5 ms·

How long is China going to put on the mantle of victimhood over events 160 years in the past?! By that standard surely Korea can complain endlessly about China

How long is China going to put on the mantle of victimhood over events 160 years in the past?! By that standard surely Korea can complain endlessly about China and Yuan Shikai lording it over their kingdom in the 1880s, and the Czechs can cry over their subjugation for centuries by Austria-Hungary, etc. etc. In 1949 Mao Zedong famously declared "China has stood up." Apparently though he meant, "We're such a weak people that we cry to mommy everytime others demand reciprocity."

spacephysics 6y ago
Same can be said about the victim hood mentality regarding native Americans and slavery here in the states.
- ipsocannibal 6y ago
  The difference is that China has been able to redress the power embalance. The decendents of slaves and indigenous Americans have not.
  - pnw_hazor 6y ago
    China is as bad as it ever was. The people of China have not had any redress. The CCP is doing fine though.
  - controversy 6y ago
    Please. At this point, both blacks and Indians are able to take various Federal and State monies to be the best they can be. The Indians have relative sovereignty. They could take their federal and casino monies and plow them into an R&D bonanza. Blacks in the US have a golden ticket to pretty much any institution they wish to attend. Both have had trillions of US dollars plowed into their communities over the year via various government spending. At this point they have redress. They have agency. They even have adulthood, much to the chagrin of the Democratic party. Blacks and Indians should be like a wiser Arab nation. They have a pool of funds. Use it to make a better world for their people. Stop keeping people on the plantation/reservation.
    - augustt 6y ago
      Yeah honestly what more could these people want - it's not like people are calling them Indians to this day or suggesting they can't think freely enough to "escape" the Democratic "plantation". Read some books not written by Candace Owens you tool.
      - zo1 6y ago
        I don't think it's constructive at all to just call someone a "tool" and suggest it's because they only consume a certain kind of literature.
      - controversy 6y ago
        I love how you dislike a black woman thinking on her own and coming to a different conclusion. You’d support her as long as she stayed on the plantation and thanked you for the provisions. As soon as she thinks contrary to you, she’s at best a maker of tools. Remember any black person having the audacity of thinking on their own is not black. https://youtu.be/We6Qr9-dDn8 https://youtu.be/We6Qr9-dDn8
      - dang 6y ago
        You can't post like this regardless of how bad another account is. It's against the site rules because it destroys the commons, which helps no one and makes nothing better. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and not post in the flamewar style generally, we'd be grateful.
    - ipsocannibal 6y ago
      So by your comment I think you agree with me. I'm not going to be prescriptive in how this power imbalance should be addressed as I really don't know. You seem to be of the opinion that we have as a society attempted to resolve this imbalance with wealth and government programs. However due to the unfortunate characteristics of those affected communities they have failed. Likewise, if these communities would only be like other groups of your choosing they would be much better off and societies' efforts at redress would not have been wasted. Is this correct? I think this might be relevant. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/01/08/how-democratic-plantation-became-one-conservatives-favorite-slurs/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/01/08/how-democr...
- rektide 6y ago
  Except the native americans never got their lands & resources back, & similarly blacks have never been given a chance at their own self rule. These other national examples are nation vs nation, where an outside oppressor came & then went. Missing from your anti-empathy sentiments is recognition that these peoples never were given their own sovereignty & resources to rebuild themselves. The most injurious piece may have ended but they remain bound up in the impacts all the the same.
  - spacephysics 6y ago
