The demonization of China

229 posts / 0 new
Last post
Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Back atcha - What’s your game?

Here’s the thing - the UNHCR is an international body, and their definition of human rights are accepted by a large part of the world. 

No one country, no matter how populous, gets to redefine human rights and not get criticized for it. Especially when that country has a history of abusing the rights the rest of the world accepts. 

But if China can just put forward its own definition and do whatever they want without censure, what stops other countries from doing the same?

ETA: What I’m implying is that states with a record of human rights abuses shouldn’t get to make their own rules. 

WWWTT

Mobo2000 wrote:

Sean :  My emphasis in my post was the MSM's reporting on China that plays into or creates a useful xenophobia for would-be imperialists.     I agree with this:

"Yes, there is reason to think there may be some institutional racism against China in the MSM. However to accuse this booard of being racist for criticising China should have a very high standard that is not being met."

I think WWTTT was trying to start a conversation, not get people banned.    I think it's very unlikely that anyone is going to be censored or attacked by babble moderators or the majority of babblers for being critical of China.   You may get attacked by WWTTT for it, and there is space available to talk about it in this thread.   But I shouldn't mindread, and WWTTT can speak for himself on this.

 

I better respond to your comment in full Mobo2000 before I inadvertently forget. 

No one should be banned. Debates get heated and shit gets written that we sometimes (probably lots of times) regret or would have worded differently had we only taken more time to reflect on. And that’s the nature of political forums. They’re all like this. 

I am not accusing/implying any poster here of racism in my thread title  I’ve spent a big chunk of my life trying to recognize how much of a racist I am, and recognize it around me. 

The conversation was already happening here at babble for some time.  The detention of Ms Meng fuelled the entire subject matter to a new level, and I felt it would be appropriate to create a thread specific to something that posters here such as us clearly recognize. 

And there’s posters here that want to make their opinions well heard. Good! We got a debate. 

WWWTT

Timebandit wrote

ETA: What I’m implying is that states with a record of human rights abuses shouldn’t get to make their own rules. 

I don’t think you thought this ETA part through properly. 

Probably every people’s nation has committed atrocities (from my knowledge). So who writes the definitions?

In another thread I started about the UN, I pointed out the fact that the 5 permanent members are Britain France US Russia (formerly USSR) and the Peoples republic of China (formerly Taiwan). Four out of five are predominately white! I gues the UN doesn’t really practice what it preaches hey?

Also, things change, guaranteed, rights, or what people consider should be rights will be different 30 years from now.

cco

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the General Assembly, not the Security Council.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Pretty sure I thought it through just fine. 

The People’s Republic of China is not the former Taiwan. 

So which human rights are you supposing we’ll abandon?

voice of the damned

Unionist wrote:

Timebandit wrote:

So it’s okay that China has occupied Tibet?

Well, the CIA isn't happy about it. But there's only so much benevolent foreigners can do to help.

 

I think "wasn't happy about it" would be the more precise phrasing. As the article states, that training program lasted about a decade, ending in the early 70s shortly after Mao met Nixon and ushered in the twenty-year era of Sino-US co-operation that Maoists today never seem to have much to say about.

WWWTT

cco wrote:
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the General Assembly, not the Security Council.

Ya, so what?

WWWTT

Timebandit wrote:

Pretty sure I thought it through just fine. 

The People’s Republic of China is not the former Taiwan. 

So which human rights are you supposing we’ll abandon?

what I was referring to was that Taiwan was a permanent UN member up until 1971. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_members_of_the_United_Nations_Security_Council

As far as human rights goes, that’s a huge debate worthy of at least its own thread. My point is that it’s worth at looking at other definitions. 

And I’m going to leave it at that. 

cco

WWWTT wrote:

Ya, so what?

So rather than that white-supremacist Security Council you're worried about, it was voter for by the overwhelming majority of member states.

WWWTT

That wasn’t the point I was making cco. I brought this up in my other thread. Nigeria Pakistan India Indonesia Brazil etc etc etc are being prejudiced against at the UN. 

