Xinjiang cotton: Western clothes brands vanish as backlash grows(bbc.com)
bbc.com
Xinjiang cotton: Western clothes brands vanish as backlash grows
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-56533560
117 comments
I would suggest compare this incident with the Boxer Rebellion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxer_Rebellion. Majority of the Chinese mentality haven't changed since the Qing dynasty.
The article says "China is targeting more Western clothes retailers". But it should be noted that this backlash and boycotting of western clothing brands is done by Chinese people, not by the Chinese government. Many do not agree with the western narrative of forced labor cotton.
This boycotting is not limited to consumers. Various celebrities are doing it too. They have terminated their contracts with western clothing brands.
Interestingly, one such celebrity is Dilraba Dilmurat, a Uyghur celebrity who's very famous in China. Her company announced that they're terminating their contract with Adidas.
In addition, many Chinese companies have doubled down and proclaimed that they "support Xinjiang cotton".
Various people have pointed out that they do not believe the forced labor stories, because over 70% of cotton in Xinjiang is picked by machines. Whether you believe this statistic is up to you — I'm simply saying that this statistic has been mentioned.
This comment is in no way meant to endorse, nor to criticize, the Xinjiang situation. I am only commenting on the facts surrounding the boycott by Chinese people.
This boycotting is not limited to consumers. Various celebrities are doing it too. They have terminated their contracts with western clothing brands.
Interestingly, one such celebrity is Dilraba Dilmurat, a Uyghur celebrity who's very famous in China. Her company announced that they're terminating their contract with Adidas.
In addition, many Chinese companies have doubled down and proclaimed that they "support Xinjiang cotton".
Various people have pointed out that they do not believe the forced labor stories, because over 70% of cotton in Xinjiang is picked by machines. Whether you believe this statistic is up to you — I'm simply saying that this statistic has been mentioned.
This comment is in no way meant to endorse, nor to criticize, the Xinjiang situation. I am only commenting on the facts surrounding the boycott by Chinese people.
> Various people have pointed out that they do not believe the forced labor stories, because over 70% of cotton in Xinjiang is picked by machines. Whether you believe this statistic is up to you — I'm simply saying that this statistic has been mentioned.
The point of forced labour in these situations is not the efficient picking of cotton but as a form of punishment.
> western narrative of forced labor cotton
Are we calling everything we disagree with a "narrative" now?
We don't have all the facts on Xinjiang because journalism is prevented there - which in and of itself should make us suspicious.
The point of forced labour in these situations is not the efficient picking of cotton but as a form of punishment.
> western narrative of forced labor cotton
Are we calling everything we disagree with a "narrative" now?
We don't have all the facts on Xinjiang because journalism is prevented there - which in and of itself should make us suspicious.
> Are we calling everything we disagree with
My comment is not a statement on whether I agree or disagree.
"Narrative" is a neutral word. Something can be a narrative even if it's true and I agree with it.
My comment is not a statement on whether I agree or disagree.
"Narrative" is a neutral word. Something can be a narrative even if it's true and I agree with it.
> "Narrative" is a neutral word
Not necessarily: a representation of a particular situation or process in such a way as to reflect or conform to an overarching set of aims or values
Not necessarily: a representation of a particular situation or process in such a way as to reflect or conform to an overarching set of aims or values
Narratives can be correct or incorrect (and this one is mostly correct insofar as it makes specific claims about the treatment of Uyghurs in Xinjiang.) Calling a set of claims a narrative for the purpose of pointing out some people don’t agree doesn’t entail that those claims are wrong.
> The point of forced labour in these situations is not the efficient picking of cotton but as a form of punishment.
Punishment isn't the right word. The goal is to obliterate Uyghur village life and shift them to a legible lifestyle that is integrated into the Chinese mass market. Having them e.g. pick cotton, aside from being a convenient way to pay off well-connected supporters, makes the Uyghurs dependent on a regime-friendly company and also gives them more income to buy the same goods and consume the same media as the rest of China.
ETA: I'm confused as to whether this comment pissed off a bunch of wumao or pissed off a bunch of Americans who somehow managed to misread it as praising China. An explanation of a bad behavior isn't a justification for it, but something that can help provide insight into why it's happening and possible pressure points to stop it.
