4 ms·

Would you be able to elaborate more on your 2nd paragraph?

roenxi 7y ago
The one that stands out to me is a girl I know from Shenzhen. Very intelligent, very articulate and someone I've pigeonholed as rising-star-in-leadership-somewhere material. She's basically maintaining what seems to me to be a fairly passionate cross between an attack on the protestors and a defense of Chinese national pride. The two main prongs are that the protestors are disruptive/the protests cause injury (citing some facts I don't consider controversial) and the risk of interference by Westerners in Chinese affairs. What is noticeably missing, that I'd expect of someone of similar character but with an Australian upbringing, is any acknowledgement that individual liberty could possibly be important to anyone, in Hong Kong or otherwise. At the stereotypical level nothing there surprises me. At the emotional level it is jarring. I'm going to be unpacking what is just my general support for Hong Kong vs. my status as not a Chinese citizen vs. genuine cultural differences. China is huge and has become powerful again. I'd like to be more informed about the lens they use to see this sort of situation. There are clearly substantially different opinions about what is happening. Even if it is simply getting an English translation of the CCP propaganda that would be helpful, because at the moment I just don't know what specifically to expect if I ask a mainlander what they think about the topic. Given how tied Australia and China are, that isn't ideal.
- goatinaboat 7y ago
  You will find any number of American or other Western patriots who love their country but are suspicious of their governments. The Chinese, at least to the extent they are willing to openly express where it might be reported back, don’t differentiate.
- kipqi 7y ago
  Seems incredible to me that people keep thinking that intelligent people have to share the western liberal view of the world that we all have been indoctrinated under.
  - roboys 7y ago
    Interesting observation. Here is another one that I haven't seen yet.... Forcing criticism of the state to stay at the individual level drastically reduces the potential for foreign-funded fake grassroots movements to change the trajectory of domestic policy. This stops a very common social attack vector that governments in the west readily employ around the world. Anyone on the receiving end of American foreign policy hostility can understand this protectionist position.
  - Smithalicious 7y ago
    I think people are downvoting this over the word "indoctrinated" but I think it's a pretty accurate take. The whole democracy/freedom of speech/criticism of the government thing is an explicitly western position (though by now adopted at least in name by large parts of the world). People in the west like to think that our cultural ideas are objectively superior and that anyone intelligent/reasonable/well-read enough would support them, and that's why you often see people act surprised when intellectuals in countries like China hold mainstream Chinese views. In reality the main reason why we have the cultural ideas that we do is historical, and we all have them because we've been raised to believe these things since childhood. I think that's what the parent meant to say by "indoctrinated".
- yorwba 7y ago
  > Even if it is simply getting an English translation of the CCP propaganda that would be helpful Try http://www.globaltimes.cn/ http://www.globaltimes.cn/ http://en.people.cn/ http://en.people.cn/ or http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/ http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/ for CCP propaganda in English.
- FooBarWidget 7y ago
  My guess is the history that mainlanders went through, conjured a very different opinion on what things in life are most important. I don't think reading propaganda will help you understand better because you haven't gone through that history. I think the answer is hidden in plain sight in the paper: > "Xinhua news agency issued an opinion that western-style parliamentary democracy would lead to a repetition of the turbulent factionalism of China’s Cultural Revolution (http://j.mp/McRDXk http://j.mp/McRDXk)." > [The CCP] said that “On the basis of China’s condi- tions. . . we’ll not employ a system of multiple parties holding office in rotation” in order to avoid “an abyss of internal disorder” (http://j.mp/Ldhp25 http://j.mp/Ldhp25)." To us in the west, this reads as standard authoritarian propaganda excuses. But maybe they aren't total excuses after all? The Cultural Revolution was a traumatic period and people still remember it. A TLDR based on my understanding: - Mao, despite being known as a murderer in the west, is regarded (for a part at least) as a hero in China because he did a lot of good in the beginning: getting rid of Japanese invaders, giving everyone an education, building a functioning country. - After WW2 things went downhill. Mao didn't get along with other CCP members. In order to stay in power he declared a new revolution. Lots of people followed him and idolized him. But the revolution resulted in chaos, anarchy and mob rule. And Mao turned out to be an incompetent post-war policy maker so his policies resulted in famine etc (this is what the west refers to when they say Mao massacred people). After the Cultural Revolution, I guess the CCP learned that the masses can be easily influenced for the worse, and want to avoid another Mao-like fiasco. And lots of civilians are tired of 150 years of wars, revolution, poverty and disunity, and so they see the CCP as a necessary evil. This is combined with 100 years of colonialism that came prior to that, which instilled a sense of inferiority (compared to the west) that still still exists today. So I guess there is a sense that unity and economic prosperity are the most important, everything else is secondary. So when they see various democratic systems, they see various parties bickering with each other at the expense of speed of progress and harmony. I believe all of this is nearly unimaginable to many westerners because the west has been prosperous for so long. WW2 was disastrous, but in a very different way. Chinese history is very different from the history that the west went through, so it does not surprise me that the conclusions drawn about what values are important, are different too.

