3 ms·

> I'll agree with them that it was awful and that my country has done evil things that I am ashamed of I think what a lot of the non-West feels is that the Wes

by yunohn 5y ago

> I'll agree with them that it was awful and that my country has done evil things that I am ashamed of I think what a lot of the non-West feels is that the West has done horrible things, benefited from it, and continues to commit modern colonialism and direct/indirect exploitation of developing countries to continually benefit from them. The dissonance is in thinking that the West is no longer doing these things and only the Enemy (China/Russia/whoever) is. Thus, taking an (invalid) higher moral ground is what probably turns your friends away.

benrbray 5y ago
Plenty of Americans were very outspoken against the Vietnam and Iraq wars, among other blunders. Plenty of us find the state of American politics absolutely deplorable. There is no shortage of critics. Sure, there is plenty of room for improvement. I wish more people cared about social and economic issues, and I wish those who did care were more willing to act. But at least in America it's part of the conversation.
- yunohn 5y ago
  > Sure, there is plenty of room for improvement I imagine that you probably care more than the average American. But saying there’s room for improvement, while the USA has the largest military presence in the world, and uses it to bully everyone else, is quite frightening for the non-West. > Vietnam and Iraq wars It’s exactly these (older) examples which I am talking about. The West continues to fuel atrocities in the Middle East on literally a daily basis: - Syria: “CIA sold arms to Syrian rebel groups” - https://www.georgetownjournalofinternationalaffairs.org/online-edition/2019/9/2/the-arms-trade-and-syria https://www.georgetownjournalofinternationalaffairs.org/onli... - Afghanistan: “UN says more civilians killed by allies than insurgents” - https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-49165676 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-49165676
  - chaostheory 5y ago
    He is not more outspoken than “other Americans”. It’s a common sentiment for our past mistakes. Why? Because we don’t hide from them and pretend they didn’t happen. Our mistakes are recorded in literature even school textbooks, TV shows, and movies for all to see. Why? So there’s a much higher chance that we don’t repeat our mistakes, and we can be proactive at fixing issues that arise from them. This is a key feature of a democracy, though there are exceptions like Japan. I think mainland Chinese people have a hard time separating the US government from the US population because of the forced conformity that the CCP demands of them, or they would realize that a large contingent of the US population on both political spectrums has wanted to pull back our military presence for a long time now. The US population and the US government are a lot less aligned than you think. For the record, I’m a Chinese American so I’m not ignorant of what’s going on in mainland China.
  - benrbray 5y ago
    For the record, I mentioned Vietnam and Iraq not in the context of the present day, but because a significant proportion of Americans were very outspoken about those wars as they were happening. You're right, it's harder to remain actively informed about the day-to-day military action that accumulates into something awful. Even when we know about it, our political system doesn't give enough opportunities to give fine-grained feedback about specific issues. Usually the national conversation is dominated by culture war issues, and I can't help but feel that it's an intentional distraction so the public will forget that we're plundering the middle east etc.. But at least I am free to voice my opinion, and to bother all my friends and family about geopolitics when given the opportunity.
    - yunohn 5y ago
      NB: I appreciate your calm responses, I hope my frustration isn’t coming across too aggressive. > our political system doesn't give enough opportunities to give fine-grained feedback about specific issues IMO, this is a universal problem. Sadly, while freedom of speech is useful, it is overrated relative to actionability on governance. All the atrocities we discussed have occurred and continue to be fueled regardless of ever-present outspoken individuals.
- ModernMech 5y ago
  This brings to mind the South Park episode "I'm a little bit country" (Episode 100) Hancock: Mr. Franklin, where do you stand on the war issue? Franklin: I believe that if we are to form a new country, we cannot be a country that appears war-hungry and violent to the rest of the world. However, we also cannot be a country that appears weak and unwilling to fight to the rest of the world. So, what if we form a country that appears to want both? Jefferson: Yes. Yes of course. We go to war, and protest going to war at the same time. Dickinson: Right. If the people of our new country are allowed to do whatever they wish, then some will support the war and some will protest it. Franklin: And that means that as a nation, we could go to war with whomever we wished, but at the same time, act like we didn't want to. If we allow the people to protest what the government does, then the country will be forever blameless. Adams: [holding a slice of chocolate cake] It's like having your cake, and eating it, too. Congressman 2: Think of it: an entire nation founded on saying one thing and doing another. Hancock: And we will call that country the United States of America.
  - yunohn 5y ago
    Thank you for finding this, it really does illustrate my thoughts quite hilariously.
c1ccccc1 5y ago
A utilitarian perspective is probably more productive than worrying about who has the moral high ground in any case. The fact is that the situation in Xinjiang is terrible and seems to be getting worse. The question is what can be done about it. For the Chinese government, the answer is simple: Close down the internment camps, and let the people go home. But the Chinese government isn't likely to read this comment, and even less likely to act on its advice. For other countries, the available actions will be more indirect. I think we should focus on getting as many Uyghurs out of the country as possible. This would require other countries to take them in as refugees or immigrants. It would also require some way of getting them physically out of China, which would be easier with the cooperation of the Chinese government. In theory, if China views the Uyghurs as a kind of nuisance, it should easily agree to let them leave for greener pastures, but in practice that doesn't seems to be the case. Perhaps the worry is that they will badmouth China once they leave. It's probably more complicated than that, but definitely worth pondering on with so many lives at stake.
- chaostheory 5y ago
  What you’re suggesting isn’t feasible because it would mean that the CCP “loses face”. Not happening.
- yunohn 5y ago
  > A utilitarian perspective is probably more productive than worrying about who has the moral high ground in any case. While I agree with this, the OP was commenting about how their friends turn away when the issue is brought up, and comparing how OP reacts to similar crimes about their own country. So, that’s a point I felt warranted to discuss. More generally, historically, colonization has always been about “taming the savages” and “teaching them (Western) morality”. Slavery and exploitation went hand in hand with this mindset.