Punishment isn't the right word. The goal is to obliterate Uyghur village life and shift them to a legible lifestyle that is integrated into the Chinese mass market. Having them e.g. pick cotton, aside from being a convenient way to pay off well-connected supporters, makes the Uyghurs dependent on a regime-friendly company and also gives them more income to buy the same goods and consume the same media as the rest of China.
ETA: I'm confused as to whether this comment pissed off a bunch of wumao or pissed off a bunch of Americans who somehow managed to misread it as praising China. An explanation of a bad behavior isn't a justification for it, but something that can help provide insight into why it's happening and possible pressure points to stop it.
Forced labour situations do not usually result in increased income. Sometimes, not any income at all.
That's not this situation, though. The original report on coercion in the Xinjiang cotton industry doesn't even make the claim that they're enslaved, uncompensated, or forced, although after passing through a dozen media articles it's warped into that. Most people here are seemingly unaware that this is an entirely different set of allegations than the reeducation camps.
Implicit coercion has been used to shift Uyghur people into the market economy. The visible income of poor Uyghurs is in fact the metric that local officials are being evaluated on for performance.
Implicit coercion has been used to shift Uyghur people into the market economy. The visible income of poor Uyghurs is in fact the metric that local officials are being evaluated on for performance.
From the article: "While H&M's physical stores in China remain, it is no longer possible to hail a taxi to the shops using an app"
That doesn't seem like it's solely the choice of consumers/various celebrities.
That doesn't seem like it's solely the choice of consumers/various celebrities.
Taxi app companies aren't government-owned.
Why would privately-held Taxi App companies unanimously take these brands off the maps? It's not like people are going to feel bad if they see H&M on the map, and lash out against a Taxi app.
You probably know how patriotic Americans are, right? Well: Chinese are the same! Chinese nationalism is a thing. Although I'm not sure whether you believe that.
In fact, nationalism is a thing in many Asian countries. In South Korea, there was recently a backlash against a K-drama for depicting that certain cultural elements may have originated from China. I don't know anything about the historical facts surrounding that case, but this is an example of how strong nationalism can be in east-Asian countries, including China.
In fact, nationalism is a thing in many Asian countries. In South Korea, there was recently a backlash against a K-drama for depicting that certain cultural elements may have originated from China. I don't know anything about the historical facts surrounding that case, but this is an example of how strong nationalism can be in east-Asian countries, including China.
Yes, and in both cases that makes people easily led into boycotts or panics by propaganda.
There is only one single Data Source for Maps in China. You are not even allowed to Map China and own those Data. So as long as that Data Source no longer shows H&M, every single App including Apple Map wont have H&M on it.
Simply because if they don't, the app will be attacked by the mass.
This isn't the first boycott in China. There have been lots and lots of boycotts in China. In all of those instances, people don't lash out to those who stay quiet.
Given this track record, why do you believe that this time is any different?
Given this track record, why do you believe that this time is any different?
There is no such thing as a Chinese company not owned by the government of China.
But they are government controlled.
You're only mentioning facts, but not all of the facts.
The way you emphasised your comment as merely mentioning facts is making it obvious that you are selectively picking facts in favour of some narrative.
Care to mention how coordinated the "support XinJiang cotton" statements are? Like all the "support Hong Kong Police" posts before? I can also say I'm only commenting on the facts surrounding the situation.
It's interesting you mentioned Dilraba. If China can threaten Uighurs overseas, I wonder how one inside the country can wilfully oppose any propaganda.
The way you emphasised your comment as merely mentioning facts is making it obvious that you are selectively picking facts in favour of some narrative.
Care to mention how coordinated the "support XinJiang cotton" statements are? Like all the "support Hong Kong Police" posts before? I can also say I'm only commenting on the facts surrounding the situation.
It's interesting you mentioned Dilraba. If China can threaten Uighurs overseas, I wonder how one inside the country can wilfully oppose any propaganda.
I apologize if it came over as claiming that those are all facts. It is not meant as an exhaustive list of facts. In fact, I declare that I am not able to list all facts exhaustively.
I mentioned the facts that I know of, and that I think add something to the discussion (i.e. not things that people haven't already heard a million times).
Since you believe I missed mentioning important facts, I implore you to elaborate them. This is not meant as sarcasm, I'm truly curious about what you can add.
For example, you say that the statements are coordinated. Can you show examples and data?
