Humanities desk
< March 23	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 25 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 24

Sino-American Friendship Society

In many western European and Australian nations "China Friendship Societies" exist that attempt to foster friendship and better relations between the PRC and the west. For example Society of Anglo-Chinese Understanding [SACU] , New Zealand China Friendship Society, Australia China Friendship Society. Are there any similar organziations in the United States? --Stalin1942 00:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Velikij Vozhd! No such general organisation seems to exist, though there is a group called the Committee of 100, which, amongst other things, focuses on Chinese-American relations. Unfortunately, the Wikipedia page on this group contains very little information. Clio the Muse 00:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Five Criticisms of Sacred Tradition in the Catholic Church

I have heard that Catholics believe that apart from the Bible, another source of infallible, divine revelation in the world is the Catholic Church's Sacred Traditions. They believe that the some messages taught by Jesus were not originally written down and included as part of the Holy Bible but were rather spoken and passed down, by Christians, and throughout generations, orally. I don't understand. How can tradition be infallible? I have the five following criticisms of Sacred Tradition:

1. Do Catholics have any evidence to prove this claim of Sacred Tradition being a source of divine revelation?

2. Why would Jesus decide not to include some of his teachings as part of the Bible, but rather let them be passed down orally, anyway?

3. When a person says something to another person, and that person passes the message onto someone else and so on, the message gradually becomes more and more distorted and exaggerated. This is called the "Chinese whispers" effect. So even if some infallible messages are passed down as tradition, they can become very different to that of the original message.

4. Some bad or un-Christian people could deliberately decide to add new messages, remove some messages, and change some messages in the so-called infallible traditions so that they are not really completely true and infallible any more.

5. The Bible itself has passages criticising tradition. For example, in 1 Peter 1:18, Saint Peter says, "For as much as you know that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers."

The Anonymous One 01:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred Tradition refers to the history of salvation and to apostolic succession. By the Grace of God, the Apostles spread the faith and become bishops. The bishops are the legitimate successors of the twelve apostles.

The Bible Is The Word of God. However, God is omnipresent and He may intercede as He wishes. One must not read the Bible like the Koran.

Most notably, the Spirit of the Lord is present within the Church. Only Through the Grace of the Holy Spirit can men attain Salvation.

The Eucharist is literally the daily bread of communion that allows the grace of the ever present Lord to save souls. Protestants who do not take communion cannot be saved. In fact, the Church is the mystical Body of Christ.

There Is One, Holy, Apostolic and Catholic Church. Because there is only one Spirit, there can only be One Church. By His social Royalty, Jesus-Christ Is The Invisible Head Of The Church. The Pope Is the Visible Leader.

Popes themselves are keen on obeying natural law. John Paul II claimed that it was impossible for him to modify Church celibacy because it was not in God's plan.

I'm not a Catholic, or any sort of Christian, but I'll have a go at answering your questions in order.

1. The tradition is evidence of itself, much as the Bible is. By which I mean, the only evidence that the Bible is a source divine revelation is contained in the Bible itself, so ultimately, believing the Bible to be a source of divine revelation is a matter of faith. So is believing in Catholic tradition (in fact, if you believe that the Bible contains divine revelation, it's probably because that's what you've been taught, in which case the idea that the Bible contains divine revelation is itself a tradition of sorts).

2. Jesus didn't write any of the books of the Bible, nor did he decide which books went into it - at least not directly while he was living on earth. The canon of the Christian bible - which books were included and which ones weren't - was decided by ecumenical councils several centuries later. If you believe those councils were divinely directed by Jesus to choose those books, that's a matter of faith. Others may believe that Jesus also divinely directed people to pass on their traditions, which is also a matter of faith.

3&4. True. The same can apply to copying texts by hand - mistakes can be made, a scribe with an agenda could made deliberate changes, a marginal note made by one scribe could be incorporated into the text by the next scribe to copy it. Believing that the texts and traditions have been passed down the ages accurately is a matter of faith.

