5 ms·

If by common man you mean Han Chinese who live in major urban areas - then yes, your observation is mostly correct. But the expense seems to be the systematic o

by np- 6y ago

If by common man you mean Han Chinese who live in major urban areas - then yes, your observation is mostly correct. But the expense seems to be the systematic oppression of rural populations and ethnic minorities (Uighurs, Tibetans, etc). The virtual (and physical) enslavement already exists [1], it's not really some hypothetical. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/24/china-has-built-380-internment-camps-in-xinjiang-study-finds https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/24/china-has-buil...

mistermann 6y ago
> But the expense seems to be... There does indeed seem to be signs of oppression of ethnic minorities in China, but to me this is a relatively unrelated anomaly on a statistical basis compared to the general question of where do the fruits of labour in China go: to those doing the work, or to the ruling class. Most of what I have observed suggests that there is a "rising tide lifts all boats" phenomenon underway, although determining the degree to which the distribution is consistent with what is "fair" is obviously problematic, as with any other country. As for the Uighur & Tibetan situation, this is starting to look like it's going to be just one of those very unfortunate facts of life, but my intuition is that once the distinctness of these cultures is sufficiently eliminated (wild guess: 20-100 years), the difference of treatment will be relatively minimal, provided standard of living continues to rise across the board. But then who knows, anything can happen.
- free_rms 6y ago
  Also, to tack back to economics, "rural ethnic minorities" means "third world subsistence farming with no health or dental care". The approach the government is taking there is certainly heavy-handed, but I think we should be careful not to fetishize their poverty as something to be preserved.
  - mistermann 6y ago
    > "rural ethnic minorities" means "third world subsistence farming with no health or dental care". Are you sure? It doesn't mean it by semantic definition, so is there another ~authoritative source you're referring to that establishes that meaning? Rural ethnic minorities in China live a life that consists solely of "third world subsistence farming with no health or dental care", or they do not. And then on top of this is the question of why, specifically, is it plausibly because they are ethnic minorities, as in: no non-minority Chinese exist that have a "third world subsistence farming with no health or dental care". Is this not the point of contention? I do not have this deep of knowledge of on the ground reality in China. Is there a data source of some kind we can turn to to resolve this uncertainty?
    - free_rms 6y ago
      I should have been more specific. Rural, or cities below a certain tier, in general, often means very poor in China. The ethnic minority areas are very rural and far away from places that generate wealth. It's not because they're minorities in an American sense, the government there actually gives ethnic minorities a lot of extra privileges, they get to have more kids, etc. There's a form of affirmative action where they're "bussed" to other areas, which of course gets reported in the west as yet another form of repression. Not speaking Chinese is going to be an obstacle to getting ahead in general. I don't have a cite, this is all based on conversations I've had and what I've seen of rural reality in China (haven't been to Tibet, Xinjiang or Inner Mongolia, but I've seen some really crappy lifestyles for rural poor Han Chinese. And they thought things were going great! Much better than in past decades).
  - Mediterraneo10 6y ago
    In the case of the Uighur, “rural ethnic minorities” isn’t really an apt name anyway. For the last several centuries, the Uighurs have broadly been towndwellers. (Other minorities in Xinjiang like the Kazakhs, Kyrgyz or the Iranian-speaking peoples maintain a more traditional rural life). Already on their own, the Uighur were on a path towards enjoying all the fruits of urban modernity. Most of the Chinese development brought to the area has been focused on making life better for Han Chinese settlers, not the indigenous population.
- barnesto 6y ago
  "As for the Uighur & Tibetan situation, this is starting to look like it's going to be just one of those very unfortunate facts of life... Ethnic cleansing with helping of re-education camps and forced labor are just "unfortunate facts of life." Just give them 20-100 years and nobody will remember anyway... Well, that's certainly a take on how things are going there. Rising tides can't life boats filled with dead and forgotten people, but sure, citizens who follow the strict and draconian credit system are stacking bank, amirite?
  - mistermann 6y ago
