4 ms·

There's 41 people in Guatanamo, but there's 1.3 billion people in China. Sure there might be human right issues in the US and in other Western democracies but n

There's 41 people in Guatanamo, but there's 1.3 billion people in China. Sure there might be human right issues in the US and in other Western democracies but not at the same scale as China.

coldtea 10y ago
Who said this should be limited to Guatanamo? E.g. there are 1.5 million people in US prisons, the 25% of the world's prison population for a country with a mere 4% of the world's people. Predominantly black too. How's that not a huge human rights issue? Or the police abuse/innocent shootings, in numbers unheard of even in developing backwater countries? But even more so, who said the 1.3 billion people in China are "victims" needing our compassion? Have you asked them whether they like their government and how their country is going? And don't just ask some group back in the 90s in Tiananmen square -- because we could always ask the Kent State students in 1970, the blacks in Selma, the OWS, the Tea Party, the ones protesting against Bush/Obama/Trump etc and get a picture that wouldn't necessarily be what most of American's feel too. There surely are human right abuses in China. But it's the Chinese (the people, not the government) that should define what they are, through their own values and preferences, not some finger pointing foreigners. Especially from countries with a large history of plundering, which also involves China (opium wars, etc) and most of the Pacific.
- PJDK 10y ago
  > But even more so, who said the 1.3 billion people in China are "victims" needing our compassion? Have you asked them whether they like their government and how their country is going? From the article "We'd arranged to meet a woman in her village in China's central Hunan Province and to then travel with her by train to Beijing, filming as we went. But we never did get to meet our interviewee. The story we ended up with, however, reveals more about the exercise of power in China than any interview ever could. It is one that involves violence, intimidation and a forced confession - my first in my long reporting experience in China - in which I found myself apologising for "behaviour causing a bad impact" and for trying to conduct an "illegal interview"." So, yes, this exact story is about asking Chinese people about their government and having their equipment smashed and being forced to sign confessions for their efforts. It should certainly be for the Chinese to define these things, the fact they can't is rather the point.
- cooper12 10y ago
  > But even more so, who said the 1.3 billion people in China are "victims" needing our compassion? Have you asked them whether they like their government and how their country is going? I highly recommend a short essay by the anthropologist Lila Abu-Lughod titled "Do Muslim Women Need Saving?" that touches on parts of this question: http://ideas.time.com/2013/11/01/do-muslim-women-need-saving/ http://ideas.time.com/2013/11/01/do-muslim-women-need-saving....
  - euyyn 10y ago
    By the 3rd paragraph it's already problematic: > We were surprised when many women in Afghanistan didn’t take them off after being “liberated,” seeing as they had become such symbols of oppression in the West. But we were confusing veiling with a lack of agency. Agency doesn't mean "the will of the majority", it means individual ability. The Taliban imposing veiling removed agency. Now it's given back. Even if no more than a single woman in Afghanistan willingly removed the veil, it's still a good thing. If 10 years from now 100% of the women there decide they don't want to wear it anymore, they'll (hopefully) be able. Not under the Taliban. > many women saw it as a liberating invention because it enabled them to move out of segregated living spaces while still observing the requirements of separating and protecting women from unrelated men. I see how it can be liberating in that way for a woman whose religious beliefs make separation and protection a moral mandate. The difference, of course, is that religious beliefs shouldn't be imposed, and the Taliban did impose them. > If we think that U.S. women live in a world of choice regarding clothing, we need to look no further than our own codes of dress and the often constricting tyrannies of fashion. This is the most ridiculous argument. Of the many many women of the free countries that purposely dress against the norm, none are sent to jail, stoned to death, or whatever. Is the whole essay like this?
    - cooper12 10y ago
      I agree with your statement of agency, but the problem the article was pointing to was the view of the veil as an oppressive device. Despite claiming to be a freedom-loving country, France (Liberté, Equalité, Fraternité) did no better by its Muslim women by removing their agency. > I see how it can be liberating in that way for a woman whose religious beliefs make separation and protection a moral mandate. Huh? I think you're mixing up religious beliefs with social ones. This mandate is not unique to Islam and can be found all over the world in societies of varying development and even Christian ones. In fact, you should look at pictures of pre-revolution Iran [0] as proof that Islam itself is not incompatible with women mingling with men or not being veiled. > This is the most ridiculous argument. Of the many many women of the free countries that purposely dress against the norm, none are sent to jail, stoned to death, or whatever. Oh really? Men have been beat for wearing drag or for dressing effeminately. (or if you care specifically about women, see: transgender women) Gang members kill people over the color of their shirt or shoes. It's still illegal in most states for women to go topless. Just because you're not forced to wear a veil, doesn't mean you aren't oppressed by society's fashion. > Is the whole essay like this? It's not really a long essay, see for yourself. [0]: http://www.businessinsider.com/iran-before-the-revolution-in-photos-2015-4/ http://www.businessinsider.com/iran-before-the-revolution-in...
- saiya-jin 10y ago
  > Especially from countries with a large history of plundering, which also involves China (opium wars, etc) and most of the Pacific. most of the world at one point or another you mean
ionised 10y ago
This isn't a good comparison. US human rights violations surely do not all take place within the confines of Guantanamo Bay, nor are all of China's 1.3 billion people subject to mistreatment.

