<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: All For One</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.oliverwillis.com/2008/08/19/all-for-one/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.oliverwillis.com/2008/08/19/all-for-one/</link>
	<description>Like Kryptonite To Stupid</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 00:48:31 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.4</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: Parthenon</title>
		<link>http://www.oliverwillis.com/2008/08/19/all-for-one/#comment-108973</link>
		<dc:creator>Parthenon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Aug 2008 07:26:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.oliverwillis.com/?p=8604#comment-108973</guid>
		<description>There are those who would argue that following the early wars (around the time that &#039;The Art of War&#039; was written), China&#039;s relative ethnic and linguistic homogeny (something on the level of 80-90% of the country is Han) and reliance on riverine sources of sustenance encouraged a top-down social structure based around a very centralized authority, because it required a great deal of regional coordination and cooperation. (So from the beginning their society wasn&#039;t really geared to glorify individualism.) From this, the theory goes, arose the Imperial structure, later replaced by Mao&#039;s version of communism, which was sort of a shadow of the system still in the memory of the oldest Chinese still living when Mao took power. 

Striking difference, between the advertisements of a society that glorifies the individual v. one that celebrates communal achievement. It&#039;s fair nonsense to argue that one system is naturally superior; the Chinese were raising Orange Trees on massive open sea cruisers when Europeans were trying to force their way into the Indian Ocean markets in ships the size of two-car garages.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There are those who would argue that following the early wars (around the time that &#8216;The Art of War&#8217; was written), China&#8217;s relative ethnic and linguistic homogeny (something on the level of 80-90% of the country is Han) and reliance on riverine sources of sustenance encouraged a top-down social structure based around a very centralized authority, because it required a great deal of regional coordination and cooperation. (So from the beginning their society wasn&#8217;t really geared to glorify individualism.) From this, the theory goes, arose the Imperial structure, later replaced by Mao&#8217;s version of communism, which was sort of a shadow of the system still in the memory of the oldest Chinese still living when Mao took power. </p>
<p>Striking difference, between the advertisements of a society that glorifies the individual v. one that celebrates communal achievement. It&#8217;s fair nonsense to argue that one system is naturally superior; the Chinese were raising Orange Trees on massive open sea cruisers when Europeans were trying to force their way into the Indian Ocean markets in ships the size of two-car garages.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

