本帖最后由 Pyree 于 2013-5-2 21:29 编辑
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.
|
楼主: syqwin
[复制链接]
楼主
)
