The rule of law is very much dominant in China; it’s just that the law is not democratically created or enforced. This is not an ideal democratic society, but that doesn’t preclude it from being called a civilization. Otherwise we’d have to move the date of “earliest civilization” up to the Greek Democracy, or the Magna Carta, or even the American revolution. Arguably, even the pre-slavery United States was a false democracy as a large chunk of its labor force was in chains for the first four-score-and-7 years of its existence.
It’s best to leave the definition of civilization as it is, indicating a society that has attained a certain degree of civic complexity. Laws are going to be part of that, but the law did not spring perfect and fully formed from the forehead of Moses either.
No. The problem is that the rule of law can and is set aside by the party at it’s whim, or, more accurately, at the whims of one of the various factions. That isn’t rule of law. Look up their version of the constitution sometime…then look at their actual actions. Same goes for the environmental laws on the books…look at the difference between the laws they actually have and how (or if) they are enforced, and for what reason. Then consider that in terms of what ‘rule of law’ actually means. A hint is…it doesn’t mean you can selectively enforce or not enforce them based on the whims of a few in power. Otherwise, the term has no meaning. The Chinese don’t have a ‘rule of law’…they have a totalitarian rule of the party, that breaks down into the rule of this or that powerful faction depending on their whim of the moment. Then you have levels of local/regional powers who fall under the party and basically do whatever they can get away with.
I didn’t say they weren’t a civilization…I said they weren’t ‘civilized’, if we are going based on the rule of law (as part of the snipe from the poster I was replying too who was making the point that the US isn’t ‘civilized’ because of ‘concentration camps’). Also, I was mainly tongue in cheek there, though, honestly, China is not a very ‘civilized’ nation and does horrific things all the time. Sadly, most seem to be completely unaware of this fact, or handwave it away.
I’ll leave it there…it’s pretty obvious you think I’m making a different point than the one I’m actually making.
I’m not the best at geography, or geology, or whatever but has China always been part of Central/South America? Because I didn’t think China had very much to do with our southern neighbors.
And frankly, I’m still not sure about what definition of “civilized” we’re meant to be using here. I mean, I dig having the lights come on whenever I want, and hot & cold running water, trash & sewer service, even the roads here are all pretty good. But I’ve never spent much time in the subject region–what’s the situation with that kind of stuff?
On the other hand, if “civilized” is meant to refer to a functioning government, capable of maintaining and improving a nice standard of living, international relationships, and a responsible growing economy…yeah, when will we return to that?
If you live in cities, you are civilized, that’s the only definition that works.
Otherwise the Romans, Greeks, Egyptians and Babylonians were not civilizations, and Sid Meier cannot be wrong.
The US is also not in Central or South America, last time I checked. That said, China has quite a bit going on in the region, so they are more involved than you seem to realize. Not that this has much to do about the tangential sniping.
I believe that’s exactly what the OP is asking. I think people are taking exception to how the OP was phrased, especially wrt the use of the term ‘civilized’, and some decided to take this opportunity to slam the US as not being ‘civilized’, I assume just because they don’t like the US or on the assumption the OP is an American, but the heart of the matter is…when will the region calm down and stabilize again? My answer is…when the Venezuelans situation calms down one way or another this will all the region to at least get back to some level of stability, at least what they enjoyed before Venezuela started melting down. For more stability than that, we need to fix the drug cartel issue, especially on the US side and also bring some political and economic stability to the region.
So, baby steps and it’s going to take longer than we thought…
The central american problems have nothing to do with Venezuela and long predate the current crisis in Venezuela.
Drugs to the USA and guns from the USA, not to mention decades of political instability have more to with it IMHO.
No, it was their Maine location that meant something.
Given that your concern seems to be “tangential sniping”, no, I don’t think I did.
My post was relevant to the OP - I wanted to know what definition of “civilized” the OP was using, since it seemed to exclude C&S America but (by implication) included his locale.
Yours seemed to be, what? Attempted junior modding via piss-poor Socratic debate?
The point the OP and XT seem to be missing is that the OP just insulted the whole of South and Central America by calling us barbarians.
After that it’s very hard to discuss the OP’s actual question, which should’ve been expressed more or less this way:
*“When will the current horrid conditions in some South and Central American countries be ameliorated?” *
if only the OP had expressed himself in a more, let’s say, civilized, manner.
So has crime/lawlessness worsened in Central America in the last few years? And if so, why? Drugs, gangs and corrupt politicians are long standing problems, I thought.
Define recent years, but unless it’s a very short period the answer is “yes”.
There is a direct correlation between “people who join gangs in the US and then get deported to El Salvador or Nicaragua” and “violence in El Salvador and Nicaragua”; it’s been going on for about 30 years, but the more people the US jail and deport, the worse things get in El Salvador and Nicaragua. The US “hard on crime” policies have a direct, negative impact in those countries of Central and South America which, being in a worse situation, are most likely to have people trying whatever they can think of to move anywhere else by all means necessary. And it’s a vicious cycle, one which was created in great part by US external policies going many decades back (the bad situation of several of those countries stems from their time as banana republics; note that not every former banana republic is in a bad situation) and which is fed in great part by US domestic and international policies.
The drugs have been going on longer than the maras, since the 70s; again, there is direct correlation between US policies and the size of the problem. In this case, there has been direct involvement of US government operatives in drug traffic, as well as indirect consequences of the “War on Drugs”.
If we’re jailing and deporting people back to El Salvador and Nicaragua, those people are originally from El Salvador and Nicaragua. Weren’t they in gangs and committing similar crimes in their native countries before coming here? Unless they only joined gangs and started committing crimes once they were in the US, which seems unlikely, I’m not sure how sending them back home makes things worse. Or do you mean that there are so many of them that it was making those countries somewhat better at the expense of the people they were committing crimes against in the US instead of in native cities/towns?
Actually, the two main gangs in Central America, MS-13, consisting mainly of Salvadorans, and the 18th Street Gang or M-18, originally Mexican but now mainly Central American, were founded in Los Angeles. In many cases these refugees or illegal immigrants became criminals as youths in the United States. When they were deported back to their home countries they established branches of these gangs there. So the cycle was that US-supported political violence in Central America helped create a flow of refugees to the US, where some became criminalized. When they were deported back, it helped to further destabilize these countries.