5. The Bible is a diverse collection of texts written by different people at different times, and contains all sorts of mixed messages. I wouldn't be surprised to find a text somewhere which says differently.--Nicknack009 13:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without discussing Catholicism specifically, I agree with your criticisms of oral traditions. We've seen other oral traditions, like the account of the Trojan War (passed down orally until it was recorded as the Iliad by Homer). While parts of it are true, most of it is certainly myth, unless you believe in ancient Greek Gods. While written records are no guarantee of truth, they at least can't be changed without destroying all the copies already out there. Thus, they are less useful to those who would alter religion to serve their own selfish purposes. StuRat 17:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have to tread carefully here, Anonymous One. Your understanding of Sacred Tradition has clearly been mediated through a somewhat Protestant perspective, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the Catholic concept. As has been pointed out by Nicknack, Christ did not write any of the books of what is now the New Testament, but handed on a tradition of preaching to his successors, a tradition of interpreting and applying older sacred texts. While the Scriptures recorded part of this tradition, part was handed on orally, eventually being recorded in the writings of the great Fathers of the Church. In 553 the Second Council of Constantinople gave sanction to this, by issuing a rebuke to those who did not hold to the traditions of the Fathers. The issue is not about the possible human corruption of a sacred message, but one of authority and interpretation. I can find no better defence of the Sacred Tradition than a paper written in 1994 by Father Paul Duffner, where it is defined in the following terms;

Christ preached His message. He did not write it. In His preaching He appealed to the Scriptures, but was not satisfied merely to read them. He explained them, He interpreted them. So too, in the centuries to come the Church would not merely refer to the Bible, but would explain and interpret it, applying it to the changing conditions of the times. Although the Bible is the inspired word of God, it was not meant to be our sole guide. Just as God provided mankind with the guiding light of the Scriptures, so He provided mankind-through the continued guidance of the Holy Spirit-with an official living authority to interpret those divinely inspired books. One of the main reasons for the division of Christendom into the hundreds of Christian religions we have today, is the claim that that the interpretation of the Scriptures is left to the individual Christian. Just as the Constitution of the United States is not left to the interpretation of each individual American, but is interpreted authoritatively by the Supreme Court, so the whole deposit of revealed truth (the Bible and Tradition) is not left to the judgement of each individual Christian, but is interpreted for us by the living authority that Christ established. Clio the Muse 21:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was Jesus illiterate ?

This all brings up an interesting question, if Jesus could write, then why didn't he ? I would expect anything he wrote to be preserved by his followers, so the lack of such writings is a good indicator that he didn't write much. Does this mean he was illiterate ? StuRat 07:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Literacy is an evolving concept. If we accept that Jesus was brought up as a high ranking Jew, then it seems he got the benefits of a classical education. However, not every educated person writes anything in their day to day lives. I think if there had been a refrigerator, Jesus could have left the disciples messages ;) DDB 07:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who says He didn't write? Maybe they just haven't survived. At any rate, He was quite a bog standard Bloke by human terms, in His occupation. Can't see why a carpenter would have needed to write. Was it normal? I remember reading a book that said most people had some kind of literacy, but if you wanted to write anything decent - like a book, letter or legal contract - you would hire a professional scribe. That scribe would do an excellent job of reading, but most decent people who received a letter apparently could have got the general gist of things.martianlostinspace 14:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not because nowadays everyone who can write( or who thinks he can write!!) has a blog to tell the whole world how many times he watered his plants, that Jesus felt that urge:).Evilbu 16:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are places in scriptures where it says that Jesus wrote something. For example John 8:6 "This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground." (ESV). Also, he read the scriptures when he went to synagogue. As for why he didnt write any book, there are plenty of reasons. Maybe he thought such a scripture would overshadow every other book in the Bible and would cause some people to ignroe rest of the Bible, when he has no wish for people to ignore any part of it. Or he wanted to spend every moment he had interacting with people, healing and teaching, especially his disciples, so that they can write at some later time, when they have time enough to spend on it. Who knows. Shinhan 17:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Socrates, often compared to Jesus, didn´t write as well. A.Z. 00:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where's Chenchen?