    > Well, that's certainly a take on how things are going there. It is indeed, I imagine you have your own. My prediction will be correct, or it will be incorrect. As much as people enjoy posting heartfelt support on the internet, I don't see much happening beyond that. Who is going to come to their aid? The US Government? Bill Gates? You? As for the rest of my prediction: "...but my intuition is that once the distinctness of these cultures is sufficiently eliminated (wild guess: 20-100 years), the difference of treatment will be relatively minimal, provided standard of living continues to rise across the board." If this comes to pass, they'll be better off than the First Nations people of Canada, who found out today that the Government of Canada once again has found it "necessary" to delay their plans to provide safe drinking water to the communities we forced them into decades ago: https://news.knowledia.com/CA/en/articles/covid-19-may-delay-liberal-pledge-to-end-long-term-boil-water-advisories-0e49fe614362bd6e5466375fa20dbaf593a8ba0e https://news.knowledia.com/CA/en/articles/covid-19-may-delay... > Rising tides can't life boats filled with dead and forgotten people, but sure, citizens who follow the strict and draconian credit system are stacking bank, amirite? That seems to be a portion of actual reality, yes. Simultaneously, millions of people are also rising out of poverty at an unprecedented rate, including I would think the ethnic minorities who will gradually have their uniqueness eliminated over time. Whether this is a net benefit to them over time is a matter of opinion, but ultimately unknowable.
- fjdjsmsm 6y ago
  Genocide should not be an ‘unfortunate fact of life.’ And lets be clear ‘sufficiently eliminating cultural distinctions’ means genocide.
  - mistermann 6y ago
    I vehemently agree. Do you have an idea of how to stop it? Perceiving and describing reality other than it actually is seems to be growing in popularity, but I don't see the advantage in that approach.
    - fjdjsmsm 6y ago
      So your response is to participate?
      - mistermann 6y ago
        Can you expand on "participate"?
  - powerapple 6y ago
    When western journalists use 'colonism', 'genocide', 'ethic cleaning', or 'racism' to describe things, I often feel that they are doing this on purpose to reduce the weight of things whatever people have done in the past. So now CCP is nazi, and suddenly kids look around and say, nazi is not that terrible. Are you guys (activists) redefining the world genocide whenever you want? Western media lost credibility immediately afterwards.
- nl 6y ago
  > this is starting to look like it's going to be just one of those very unfortunate facts of life This reminds me of this quote: "the Führer often informed those like Himmler tasked with implementing the Holocaust that extermination should be implemented as “humanely” as possible.... For Hitler, killing “impersonally” was, according to John Toland, synonymous with doing so “without cruelty.”" https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-97999-1_8 https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-97999-1_...
  - mistermann 6y ago
    Ya, I can see the connection. If that's true, it's quite interesting, I'm not sure if that makes him seem better or worse. The similarity I'd say is that I'm also emotionally detached from the situation (but intellectually attached - I perceive most people to have the opposite combo, fwiw). Differences I see are that I have no influence in the matter, and I have largely the opposite goals of Hitler. My favorite relevant quote would probably be this one: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ "Moloch is introduced as the answer to a question – C. S. Lewis’ question in Hierarchy Of Philosophers – what does it? Earth could be fair, and all men glad and wise. Instead we have prisons, smokestacks, asylums. What sphinx of cement and aluminum breaks open their skulls and eats up their imagination? And Ginsberg answers: Moloch does it. There’s a passage in the Principia Discordia where Malaclypse complains to the Goddess about the evils of human society. “Everyone is hurting each other, the planet is rampant with injustices, whole societies plunder groups of their own people, mothers imprison sons, children perish while brothers war.” The Goddess answers: “What is the matter with that, if it’s what you want to do?” Malaclypse: “But nobody wants it! Everybody hates it!” Goddess: “Oh. Well, then stop.” The implicit question is – if everyone hates the current system, who perpetuates it? And Ginsberg answers: “Moloch”. It’s powerful not because it’s correct – nobody literally thinks an ancient Carthaginian demon causes everything – but because thinking of the system as an agent throws into relief the degree to which the system isn’t an agent." ------- I think this is a good estimate of what's going on. If everyone hates the system (maybe not unanimous, but likely pretty close), then instead of constantly fighting with people whose goals (as opposed to implementation preferences) are likely little different than our own, why don't we put down our weapons, come up with a mutually acceptable compromise, and make it happen? And I think the answer to that question is: because we can't. Not that we don't want to, or "won't", but because we can't. But it's just an armchair theory, odds are I don't have any better clue than anyone else.

