January 9, 2007
WE'RE NOT IN LITTLE ROCK ANYMORE...:
Clashes after China school closed (BBC, 1/09/07)
Chinese authorities have forcibly shut a school in Shanghai for 2,000 children of poor migrants, sparking clashes with parents and teachers, it is reported.About 300 government officials and police interrupted classes and ordered pupils onto buses at Jianying Hope School in the Putuo district on Friday.
The fracas occurred on Monday after parents returned to demand the children be allowed to finish their school term.
The pupils were mainly children of migrant workers from Anhui province. [...]
The BBC's Quentin Sommerville in Beijing says migrants' low pay and long hours has given Chinese manufacturers a great competitive advantage.
But the workers share few of the rights enjoyed by China's city dwellers and are often subject to discrimination, our correspondent adds.
Under Chinese law, children of the country's tens of millions of poor migrant workers are often barred from attending local schools unless they pay steep fees.
Last month, China announced plans to abolish tuition and other fees for 150 million rural students, in a bid to narrow the gap between wealthy coastal provinces and poorer regions.
However, children of rural families who have migrated to China's booming cities will not be included.
Last year, the Beijing city government began a campaign to shut down up to 239 unregistered migrant schools attended by more than 95,000 children.
While these schools are usually unregistered, human rights groups say they exist because of the government's refusal to help migrant workers and their families.
For all their tough-guy chatter, our nativists are too decent to countenance these kind of tactics. Their unseriousness becomes them. Posted by Orrin Judd at January 9, 2007 12:47 PM
Last month, China announced plans to abolish tuition and other fees for 150 million rural students, in a bid to narrow the gap between wealthy coastal provinces and poorer regions.
However, children of rural families who have migrated to China's booming cities will not be included.
These are the equivalent of our Oakies, who were american citizens who tried to exercise the right to move from one state to another in pursuit of the American dream. It seems strange to confuse them with nativists who seem to be objecting people coming uninvited from another NATION.
Posted by: Gerald at January 9, 2007 1:19 PMExactly, nativism is just nationalism, which is anti-American.
Posted by: oj at January 9, 2007 1:32 PM???
Could you explain further, please? or am I walking into the middle of a converstation and do not understand the terminology?
Posted by: Gerald at January 9, 2007 2:42 PMNationalism is based on ethnicity, as is nativism.
Posted by: oj at January 9, 2007 2:45 PMBut how is that related to anti-americanism? Or being unamerican? Or not american? I am sorry, but I cannot remember exactly the words in your comment before my second one, since it seems to have disappeared.
I think I can see how ethnicity could define a nation, and thus morph into nationalism. And historically, america was never a nation with a single ethnicity, being more diverse after the great waves of immigration several generations ago (not to mention the import of slave labor). so I think I can see that thinking and behaving ethnically can be non-american, or even anti-american if it takes a violent turn.
But that merely defines America by what it isn't ("we don't think along ethnic lines"), which is not a proper definition. So what IS it?
Posted by: Gerald at January 9, 2007 3:32 PMBelief in the principles of the Founding:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
Posted by: oj at January 9, 2007 4:11 PMAgreed. Continuing in the same vein, and in the same document following your quote...
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Posted by: Gerald at January 9, 2007 6:31 PMMy apologies: I accidentally hit the post button instead of preview.
So an American "citizen" is someone whose rights are secured by a government whose duty is to ensure that an environment exists to "effect their safety and happiness"?
Posted by: Gerald at January 9, 2007 6:35 PMNo. Anyone who believes that states exist to secure God-given rights is American. Anyone who chooses to be governed by this state, according to its principles, is an American.
Posted by: oj at January 9, 2007 8:11 PMWell, given the recent Chinese history with social engineering (the blooming flowers and the cultural revolution), this is probably small potatoes.
But your point is correct - even Pat Buchanan isn't going to go that far. Too many other conservatives would punch him in the nose if he did.
Posted by: ratbert at January 10, 2007 12:48 AMAgreed. Well said Mr. Judd.
Posted by: Gerald at January 10, 2007 12:40 PM