In reading A Dream of Red Mansions, an episode in chapter 52 about a character Pao-chin having met a blonde foriegn girl from a place called Chenchen (from what I can tell 真真 in the Chinese) caught my eye. Anybody have any idea what this place would be known as nowadays? 68.55.177.129 05:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chechnya, also known as the Chechen Republic. 82.38.197.184 12:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot say if Cáo Xuěqín had a specific place in mind when he introduced the foreign girl in A Dream of Red Mansions, though I suspect Chenchen to be pure invention. One thing at least is reasonably certain: few, if any, eighteenth century Chinese authors would have had any knowledge whatsoever of what is now Chechnya, an obscure area in the Northern Caucasus, then squeezed uncomfortably between the Russian and the Ottoman Empires. Clio the Muse 21:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Health of rings

If a ring makes one's skin turn a different color when worn, what might be the problem? I know this is a general question, but could you give me a few cases?--the ninth bright shiner ^talk 05:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's black or green, it's probably oxidation. If it's red, white or silver, it's probably contact dermatitis. Anchoress 05:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anything to prevent or stop this?--the ninth bright shiner ^talk 05:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i have this problem and I paint the inside of the ring with clear nail polish which works without damaging the ring.You have to renew it now and then but it's my solution..Another solution is to have it plated by a working jewellers if it's either silver or gold,but that is expensive and again wears off eventually.hotclaws**== 07:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gold if not very reactive with skin, which is one reason it's used for jewelry. Other metals, like copper, do react with the skin, so shouldn't be placed in direct contact with skin. Also, take all rings off when bathing, washing dishes, etc., as soap or detergent can get under the ring and cause irritation later. Clean the ring periodically, too, and allow it to fully dry before placing it back on. The skin under the ring also needs a chance to "breathe", especially if the ring is too tight, due to water retention, etc. StuRat 16:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

after postmodernism

in philosophy...what happens after post modernism? I mean... what's the 'in' thing in philosophy now? i need sme headstart.

The left wing still are working through deconstructionism, with the works of Derrida and Chomsky reinventing language. However, there is a conservative tradition being forged, called neoconservatism. The current US president, George W Bush is a named proponent.DDB 12:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chomsky's work has absolutely nothing to do with deconstruction and neoconservatism is a political movement, not a philosophy. Some people, including myself, think that after post-modernism comes Alain Badiou. The article about him is not so great, in my opinion, but there are many good external links. Skarioffszky 12:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason Badiou's drawing made me think of the drawing of FSM Himself. --Lambiam ^Talk 14:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, Alain Badiou, that well-known Jew-hating, Maoist, Fascist, Marxist! Now, if that is not post-post-Modernism I simply do not know what is. Clio the Muse 01:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Am I missing something from Skarioffszky's suggestion? Seems political to me, but maybe the correct side of politics? I get that Chomsky has 'nothing to do with' deconstructionism. I note that hermeneutics has nothing to do with semiotics, that Buddhism has nothing to do with fish or clapping hands. Now, where did he put that soap box? DDB 00:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The question is about philosophical standpoints, not political "philosophies" -- it's an entirely different way to use the word, once which in my own field of study is tied closely to critical theories, i.e. standpoints and strategies with which to explore text of various types. Though often such theoretical standpoints imply certain conclusions about how to act politically, political movements are not the same, and indeed, neoconservativism is not a critical theory, and therefore could not be a "philosophy" in the sense that the questioner means. In short, I think that neoconservativism, like other political theories, is a term which describes social and political behavior in actual people and parties, as it really happens, while "philosophy" in this sense instead describes something much less in the people, and much more in our ever-changing understanding of how meaning happens. Sorry, DDB. (No need to be, I accept the validity of your statements DDB 07:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Now for the question itself: John Storey, in his 2001 edition of his seminal text "Critical Theory and Popular Culture", continues to identify postmodernism as the most recent of formally named "philosophies", the last in a series which includes modernism, deconstructionism, structuralism and post-structuralism, marxism, and various gender philosophies such as feminism and queer theory. As of 2001, then, we can assume that, AT LEAST to the extent that philosophies and critical theories are roughly synonymous, no formal statement or academic agreement of new philosophical type had emerged. But writing six years ago, Storey does note in his last chapter that postmodernism is in the throes of a "paradigm crisis", meaning that many of us are increasingly dissatisfied with the open questions with which postmodernism leaves us. Though I don't know enough about Baidou to comment on whether or not he represents a new school of thought, I would suggest that others, including Edward Tufte, John Fiske, and others who are willing to reject as both useless and illusary the division between text and context which poststructuralism posited, and re-explore a dialogue between material means, real existences, and textural elements, might also be worth looking into as academia moves towards defining and naming whatever comes next. It IS true, I note, that this allows politics themselves back in, as it were, to some extent, where many earlier philosophies tried to separate them out entirely. It does not mean, however, that purely political and social theories, such as neoconservativism, have suddenly become critical theories, just because such social belief systems may now have more meaning to philosophy than before. Jfarber 01:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there really and truly a branch of contemporary thought called queer theory? I am so out of touch. I, too, have a preference for conservative philosophy, though of a somewhat more reflective kind than that of George W., being a regular reader of the Salisbury Review, and one of Roger Scruton's most dedicated groupies! For those who would like a decent right-wing perspective on the trends in modern thinking I cannot recommend his Modern Philiosophy: an Introduction and a Survey highly enough. It has nothing on queer theory, though. Clio the Muse 01:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is there such a thoughtbranch as Queer Theory, dear Clio -- it came out of Feminist Theory over a decade ago -- there is even some post-queer theory, which rejects Queer Theory as too exclusivist, and tries instead to open up the premise of degendered and multigendered textual reading to be more inclusive. It's not necessarily my cup of tea, either, but teaching it has been, which is where the Storey book comes in...

