4 ms·

I think pointing to different culture and history is a valid point of discussion. The point of view of a lot of the mainland Chinese people I've spoken to is th

I think pointing to different culture and history is a valid point of discussion. The point of view of a lot of the mainland Chinese people I've spoken to is that the post-Mao CCP has done a lot of bad, but also an immense amount of good for China as a whole. Compare the modern CCP with all of China's past governments of the last two centuries, and it's unambiguously better than Mao, the warlords, or the late Quing dynasty. Sure, maybe China would have been better off if the KMT won the civil war, but we can't change history. The history of what did happen is that after Mao the country went from struggling to feed most of it's people to what is likely the 2nd most powerful country on Earth. It went from GDP per capitalism of $1,000 in 1970 to $8,000 in 2010. China singlehandedly halved global poverty in doing so. While some of it's actions are appalling to foreigners, they are tolerated for historical reasons. E.g. distrust of organized religion stems from repeated religious rebellions that killed tens of millions of people, so many Chinese see the suppression of religion as a necessary measure to ensure social order. In that sense many Chinese have the same underlying ethical framework (don't needlessly cause harm, try to better the lives of everyday people, etc.), but the lessons history taught the country means that they pursue these ideals in a different way, and opt to make different tradeoffs when balancing different needs. While I am indeed apalled by some of the CCP's actions, I can empathize to a degree as to why Chinese people would still have a positive view of it overall. Of course, this is coming from a Westerner summarizing my interactions so it obviously risks putting words in other people's mouths.

sonnyblarney 8y ago
I don't doubt that there are cultural differences, and that 'good has been done' in the past, surely there is a cultural context. And FYI - any otherwise civilized place that was held back by totalitarian communists, or ruined by war was able to 'bounce back'. All of Europe was in ruin in 1945 - they also grew by 'leaps and bounds' after that time. China just had to wait for Mao to die. More poignantly - none of this can dismiss much of the abuse - it cannot be written of as 'cultural difference'.
- manfredo 8y ago
  I think you're missing the point. Ask the question "What is the most effective way of curbing sectarian violence?". Both Chinese and Westerners agree that sectarian violence is bad - that's the same underlying ethical value. But the answer to that question will probably differ. At least in the US we try to curb sectarian violence by promoting tolerance and integration. Historically that had worked pretty well for us, we haven't seen much sectarian violence outside of small scale acts of terror and regional conflict (e.g. fights with early Mormon settlers). China, on the other hand, has lost 30 million people due to a religious rebellion in the 19th century. A staggering figure, exceeding even China's WWII casualties. Furthermore, the Holocaust did not occur in Asia (at least the overwhelming majority of it occurred in Europe) so concentration and surveillance of religious minorities does not strike the same nerve. With that history, I think a person can genuinely, earnestly believe that the CCP's policy towards Uhigyrs or Falun Gong is limiting human suffering in the grand scheme of things. This is what I mean when I say that it's possible to have the same underlying values, but people from different societies can come up with drastically different or even conflicting implementations. This is moral relativism to a degree. But empathy is an exercise in relativism. I don't like what China is doing to it's religious minorities, and I don't want this post to come off as trying to justify it. But if we do want to convince the country to change it's ways I think it's important to see why the country is doing what it is, and not pick an easy conclusion like saying China or the CCP is immoral.
  - sonnyblarney 8y ago
    No, I'm definitely not missing your point, I'm disagreeing, fyi and your comment is shocking and repulsive. You are justifying, on cultural grounds, the mass incarceration of a minority because 'they could pose a potential social problem, even though they are not presently' which is abhorrent. Yes a 'cultural context' of Han ethnocentric racism and open bigotry, perhaps, but of course this isn't really justifying anything. There is no rationalization for arbitrarily incarcerating massive parts of the population, it basically doesn't make any sense at all. Especially considering the none of the Falun Gong, Tibetans, Uighurs represent any threat to China's peace in the first place. Every place on Earth has had some degree of calamity or violence in the past, and China has definitely had it's share of mass murder (giving and receiving), there's no shortage of this in their own history books, if anything they should be even more enlightened about it all. There are no cultural arguments that can be made here, the situation, particularly because of the deaths and subsequent organ harvesting, is approaching 'holocaust' terms.

sonnyblarney 8y ago

I don't doubt that there are cultural differences, and that 'good has been done' in the past, surely there is a cultural context. And FYI - any otherwise civilized place that was held back by totalitarian communists, or ruined by war was able to 'bounce back'. All of Europe was in ruin in 1945 - they also grew by 'leaps and bounds' after that time. China just had to wait for Mao to die. More poignantly - none of this can dismiss much of the abuse - it cannot be written of as 'cultural difference'.

manfredo 8y ago
I think you're missing the point. Ask the question "What is the most effective way of curbing sectarian violence?". Both Chinese and Westerners agree that sectarian violence is bad - that's the same underlying ethical value. But the answer to that question will probably differ. At least in the US we try to curb sectarian violence by promoting tolerance and integration. Historically that had worked pretty well for us, we haven't seen much sectarian violence outside of small scale acts of terror and regional conflict (e.g. fights with early Mormon settlers). China, on the other hand, has lost 30 million people due to a religious rebellion in the 19th century. A staggering figure, exceeding even China's WWII casualties. Furthermore, the Holocaust did not occur in Asia (at least the overwhelming majority of it occurred in Europe) so concentration and surveillance of religious minorities does not strike the same nerve. With that history, I think a person can genuinely, earnestly believe that the CCP's policy towards Uhigyrs or Falun Gong is limiting human suffering in the grand scheme of things. This is what I mean when I say that it's possible to have the same underlying values, but people from different societies can come up with drastically different or even conflicting implementations. This is moral relativism to a degree. But empathy is an exercise in relativism. I don't like what China is doing to it's religious minorities, and I don't want this post to come off as trying to justify it. But if we do want to convince the country to change it's ways I think it's important to see why the country is doing what it is, and not pick an easy conclusion like saying China or the CCP is immoral.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  No, I'm definitely not missing your point, I'm disagreeing, fyi and your comment is shocking and repulsive. You are justifying, on cultural grounds, the mass incarceration of a minority because 'they could pose a potential social problem, even though they are not presently' which is abhorrent. Yes a 'cultural context' of Han ethnocentric racism and open bigotry, perhaps, but of course this isn't really justifying anything. There is no rationalization for arbitrarily incarcerating massive parts of the population, it basically doesn't make any sense at all. Especially considering the none of the Falun Gong, Tibetans, Uighurs represent any threat to China's peace in the first place. Every place on Earth has had some degree of calamity or violence in the past, and China has definitely had it's share of mass murder (giving and receiving), there's no shortage of this in their own history books, if anything they should be even more enlightened about it all. There are no cultural arguments that can be made here, the situation, particularly because of the deaths and subsequent organ harvesting, is approaching 'holocaust' terms.