5 ms·

Yes. It's easy to paint the current Chinese policies as barbaric, but such was the official policy in democratic Canada (and the US, which had similar policies

by em500 5y ago

Yes. It's easy to paint the current Chinese policies as barbaric, but such was the official policy in democratic Canada (and the US, which had similar policies) barely a generation ago. It does not justify current Chinese minority policy, but it does make them more understandable and relatable. It also suggests to me that outside pressures for policy change in China are probably largely futile. Would the Canadian or American Natives policies have changed much under foreign pressure?

loceng 5y ago
If the democratic-free nations of the world made a multi-lateral trade agreement then all manufacturing could come back and buying power of the CCP would greatly reduce.
jszymborski 5y ago
> It does not justify current Chinese minority policy, but it does make them more understandable and relatable. Does it? Strong democracies don't assure that atrocities don't happen, it just means that governments are able to be held accountable for them. There will never be a Truth and Reconilliation commission in Xi Jinping's China, and there certainly is no mechanism by which any consequences can be had for their actions. Canadian's and their politicians are faced with this current atrocity, and its politicians may face consequences if such actions were to continue or aren't reconciled. I would say that actually the extent to which it is possible that politicians do not face consequences is a reflection of weaknesses in the representation of our democracy (e.g.: first-past-the-post, voter suppression, etc..)
- michael1999 5y ago
  Never say never. I expect de Klerk never expected to testify to his crimes either.
- p_j_w 5y ago
  >Strong democracies don't assure that atrocities don't happen, it just means that governments are able to be held accountable for them. Has any government been held accountable for the "Residential School" system? No. Governments have apologized after the fact for actions of previous instances of the government. There has been zero accountability on the matter. Same with the atrocities, against first nations or slaves, here in the US. >There will never be a Truth and Reconilliation commission in Xi Jinping's China Likewise, there wasn't a T&R commission in under the Canadian governments that were in charge while these acts were committed. >its politicians may face consequences if such actions were to continue or aren't reconciled. >I would say that actually the extent to which it is possible that politicians do not face consequences is a reflection of weaknesses in the representation of our democracy These statements are true only to the extent that the atrocities are politically unpopular. We don't need to look very far, temporally or spatially, to find examples of genocide being politically popular. I'm glad I live in a liberal democracy and not under a dictatorship or some other kind of authoritarian system, but we shouldn't pretend that our form of government is capable of doing all, or even very much, of the hard work of respecting human rights for us. That's a key ingredient in the recipe to backsliding.
  - jszymborski 5y ago
    > Has any government been held accountable for the "Residential School" system? I'm just saying there is a mechanism by which it is possible, and I don't think it'd take an abundance of polling to recognise that something like the Xinjiang internment camps or "Residential Schools" (internment camps in their own right) would be politically viable. In fact, it can be argued that a huge reason why there is public knowledge of their existence and why the practice was ended (albeit far too late) was because of our free elections. > We don't need to look very far, temporally or spatially, to find examples of genocide being politically popular. There is much truth to this, but it's worth thinking about how democratic sliding/autocratic institutions amplify this to a huge degree. Genocide certainly can be popular in strong democracies, but things like a strong free press and equitable treatment under the law make this sort of thing much harder to defend in the court of public opinion. > ...but we shouldn't pretend that our form of government is capable of doing all, or even very much, of the hard work of respecting human rights for us. Absolutely agree, and I'd argue that there are many ways that our government and its institutions don't represent the will of the people. It's not sufficient to solely look towards our systems of government or to look inwards as a society; it's an all or nothing deal which sounds hard at first but there's a strong reinforcement loop in there. When our institutions and our communities do right by their members, it begets more awareness and will to do well by each other. I've said it before on HN: this domestic and foreign politics stuff all feels super overwhelming, but one can personally do tremendously to help rectify these ills by focusing on your local community, and being an active participant. So certainly, I wholeheartedly agree that when democracies are healthy, change happens with political will and that starts on the ground.
isoprophlex 5y ago
The hell these policies become "relatable". I can understand why these policies are made, but relate to them? I want to see a better world. I won't compromise and relate to policies causing destruction of human rights. I'm saying this as a hyper-privileged, cuddled native of a country that acquired it's position on the world stage in part by enslaving other humans. We were homicidal, genocidal asshats, just like the Canadians with those natives, just like the Chinese with their Uyghur population. We're a violent race. If we want to be better, we shouldn't tolerate any of our shitty behavior, and we shouldn't soften the messaging when talking about abject atrocities.
- em500 5y ago
  "Relatable" in the sense that you can imagine that if you grew up in Canada or the USA one or two generations ago, you could easily have been supportive such policies yourself in your own country.
- beerandt 5y ago
  >We're a violent race Are you aware of the context of the article? Because reducing a race to inherently possessing certain tendencies or traits, and needing to "take action!" and "do something!" about it, is sort of how we got here. If you want to base it on historic behavior, then it'd be justified, just like the people who set up these schools.
  - guerrilla 5y ago
    They mean the human race
    - beerandt 5y ago
      That's a stretch... >as a hyper-privileged, cuddled native of a country that acquired it's position on the world stage in part by enslaving other humans. >We were homicidal, genocidal asshats, just like the Canadians with those natives, just like the Chinese with their Uyghur population. >We're a violent race. And you read that as (human) race?

