5 ms·

How can anyone doing business with China look the other way on Xinjiang simply by saying "our factory isn't there". Every one of us buying goods made in China i

• throwawayfire 6y ago
  > I think it is a pivotal moment for this generation to show what our principles are, if we have any. It's already known that this (political) generation doesn't have these principles. Government contracts rarely consider anything beyond the cheapest offer. Corporations are obligated to maximise their profit above all other considerations. It's the West's (including Canada's) morals that have got us here - we simply export our bad behaviour to other countries, so that we don't have to see it. Overall, nobody is going to stop importing clothes made in China, because there isn't sufficient industry elsewhere in the world. We closed it, and exported it to China, because it was cheaper.
  • slashdot2008 6y ago
    I think of my grandfathers, one who was in world war 1 and 2, and the other in world war 2, and their whole generation marching off to war to put their lives on the line to stand up for what is right, and I can't imagine anybody I know doing that unless they joined the military out of high school because they didn't have any better options. edit: I can't reply for some reason. (oh it's because parent is flagged). If there was resistance in Canada to going to war in world war 1 and 2 it isn't part of the history that is taught to us. I imagine since there was no draft in Canada only the willing went.
    • Mediterraneo10 6y ago
      Did a whole generation really just "march off to war to put their lives on the line"? While of course there were people who volunteered, in the USA the majority of soldiers fighting in World War II were conscripted – they went because the state told them they had to go. And there was still a lot of isolationist sentiment and reluctance to get involved in the war in Europe even after Pearl Harbor. Are the figures not similar for Canada?
      • magicsmoke 6y ago
        It doesn't matter, because history is probably one of the most effective forms of social control. Think about how complicated modern day events are and how difficult it is to shift through the mountains of perspectives to understand the whole picture. Now throw in decades of time difference with fragmented and hard to decipher primary documents, and you end up with a story that has to be interpreted by expert historians/storytellers, installed into the self-identity of generations of students, and used to shame individuals into matching the mythical sacrifices their ancestors supposedly took without any complaint. It's miles ahead of organized religion in terms of persuasiveness because any grain of truth in the historical story is magnified into the only possible truth without nuance or uncertainty. To go against the stories we tell ourselves is to go against all of society itself. If the body tells you to die in stomach acid because that is your role as an epithelium cell, and it's what generations of your ancestors have done, what can you do but die doing your job? There was a point where I really enjoyed reading histories. Then I dug too deep and found too many inconsistencies, and I realized that if I were to track down every detail to the end I would go mad or worse, be a history PhD. The only way I could recover that original enjoyment was to treat every historical book as a work of fiction and marvel at how well they're able to hack its way into the social subsystem in our brain that allows us to form societies.
      • 908B64B197 6y ago
        The war was pitched in Canada as "a duty to defend England, the throne and the motherland". This did not sit well with French Canadians, who inhabited the country since the 1500's and were heavily discriminated against by the British[0][1]. Still that didn't stop heroes like Léo Major[3] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_the_Parliament_Buildings_in_Montreal#:~:text=The%20burning%20of%20the%20Parliament%20Buildings%20in%20Montreal,1849%2C%20in%20Montreal%20in%20the%20Province%20of%20Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_the_Parliament_Buil.... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_the_Acadians#:~:text=The%20Expulsion%20of%20the%20Acadians%2C%20also%20known%20as,Acadia%2C%20causing%20the%20death%20of%20thousands%20of%20people https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_the_Acadians#:~:t.... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A9o_Major https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A9o_Major
• hetspookjee 6y ago
  It indeed is very interesting. I still wonder when the news came out that Europe received wigs sourced from Uyghur hair, how lax the response actually was. Here in the Netherlands the then minister announced they were unable to provide any more transparancy on the whereabouts of packaging because they argument was made that it would be in conflict with the duty of confidentiality of the customs. Sure the wigs reached some traction, but nothing was done. Can you imagine how the world would respond if someone was selling wigs sourced from Jews from concentration camps? No way that the confidentiality of customs would be weighing heavier than. I too wish Europe would take a stronger stance against China, but unfortunately the immense dependency of consumerism made possible by China's cheap labor makes that a very unpopular move. I find the analogy with climate change rather strong as well: To make the actual change necessary, people will have to change some habits. To hold your moral ground against China you will have to accept that prices of products will rise, similarly that if you want to stop polluting everything, you have to accept that stuff will become more expensive as not polluting everything simply just costs more. Dumping whatever toxins you have on your hands is cheaper than actually getting rid of it in the right way, and so on. I believe that whatever succesful strategy to combat climate change en masse will be the same strategy to combat these moral blindfolds for economic gains, and in the end I believe it's tackling the problem at the source: lower prices of production in the local environment to lesser the dependency on China.