The UN isn’t the guiding light that some people think it is. 

Unionist

cco wrote:
WWWTT wrote:

Ya, so what?

So rather than that white-supremacist Security Council you're worried about, it was voter for by the overwhelming majority of member states.

What position has the General Assembly taken on Tibet?

voice of the damned

Unionist wrote:

cco wrote:
WWWTT wrote:

Ya, so what?

So rather than that white-supremacist Security Council you're worried about, it was voter for by the overwhelming majority of member states.

What position has the General Assembly taken on Tibet?

Well, WWWTT was claiming that the UN is hypocritical, because it passed the Declaration On Human Rights, while only having one non-white majority country on the Security Council. Cco, if I  understood him correctly, was saying that the the Declaration was passed by the Assembly, not the Security Council, therefore the charge of hypocrisy doesn't really apply(because the Assembly doesn't control who gets on the SC, and the SC doesn't control what resolutions get passed by the Assembly).

So I'm not sure if the specific question of Assembly resolutions on Tibet are relevant here.  

JKR

Isn't China a signatory and formally a supporter of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

Unionist

I'm trying to reply to TB's question about China's occupation of Tibet. Just curious as to whether any country in the world considers this as an "occupation" or whether there are any General Assembly resolutions on this issue. If that's not "relevant", then fine. Apparently my citing of CIA financing of the Dalai Lama is too old to be relevant.

As for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - I guess I can ask about that too. Has any committee of the U.N. investigated and found China guilty of violations of that document with respect to Tibet? Let me hasten to add that I'm asking because I don't know. If we want to start listing general violations of that Declaration by countries, we'll need to add extra forums, and I'm not sure if our tech budget could accommodate that.

cco

Yes and yes. For the record, speaking only for myself, I don't bring any of this up to chest-thump about China being the worst country in the world. I'm not a fan of the pre-occupation Tibetan government, but I still don't think Mao's troops were greeted as liberators. I'm just pushing back a bit against the idea that China's a shining beacon for human rights, in much the same way I'd push back against the idea that America or Israel are if someone proposed that in one of those threads. The idea that a government's policies are off-limits for discussion because its heart is in the right place is the same kind of old-school nationalist bullshit Trudeau shovels at us on a daily basis. It's possible to draw a conclusion about a country somewhere in between "everything's awesome" and "we need American-backed regime change".

voice of the damned

Unionist wrote:

Apparently my citing of CIA financing of the Dalai Lama is too old to be relevant.

It's not a question of it being old, it's a question of it being discontinuous with the current situation. Following the Mao-Nixon meeting, the US and China formed an alliance against the Soviets, in which both nations' supported each others foreign-policy endeavours, and the US, among other things, ended their support for the Tibetan insurgency.

Now, it's possible, I suppose, that with the more hostile posture between the two powers today, that the US is back to supporting the insurgents. But you can't prove that simply by pointing out what was happening in the 1960s: that's like saying Great Britain must be supporting First Nations resistance in the USA right now, because they had supported Tecumseh in 1812.

voice of the damned

cco wrote:

I'm not a fan of the pre-occupation Tibetan government, but I still don't think Mao's troops were greeted as liberators.

My moderately educated guess is that Tibet under the monks was every bit as bad as the sino-apologists say it was. But that's a separate question from whether the Chinese have a right to be there now.

Personally, I don't support any independence movement anywhere in the world(which doesn't mean I think our countries are obligated to financially support the occupations). But if someone wants to make an argument for supporting one, I don't think it'll do just to reply "Oh come on, everyone knows that place was a shithole before the colonialists moved in."

 

Unionist

cco wrote:
Yes and yes. For the record, speaking only for myself, I don't bring any of this up to chest-thump about China being the worst country in the world. I'm not a fan of the pre-occupation Tibetan government, but I still don't think Mao's troops were greeted as liberators. I'm just pushing back a bit against the idea that China's a shining beacon for human rights, in much the same way I'd push back against the idea that America or Israel are if someone proposed that in one of those threads. The idea that a government's policies are off-limits for discussion because its heart is in the right place is the same kind of old-school nationalist bullshit Trudeau shovels at us on a daily basis. It's possible to draw a conclusion about a country somewhere in between "everything's awesome" and "we need American-backed regime change".