    If I’m reading between the lines accurately (and sans sarcasm, inform me if I’m mistaken), you presuppose any individual of color (a bit of a loaded term, but you get the idea) has a debt owed to them of land and wealth separate from other people. I vaguely say “other people” because this notion is what entices racial sentiments. It’s no different than changing the adjective for a different skin tone, and saying they too deserve their “own self rule” This implies “blacks” don’t have self rule as it stands today, which I disagree with. In 2020, there exists no legislature that disfavors someone based on their skin color or ethnic background. We do however have the inverse, policies that give advantages to those who have specific skin color. This predilection for a specific kind of racism, a one-way street attitude, is what fuels our current divide. I need not say more.
    - rektide 6y ago
      Mainly just trying to call a distinction between nations & people that did get their own a chance, versus people who still had to live under other's laws & who we attempted to restore fair rights under law to. In one case, the oppressors left & sovereignty was restored. In the other case, the law decided it had to change to try to bring itself into alignment with some basic human rights & regards. I do think the people living under now-more-just law still struggle, still face discrimination, and are victim to a system that was imposed on them & a system which does not favor them. I don't think it's unreasonable to identify this gap, and this "one way street" attitude seems, to me, restorative & to be what equity & justice demands. And at times, it feels like it's still not enough, that some people- some persistent negative forces- remain fixed & focused on exclusion & discrimination & their biases, in a way that makes me think perhaps these victim-folk do deserve entirely higher levels of freedom from these oppressive forces that they still face, beyond merely our ongoing & too-controversial attempts at rebalacing.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
microtherion 6y ago
> the mantle of victimhood over events 160 years in the past?! Yeah, it's absurd. It's like if somebody would appeal to the memory of the Battle of the Alamo.
wombatmobile 6y ago
> How long is China going to put on the mantle of victimhood over events 160 years in the past?! 160 years in the past? The Chinese reparations, totalling $US 61 billion is today's dollar equivalents, were only completed in 1940. Then China sided with the Allies in WWII. 15 million Chinese lost their lives in that war. But I wouldn't characterise Chinese trade policy as victimhood. Chinese entrepreneurs don't rely on any such arguments. They just make products that western consumers want to buy.
- stjohnswarts 6y ago
  You do know that Japan had been invading China and trying to influence it in the decades before WW2 don't you? Joining with the Allies was the common sense thing to do
- dingaling 6y ago
  > Then China sided with the Allies in WWII. 15 million Chinese lost their lives in that war. That was under the Kuomintang regime, who fled to Taiwan in 1949
  - azernik 6y ago
    The families and friends of the dead didn't flee to Taiwan. This is like saying that the Poles didn't deserve reparations from Germany for WWII because the pre-war republic wasn't restored and instead there was a new regime. The country and people exist independently of the governing system.
- ng12 6y ago
  > Then China sided with the Allies in WWII This doesn't really make sense. The Second Sino-Japanese war predates the European theater by 2 years. It'd be more accurate to say the US sided with China to help them fight a mutual enemy.
8note 6y ago
China's still not regained sovereignty that was lost during that time. Eg: Hong kong
- dane-pgp 6y ago
  In what sense is China not "sovereign" over Hong Kong? While it's true that the Sino-British Joint Declaration placed some temporary restrictions on China's policies regarding that region, this is an agreement between sovereign nations, thus reaffirming China's sovereignty. I suppose that, in a sense, all international treaties are a loss of some degree of sovereignty, but in that sense nearly every country in the world has lost sovereignty in that time.
  - publicola1990 6y ago
    Remember even during the WW2, the US view was that concessions like HK taken by European countries from China through "Unequal Treaties" needs to be returned to China eventually.