There's 41 people in Guatanamo, but there's 1.3 billion people in China. Sure there might be human right issues in the US and in other Western democracies but not at the same scale as China.

coldtea 10y ago

Who said this should be limited to Guatanamo? E.g. there are 1.5 million people in US prisons, the 25% of the world's prison population for a country with a mere 4% of the world's people. Predominantly black too. How's that not a huge human rights issue? Or the police abuse/innocent shootings, in numbers unheard of even in developing backwater countries? But even more so, who said the 1.3 billion people in China are "victims" needing our compassion? Have you asked them whether they like their government and how their country is going? And don't just ask some group back in the 90s in Tiananmen square -- because we could always ask the Kent State students in 1970, the blacks in Selma, the OWS, the Tea Party, the ones protesting against Bush/Obama/Trump etc and get a picture that wouldn't necessarily be what most of American's feel too. There surely are human right abuses in China. But it's the Chinese (the people, not the government) that should define what they are, through their own values and preferences, not some finger pointing foreigners. Especially from countries with a large history of plundering, which also involves China (opium wars, etc) and most of the Pacific.

PJDK 10y ago
> But even more so, who said the 1.3 billion people in China are "victims" needing our compassion? Have you asked them whether they like their government and how their country is going? From the article "We'd arranged to meet a woman in her village in China's central Hunan Province and to then travel with her by train to Beijing, filming as we went. But we never did get to meet our interviewee. The story we ended up with, however, reveals more about the exercise of power in China than any interview ever could. It is one that involves violence, intimidation and a forced confession - my first in my long reporting experience in China - in which I found myself apologising for "behaviour causing a bad impact" and for trying to conduct an "illegal interview"." So, yes, this exact story is about asking Chinese people about their government and having their equipment smashed and being forced to sign confessions for their efforts. It should certainly be for the Chinese to define these things, the fact they can't is rather the point.
cooper12 10y ago
> But even more so, who said the 1.3 billion people in China are "victims" needing our compassion? Have you asked them whether they like their government and how their country is going? I highly recommend a short essay by the anthropologist Lila Abu-Lughod titled "Do Muslim Women Need Saving?" that touches on parts of this question: http://ideas.time.com/2013/11/01/do-muslim-women-need-saving/ http://ideas.time.com/2013/11/01/do-muslim-women-need-saving....
- euyyn 10y ago
  By the 3rd paragraph it's already problematic: > We were surprised when many women in Afghanistan didn’t take them off after being “liberated,” seeing as they had become such symbols of oppression in the West. But we were confusing veiling with a lack of agency. Agency doesn't mean "the will of the majority", it means individual ability. The Taliban imposing veiling removed agency. Now it's given back. Even if no more than a single woman in Afghanistan willingly removed the veil, it's still a good thing. If 10 years from now 100% of the women there decide they don't want to wear it anymore, they'll (hopefully) be able. Not under the Taliban. > many women saw it as a liberating invention because it enabled them to move out of segregated living spaces while still observing the requirements of separating and protecting women from unrelated men. I see how it can be liberating in that way for a woman whose religious beliefs make separation and protection a moral mandate. The difference, of course, is that religious beliefs shouldn't be imposed, and the Taliban did impose them. > If we think that U.S. women live in a world of choice regarding clothing, we need to look no further than our own codes of dress and the often constricting tyrannies of fashion. This is the most ridiculous argument. Of the many many women of the free countries that purposely dress against the norm, none are sent to jail, stoned to death, or whatever. Is the whole essay like this?
  - cooper12 10y ago
    I agree with your statement of agency, but the problem the article was pointing to was the view of the veil as an oppressive device. Despite claiming to be a freedom-loving country, France (Liberté, Equalité, Fraternité) did no better by its Muslim women by removing their agency. > I see how it can be liberating in that way for a woman whose religious beliefs make separation and protection a moral mandate. Huh? I think you're mixing up religious beliefs with social ones. This mandate is not unique to Islam and can be found all over the world in societies of varying development and even Christian ones. In fact, you should look at pictures of pre-revolution Iran [0] as proof that Islam itself is not incompatible with women mingling with men or not being veiled. > This is the most ridiculous argument. Of the many many women of the free countries that purposely dress against the norm, none are sent to jail, stoned to death, or whatever. Oh really? Men have been beat for wearing drag or for dressing effeminately. (or if you care specifically about women, see: transgender women) Gang members kill people over the color of their shirt or shoes. It's still illegal in most states for women to go topless. Just because you're not forced to wear a veil, doesn't mean you aren't oppressed by society's fashion. > Is the whole essay like this? It's not really a long essay, see for yourself. [0]: http://www.businessinsider.com/iran-before-the-revolution-in-photos-2015-4/ http://www.businessinsider.com/iran-before-the-revolution-in...
saiya-jin 10y ago
> Especially from countries with a large history of plundering, which also involves China (opium wars, etc) and most of the Pacific. most of the world at one point or another you mean

ionised 10y ago

This isn't a good comparison. US human rights violations surely do not all take place within the confines of Guantanamo Bay, nor are all of China's 1.3 billion people subject to mistreatment.