Thanks for those references, cco. Comments:

1. To the best of my knowledge, China suppresses all kinds of dissent and other human rights, is particularly vicious when it comes to real or perceived separatist movements, and I wouldn't want to live there. Tienanmen Square is not that distant a memory. Wherever the regime's heart is, it's not in the "right place" when it comes to political rights of its citizenry. When it comes to providing for the basic economic, health, and similar needs of 1.4 billion people, it appears to do a far better job.

2. The U.N. General Assembly resolution dates from 1959, renewed in 1961. Did you notice that it does not mention China at all? The People's Republic of China wasn't allowed into the U.N. until 1971. I'll bet the U.N. was scared to say "China" back in 1959-61 in connection with Tibet, because they were scared that someone might think they were accusing the rogue Taiwan regime (which held China's U.N. seat). Otherwise, it's an odd omission, don't you think? But most significantly for our purposes, it does not question in any way the inclusion of Tibet within China's sovereign territory. No mention of "occupation".

Now, click on the link going to the original 1959 resolution. Then scroll down to the "Remarks by various countries". All those links are dead - they go to a "404" page headed "International Campaign for Tibet". Now I have to go back into history and find an actual U.N. version of those resolutions - even though the U.N. considered there was no place for Beijing in its hallowed halls before 1971.

3. Thanks again for the reference to the comments of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights in 2012. I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of this: << “continuing allegations of violence against Tibetans seeking to exercise their fundamental human rights of freedom of expression, association and religion,” and pointed to “reports of detentions and disappearances, of excessive use of force against peaceful demonstrators, and curbs on the cultural rights of Tibetans.” >>

I see no mention, hint, or allegation, regarding any alleged "occupation" of Tibet by China.

If this were an Israel / Palestine type situation, you'd think someone somewhere would recognize it as such. That may be the case, but I'm interested in seeing such references if they exist.

voice of the damned

Unionist wrote:

I'll bet the U.N. was scared to say "China" back in 1959-61 in connection with Tibet, because they were scared that someone might think they were accusing the rogue Taiwan regime (which held China's U.N. seat).

And if such an accusation had been made at the time, it probably would have been accurate. At least if I'm reading the following correctly...

Prior to 1992, Tibet-Taiwan relations were almost non-existent, and what exchange existed was in fact quite contentious. One factor was the role played by Taiwan’s Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission (MTAC), an agency set up under the Kuomintang (KMT) government to administer Republican China’s sovereignty over Tibet. The Tibetan government in exile always held that the MTAC had for a very long time been funding “conflicts and discords in the Tibetan community.”

So, yes, an anti-Chinese resolution in the 1950s would have applied, at least logically, as much to Taiwan as it did to China. (This puts the respective supporters of both regimes in the somewhat awkward position of realizing that, on non-ideological questions, they probably agreed on a lot of things.)

https://tinyurl.com/y5tqmcr8

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unionist

So VOTD (or anyone): Are you aware of any countries or U.N. bodies or reports, now or in the past, that deem Tibet to be under Chinese "occupation"? Just curious as to whether TB is asking us to break new ground here.

You see, the U.S. and Canada and their allies have committed aggression against sovereign states, installed client regimes, and continue to do so. Yet, they would like us to view countries like China and Iran as aggressors. That kind of distraction leads to wars. It's important to make clear distinctions. If I had the artistic ability, I'd try making a meme similar to this one with "China" replacing "Iran".

PS: As a Facebook friend pointed out in commenting on the above, there are many missing events on the U.S. side - including JFK's successful regime change plot against John Diefenbaker's government:

How The Americans Toppled Diefenbaker

WWWTT

Unionist wrote:

1. To the best of my knowledge, China suppresses all kinds of dissent and other human rights, is particularly vicious when it comes to real or perceived separatist movements, and I wouldn't want to live there. Tienanmen Square is not that distant a memory. Wherever the regime's heart is, it's not in the "right place" when it comes to political rights of its citizenry. When it comes to providing for the basic economic, health, and similar needs of 1.4 billion people, it appears to do a far better job.