As for the realities of conservative philosophy: I see no problem with accepting conservativism as having philosophical relevance. Indeed, Scruton's views on aesthetics make him an excellent example of conservative philosophy, and, as I noted above, there is quite often an inevitable relationship between politics and "philosophy" in the pure sense; indeed, critical theoretical standpoints almost always have political consequences. But neoconservativism is not a philosophical standpoint -- our own wikipage notes that it is, rather, a political movement. Philosophies can lead to political movements just as precipitation can lead to mudpuddles, but that doesn't make them the same AS political movements, any more than rain is mud. And, love him or hate him, it doesn't make good old Dubya a philosopher, either. Jfarber 03:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, Jfarber, even my feminism is of a conservative character, without any trace of queer theory! Is this pre post modernist, or post pre modernist, or post post modernist? And, yes, the association of Georgie boy with any form of intellectual introspection also leaves me wryly amused. Perhaps I'm being unfair, though, he may be firmly in the most ancient of Socratic traditions, in the open admission of knowing nothing! That, folks, is as far as I go. Clio the Muse 03:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, thinking back to the original question here, I am also reminded of a recent article in The New Yorker, which profiled a pair of up and coming, married philosophers named Paul and Patricia Churchland. The Churchlands are in persuit of several ideas which might indeed comprise a new school of thought -slash- critical theory, and which primarily revolve around the idea that meaning was tied much more closely to neurobiology and neuropsych than to any absolute sense of being. If the perennial mind-body problem is suddenly being tied to the brain in new ways which make medical science a vital pursuit for philosophers, there might indeed be something new there. Our stub calls this "new" school of thought Eliminativism or Eliminative materialism, and says it is a philosophy in which claims that everyday mental concepts such as beliefs, feelings, and desires are theoretical constructs without coherent definition, and hence, we should not expect such concepts to be a necessary part of a scientific understanding of the brain (source). Though materialism is certainly nothing new, and though the article sources go back well into the 1970s, this may nonetheless be (one of) philosophy's cutting edge(s). Jfarber 03:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking that the Churchland thesis is derivative of Noam Chomsky's theory regarding language acquisition, but I understand that isn't a philosophy DDB 07:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly a search of the names shows many papers which cite both. But the work is vastly different -- Chomsky focuses on linguistic aquisition and construction and how those affect meaning; the Churchlands focus on philosphy and brain, and are directly, rather than symptomatically, concerned with meaning-making. (It is that last bit, by the way, which makes them philosophers, which Chomsky is only someone whose ideas have ramifications FOR philosophy). And the materialist approach in which the Churchlands ground themselves predates Chomsky by, say, 1400 years or so. Related, I suppose, but by no means derivative. Might it be that your lack of love for Chomsky is leading to your ascribing him far more importance and influence than even he deserves? Jfarber 15:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Waldensians and Coventanters

