6 ms·

This cartoonish narrative of malevolence really has to stop. The redscare syle evildoer depiction of the Chinese is outlandish. It's a racist, 19th century or

This cartoonish narrative of malevolence really has to stop. The redscare syle evildoer depiction of the Chinese is outlandish. It's a racist, 19th century orientalist interpretation of international commerce and it still somehow dictates policy. It's either that or some kind of utterly foolish protectionism, as if the Europeans and Asians don't have the industrial resources to box out the US for the global market. That's just a matter of time. These brain damaged protectionist policies, far from preserving the hegemony, leads to its rapid decline just like it did with the European trading empires one by one as markets quickly worked around the hubris strangleholds enacted by the dominant seafaring nations who thought they had cornered a market. There's simply no narrative where this is good policy unless your mission is to hasten the decline and dismantle of the American industrial state. Edit: I'm not responding any more. There's obvious vote brigading by nativist revanchist trolls on this thread. Every reply from every user that isn't "but the Chinese are shifty thieves" goes into deep negatives. Cool hobby, kids. Have a nice day, time only happens once.

ericfrenkiel 6y ago
Seriously? You don’t find the million people (the Uighurs) in concentration camps “outlandish”? How about the thousands of students rolled into smithereens by tanks in Tianamen Square? Too “cartoonish” for you? smh
- kristopolous 6y ago
  Every global power becomes one by exercising power, globally. Claiming the existence of problems justifies these types of policies is an argument of convenience where the policy is fixed and someone is just fishing for reasons. We ignore it when it's Saudi Arabia or the child slave driven mines of Central Africa and bring it up when there's a possibility of encroachment. The world is terrible, we should do better. But carving out Chinese manufacturers of smartphones isn't how you'll get there.
  - wil421 6y ago
    You can’t look at history through modern lenses. Just because Germany, the US, or Europe did something bad 80-150 years doesn’t make it right today!
    - kristopolous 6y ago
      Again, every large power gets there by exercising it, continually, throughout the duration of their existence. Look at standing rock, America's war against the indigenous isn't over.
      - rumanator 6y ago
        > Look at standing rock, America's war against the indigenous isn't over. By your measuring stick, where do you place Tiana men's massacre?
    - magicsmoke 6y ago
      If those actors really thought what they did was bad they would be trying to revert the outcomes of their actions. Do you see the US moving non-native descendants out of vast swaths of American to set up native-american countries, or paying native survivors the fair land value of all the lands they were driven from? Talk is cheap, watch the hands.
    - luckylion 6y ago
      Kent State was barely 50 years though, and sending Predator Drones after anyone suspected to even tangentially be related to terrorism is current policy. If the US still had an ethnic minority that lived predominately in one area and has been active in terrorism and islamist extremism, I don't think they'd handle it gracefully. Abu Ghraib gives us an idea about what the US would do in a similar situation and it's not been that long.
- lucian1900 6y ago
  If you blindly believe Western media, sure. There is no actual proof of either narrative. Try at least hearing the other side. https://thegrayzone.com/2019/12/21/china-detaining-millions-uyghurs-problems-claims-us-ngo-researcher/ https://thegrayzone.com/2019/12/21/china-detaining-millions-... https://youtu.be/BjgSOYRZqIo https://youtu.be/BjgSOYRZqIo https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/89BEIJING18828_a.html https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/89BEIJING18828_a.html
  - yorwba 6y ago
    The problem with hearing the other side is of course that most people are more concerned with reaching the correct value judgment (imprisoning innocent Uyghurs is bad, killing innocent protesters is bad) than with reaching it based on accurate information. If you tell someone who believes that thousands of people died directly on Tiananmen Square and were crushed to pieces by tanks, correcting them by pointing out that actually > ALTHOUGH HE DID NOT ACTUALLY WITNESS ANY LARGE SCALE SHOOTINGS ON THE SQUARE PROPER, GALLO SAW MANY CASUALTIES BROUGHT INTO THE SQUARE AND DID NOT DOUBT THAT HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE IN BEIJING WERE KILLED BY THE ARMY ON JUNE 3 AND 4. that's not going to affect their value judgment (the numbers are smaller, people weren't killed on the square itself but elsewhere, who cares, it's still bad) and most likely they'll soon forget those details and keep telling their original story, because, well, it's just a much more visceral image.
    - xupybd 6y ago
      It's also the the information about these events is so hidden. The govt admits no wrong and hides all evidence to the contrary. For that alone I prefer to err on the side of these events being pretty bad. Also having known an eye witness to Tiananmen square, I'm confident it was bad. Really bad. If he were to get caught talking about it, things would be really bad for him too. So you won't find many witnesses willing to talk.
    - lucian1900 6y ago