2. The U.N. General Assembly resolution dates from 1959, renewed in 1961. Did you notice that it does not mention China at all? The People's Republic of China wasn't allowed into the U.N. until 1971. I'll bet the U.N. was scared to say "China" back in 1959-61 in connection with Tibet, because they were scared that someone might think they were accusing the rogue Taiwan regime (which held China's U.N. seat). Otherwise, it's an odd omission, don't you think? But most significantly for our purposes, it does not question in any way the inclusion of Tibet within China's sovereign territory. No mention of "occupation".

Now, click on the link going to the original 1959 resolution. Then scroll down to the "Remarks by various countries". All those links are dead - they go to a "404" page headed "International Campaign for Tibet". Now I have to go back into history and find an actual U.N. version of those resolutions - even though the U.N. considered there was no place for Beijing in its hallowed halls before 1971.

3. Thanks again for the reference to the comments of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights in 2012. I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of this: << “continuing allegations of violence against Tibetans seeking to exercise their fundamental human rights of freedom of expression, association and religion,” and pointed to “reports of detentions and disappearances, of excessive use of force against peaceful demonstrators, and curbs on the cultural rights of Tibetans.” >>

I see no mention, hint, or allegation, regarding any alleged "occupation" of Tibet by China.

If this were an Israel / Palestine type situation, you'd think someone somewhere would recognize it as such. That may be the case, but I'm interested in seeing such references if they exist.

Somewhat of a double standard here. You picked up on some of it but may be missing something.

Yes China PRC for 3 decades was not a permanent member, but Taiwan was. One communist nation (USSR) was too much already. In my view, this is clear obvious evidence that the UN was and probably still is easily manipulated to serve the wishes of a few players (probably white imperialist nations). 

From my understanding, you can express your political views in China. You can contribute politically and everyone has the same equal rights to participate. Through the appropriate venues. I have witnessed strikes in ShenZhen before. I didn't see people detained or beat up. If you want to throw molotov cocktails at buses with unarmed soldiers (TianAnMen square) burning to death dozens, you're probably going to get shot (also, there's evidence TianAnMen incident was probably a CIA front leading up to the handing over of Hong Kong/Macau back to the mainland. I provided links here, but who cares hey?) I don't think China has any monopoly on shooting people threatening human life?

So Unionist, you wouldn't want to live in China. OK so how about France? Would you live in France? Because as how I read your comment, you wouldn't either.

voice of the damned

^^ I have no idea if the UN or any other country refers to China as occupying Tibet. I wasn't addressing myself to that particular question.

Though even if Timebandit is breaking new ground, I don't particularly see why it would matter. When I hear someone say that such-and-such a nation is occupied by another, and I want to judge the validity of that statement, the first step is not to find out whether the UN uses that term.

voice of the damned

WWWTT wrote:

I have witnessed strikes in ShenZhen before. I didn't see people detained or beat up.

This might be a valid argument if someone were saying that every single strike in China results in detentions and beatings. As it stands, however, it's like saying "I lived in Canada for a few years, and I saw police talking to First Nations people with no violence involved, therefore how can anyone say that Canada has police brutality against First Nations people?"

Unionist

WWWTT wrote:

So Unionist, you wouldn't want to live in China. OK so how about France? Would you live in France? Because as how I read your comment, you wouldn't either.

You missed my point entirely - probably my fault.

I wouldn't want to live in France either. That's my choice. And certainly not in the U.S.

Policies of France and China and everywhere else are the business of the people of those countries - not mine - with the exception of egregious violations of human rights which are prohibited by international law. I'm not aware of any such proceedings with regard to France or China.