Scottish masons claim to have historical links with Covenanters. On the other hand, French masons claim to have historical links with Waldesians. What is the religious link between these two groups ?

There is no link whatsoever between the twelfth century Waldensians and the seventeenth century Scottish Covenanters, other than the fact that they share a loose critique of existing forms of church government, which would unite just about every other Protestant and crypto-Protestant tradition. But whereas the Waldensians might be said to resemble a form of religious anarchism, insofar as they defined themselves in opposition to all clerical hierarchies, the Covenanters were anything but. They rejected Episcopacy, or a church governed by bishops-and we are referring specifically here to the Protestant Church of Scotland as it existed prior to 1638-and substituted Presbyterianism, or a church governed by a series of overlapping courts, headed, ultimately, by the General Assembly. The English Independents-of whom Oliver Cromwell was the most noted-,who bear a far closer outward resemblance to the Waldensians, also rejected rule by bishops; but they also rejected the Scottish notion, believing that it simply substituted one form of tyranny for another. Clio the Muse 23:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piggish

If something cow-ish is bovine, and something bear-ish is ursine, what's the proper word for something piggish? I'm sure there's an 'ine' word but can't remember what it is (and I don't think it's swine - that's the noun but I don't think it's the adjective). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you're looking for Porcine. It helps if you remember the same Latin root gives us the word Pork. Jfarber 15:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I could've sworn it began with 's' (especially when I saw the scientific name was sus of the family suidae) but I'm sure you're right. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swinish, after swine? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 15:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sū- (pig) and porko- (young pig) are both Indo-European roots. Sū- gave birth to English "sow" and "swine", Latin "sūs", Greek "hūs" etc. Porko gave birth to Latin "porcus" and English "farrow" etc. 惑乱分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 18:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I associate swinish with the "Long pig" variety, not the four-footed kind. Clarityfiend 19:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oooh! I love "ine" words;) Can you guess from my username? Vespine 23:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wasp-ish?--Lerdthenerd 10:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I headr Porcinine used somewhere :) HS7 18:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's porcine, as said in the very first answer :-) Skittle 19:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't beleive there's no jokes in here yet. Hope you're not all too ovine. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.138.46.155 (talk) 07:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

ovine? whats ovine?--Lerdthenerd 08:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sheepish (hence the pun). Not to be confused with egg-shaped. FiggyBee 13:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor's Degree?

I was wondering if recieving a doctor's degree would raise the amount of money that a master's degree would be paid. Is it true that by recieving a doctor's degree, you earn more money?66.157.26.246 17:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)Student T.[reply]

It may depend on the job and the company. Some companies won't even consider hiring you with only a master's degree, at least not for the kind of job you may aspire. For a job as bank teller, janitor or valet, I don't think it would give you any competitive advantage; on the contrary, you may be seen as overqualified. For an academic career, having a Ph.D.is definitely an advantage. --Lambiam ^Talk 18:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would have said that having a Ph.D was essential for an academic career, if you mean by this a career in the more important institutions of higher learning; at least it is in England. Clio the Muse 01:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One career where a Ph.D. is an asset rather than an essential would be academic medicine. - Nunh-huh 01:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In general, a Bachelor's degree will increase earnings. A Master's degree will increase earnings more. A PhD will increase earnings further. There is always an example of some guy with a PhD driving a cab (or something similar) as well as a college dropout (Brad Pitt) earning millions. Those are exceptions. Unless you feel you are an exception, stick with the rule. Get the higher degree and earn more money. --Kainaw ^(talk) 16:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, the same query over at the Misc. desk reaches quite different conclusions, in part because most folks pointed out that the time spent NOT working while getting the PhD, and the cost of getting the PhD itself, are not always factored into the statistics...(And I pointed out that the querent asked whether getting the degree would increase the amount of $ a masters degree recipient got paid, which might mean that fields in which a doctorate is a precondition for working at all may need to be taken out of the running...which takes doctor and lawyer salaries out of the mix, and skews the usual statistics something fierce.) Jfarber 00:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How did Japan use its growing economic power in the 60s and 70s to influence its foreign relations with Asia?