The one that stands out to me is a girl I know from Shenzhen. Very intelligent, very articulate and someone I've pigeonholed as rising-star-in-leadership-somewhere material. She's basically maintaining what seems to me to be a fairly passionate cross between an attack on the protestors and a defense of Chinese national pride. The two main prongs are that the protestors are disruptive/the protests cause injury (citing some facts I don't consider controversial) and the risk of interference by Westerners in Chinese affairs. What is noticeably missing, that I'd expect of someone of similar character but with an Australian upbringing, is any acknowledgement that individual liberty could possibly be important to anyone, in Hong Kong or otherwise. At the stereotypical level nothing there surprises me. At the emotional level it is jarring. I'm going to be unpacking what is just my general support for Hong Kong vs. my status as not a Chinese citizen vs. genuine cultural differences. China is huge and has become powerful again. I'd like to be more informed about the lens they use to see this sort of situation. There are clearly substantially different opinions about what is happening. Even if it is simply getting an English translation of the CCP propaganda that would be helpful, because at the moment I just don't know what specifically to expect if I ask a mainlander what they think about the topic. Given how tied Australia and China are, that isn't ideal.

goatinaboat 7y ago
You will find any number of American or other Western patriots who love their country but are suspicious of their governments. The Chinese, at least to the extent they are willing to openly express where it might be reported back, don’t differentiate.
kipqi 7y ago
Seems incredible to me that people keep thinking that intelligent people have to share the western liberal view of the world that we all have been indoctrinated under.
- roboys 7y ago
  Interesting observation. Here is another one that I haven't seen yet.... Forcing criticism of the state to stay at the individual level drastically reduces the potential for foreign-funded fake grassroots movements to change the trajectory of domestic policy. This stops a very common social attack vector that governments in the west readily employ around the world. Anyone on the receiving end of American foreign policy hostility can understand this protectionist position.
- Smithalicious 7y ago
  I think people are downvoting this over the word "indoctrinated" but I think it's a pretty accurate take. The whole democracy/freedom of speech/criticism of the government thing is an explicitly western position (though by now adopted at least in name by large parts of the world). People in the west like to think that our cultural ideas are objectively superior and that anyone intelligent/reasonable/well-read enough would support them, and that's why you often see people act surprised when intellectuals in countries like China hold mainstream Chinese views. In reality the main reason why we have the cultural ideas that we do is historical, and we all have them because we've been raised to believe these things since childhood. I think that's what the parent meant to say by "indoctrinated".
yorwba 7y ago
> Even if it is simply getting an English translation of the CCP propaganda that would be helpful Try http://www.globaltimes.cn/ http://www.globaltimes.cn/ http://en.people.cn/ http://en.people.cn/ or http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/ http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/ for CCP propaganda in English.
FooBarWidget 7y ago
My guess is the history that mainlanders went through, conjured a very different opinion on what things in life are most important. I don't think reading propaganda will help you understand better because you haven't gone through that history. I think the answer is hidden in plain sight in the paper: > "Xinhua news agency issued an opinion that western-style parliamentary democracy would lead to a repetition of the turbulent factionalism of China’s Cultural Revolution (http://j.mp/McRDXk http://j.mp/McRDXk)." > [The CCP] said that “On the basis of China’s condi- tions. . . we’ll not employ a system of multiple parties holding office in rotation” in order to avoid “an abyss of internal disorder” (http://j.mp/Ldhp25 http://j.mp/Ldhp25)." To us in the west, this reads as standard authoritarian propaganda excuses. But maybe they aren't total excuses after all? The Cultural Revolution was a traumatic period and people still remember it. A TLDR based on my understanding: - Mao, despite being known as a murderer in the west, is regarded (for a part at least) as a hero in China because he did a lot of good in the beginning: getting rid of Japanese invaders, giving everyone an education, building a functioning country. - After WW2 things went downhill. Mao didn't get along with other CCP members. In order to stay in power he declared a new revolution. Lots of people followed him and idolized him. But the revolution resulted in chaos, anarchy and mob rule. And Mao turned out to be an incompetent post-war policy maker so his policies resulted in famine etc (this is what the west refers to when they say Mao massacred people). After the Cultural Revolution, I guess the CCP learned that the masses can be easily influenced for the worse, and want to avoid another Mao-like fiasco. And lots of civilians are tired of 150 years of wars, revolution, poverty and disunity, and so they see the CCP as a necessary evil. This is combined with 100 years of colonialism that came prior to that, which instilled a sense of inferiority (compared to the west) that still still exists today. So I guess there is a sense that unity and economic prosperity are the most important, everything else is secondary. So when they see various democratic systems, they see various parties bickering with each other at the expense of speed of progress and harmony. I believe all of this is nearly unimaginable to many westerners because the west has been prosperous for so long. WW2 was disastrous, but in a very different way. Chinese history is very different from the history that the west went through, so it does not surprise me that the conclusions drawn about what values are important, are different too.