I'm talking about aggression. Occupation. Invasion. Crimes of which the U.S. and Canada and France and the U.K. and Israel and Saudi Arabia and many other countries are justly accused. Not China. Not Iran. Such crimes are everyone's business - where they exist.

Hope that's clearer. 

 

voice of the damned

WWWTT wrote:

So Unionist, you wouldn't want to live in China. OK so how about France? Would you live in France?

FWIW, I think I can say with some degree of assuarnace that there is less poltical freedom in the Republic Of Korea than in Canada, the latter having nothing like the National Security Act, which among other things, outlaws "Communism"(though it's still more-or-less okay to advocate generally left-wing opinions or read Das Kapital or No Logo in public). And if I could snap my fingers tomorrow and create my own utopia on Earth, it would look more like Canada(or for that matter, France) than it would like South Korea.

But for where I would choose to live at the present time, the Republic Of Korea wins hands down. So, for me anyway, which society I think is overall superior does not neccessarily correlate to where I want to be.

WWWTT

@Unionist

Yes thanks for clarifying 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

If I am not mistaken the main difference between the rights in the UN Declaration and the Chinese is the Chinese seem to include a broader spectrum of economic rights that are not based on property rights. The Chinese have the same kind of special UN reports as Canada gets for the abysmal conditions in our First Nations internment camps. On paper the people of Tibet have more rights than indigenous people on Canada under the Indian Act. In practice I suspect that the people of Tibet have about as much power to enforce a UN Declaration as the Wet’suwet’en Peoples in northern BC.

Pondering

Nobody needs to "China bash". 

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/jan/17/populist-lead...

China came in for particular criticism in the report, which observed: “China has increased its repression over the past year to the worst levels since the 1989 massacre of protesters from the Tiananmen Square democracy movement.

How about

Re-education camps (Uyghur: قايتا تەربىيەلەش لاگېرلىرى‎; Chinese: 再教育营) are a title given to the internment camps operated by the People's Republic of China Xinjiang autonomous region's government since 2014.[2] They have unprecedentedly intensified since a hardline party secretaryChen Quanguo, took charge of the region in August 2016. These camps are operated secretly and outside of the legal system; many have been locked up without any trial or charges being levied.[3][4][1] Local authorities are reportedly holding hundreds of thousands of Uyghurs and Muslims from other ethnic minorities in these camps, claiming the detentions are a bid to counter extremism and terrorism.[5][6][7][8][9]

It is estimated that Chinese authorities may have detained hundreds of thousands to millions of Uyghurs,[10][11][12] KazakhsKyrgyzHui (Muslims) and other ethnic Muslims,[13][14][15][16] Christians,[17][18][19] and also foreign citizens[20] such as Kazakhstanis[21][22][23] to be kept in these shrouded internment camps throughout the region.[24] The United Nations[25][26] and many international media reports have said as many as 1-3 million people are being held in such "re-education camps" in this 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinjiang_re-education_camps

Whatever makes you think China gives a hoot about human rights?

 

Unionist

Pondering - the references to the United Nations in your citation are to things that a U.N. panel was told - not any report or finding by the U.N. I'm sure you weren't suggesting that the U.N. had actually taken these positions.

JKR

kropotkin1951 wrote:

If I am not mistaken the main difference between the rights in the UN Declaration and the Chinese is the Chinese seem to include a broader spectrum of economic rights that are not based on property rights:

It seems to me that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights includes economic rights not based on property rights.

Quote:

Article 22.
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 23.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24.
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Article 27.
(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html

Pondering

Unionist wrote:

Pondering - the references to the United Nations in your citation are to things that a U.N. panel was told - not any report or finding by the U.N. I'm sure you weren't suggesting that the U.N. had actually taken these positions.

I was just quoting directly. All I'm saying is China has nothing to teach about human rights not that we get it right either. But, I'd sure rather live anywhere in the western "democratic" world than China.

Unionist

Pondering wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Pondering - the references to the United Nations in your citation are to things that a U.N. panel was told - not any report or finding by the U.N. I'm sure you weren't suggesting that the U.N. had actually taken these positions.