by em500 5y ago

loceng 5y ago

If the democratic-free nations of the world made a multi-lateral trade agreement then all manufacturing could come back and buying power of the CCP would greatly reduce.

jszymborski 5y ago

> It does not justify current Chinese minority policy, but it does make them more understandable and relatable. Does it? Strong democracies don't assure that atrocities don't happen, it just means that governments are able to be held accountable for them. There will never be a Truth and Reconilliation commission in Xi Jinping's China, and there certainly is no mechanism by which any consequences can be had for their actions. Canadian's and their politicians are faced with this current atrocity, and its politicians may face consequences if such actions were to continue or aren't reconciled. I would say that actually the extent to which it is possible that politicians do not face consequences is a reflection of weaknesses in the representation of our democracy (e.g.: first-past-the-post, voter suppression, etc..)

michael1999 5y ago
Never say never. I expect de Klerk never expected to testify to his crimes either.
p_j_w 5y ago
>Strong democracies don't assure that atrocities don't happen, it just means that governments are able to be held accountable for them. Has any government been held accountable for the "Residential School" system? No. Governments have apologized after the fact for actions of previous instances of the government. There has been zero accountability on the matter. Same with the atrocities, against first nations or slaves, here in the US. >There will never be a Truth and Reconilliation commission in Xi Jinping's China Likewise, there wasn't a T&R commission in under the Canadian governments that were in charge while these acts were committed. >its politicians may face consequences if such actions were to continue or aren't reconciled. >I would say that actually the extent to which it is possible that politicians do not face consequences is a reflection of weaknesses in the representation of our democracy These statements are true only to the extent that the atrocities are politically unpopular. We don't need to look very far, temporally or spatially, to find examples of genocide being politically popular. I'm glad I live in a liberal democracy and not under a dictatorship or some other kind of authoritarian system, but we shouldn't pretend that our form of government is capable of doing all, or even very much, of the hard work of respecting human rights for us. That's a key ingredient in the recipe to backsliding.
- jszymborski 5y ago
  > Has any government been held accountable for the "Residential School" system? I'm just saying there is a mechanism by which it is possible, and I don't think it'd take an abundance of polling to recognise that something like the Xinjiang internment camps or "Residential Schools" (internment camps in their own right) would be politically viable. In fact, it can be argued that a huge reason why there is public knowledge of their existence and why the practice was ended (albeit far too late) was because of our free elections. > We don't need to look very far, temporally or spatially, to find examples of genocide being politically popular. There is much truth to this, but it's worth thinking about how democratic sliding/autocratic institutions amplify this to a huge degree. Genocide certainly can be popular in strong democracies, but things like a strong free press and equitable treatment under the law make this sort of thing much harder to defend in the court of public opinion. > ...but we shouldn't pretend that our form of government is capable of doing all, or even very much, of the hard work of respecting human rights for us. Absolutely agree, and I'd argue that there are many ways that our government and its institutions don't represent the will of the people. It's not sufficient to solely look towards our systems of government or to look inwards as a society; it's an all or nothing deal which sounds hard at first but there's a strong reinforcement loop in there. When our institutions and our communities do right by their members, it begets more awareness and will to do well by each other. I've said it before on HN: this domestic and foreign politics stuff all feels super overwhelming, but one can personally do tremendously to help rectify these ills by focusing on your local community, and being an active participant. So certainly, I wholeheartedly agree that when democracies are healthy, change happens with political will and that starts on the ground.

isoprophlex 5y ago

The hell these policies become "relatable". I can understand why these policies are made, but relate to them? I want to see a better world. I won't compromise and relate to policies causing destruction of human rights. I'm saying this as a hyper-privileged, cuddled native of a country that acquired it's position on the world stage in part by enslaving other humans. We were homicidal, genocidal asshats, just like the Canadians with those natives, just like the Chinese with their Uyghur population. We're a violent race. If we want to be better, we shouldn't tolerate any of our shitty behavior, and we shouldn't soften the messaging when talking about abject atrocities.

em500 5y ago
"Relatable" in the sense that you can imagine that if you grew up in Canada or the USA one or two generations ago, you could easily have been supportive such policies yourself in your own country.
beerandt 5y ago
>We're a violent race Are you aware of the context of the article? Because reducing a race to inherently possessing certain tendencies or traits, and needing to "take action!" and "do something!" about it, is sort of how we got here. If you want to base it on historic behavior, then it'd be justified, just like the people who set up these schools.
- guerrilla 5y ago
  They mean the human race
  - beerandt 5y ago
    That's a stretch... >as a hyper-privileged, cuddled native of a country that acquired it's position on the world stage in part by enslaving other humans. >We were homicidal, genocidal asshats, just like the Canadians with those natives, just like the Chinese with their Uyghur population. >We're a violent race. And you read that as (human) race?