I mentioned the facts that I know of, and that I think add something to the discussion (i.e. not things that people haven't already heard a million times).
Since you believe I missed mentioning important facts, I implore you to elaborate them. This is not meant as sarcasm, I'm truly curious about what you can add.
For example, you say that the statements are coordinated. Can you show examples and data?
[deleted]
Do they have any other option other than "support" Xinjiang cotton? The only other option Dilraba possibly would've had is "re-education."
[deleted]
Yes they have. They can choose to stay quiet and not say anything.
Such boycotts and backlashes are short-lived. If you look at past boycotts — against Dolce & Gabanna who made a racist commercial, or against the Japanese prime minister visiting war crime shrines — then you also see that after a while people forget about the boycott and continue to buy things. None of those were government-instigated either: in fact the government actively called on people to calm down. There was for example a restaurant in Shenyang which put on an anti-Japanese banner, and the police told him to take it down because it's too insulting to Japan.
So yes celebrities absolutely have a choice to wait until the fuss is over.
Such boycotts and backlashes are short-lived. If you look at past boycotts — against Dolce & Gabanna who made a racist commercial, or against the Japanese prime minister visiting war crime shrines — then you also see that after a while people forget about the boycott and continue to buy things. None of those were government-instigated either: in fact the government actively called on people to calm down. There was for example a restaurant in Shenyang which put on an anti-Japanese banner, and the police told him to take it down because it's too insulting to Japan.
So yes celebrities absolutely have a choice to wait until the fuss is over.
> But it should be noted that this backlash and boycotting of western clothing brands is done by Chinese people, not by the Chinese government.
No it's the government.
No it's the government.
So China will allow loads of Western journalists to investigate without hinderance? Excellent!
Access has been heavily restricted so far, so I’m eager to see the results of China’s new-found forthrightness on the issue.
If it’s as China says: show us.
Access has been heavily restricted so far, so I’m eager to see the results of China’s new-found forthrightness on the issue.
If it’s as China says: show us.
If I was a responsible decision maker in China, wether or not I had something to hide, I would not allow Western journalists free access. The Western press is largely, though not entirely, a mouthpiece of the Western intelligence agencies. Why would anyone allow the presstitutes in ?
China also doesn't allow loads of Western journalists to investigate pretty much anywhere in China, so that can't really be taken as particular evidence that a "genocide" is happening in Xinjiang. Send a journalist to a random factory in Shenzhen and have them start questioning workers about how much they like the CCP and you'll get a similar response.
I don't see the fact about the Uyghur celebrity you singled out as interesting, for the simple fact that she's in China. As is painfully well known outside of China, they have a way of making businessmen disappear: https://money.cnn.com/2017/06/14/investing/china-missing-exe...
So I really don't see how any of your points make sense, about companies being private and all. The truth is there's no democracy in China.
Anything that comes out of there must be taken with a truckload of salt. Kind of like the ridiculous Covid numbers, that put the total number of cases in China lower than countries with a population 500x smaller than theirs.
So I really don't see how any of your points make sense, about companies being private and all. The truth is there's no democracy in China.
Anything that comes out of there must be taken with a truckload of salt. Kind of like the ridiculous Covid numbers, that put the total number of cases in China lower than countries with a population 500x smaller than theirs.
Seems like this site has taken a turn for the worse. I expect downvotes without discourse on Reddit, it being a social media and all, but I thought the people here were above it. Oh well...
For what its worth: people on both sides get downvoted without discussion. You're not alone.
Yeah, I'm fairly aware. And it is a bit painful to see, because in the end I prefer some good discourse vs "winning" or "losing" an argument.
> Many do not agree with the western narrative of forced labor cotton.
Which implies that they haven't read their country's criminal law (which requires all able-bodied prisoners to work) or didn't think through it's implications (of course there's forced labor cotton, the same way there's forced labor rice, forced labor coal and forced labor textiles.) Mechanization doesn't negate that, since being forced to operate the cotton-picking machines or a sewing machine is still forced labor.
But part of the blame lies with the "Western narrative" not trying very hard to be believable. E.g. using "Xinjiang" as a shorthand for "Uyghur forced labor" when 1) there are other ethnic groups in Xinjiang 2) forced labor affects at most a few percent of the population (to be clear, that's still hundreds of thousands of people) and 3) it's not limited to Xinjiang, but applies to all of China (as I said, prisoners are required by law to work.)