I was just quoting directly. All I'm saying is China has nothing to teach about human rights not that we get it right either. But, I'd sure rather live anywhere in the western "democratic" world than China.

All I'm saying is that I asked for sources about the U.N. or any country accusing China of "occupying" Tibet, or of the U.N. condemning China for human rights abuses. You quoted a whole passage which seemed to say something about the U.N., so I just clarified what it said. I looked up your references. I never accused you of distorting or falsifying anything.

And I never said China has anything to teach anyone about human rights. But you'll agree with me that China has a whole lot to teach the U.S. and its allies about not invading, attacking, and occupying other countries. Agreed?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I guess the reason I don't pay much attention to those kinds of Declarations is because they are clearly aspirational. Can anyone name a country that actually provides all of the above rights? 

In the meantime instead of vilifying a sovereign nation for its treatment of a minority try looking at Canada's human rights record. The Canadian Human Rights tribunal over a year ago ordered the federal government to stop discriminating against indigenous children and they still haven't complied. This is Canada the good and holy that we have to compare ourselves to the rest of the world.

So instead of demanding our government clean up its human rights abuses some people want us to add to the drums that NATO's press relations arm is beating.  Canada was founded on this kind of racism and I for one don't want to go back to the days of the Asian Exclusion League. Demonizing the country with the most citizens because it refuses to be a vassal state is just the braying of indoctrinated sheep.

Social and economic conditions

15.The most jarring manifestation of these human rights problems is the distressing socio-economic conditions of indigenous peoples in a highly developed country. Although in 2004 the previous Special Rapporteur recommended that Canada intensify its measures to close the human development indicator gaps between indigenous and non-indigenous Canadians in health care, housing, education, welfare, and social services,8there has been no change in that gap in the intervening period in relation to registered Indians/First Nations,although socio-economic conditions for Métis and non-status Indians have improved, accordingto government data.9The statistics are striking. Of the bottom 100 Canadian communities on the Community Wellbeing Index, 96 are First Nations, and only one First Nation community is in the top 100.1016.One might expect that the costs of social services required by indigenous peoples would be higher than those of the general population given their needs and the geographic remoteness of many indigenous communities. However, it does not appear that Canada has dedicated higher resources to social services for indigenous peoples. The Auditor General of Canada, an independent parliamentary officer, has alerted the Government that the lack of appropriate funding is limiting social services delivery and thus the improvement on living conditions on reserves.11

https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/IPeoples/SR/A.HRC.27.52.Add.2-Mis...

In a decision released on Thursday, the tribunal stated that Ottawa has failed to grasp "the seriousness and emergency of the issue" by not complying with a 2016 order to ensure indigenous child welfare services were properly funded. 

It is the fourth non-compliance ruling on the matter since the 2016 order was issued. 

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/02/canada-ordered-fund-indigenous-ch...

WWWTT

@Unionist and kropotkin 

Good points demonstrating the double standards used to demonize China. 

China has essentially become the new lightning rod or distraction the imperialists created in an attempt to win the “comparison taste test” with its citizens to preserve corporate control.  

I’ve been to China a dozen times, my wife is Chinese, I have friends in the CPC, and we are considering living in China soon. 

To the posters here that claim they would never want to live in China I say this, the government of Canada probably knows this, and consider your fear to leave Canada permanently as a successful accomplishment of the icm!

NDPP

Evil China Helps Dictator - Rubio

https://twitter.com/marcorubio/status/1099082195166208002

"This is almost entirely the work of China government which has technicians in Caracas for months helping Maduro regime conduct targeted internet outages..."

Expect lots more demonization and receptivity by eager 'Yellow peril' fans.

voice of the damned

WWWTT wrote:

 

To the posters here that claim they would never want to live in China I say this, the government of Canada probably knows this, and consider your fear to leave Canada permanently as a successful accomplishment of the icm!

So, first you talk about people who don't want to move to China, and then you equate that with never wanting to leave Canada, while saying that people who don't want to leave Canada are somehow dupes of the Canadian government.

