, (whose backwards policies and confused leadership absolutely decimated the Chinese countryside creating famine and starvation for countless peoples of rural China.) It pretty much lost all mystique at that point.
On top of that you can tell his wife, Jiang Qing, was an ENORMOUS bitch.
Jiang Qing showed few signs of sorrow during the days following Mao’s death. It was uncertain who controlled the Communist Party’s central organs during this transition period. Hua Guofeng, as Mao’s designated successor, held the titular power as the acting Chairman of the Communist Party and as Premier. However, Hua was not very influential. Some sources indicate that Mao mentioned Jiang Qing before his death in a note to Hua Guofeng, telling him to “go consult her” if he runs into problems (Chinese: 有事找江青).
Jiang Qing believed that upholding the status quo, where she was one of the highest-ranked members of the central authorities, would mean that she would effectively hold onto power. In addition, she believed that her status as Mao’s widow would make it difficult for her to be removed. She continued to invoke Mao’s name in her major decisions, and acted as first-in-charge.
Her political ambitions and lack of respect for most of the elder revolutionaries within the Central Committee became notorious. Her support within the Central Committee was dwindling, and her public approval was dismal. Ye Jianying, a renowned general, met in private with Hua Guofeng and Wang Dongxing, commander of a secret service-like organization called the 8341 Special Regiment. They determined that Jiang Qing and her associates must be removed by force in order to restore stability.