In the West, Western reporting on China operates in easy mode: hardly anyone has the background knowledge to notice imprecise or even incorrect reporting. But Chinese people are going to notice a disconnect with their daily lived experience. That disconnect can be explained, but I've yet to see a Western journalist do a good job explaining it, or even realize that there's something to explain.
Which implies that they haven't read their country's criminal law (which requires all able-bodied prisoners to work) or didn't think through it's implications (of course there's forced labor cotton, the same way there's forced labor rice, forced labor coal and forced labor textiles.) Mechanization doesn't negate that, since being forced to operate the cotton-picking machines or a sewing machine is still forced labor.
But part of the blame lies with the "Western narrative" not trying very hard to be believable. E.g. using "Xinjiang" as a shorthand for "Uyghur forced labor" when 1) there are other ethnic groups in Xinjiang 2) forced labor affects at most a few percent of the population (to be clear, that's still hundreds of thousands of people) and 3) it's not limited to Xinjiang, but applies to all of China (as I said, prisoners are required by law to work.)
In the West, Western reporting on China operates in easy mode: hardly anyone has the background knowledge to notice imprecise or even incorrect reporting. But Chinese people are going to notice a disconnect with their daily lived experience. That disconnect can be explained, but I've yet to see a Western journalist do a good job explaining it, or even realize that there's something to explain.
I would've only said that I laught at your naivete, but the gravity of the matter doesn't allow.
100 of random celebrities make nearly word for word identical posts within hours of each other?
Your naivete was exploited.
This is a very typical operation by the propaganda ministry.
P.S. I assume you are Chinese, and I cannot believe somebody with that level of intellectual achievement to make it to the West can't see a banal lie, when it is a joke material for local taxi drivers.
100 of random celebrities make nearly word for word identical posts within hours of each other?
Your naivete was exploited.
This is a very typical operation by the propaganda ministry.
P.S. I assume you are Chinese, and I cannot believe somebody with that level of intellectual achievement to make it to the West can't see a banal lie, when it is a joke material for local taxi drivers.
We've had to warn you before about violating the site guidelines. You've reverted to doing it extremely badly. If that continues we're going to have to ban you again. You ought to know better by now.
Ideological attacks, nationalistic attacks, personal attacks, and ethnic attacks are not what this site is for. We ban such accounts. No more of this please.
Ideological attacks, nationalistic attacks, personal attacks, and ethnic attacks are not what this site is for. We ban such accounts. No more of this please.
> P.S. I assume you are Chinese, and I cannot believe somebody with that level of intellectual achievement to make it to the West can't see a banal lie, when it is a joke material for local taxi drivers.
That personal attack is totally unnecessary.
That personal attack is totally unnecessary.
Are they word for word identical? Can you show me? This is not meant to criticize your comment, I am truly curious about your sources.
You say it's propaganda. From everything I've seen, Chinese propaganda is much more crude and much more official than that. They don't force other people — like celebrities — what to say, they broadcast via state TV channels and they put up huge banners. They have censorship, which means forbidding certain things, but I've never seen them coercing celebrities to say things they don't agree with. In general people can choose to stay quiet and not get involved. Do you have evidence that shows that the celebrity statements are coerced? Again: this is not criticism, I am truly curious about your sources.
From what I understand, nationalism in China is real. Do you perhaps dispute this notion?
You say it's propaganda. From everything I've seen, Chinese propaganda is much more crude and much more official than that. They don't force other people — like celebrities — what to say, they broadcast via state TV channels and they put up huge banners. They have censorship, which means forbidding certain things, but I've never seen them coercing celebrities to say things they don't agree with. In general people can choose to stay quiet and not get involved. Do you have evidence that shows that the celebrity statements are coerced? Again: this is not criticism, I am truly curious about your sources.
From what I understand, nationalism in China is real. Do you perhaps dispute this notion?
Agree that there is no need for CCP to coerce celebrities. But, help me understand, why should we give a rat's ass about what those celebrities say in favor of CCP policies, given that their only options are (1) Keep quiet (2) Endorse.
I don't comment on whether you should care. I am merely stating some facts. It's up to you to decide what to do with it.