That's just goofy. And I don't say that because I'm brainwashed by the sinopbobic narrative of the corporate media; I say it because it's just goofy.

WWWTT

Not really from my perspective using my knowledge of Europe. 

I can easily get my Portuguese citizenship because my parents were Portuguese. Also my children can get their Portuguese citizenship because their paternal grandparents were Portuguese. And for children it’s free! I got to pay around 500$. 

As I understand it, this is due to the fact that the Portuguese population has been stagnant for decades now and the country needs people there, desperately!

The US during the 90’s was an alleged drain on Canada. Immigrants were leaving here for the US (not sure how much of that was true?)

And because of China’s economy and prosperity, it has become a point of interest to migrate to. And Canada doesn’t want Canadians leaving, so the demonization continues 

JKR

WWWTT wrote:

And because of China’s economy and prosperity, it has become a point of interest to migrate to. And Canada doesn’t want Canadians leaving, so the demonization continues 

Currently China's per capita GDP is around $17,000 while Canada's is approximately triple that at around $50,000.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

JKR wrote:
WWWTT wrote:

And because of China’s economy and prosperity, it has become a point of interest to migrate to. And Canada doesn’t want Canadians leaving, so the demonization continues 

Currently China's per capita GDP is around $17,000 while Canada's is approximately triple that at around $50,000. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

Canada is a small population with limited opportunities. In fact we have about 0.5% of the global population while China has over 18%. We have a higher per capita number of good paying jobs but China in total numbers has way more.

Look at this chart and compare India, a capitalist country with an over 50 year history of liberal democracy, with China and tell me which is delivering on the Canadian constitution's first priority: peace, order and good government? In the meantime tell me again why you hate China?

https://chinapower.csis.org/china-middle-class/

Pondering

Just because China isn't invading countries doesn't mean they wouldn't if they thought they could get away with it. The US keeps it's military big to make sure it is the only country that can go around invading other countries. It expects the support of other countries either in soldiers and/or places they can park a base. Their economic power is also used to obtain support or at least prevent too much opposition. 

Criticizing China is not criticizing the Chinese. It's not like we are all supportive of our own politicians or those of the US.  The people of every country are fed propaganda to some extent by their leaders. 

Is there racism against the Chinese in Canada? Well duh, of course there is. That doesn't mean there is some prejudice in action when China is criticized on this board. 

JKR

kropotkin1951 wrote:

JKR wrote:
WWWTT wrote:

And because of China’s economy and prosperity, it has become a point of interest to migrate to. And Canada doesn’t want Canadians leaving, so the demonization continues 

Currently China's per capita GDP is around $17,000 while Canada's is approximately triple that at around $50,000. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

Canada is a small population with limited opportunities. In fact we have about 0.5% of the global population while China has over 18%. We have a higher per capita number of good paying jobs but China in total numbers has way more.

Look at this chart and compare India, a capitalist country with an over 50 year history of liberal democracy, with China and tell me which is delivering on the Canadian constitution's first priority: peace, order and good government? In the meantime tell me again why you hate China?

https://chinapower.csis.org/china-middle-class/

Why do you think I hate China? On a visit to China a few years ago I thought to myself that I might be happier living in a place like Hong Kong or Guangzhou than in Vancouver.

I think that China is helping the world more than most other countries like the US or Russia. I think China’s belt and road initiative is great for the world. I think China’s reemergence as one of the worlds great civilizations has great potential for the world. By 2100 they might eleven have a greater per capita GDP than Canada.

Pondering

JKR wrote:

Why do you think I hate China? On a visit to China a few years ago I thought to myself that I might be happier living in a place like Hong Kong or Guangzhou than in Vancouver.

I think that China is helping the world more than most other countries like the US or Russia. I think China’s belt and road initiative is great for the world. I think China’s reemergence as one of the worlds great civilizations has great potential for the world. By 2100 they might eleven have a greater per capita GDP than Canada.

And they are doing this out of the goodness of their hearts!  