      No one claims there were no deaths. US-backed counter revolutions often involve violence, regardless of the self-restraint of the state being attacked. What exactly should the army do after several of its unarmed soldiers were killed by the “protesters”?
- bakuninsbart 6y ago
  I don't really want to enter this discussion, since it usually quickly devolves to less than stellar levels. However, on the topic of the 1989 protests, I feel like Westerners often have a very superficial understanding of what happened back then, and in turn cannot understand chinese civil society and government today. There's one documentary on the topic that I can wholeheartedly recommend, the Gate of Heavenly Peace.[1] It is quite long, but goes into incredible detail and also interviews a lot of organizers and politicians first hand. The Tiananmen Square massacre was a turning point in chinese politics, ending a decade of increased freedom and open calls for reform. In civil society, people kept their heads down and went to work. In politics, almost all the reformers and politicians sympathetic to the students were isolated, demoted or even imprisoned. Still the last 30 years have been the best China has had in hundreds of years, and it is always much harder to argue with success. A lot of chinese people know what happened back then, and a lot of those accept it as something shitty that happened, but ultimately the country and people were still able to progress. Chinese people, by and large are not against their own government, even if they don't always agree with everything that happens. [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Gtt2JxmQtg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Gtt2JxmQtg
factsaresacred 6y ago
China is a revisionist power whose values are antithetical to the US. Its rise almost assures instability. And more generally, no incumbent superpower is going to make it easy for another to challenge it. Made in China 2025 is an explicit blueprint for how China will supplant America in high technology. Why would you expect America to aid and abet them in this undertaking?
- kristopolous 6y ago
  That's what this is though. It's forcing their hand to develop their own alternatives and making sure the Americans have no place at the table. It accelerates the process. It's the latest brilliant policy by the same people who outsourced everything there and gave them the ball to begin with. This is essentially the US automakers play of the 80s. It only accelerated the sunsetting of the American car industry. The policy doesn't work when a bunch of other places can replace you
nemothekid 6y ago
This is a clown car reduction of a very complicated global issue starring a company who got to where they are now through brazen corporate espionage. It's "utterly foolish protectionism" when the West tries to protect their own, but "all's fair" when Western firms are left with no recourse while their IP is stolen and copied all over China because the CCP wouldn't ever rule in favor of a western company.
- kristopolous 6y ago
  Histotical examples usually don't work on the internet but I'll try anyway: That's not the actual history of these types of of actions. Look at the 1982 IBM / Japan theft case (https://www.nytimes.com/1983/02/09/business/hitachi-guilty-in-ibm-case.html https://www.nytimes.com/1983/02/09/business/hitachi-guilty-i...). IBM was aggressively protecting its mainframe market in the 80s so it would have a blossoming and prosperous future. Even if we are to accept your premise AND all your arguments, it's still a bad idea as it actually led to a stagnation of technology. There's plenty more historical examples of this. It doesn't work. Take the Japanese automobile quota system for example (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/amphtml/1984/0420/042021.html https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/am...). This tried to protect encroachment of Japanese cars into the American market. Not by increasing the quality but by suspecting the Japanese of stealing American know-how. A covetous and revanchist policy. This only led to them internationalizing their markets more and working around the US in their supply chain. The US locked itself out of the market, became insular with its cars, stagnated and lost its place in the international market. And now everyone is doing lean manufacturing which is from Toyota. Turns out they were just making better stuff and our policymakers were too racist to acknowledge the possibilities just like we thought Afghanistan was going to be easy, or Russia thought they'd easily defeat Japan. The haughty racial superiority complex is alive and well.
  - nemothekid 6y ago
    I'm not downvoting but 1. Implying the downfall of mainframes was due to protectionist policies and not the _PC_ is an incredible leap. 2. Comparing Japan to China in this situation is bizarre. 3. Your reply does nothing to show that this situation is: * cartoonish * racist * utterly foolish protectionism We know today that Huawei has a history of IP Theft from American multinationals[1] and is suspected of building backdoors into networking infrastructure (from the article). You seem to advocate that the US should just take this lying down. This is a classic prisoners dilemma situation, and Huawei has been choosing "betray" for 20 years. I can't see, how after 20 years of playing nice, that the US response is cartoonish, racist or foolish protectionism. [1] https://www.prosperousamerica.org/top_five_cases_of_huawei_ip_theft_and_patent_infringement https://www.prosperousamerica.org/top_five_cases_of_huawei_i...