Not to pile on, objectively they are not facts but partial observations with concrete conclusions
Well, my point isn't really about whether I care or not. Any rational actor wouldn't give any weightage to celebrities supporting an authoritarian regime, simply because they don't have any other options. (The "option" to keep quiet can be taken away any time. Although I agree that this particular instance wouldn't warrant such measures.)
I find it interesting that you say that at any time they could be forced to say something. Can you show me some sources that indicate that this practice exists after the end of the Cultural Revolution? I am not criticizing you, I truly want to know because this is not something I am aware of.
Can you comment on past track record? In any of the previous boycotts (for example against Dolce & Gabanna who made a racist video, or against Japan honoring war criminals), have you seen evidence of peopke coerced by the government to say something, or people being prosecuted for staying quiet?
Can you comment on past track record? In any of the previous boycotts (for example against Dolce & Gabanna who made a racist video, or against Japan honoring war criminals), have you seen evidence of peopke coerced by the government to say something, or people being prosecuted for staying quiet?
Again, my point is that, if an authoritarian government has the power to silence a person, then they certainly have the power to make a person say what it wants them to say. (Not directly related, but "confessions" are fairly common in these regimes. Gui Minhai - for example.)
Past track record? I think the events you've mentioned are organic protests, but that is beside the point.
Past track record? I think the events you've mentioned are organic protests, but that is beside the point.
I'm not the person you're replying to, and I don't have the evidence you're asking for.
However, China isn't stupid. Rather, they've often shown to be rather cunning, and it's impossible to know all the times they may use their weight and nobody notices.
I'd liken it to cold war era techniques from the US and Russia. Both sides would often do things wrong on purpose just to muddy the waters or throw red herrings. People at the time thought that the US was clumsy and stupid when a top-secret document was "accidentally" leaked, but it was done on purpose to track spies, waste Russia's resources, etc. I do not put it past China to have multiple prongs here, with the clumsy antics simply a smokescreen for the real propaganda. Obviously, this cannot be proven, but like I said, there are lots of lessons in history of this being the case with other states. They have lots of textbook examples to follow.
However, China isn't stupid. Rather, they've often shown to be rather cunning, and it's impossible to know all the times they may use their weight and nobody notices.
I'd liken it to cold war era techniques from the US and Russia. Both sides would often do things wrong on purpose just to muddy the waters or throw red herrings. People at the time thought that the US was clumsy and stupid when a top-secret document was "accidentally" leaked, but it was done on purpose to track spies, waste Russia's resources, etc. I do not put it past China to have multiple prongs here, with the clumsy antics simply a smokescreen for the real propaganda. Obviously, this cannot be proven, but like I said, there are lots of lessons in history of this being the case with other states. They have lots of textbook examples to follow.
You say they've shown to be rather cunning. In what way? I've followed this topic for a long time, and from what I can see China is absolutely and horribly incompetent when it comes to media and propaganda. I know people who would be called "pro-China" in western circles, and even all of them think that the Chinese do a very bad job at propaganda and marketing themselves.
So I'm curious: what makes you believe that China is cunning? Is there anything you can show me?
So I'm curious: what makes you believe that China is cunning? Is there anything you can show me?
Case in point: https://twitter.com/manyapan/status/1375898703970582536?s=19
A propaganda rap song? Really?? This is typical Chinese propaganda. How is this "cunning"?
A propaganda rap song? Really?? This is typical Chinese propaganda. How is this "cunning"?
They were retweeting the same post with the same slogan, essentially a hashtag, so being word for word identical neither supports nor denies the gp argument. It's like a bunch of people retweeting the same tweet with the exact same words "Black lives matter!"
In other news, apparently one of the most popular streamers in China sold CNY 23.52 million worth of Xinjiang cotton products within an hour yesterday (with 12M views). https://www.zaobao.com.sg/realtime/china/story20210327-11345...
In other news, apparently one of the most popular streamers in China sold CNY 23.52 million worth of Xinjiang cotton products within an hour yesterday (with 12M views). https://www.zaobao.com.sg/realtime/china/story20210327-11345...
I haven't seen those posts. Can you link them? Again: not doubting you or criticizing you, I just want to read them myself.
Found it: https://weibo.com/2803301701/K7IpgaGqx?type=repost Slight correction to my original post: "essentially a hashtag" => "actually a hashtag". Most of the top retweets are just the hashtag or hashtag + emoji. Dilraba Dilmurat, a Uyghur actress, posted something more substantial.