• lvs 6y ago
  The fact that you're being silently downvoted suggests this generation does not want to be cornered on what its moral principles are. Disappointing.
  • slashdot2008 6y ago
    I'm in the market for new flat screen TV. Hopefully I can find one made in South Korea or even Japen, and will pay a premium for it. A pitiful sacrifice to make from someone who can easily afford it.
    • stupendousyappi 6y ago
      Not much of a sacrifice, the best OLEDs are currently made by LG, Samsung and Vizio.
    • lvs 6y ago
      Even so, there's a limit to how much the consumer can do, given how interconnected supply chains are. Your TV may ultimately be assembled in SK, but it will definitely be sending revenue to China for myriad internal components. A boycott is a challenging thing to implement at the consumer level with modern supply chains. It's unclear what the best mechanism to apply moral shame should be, especially when political action is only interpreted cynically as economic competition. (...And I'm being silently downvoted just as you are.)
• cheaprentalyeti 6y ago
  Most of us _don't have any choice_ but to do business with China at one point or another during the day, especially if we're poor. Especially if we want to own a piece of electronics, necessary if you want to (for example) apply for unemployment insurance. (it's all electronic in this state, and they _shut down_ all the local unemployment offices). Or make a phone call. (Maybe I'll get lucky and wind up with the cheap cell phone brand made in Vietnam instead of China. Woo hoo, they haven't ethnically cleansed people in thirty years, and it was a lot less than China did in the same time period. So moral superiority!) This isn't meant as a response to you, I'm just stating the situation as I see it.
• DasIch 6y ago
  I haven't downvoted you but there are a couple of problems here. > How can anyone doing business with China look the other way on Xinjiang simply by saying "our factory isn't there". In many industries not doing business with China is synonymous with not doing business. Many supply chains go through China, this is not something you can easily change. Additionally capitalism incentives companies to focus on profit over ethics. You can't expect companies to act against that. That's why regulation is important to limit what companies can do to what is acceptable. Your expectation here is just not realistic. > Every one of us buying goods made in China is enabling their behaviour by showing that we would rather make more money or would rather have cheaper electronics and plastic crap than standing up for the human rights of the people in Xinjiang who are the focus of the CCPs genocide. Placing blame on consumers is extremely problematic because it assumes people can make a choice here. That is not a reasonable assumption. Consumers probably don't have the necessary information about the product (and supply chain!), so they can't make an informed decision not to buy a product on this basis. Even if they had this information, they also may not have the financial means to afford making a choice on that basis. We have effective mechanisms to define and enforce rules, it involves governments taking action through creating and enforcing laws. Putting blame on consumers ultimately shifts responsibility away from people who could do something meaningful about the problem to people who cannot. > As a Canadian I wish our Prime Minister Justin Trudeau would more directly speak out against China's poor behaviour and offer some temporary support for businesses that would be impacted. Trudeau merely speaking out against China, also wouldn't help. Sanctions might help and Canada is actually one of several countries that has created sanctions over the treatment of Uighurs. I'm sure this is not your intention but effectively you're arguing for actions that have no chance of actually solving the problem. This is also a common political strategy by neoliberals who are opposed to government intervention on ideological grounds. So one might be inclined, to think that you pretend to be offended because it's unacceptable not to but don't really want it solved either.