spacephysics 6y ago

Same can be said about the victim hood mentality regarding native Americans and slavery here in the states.

ipsocannibal 6y ago
The difference is that China has been able to redress the power embalance. The decendents of slaves and indigenous Americans have not.
- pnw_hazor 6y ago
  China is as bad as it ever was. The people of China have not had any redress. The CCP is doing fine though.
- controversy 6y ago
  Please. At this point, both blacks and Indians are able to take various Federal and State monies to be the best they can be. The Indians have relative sovereignty. They could take their federal and casino monies and plow them into an R&D bonanza. Blacks in the US have a golden ticket to pretty much any institution they wish to attend. Both have had trillions of US dollars plowed into their communities over the year via various government spending. At this point they have redress. They have agency. They even have adulthood, much to the chagrin of the Democratic party. Blacks and Indians should be like a wiser Arab nation. They have a pool of funds. Use it to make a better world for their people. Stop keeping people on the plantation/reservation.
  - augustt 6y ago
    Yeah honestly what more could these people want - it's not like people are calling them Indians to this day or suggesting they can't think freely enough to "escape" the Democratic "plantation". Read some books not written by Candace Owens you tool.
    - zo1 6y ago
      I don't think it's constructive at all to just call someone a "tool" and suggest it's because they only consume a certain kind of literature.
    - controversy 6y ago
      I love how you dislike a black woman thinking on her own and coming to a different conclusion. You’d support her as long as she stayed on the plantation and thanked you for the provisions. As soon as she thinks contrary to you, she’s at best a maker of tools. Remember any black person having the audacity of thinking on their own is not black. https://youtu.be/We6Qr9-dDn8 https://youtu.be/We6Qr9-dDn8
    - dang 6y ago
      You can't post like this regardless of how bad another account is. It's against the site rules because it destroys the commons, which helps no one and makes nothing better. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and not post in the flamewar style generally, we'd be grateful.
  - ipsocannibal 6y ago
    So by your comment I think you agree with me. I'm not going to be prescriptive in how this power imbalance should be addressed as I really don't know. You seem to be of the opinion that we have as a society attempted to resolve this imbalance with wealth and government programs. However due to the unfortunate characteristics of those affected communities they have failed. Likewise, if these communities would only be like other groups of your choosing they would be much better off and societies' efforts at redress would not have been wasted. Is this correct? I think this might be relevant. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/01/08/how-democratic-plantation-became-one-conservatives-favorite-slurs/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/01/08/how-democr...
rektide 6y ago
Except the native americans never got their lands & resources back, & similarly blacks have never been given a chance at their own self rule. These other national examples are nation vs nation, where an outside oppressor came & then went. Missing from your anti-empathy sentiments is recognition that these peoples never were given their own sovereignty & resources to rebuild themselves. The most injurious piece may have ended but they remain bound up in the impacts all the the same.
- spacephysics 6y ago
  If I’m reading between the lines accurately (and sans sarcasm, inform me if I’m mistaken), you presuppose any individual of color (a bit of a loaded term, but you get the idea) has a debt owed to them of land and wealth separate from other people. I vaguely say “other people” because this notion is what entices racial sentiments. It’s no different than changing the adjective for a different skin tone, and saying they too deserve their “own self rule” This implies “blacks” don’t have self rule as it stands today, which I disagree with. In 2020, there exists no legislature that disfavors someone based on their skin color or ethnic background. We do however have the inverse, policies that give advantages to those who have specific skin color. This predilection for a specific kind of racism, a one-way street attitude, is what fuels our current divide. I need not say more.
  - rektide 6y ago
    Mainly just trying to call a distinction between nations & people that did get their own a chance, versus people who still had to live under other's laws & who we attempted to restore fair rights under law to. In one case, the oppressors left & sovereignty was restored. In the other case, the law decided it had to change to try to bring itself into alignment with some basic human rights & regards. I do think the people living under now-more-just law still struggle, still face discrimination, and are victim to a system that was imposed on them & a system which does not favor them. I don't think it's unreasonable to identify this gap, and this "one way street" attitude seems, to me, restorative & to be what equity & justice demands. And at times, it feels like it's still not enough, that some people- some persistent negative forces- remain fixed & focused on exclusion & discrimination & their biases, in a way that makes me think perhaps these victim-folk do deserve entirely higher levels of freedom from these oppressive forces that they still face, beyond merely our ongoing & too-controversial attempts at rebalacing.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

microtherion 6y ago

> the mantle of victimhood over events 160 years in the past?! Yeah, it's absurd. It's like if somebody would appeal to the memory of the Battle of the Alamo.

wombatmobile 6y ago

> How long is China going to put on the mantle of victimhood over events 160 years in the past?! 160 years in the past? The Chinese reparations, totalling $US 61 billion is today's dollar equivalents, were only completed in 1940. Then China sided with the Allies in WWII. 15 million Chinese lost their lives in that war. But I wouldn't characterise Chinese trade policy as victimhood. Chinese entrepreneurs don't rely on any such arguments. They just make products that western consumers want to buy.

stjohnswarts 6y ago
You do know that Japan had been invading China and trying to influence it in the decades before WW2 don't you? Joining with the Allies was the common sense thing to do
dingaling 6y ago
> Then China sided with the Allies in WWII. 15 million Chinese lost their lives in that war. That was under the Kuomintang regime, who fled to Taiwan in 1949
- azernik 6y ago
  The families and friends of the dead didn't flee to Taiwan. This is like saying that the Poles didn't deserve reparations from Germany for WWII because the pre-war republic wasn't restored and instead there was a new regime. The country and people exist independently of the governing system.
ng12 6y ago
> Then China sided with the Allies in WWII This doesn't really make sense. The Second Sino-Japanese war predates the European theater by 2 years. It'd be more accurate to say the US sided with China to help them fight a mutual enemy.

8note 6y ago

China's still not regained sovereignty that was lost during that time. Eg: Hong kong

dane-pgp 6y ago
In what sense is China not "sovereign" over Hong Kong? While it's true that the Sino-British Joint Declaration placed some temporary restrictions on China's policies regarding that region, this is an agreement between sovereign nations, thus reaffirming China's sovereignty. I suppose that, in a sense, all international treaties are a loss of some degree of sovereignty, but in that sense nearly every country in the world has lost sovereignty in that time.
- publicola1990 6y ago
  Remember even during the WW2, the US view was that concessions like HK taken by European countries from China through "Unequal Treaties" needs to be returned to China eventually.