This isn't about nationalism. Propoganda can also consist of censoring alternstive opinions. Chinese govenrment dont have to coerce celebrities to say something because it's totally sufficient for their regime is coerce everyone who not agree to keep their mouse shut.
Yeah you can tell something like "opinion majority of society align with government anyway", but if it was the case they wouldn't need censorship in first place.
Yeah you can tell something like "opinion majority of society align with government anyway", but if it was the case they wouldn't need censorship in first place.
I see your point. From what I understand though, your point contradicts a western study on Chinese censorship. This study was even featured in HN some time ago. The study states that censorship's goal is to limit controversy and to limit the ability of people to rally together, independent of whether the topic at hand is pro-government or anti-government. The censorship censored pro-government messages as well as anti-government messages: the only thing that mattered was whether it had the potential for lots of people to gather for activism.
This is not a criticism of your comment. I am truly curious about what you think of that study, and how that fits in this situation.
This is not a criticism of your comment. I am truly curious about what you think of that study, and how that fits in this situation.
> From what I understand, nationalism in China is real. Do you perhaps dispute this notion?
I very much do. I've seen a few nationalist, but nationalism as such in China is not real.
The prime majority of people in China are completely apolitical, because they are afraid to get involved. Mainland Chinese are probably the most apolitical nation out there.
And of the few nationalists I've seen, none would come up in the open, and shout "I LOVE CHINAAAA," not even the dumbest ones. And none of those were normal people. One was a tech millionaire, another probably was already an insider to the system, and there were few idle socialite-intellectuals supported by rich parents who moved to the West.
The highly visible nationalism you see in China which pops out of nowhere, and disappears without a trace a day after is of a theatrical kind.
I very much do. I've seen a few nationalist, but nationalism as such in China is not real.
The prime majority of people in China are completely apolitical, because they are afraid to get involved. Mainland Chinese are probably the most apolitical nation out there.
And of the few nationalists I've seen, none would come up in the open, and shout "I LOVE CHINAAAA," not even the dumbest ones. And none of those were normal people. One was a tech millionaire, another probably was already an insider to the system, and there were few idle socialite-intellectuals supported by rich parents who moved to the West.
The highly visible nationalism you see in China which pops out of nowhere, and disappears without a trace a day after is of a theatrical kind.
Okay, I see your point.
Although, are political participation and nationalism the same thing, or even strongly related? Can't people harbor strong nationalist sentiment while still being apolitical?
Although, are political participation and nationalism the same thing, or even strongly related? Can't people harbor strong nationalist sentiment while still being apolitical?
> Can't people harbor strong nationalist sentiment while still being apolitical?
In the context of China, no. Maybe in other countries, where the ruling party have not spent the last 100 years making an ideological singularity of itself, the state, the nation, and the country.
In the context of China, no. Maybe in other countries, where the ruling party have not spent the last 100 years making an ideological singularity of itself, the state, the nation, and the country.
[deleted]
> This is a very typical operation by the propaganda ministry.
Needs proof
Needs proof
Interesting.
A lot of western clothing is already made in China.
[deleted]
What’s being done in Xinjiang is indisputably awful. It’s also clear that the Chinese response is heavily coordinated by the state for its own political benefit.
On the other hand, I reckon the average Chinese person on the street hears about corporate boycotts like this and just thinks: you Westerners are a bloody bunch of hypocrites. This week the Georgia legislature disenfranchised innumerable black people and there were two mass shootings. In the past 12 months alone, hundreds of thousands of people have died in America alone in large part due to malignant political influence, and a sitting President incited a riot in the Capitol.
You can see how the issue devolves into crass nationalism pretty quickly.
Anyone with any sense has been warning about Western countries allowing or causing the erosion of their own soft power in recent decades, culminating most recently with the awful person that was Donald Trump. It’s well and truly coming home to roost now.
On the other hand, I reckon the average Chinese person on the street hears about corporate boycotts like this and just thinks: you Westerners are a bloody bunch of hypocrites. This week the Georgia legislature disenfranchised innumerable black people and there were two mass shootings. In the past 12 months alone, hundreds of thousands of people have died in America alone in large part due to malignant political influence, and a sitting President incited a riot in the Capitol.