How did Japan use its growing economic power in the 1960s and 1970s to influence its foreign relations with Asia? In particular I'm intrested in how it used its economy to influence China, the Soviet Union, the USA and ASEAN. In addition any good books or websites on the topic would be appreciated. --Stalin1942 17:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a page on the Foreign relations of Japan with associated links which may provide some guidance. However, I would recommend that you have a look at Japan Rising: the Resurgence of Japanese Power and Purpose by K. B. Pyle, and The Emergence of Japan's Foreign Aid Power by R. M. Orr. There is also Japanese and U. S. Policy in Asia by G. J. Sigur and Y Choong Kim, though the information here may be somewhat dated. Clio the Muse 00:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American authoress

Kandleman 22:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC) Kandleman Anyone know of an American authoress to which the following is attributed. To my Bi-focals I`m adjusted, To my dentures i`m resigned, ??????????????????????????? But how I miss my mind. ?[reply]

Seems to be from a poem beginning "Just a line to say I'm living..." and variously titled. So far everything i've seen is "author unknown" or "anonymous".—eric 00:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The rhythms and rhyme scheme seem awfully like Pam Ayres to me but she's not Americanhotclaws**== 09:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

peter graves documentary

Question about a poem read during a Peter Graves documentary removed due to duplicate desk posting; those with info or interest are invited to head to the Misc. desk.

Does anyone know Which American communist party is most proChina?

Does anyone know Which American communist party is most proChina? Do any Us-based communist groups support the current leadership in Beijing? The Maoists mostly hate china because of Deng. In my opinion its probaly the CPUSA the originial. It was very proMoscow during the Cold War and condemned China during the split but since 1991 theyve been pretty friendly. They even sent a delegation to visit China and the ccp wished them luck is their congress. In addition therye probaly the only CP that doesnt condemn Deng. If anyone knows which other foreigh CPs in India, Africa and L America and around the world are proChina please post.--Stalin1942 23:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being pro the current leadership and being pro China are likely to be seen as two different things by most people. A.Z. 00:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does the Socialist Workers Alliance still exist? They once spoke highly of China. Edison 04:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it definitely wouldn't be the CPUSA, which like all pro-Soviet parties was anti-China since way before 1991. The CPUSA moved to the left after the breakup of the USSR, even father from the Maoist position, which is perhaps what you're interested in. And as you correctly suppose, Maoists would despise the CPoC because of Deng. However, I wouldn't think any genuine left-wing party would have anything to do with the current leaders of the CPoC, who are basically nationalists more devoted remaining in power than in promoting anything resembling Marxism, least of all the classic Maoist variety, which does tend to put off foreign investors. In terms of doctrine, I doubt there is any American organization similar to the modern CPoC. The closest you'd probably come is a CPoC-sponsored Chinese patriotic association, if such a thing exists somewhere, but that's not what you were looking for I expect. Funnily enough the CPoC doesn't seem to have much of an English-language Internet presence. Fancy that. I hope you've found this rambling helpful or at least amusing. Lovely username, incidentally, Stalin1942. Just noticed that chestnut. Bhumiya (said/done) 20:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To put it more concisely, answer this riddle and you'll have your answer: Which United States Marxist organization would most favor a Han Chinese nationalist dirigiste men's fraternity? Find that out and you'll have your pro-China party! Bhumiya (said/done) 20:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]