  • slashdot2008 6y ago
    Thanks for the insightful reply. The pandemic has highlighted the fragility of global supply chains and the downside of being dependent on others for critical goods. They are cheap when they are plentiful but they become unobtainable when they are desperately needed. That, China's beligerent diplomats, and their decision to ignore the Hong Kong treaty will hopefully be the impetus to reduce reliance on China's supply chains by developing and supporting other sources even if they are more expensive. Perhaps even local sources given that friendly faces seem to be able to to turn on you once they have some leverage, and it is difficult to re-start an industry once that know-how is lost forever. As the son of an economics professor I never thought I would argue for subsidies for uncompetitive natioanlized industry but it turns out there is some additional benefit other than the goods produced on a given day. Politicians need support for hardships they may bring upon us, such as reduced profits, more expensive goods, and subsidies for local industry, that may be the result of sanctions and moral high ground. I think "vote with your wallet" campaigns and boycotts can be a good indicator to politicians that their voters have the stomach for the sanctions, just like a demonstration or march in support of the Uighurs would. Even ineffective measures that show your support for a cause, such as wrapping a t-shirt around your face to avoid spreading covid-19 particles that are the same size as asbestos fibres and can sail right through, sends a message that you are willing to make some sacrifice for the greater good at the cost of some personal discomfort. I support goverment intervention, but I think the government needs to see they have the will of the voters behind them. Thanks again for your thoughts!
• dehrmann 6y ago
  > As a Canadian... Detaining Meng Wanzhou is something.
  • katbyte 6y ago
    your comparing a legal obligation to extradite someone who has committed fraud to our ally to stand trial to genocide?
    • sudosysgen 6y ago
      They didn't fraud the US, they allegedly frauded HSBC, a UK bank. There isn't a legal obligation to extradite either, extradition could be prevented through numerous legal mechanisms - for example, there is no guarantee that Meng Wenzhou will actually be tried for minor fraud instead of the mucher harsher crime of violating sanctions, for which there is no analogy in Canadian law, but in addition US courts are not fully transparent and independent in matters of national security, nor is the penalty of up to 20 years analogous in Canadian law, nor is there any actual damages in the crime of fraud that could be recognized to any party besides the US Government, and so on, but there were also violations of due process during discovery as evidence was illegally obtained by the prosecution, and more. There is ample material for the extradition to be throw out, but it isn't because the US is trying to use it to extract strategic advantages over Canada. More importantly, allies mean nothing to the US, which refuses to back Canada in any of its international disputes (most of which are against the US), so I see no reason why we shouldn't return the favour. As far as genocide, I wish you wouldn't throw that around so lightly, it's an insult to the millions of actual victims of genocide, which weren't in a group where their population increased. If you mean cultural genocide, or racist repression, say that - it's already a grave enough offense. That being said, if you think any geopolitical actor cares about it, you're being misled - sanctions only serve to make the situation worse, and the United States has been funding the terrorists in Xinjiang for decades to attempt to create the conditions for repression. Put simply, no one actually cares, they're just trying to use you to achieve their goals. Otherwise Canada/US/EU wouldn't support all the other genocidal countries, or would at least recognize their own (cultural) genocides, which they haven't.
• SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  It's an entirely reasonable question, but I just can't quite get on board with the consequence of collectively punishing the Chinese people for Xinjiang. I won't do business with the Chinese government, certainly. But if a team of Shanghai developers makes a game I really like, I'm not comfortable boycotting them for their government's sins; it seems both unfair to them and unlikely to help anyone.
  • pueblito 6y ago
    What will it take for you?
    • SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
      For a blanket refusal to transact with any Chinese business? I don't know if there's anything it would "take" as such. What's happening in Xinjiang is already about as bad as a domestic issue can get. I just don't agree that it's a good lever to push.
      • slashdot2008 6y ago
        Here in Canada is I found out I was losing sales because people were upset with the way Canada was treating the first nations people here it would certainly be an eye opener and probably would make me want my government to stop doing what it was doing to make me lose business.
        • SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
          Even accepting the underlying logic, aren't Chinese citizens also generally victims of their government, not equal partners who could effectively shift its policies? If a random businessperson started raising a fuss about Xinjiang, I expect they would find themselves quickly disappeared or jailed on fabricated charges.
          • slashdot2008 6y ago