ericfrenkiel 6y ago

Seriously? You don’t find the million people (the Uighurs) in concentration camps “outlandish”? How about the thousands of students rolled into smithereens by tanks in Tianamen Square? Too “cartoonish” for you? smh

kristopolous 6y ago
Every global power becomes one by exercising power, globally. Claiming the existence of problems justifies these types of policies is an argument of convenience where the policy is fixed and someone is just fishing for reasons. We ignore it when it's Saudi Arabia or the child slave driven mines of Central Africa and bring it up when there's a possibility of encroachment. The world is terrible, we should do better. But carving out Chinese manufacturers of smartphones isn't how you'll get there.
- wil421 6y ago
  You can’t look at history through modern lenses. Just because Germany, the US, or Europe did something bad 80-150 years doesn’t make it right today!
  - kristopolous 6y ago
    Again, every large power gets there by exercising it, continually, throughout the duration of their existence. Look at standing rock, America's war against the indigenous isn't over.
    - rumanator 6y ago
      > Look at standing rock, America's war against the indigenous isn't over. By your measuring stick, where do you place Tiana men's massacre?
  - magicsmoke 6y ago
    If those actors really thought what they did was bad they would be trying to revert the outcomes of their actions. Do you see the US moving non-native descendants out of vast swaths of American to set up native-american countries, or paying native survivors the fair land value of all the lands they were driven from? Talk is cheap, watch the hands.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    Kent State was barely 50 years though, and sending Predator Drones after anyone suspected to even tangentially be related to terrorism is current policy. If the US still had an ethnic minority that lived predominately in one area and has been active in terrorism and islamist extremism, I don't think they'd handle it gracefully. Abu Ghraib gives us an idea about what the US would do in a similar situation and it's not been that long.
lucian1900 6y ago
If you blindly believe Western media, sure. There is no actual proof of either narrative. Try at least hearing the other side. https://thegrayzone.com/2019/12/21/china-detaining-millions-uyghurs-problems-claims-us-ngo-researcher/ https://thegrayzone.com/2019/12/21/china-detaining-millions-... https://youtu.be/BjgSOYRZqIo https://youtu.be/BjgSOYRZqIo https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/89BEIJING18828_a.html https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/89BEIJING18828_a.html
- yorwba 6y ago
  The problem with hearing the other side is of course that most people are more concerned with reaching the correct value judgment (imprisoning innocent Uyghurs is bad, killing innocent protesters is bad) than with reaching it based on accurate information. If you tell someone who believes that thousands of people died directly on Tiananmen Square and were crushed to pieces by tanks, correcting them by pointing out that actually > ALTHOUGH HE DID NOT ACTUALLY WITNESS ANY LARGE SCALE SHOOTINGS ON THE SQUARE PROPER, GALLO SAW MANY CASUALTIES BROUGHT INTO THE SQUARE AND DID NOT DOUBT THAT HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE IN BEIJING WERE KILLED BY THE ARMY ON JUNE 3 AND 4. that's not going to affect their value judgment (the numbers are smaller, people weren't killed on the square itself but elsewhere, who cares, it's still bad) and most likely they'll soon forget those details and keep telling their original story, because, well, it's just a much more visceral image.
  - xupybd 6y ago
    It's also the the information about these events is so hidden. The govt admits no wrong and hides all evidence to the contrary. For that alone I prefer to err on the side of these events being pretty bad. Also having known an eye witness to Tiananmen square, I'm confident it was bad. Really bad. If he were to get caught talking about it, things would be really bad for him too. So you won't find many witnesses willing to talk.
  - lucian1900 6y ago
    No one claims there were no deaths. US-backed counter revolutions often involve violence, regardless of the self-restraint of the state being attacked. What exactly should the army do after several of its unarmed soldiers were killed by the “protesters”?
bakuninsbart 6y ago
I don't really want to enter this discussion, since it usually quickly devolves to less than stellar levels. However, on the topic of the 1989 protests, I feel like Westerners often have a very superficial understanding of what happened back then, and in turn cannot understand chinese civil society and government today. There's one documentary on the topic that I can wholeheartedly recommend, the Gate of Heavenly Peace.[1] It is quite long, but goes into incredible detail and also interviews a lot of organizers and politicians first hand. The Tiananmen Square massacre was a turning point in chinese politics, ending a decade of increased freedom and open calls for reform. In civil society, people kept their heads down and went to work. In politics, almost all the reformers and politicians sympathetic to the students were isolated, demoted or even imprisoned. Still the last 30 years have been the best China has had in hundreds of years, and it is always much harder to argue with success. A lot of chinese people know what happened back then, and a lot of those accept it as something shitty that happened, but ultimately the country and people were still able to progress. Chinese people, by and large are not against their own government, even if they don't always agree with everything that happens. [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Gtt2JxmQtg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Gtt2JxmQtg