by np- 6y ago

mistermann 6y ago

> But the expense seems to be... There does indeed seem to be signs of oppression of ethnic minorities in China, but to me this is a relatively unrelated anomaly on a statistical basis compared to the general question of where do the fruits of labour in China go: to those doing the work, or to the ruling class. Most of what I have observed suggests that there is a "rising tide lifts all boats" phenomenon underway, although determining the degree to which the distribution is consistent with what is "fair" is obviously problematic, as with any other country. As for the Uighur & Tibetan situation, this is starting to look like it's going to be just one of those very unfortunate facts of life, but my intuition is that once the distinctness of these cultures is sufficiently eliminated (wild guess: 20-100 years), the difference of treatment will be relatively minimal, provided standard of living continues to rise across the board. But then who knows, anything can happen.

free_rms 6y ago
Also, to tack back to economics, "rural ethnic minorities" means "third world subsistence farming with no health or dental care". The approach the government is taking there is certainly heavy-handed, but I think we should be careful not to fetishize their poverty as something to be preserved.
- mistermann 6y ago
  > "rural ethnic minorities" means "third world subsistence farming with no health or dental care". Are you sure? It doesn't mean it by semantic definition, so is there another ~authoritative source you're referring to that establishes that meaning? Rural ethnic minorities in China live a life that consists solely of "third world subsistence farming with no health or dental care", or they do not. And then on top of this is the question of why, specifically, is it plausibly because they are ethnic minorities, as in: no non-minority Chinese exist that have a "third world subsistence farming with no health or dental care". Is this not the point of contention? I do not have this deep of knowledge of on the ground reality in China. Is there a data source of some kind we can turn to to resolve this uncertainty?
  - free_rms 6y ago
    I should have been more specific. Rural, or cities below a certain tier, in general, often means very poor in China. The ethnic minority areas are very rural and far away from places that generate wealth. It's not because they're minorities in an American sense, the government there actually gives ethnic minorities a lot of extra privileges, they get to have more kids, etc. There's a form of affirmative action where they're "bussed" to other areas, which of course gets reported in the west as yet another form of repression. Not speaking Chinese is going to be an obstacle to getting ahead in general. I don't have a cite, this is all based on conversations I've had and what I've seen of rural reality in China (haven't been to Tibet, Xinjiang or Inner Mongolia, but I've seen some really crappy lifestyles for rural poor Han Chinese. And they thought things were going great! Much better than in past decades).
- Mediterraneo10 6y ago
  In the case of the Uighur, “rural ethnic minorities” isn’t really an apt name anyway. For the last several centuries, the Uighurs have broadly been towndwellers. (Other minorities in Xinjiang like the Kazakhs, Kyrgyz or the Iranian-speaking peoples maintain a more traditional rural life). Already on their own, the Uighur were on a path towards enjoying all the fruits of urban modernity. Most of the Chinese development brought to the area has been focused on making life better for Han Chinese settlers, not the indigenous population.
barnesto 6y ago
"As for the Uighur & Tibetan situation, this is starting to look like it's going to be just one of those very unfortunate facts of life... Ethnic cleansing with helping of re-education camps and forced labor are just "unfortunate facts of life." Just give them 20-100 years and nobody will remember anyway... Well, that's certainly a take on how things are going there. Rising tides can't life boats filled with dead and forgotten people, but sure, citizens who follow the strict and draconian credit system are stacking bank, amirite?
- mistermann 6y ago
