I think the progressive definition of "marginalized" is fundamentally broken. It's used as a way of a priori deciding who is the aggressor and who is the victi

I think the progressive definition of "marginalized" is fundamentally broken. It's used as a way of a priori deciding who is the aggressor and who is the victim in any conflict or disagreement, based solely on the identities of the people involved and their historical grievances as a group. I reject this framework. But if you accept it, I think it's hard to rebut the idea that China is oppressed, given their history over the last 200 years. I certainly believe that they feel oppressed by the west. And my observation of progressive thought is that the feeling of being oppressed combined with legitimate historical grievance is an unimpeachable claim to be a marginalized party. In particular, progressive thought seems to say that once marginalized, a group by definition continues to be marginalized until there is "equity." But China's economy still lags far behind that of the west on a per capita basis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi... . So there is certainly no "equity" here. I don't "want" to use the progressive definition of marginalized. I want to call it into question by pointing out its contradictions.