You can see how the issue devolves into crass nationalism pretty quickly.
Anyone with any sense has been warning about Western countries allowing or causing the erosion of their own soft power in recent decades, culminating most recently with the awful person that was Donald Trump. It’s well and truly coming home to roost now.
You had me until you got to Donald Trump. No president has been more critical of China and actually done more to confront China than Donald Trump.
Donald Trump’s specific policy on China is a separate matter from the effect his conduct generally had on American soft power.
I say this as a citizen of one of America’s closest allies.
I say this as a citizen of one of America’s closest allies.
Let's compare literal genocide and live organ harvesting with what happened to George Floyd and a riot in the Capitol building. Smart.
No one’s comparing those things.
In designating 'Westerners' as 'a bunch of bloody hypocrites' the boycotters, as you have described them, most certainly would be
It’s not about moral relativism or whataboutism. I’m saying the precipitous decline in American soft power opens the door for the weaponisation of events like this for the political benefit of the Chinese state.
Well then I guess I'm saying that it's not so smart to believe it
Right. You were just running your mouth.
> On the other hand, I reckon the average Chinese person on the street hears about corporate boycotts like this and just thinks: you Westerners are a bloody bunch of hypocrites.
An average Chinese person on the street doesn't think, he is preoccupied with making a living, and has no time to watch nor the Radio Free Asia, nor People's Daily.
And if given chance to immigrate, and money, most will not give a f__k what is to happen to China, or America tomorrow.
Locals would agonize much less about the fate of their country than idle intellectuals in the West, as they are smart enough to see that they have zero stake in it. There is nothing in life an average Chinese gets from his country, and nor would he want to give anything back to it.
An average Chinese person on the street doesn't think, he is preoccupied with making a living, and has no time to watch nor the Radio Free Asia, nor People's Daily.
And if given chance to immigrate, and money, most will not give a f__k what is to happen to China, or America tomorrow.
Locals would agonize much less about the fate of their country than idle intellectuals in the West, as they are smart enough to see that they have zero stake in it. There is nothing in life an average Chinese gets from his country, and nor would he want to give anything back to it.
That's quite some level of denigration and generalization on the average chinese person you've put out.
Consider the fact that China raised millions out of poverty. Consider the fact that they're one of the few countries able to stand up to the US. Consider the fact China has the most opportunities out of the few chinese-majority countries in the world. It's a great deal for them.
Consider the fact that China raised millions out of poverty. Consider the fact that they're one of the few countries able to stand up to the US. Consider the fact China has the most opportunities out of the few chinese-majority countries in the world. It's a great deal for them.
That's not denigration, that's reality.
> Consider the fact that China raised millions out of poverty.
Nobody raised anybody out of poverty. The only ones they have to thank for raising them out of poverty are themselves. It was that party in the first place which plunged China into the abyss.
Telling that you can only have nice living because of the party is the true denigration.
> That's quite some level of denigration and generalization on the average chinese person you've put out.
An average Chinese person has more enough reasons to hate the country with passion that idle Western intellectuals. I myself know many people personally whose relative were killed by communists, and some even know where children of those murderers live today.
Be grateful for that??? Hundred curses
> Consider the fact that China raised millions out of poverty.
Nobody raised anybody out of poverty. The only ones they have to thank for raising them out of poverty are themselves. It was that party in the first place which plunged China into the abyss.
Telling that you can only have nice living because of the party is the true denigration.
> That's quite some level of denigration and generalization on the average chinese person you've put out.
An average Chinese person has more enough reasons to hate the country with passion that idle Western intellectuals. I myself know many people personally whose relative were killed by communists, and some even know where children of those murderers live today.
Be grateful for that??? Hundred curses
> Nobody raised anybody out of poverty. The only ones they have to thank for raising them out of poverty are themselves. It was that party in the first place which plunged China into the abyss.
Do you honestly think that in 1970s rural china without investments into infrastructure you'd still be able to pull yourself out of poverty? These things require huge organized effort.
Not sure where you got the idea that the average chinese should be grateful to the party. I've said nothing about that, just pointing out the advantages of the average Chinese person.
Do you honestly think that in 1970s rural china without investments into infrastructure you'd still be able to pull yourself out of poverty? These things require huge organized effort.
Not sure where you got the idea that the average chinese should be grateful to the party. I've said nothing about that, just pointing out the advantages of the average Chinese person.