JKR

Pondering wrote:

JKR wrote:

Why do you think I hate China? On a visit to China a few years ago I thought to myself that I might be happier living in a place like Hong Kong or Guangzhou than in Vancouver.

I think that China is helping the world more than most other countries like the US or Russia. I think China’s belt and road initiative is great for the world. I think China’s reemergence as one of the worlds great civilizations has great potential for the world. By 2100 they might eleven have a greater per capita GDP than Canada.

And they are doing this out of the goodness of their hearts!  

Do Canadians participate in international politics, economics, and culture out of the goodness of our hearts?

NDPP

"In WW2, the USA used its news media to propagandize and make the whole US public love the Russians/Chinese and hate the Germans/Japanese. And then after the war, they changed it, and made the US public love the Germans/Japanese and hate the Russians/Chinese" - Malcolm X

https://twitter.com/garoukike/status/1098790955816083456

Unionist

Pondering wrote:

Just because China isn't invading countries doesn't mean they wouldn't if they thought they could get away with it.

Just because you're not assaulting random strangers while walking in the park doesn't mean you wouldn't if you thought you could get away with it.

Sorry, just trying out your logic. It rocks!!

Unionist

JKR wrote:

Pondering wrote:

JKR wrote:

Why do you think I hate China? On a visit to China a few years ago I thought to myself that I might be happier living in a place like Hong Kong or Guangzhou than in Vancouver.

I think that China is helping the world more than most other countries like the US or Russia. I think China’s belt and road initiative is great for the world. I think China’s reemergence as one of the worlds great civilizations has great potential for the world. By 2100 they might eleven have a greater per capita GDP than Canada.

And they are doing this out of the goodness of their hearts!  

Do Canadians participate in international politics, economics, and culture out of the goodness of our hearts?

I'm sure that's Pondering's motivation. In my case, I only participate in international politics, economics, and culture as a surrogate for invading countries, because I don't think I could get away with that.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Why do you think I hate China?

Did you criticize their government?  Or forget to criticize some other "worse" government first?  Are you conscientiously failing to recognize their acheivements in your posts?  All of these are manifestations of racist hatred now.

WWWTT

JKR wrote:
WWWTT wrote:

And because of China’s economy and prosperity, it has become a point of interest to migrate to. And Canada doesn’t want Canadians leaving, so the demonization continues 

Currently China's per capita GDP is around $17,000 while Canada's is approximately triple that at around $50,000. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

I’ve already been given two offers to teach and have a couple other opportunities there if we move there.

Also forgot to mention the obvious, weather/climate. More of China is comfortable to live in compared to Canada. 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/young-chinese-canadians-move-to-hong-kong-for-jobs/article19214355/

voice of the damned

WWWTT wrote:

Not really from my perspective using my knowledge of Europe. 

I can easily get my Portuguese citizenship because my parents were Portuguese. Also my children can get their Portuguese citizenship because their paternal grandparents were Portuguese. And for children it’s free! I got to pay around 500$. 

As I understand it, this is due to the fact that the Portuguese population has been stagnant for decades now and the country needs people there, desperately!

The US during the 90’s was an alleged drain on Canada. Immigrants were leaving here for the US (not sure how much of that was true?)

And because of China’s economy and prosperity, it has become a point of interest to migrate to. And Canada doesn’t want Canadians leaving, so the demonization continues 

Okay, so let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Canada is demonizing China in order to prevent a brain-drain. That still doesn't justify the conflations you make in the post I was replying to...

To the posters here that claim they would never want to live in China I say this, the government of Canada probably knows this, and consider your fear to leave Canada permanently as a successful accomplishment of the icm!

People choose whether or not to leave their homeland based on all sorts of factors, not simply because they're being propagandized by the government. You can hardly expect someone to say "Well, I have no interest in moving abroad right now, but since the government shares that aversion, maybe I should reconsider my position."

 

 

NDPP

The Coming War on China (documentary)

https://vimeo.com/277975923

"The threat of China is becoming big news. The media is beating the drums of war as the world is being primed to regard China as a new enemy..."

Pages