  > Well, that's certainly a take on how things are going there. It is indeed, I imagine you have your own. My prediction will be correct, or it will be incorrect. As much as people enjoy posting heartfelt support on the internet, I don't see much happening beyond that. Who is going to come to their aid? The US Government? Bill Gates? You? As for the rest of my prediction: "...but my intuition is that once the distinctness of these cultures is sufficiently eliminated (wild guess: 20-100 years), the difference of treatment will be relatively minimal, provided standard of living continues to rise across the board." If this comes to pass, they'll be better off than the First Nations people of Canada, who found out today that the Government of Canada once again has found it "necessary" to delay their plans to provide safe drinking water to the communities we forced them into decades ago: https://news.knowledia.com/CA/en/articles/covid-19-may-delay-liberal-pledge-to-end-long-term-boil-water-advisories-0e49fe614362bd6e5466375fa20dbaf593a8ba0e https://news.knowledia.com/CA/en/articles/covid-19-may-delay... > Rising tides can't life boats filled with dead and forgotten people, but sure, citizens who follow the strict and draconian credit system are stacking bank, amirite? That seems to be a portion of actual reality, yes. Simultaneously, millions of people are also rising out of poverty at an unprecedented rate, including I would think the ethnic minorities who will gradually have their uniqueness eliminated over time. Whether this is a net benefit to them over time is a matter of opinion, but ultimately unknowable.
fjdjsmsm 6y ago
Genocide should not be an ‘unfortunate fact of life.’ And lets be clear ‘sufficiently eliminating cultural distinctions’ means genocide.
- mistermann 6y ago
  I vehemently agree. Do you have an idea of how to stop it? Perceiving and describing reality other than it actually is seems to be growing in popularity, but I don't see the advantage in that approach.
  - fjdjsmsm 6y ago
    So your response is to participate?
    - mistermann 6y ago
      Can you expand on "participate"?
- powerapple 6y ago
  When western journalists use 'colonism', 'genocide', 'ethic cleaning', or 'racism' to describe things, I often feel that they are doing this on purpose to reduce the weight of things whatever people have done in the past. So now CCP is nazi, and suddenly kids look around and say, nazi is not that terrible. Are you guys (activists) redefining the world genocide whenever you want? Western media lost credibility immediately afterwards.
nl 6y ago
> this is starting to look like it's going to be just one of those very unfortunate facts of life This reminds me of this quote: "the Führer often informed those like Himmler tasked with implementing the Holocaust that extermination should be implemented as “humanely” as possible.... For Hitler, killing “impersonally” was, according to John Toland, synonymous with doing so “without cruelty.”" https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-97999-1_8 https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-97999-1_...
- mistermann 6y ago
  Ya, I can see the connection. If that's true, it's quite interesting, I'm not sure if that makes him seem better or worse. The similarity I'd say is that I'm also emotionally detached from the situation (but intellectually attached - I perceive most people to have the opposite combo, fwiw). Differences I see are that I have no influence in the matter, and I have largely the opposite goals of Hitler. My favorite relevant quote would probably be this one: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ "Moloch is introduced as the answer to a question – C. S. Lewis’ question in Hierarchy Of Philosophers – what does it? Earth could be fair, and all men glad and wise. Instead we have prisons, smokestacks, asylums. What sphinx of cement and aluminum breaks open their skulls and eats up their imagination? And Ginsberg answers: Moloch does it. There’s a passage in the Principia Discordia where Malaclypse complains to the Goddess about the evils of human society. “Everyone is hurting each other, the planet is rampant with injustices, whole societies plunder groups of their own people, mothers imprison sons, children perish while brothers war.” The Goddess answers: “What is the matter with that, if it’s what you want to do?” Malaclypse: “But nobody wants it! Everybody hates it!” Goddess: “Oh. Well, then stop.” The implicit question is – if everyone hates the current system, who perpetuates it? And Ginsberg answers: “Moloch”. It’s powerful not because it’s correct – nobody literally thinks an ancient Carthaginian demon causes everything – but because thinking of the system as an agent throws into relief the degree to which the system isn’t an agent." ------- I think this is a good estimate of what's going on. If everyone hates the system (maybe not unanimous, but likely pretty close), then instead of constantly fighting with people whose goals (as opposed to implementation preferences) are likely little different than our own, why don't we put down our weapons, come up with a mutually acceptable compromise, and make it happen? And I think the answer to that question is: because we can't. Not that we don't want to, or "won't", but because we can't. But it's just an armchair theory, odds are I don't have any better clue than anyone else.