You are the correct. The poster has no idea what they’re saying. Never in the history of the world have a few hundred million people just up and decided to raise themselves out of poverty because they felt like it, all at the same time.
This is 100% a result of * government policies * technology * international cooperation
Hell, there is even a name for the project! The Great Leap Forward.
This is 100% a result of * government policies * technology * international cooperation
Hell, there is even a name for the project! The Great Leap Forward.
The Great Leap Forward, has nothing to do with the current success in China. That was Mao's project that resulted in tens of millions of deaths. The reason for China's success is all about the economic reforms introduced by Deng Xiaoping in the 1980's. Deng's policies and influence is still relevate in todays China, except Xi Jinping is more hard core than Deng would have liked. Deng in his later years was more of a pragmatic than idealistic, as Deng said: "No matter if it is a white cat or a black cat; as long as it can catch mice, it is a good cat.".
Yes, what's happing in Xinjiang is terrible. But it does not take away from the success of Deng's policies in transforming China. Make no mistake - most Chinese backs the party, even thou they know it has also done some terrible things. They do that because of the financial success of the policies. It's also true, that there is currently no alternative to the party in China. Secondly there are many opinions inside the party both for and against Xi Jinping. It's not black and white.
Yes, what's happing in Xinjiang is terrible. But it does not take away from the success of Deng's policies in transforming China. Make no mistake - most Chinese backs the party, even thou they know it has also done some terrible things. They do that because of the financial success of the policies. It's also true, that there is currently no alternative to the party in China. Secondly there are many opinions inside the party both for and against Xi Jinping. It's not black and white.
“In America you’re free to criticise the American government. In China you’re also free to criticise the American government.” ;)
Haha, no disagreement there. ;)
For this type of arguments see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes
mouzogu(4)
Maybe we should offer asylum to the Uyghurs but I think as soon they are here people stop calling the Uyghurs and just classify them as muslims. Same happened with syrian refugees.
People should keep an eye on the "BN(O)" Hong Kong visa. The UK has, perhaps surprisingly given all the anti-asylum-seeker rhetoric, decided to make a slightly easier route for HK nationals to emigrate to the UK. China has started to retaliate: https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/3127111...
https://homeofficemedia.blog.gov.uk/2021/01/29/media-factshe... (£250 for five years, plus the effectively mandatory £600/year NHS surcharge, per person, plus any additional test or permit fees)
https://homeofficemedia.blog.gov.uk/2021/01/29/media-factshe... (£250 for five years, plus the effectively mandatory £600/year NHS surcharge, per person, plus any additional test or permit fees)
Most HK nationals aren't muslims. Muslims face another level of anti-asylum-rhetoric than HK people.
Fully expecting this thread to be a shitshow of China-bashing. BBC's articles reference Adrian Zenz as the source, who is known to be an unreliable source with regards to China.
As someone who is from a small country, which can only be a kingmaker in the context of the big powers ala the US and China:
You western folks are being played hard by these narratives the western institutions are spouting. The chinese are reacting like this simply because they feel they're being wronged, and they've been wronged before.
The US's mission to spread democracy is not going to succeed if people feel they're being lied to. Hell, they'll even reject it.
As someone who is from a small country, which can only be a kingmaker in the context of the big powers ala the US and China:
You western folks are being played hard by these narratives the western institutions are spouting. The chinese are reacting like this simply because they feel they're being wronged, and they've been wronged before.
The US's mission to spread democracy is not going to succeed if people feel they're being lied to. Hell, they'll even reject it.
Unsure what human rights violations and protests against them (and protests against the protests) have to do with US foreign policy?
It can be used as a weapon of the western geopolitical world to pressure other countries as well as strengthen the positions of political figures via advocating the moralistic angle.
Ever heard of countries justifying their invasions of other countries as 'liberation'? It's a similar thing. Get the public to be on your side by reframing and aligning your foreign policy.
Ever heard of countries justifying their invasions of other countries as 'liberation'? It's a similar thing. Get the public to be on your side by reframing and aligning your foreign policy.
As someone also from a small country with no power or stakes in this equation: everybody is equally being played and if you're dualistic with your side-picking you're getting burned one way or another.
Agreed. Still one common goal we should all get behind is reaching for something closer to the truth.