factsaresacred 6y ago

China is a revisionist power whose values are antithetical to the US. Its rise almost assures instability. And more generally, no incumbent superpower is going to make it easy for another to challenge it. Made in China 2025 is an explicit blueprint for how China will supplant America in high technology. Why would you expect America to aid and abet them in this undertaking?

kristopolous 6y ago
That's what this is though. It's forcing their hand to develop their own alternatives and making sure the Americans have no place at the table. It accelerates the process. It's the latest brilliant policy by the same people who outsourced everything there and gave them the ball to begin with. This is essentially the US automakers play of the 80s. It only accelerated the sunsetting of the American car industry. The policy doesn't work when a bunch of other places can replace you

nemothekid 6y ago

This is a clown car reduction of a very complicated global issue starring a company who got to where they are now through brazen corporate espionage. It's "utterly foolish protectionism" when the West tries to protect their own, but "all's fair" when Western firms are left with no recourse while their IP is stolen and copied all over China because the CCP wouldn't ever rule in favor of a western company.

kristopolous 6y ago
Histotical examples usually don't work on the internet but I'll try anyway: That's not the actual history of these types of of actions. Look at the 1982 IBM / Japan theft case (https://www.nytimes.com/1983/02/09/business/hitachi-guilty-in-ibm-case.html https://www.nytimes.com/1983/02/09/business/hitachi-guilty-i...). IBM was aggressively protecting its mainframe market in the 80s so it would have a blossoming and prosperous future. Even if we are to accept your premise AND all your arguments, it's still a bad idea as it actually led to a stagnation of technology. There's plenty more historical examples of this. It doesn't work. Take the Japanese automobile quota system for example (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/amphtml/1984/0420/042021.html https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/am...). This tried to protect encroachment of Japanese cars into the American market. Not by increasing the quality but by suspecting the Japanese of stealing American know-how. A covetous and revanchist policy. This only led to them internationalizing their markets more and working around the US in their supply chain. The US locked itself out of the market, became insular with its cars, stagnated and lost its place in the international market. And now everyone is doing lean manufacturing which is from Toyota. Turns out they were just making better stuff and our policymakers were too racist to acknowledge the possibilities just like we thought Afghanistan was going to be easy, or Russia thought they'd easily defeat Japan. The haughty racial superiority complex is alive and well.
- nemothekid 6y ago
  I'm not downvoting but 1. Implying the downfall of mainframes was due to protectionist policies and not the _PC_ is an incredible leap. 2. Comparing Japan to China in this situation is bizarre. 3. Your reply does nothing to show that this situation is: * cartoonish * racist * utterly foolish protectionism We know today that Huawei has a history of IP Theft from American multinationals[1] and is suspected of building backdoors into networking infrastructure (from the article). You seem to advocate that the US should just take this lying down. This is a classic prisoners dilemma situation, and Huawei has been choosing "betray" for 20 years. I can't see, how after 20 years of playing nice, that the US response is cartoonish, racist or foolish protectionism. [1] https://www.prosperousamerica.org/top_five_cases_of_huawei_ip_theft_and_patent_infringement https://www.prosperousamerica.org/top_five_cases_of_huawei_i...