by yunohn 5y ago

benrbray 5y ago

Plenty of Americans were very outspoken against the Vietnam and Iraq wars, among other blunders. Plenty of us find the state of American politics absolutely deplorable. There is no shortage of critics. Sure, there is plenty of room for improvement. I wish more people cared about social and economic issues, and I wish those who did care were more willing to act. But at least in America it's part of the conversation.

yunohn 5y ago
> Sure, there is plenty of room for improvement I imagine that you probably care more than the average American. But saying there’s room for improvement, while the USA has the largest military presence in the world, and uses it to bully everyone else, is quite frightening for the non-West. > Vietnam and Iraq wars It’s exactly these (older) examples which I am talking about. The West continues to fuel atrocities in the Middle East on literally a daily basis: - Syria: “CIA sold arms to Syrian rebel groups” - https://www.georgetownjournalofinternationalaffairs.org/online-edition/2019/9/2/the-arms-trade-and-syria https://www.georgetownjournalofinternationalaffairs.org/onli... - Afghanistan: “UN says more civilians killed by allies than insurgents” - https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-49165676 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-49165676
- chaostheory 5y ago
  He is not more outspoken than “other Americans”. It’s a common sentiment for our past mistakes. Why? Because we don’t hide from them and pretend they didn’t happen. Our mistakes are recorded in literature even school textbooks, TV shows, and movies for all to see. Why? So there’s a much higher chance that we don’t repeat our mistakes, and we can be proactive at fixing issues that arise from them. This is a key feature of a democracy, though there are exceptions like Japan. I think mainland Chinese people have a hard time separating the US government from the US population because of the forced conformity that the CCP demands of them, or they would realize that a large contingent of the US population on both political spectrums has wanted to pull back our military presence for a long time now. The US population and the US government are a lot less aligned than you think. For the record, I’m a Chinese American so I’m not ignorant of what’s going on in mainland China.
- benrbray 5y ago
  For the record, I mentioned Vietnam and Iraq not in the context of the present day, but because a significant proportion of Americans were very outspoken about those wars as they were happening. You're right, it's harder to remain actively informed about the day-to-day military action that accumulates into something awful. Even when we know about it, our political system doesn't give enough opportunities to give fine-grained feedback about specific issues. Usually the national conversation is dominated by culture war issues, and I can't help but feel that it's an intentional distraction so the public will forget that we're plundering the middle east etc.. But at least I am free to voice my opinion, and to bother all my friends and family about geopolitics when given the opportunity.
  - yunohn 5y ago
    NB: I appreciate your calm responses, I hope my frustration isn’t coming across too aggressive. > our political system doesn't give enough opportunities to give fine-grained feedback about specific issues IMO, this is a universal problem. Sadly, while freedom of speech is useful, it is overrated relative to actionability on governance. All the atrocities we discussed have occurred and continue to be fueled regardless of ever-present outspoken individuals.
ModernMech 5y ago
This brings to mind the South Park episode "I'm a little bit country" (Episode 100) Hancock: Mr. Franklin, where do you stand on the war issue? Franklin: I believe that if we are to form a new country, we cannot be a country that appears war-hungry and violent to the rest of the world. However, we also cannot be a country that appears weak and unwilling to fight to the rest of the world. So, what if we form a country that appears to want both? Jefferson: Yes. Yes of course. We go to war, and protest going to war at the same time. Dickinson: Right. If the people of our new country are allowed to do whatever they wish, then some will support the war and some will protest it. Franklin: And that means that as a nation, we could go to war with whomever we wished, but at the same time, act like we didn't want to. If we allow the people to protest what the government does, then the country will be forever blameless. Adams: [holding a slice of chocolate cake] It's like having your cake, and eating it, too. Congressman 2: Think of it: an entire nation founded on saying one thing and doing another. Hancock: And we will call that country the United States of America.
- yunohn 5y ago
  Thank you for finding this, it really does illustrate my thoughts quite hilariously.

c1ccccc1 5y ago

A utilitarian perspective is probably more productive than worrying about who has the moral high ground in any case. The fact is that the situation in Xinjiang is terrible and seems to be getting worse. The question is what can be done about it. For the Chinese government, the answer is simple: Close down the internment camps, and let the people go home. But the Chinese government isn't likely to read this comment, and even less likely to act on its advice. For other countries, the available actions will be more indirect. I think we should focus on getting as many Uyghurs out of the country as possible. This would require other countries to take them in as refugees or immigrants. It would also require some way of getting them physically out of China, which would be easier with the cooperation of the Chinese government. In theory, if China views the Uyghurs as a kind of nuisance, it should easily agree to let them leave for greener pastures, but in practice that doesn't seems to be the case. Perhaps the worry is that they will badmouth China once they leave. It's probably more complicated than that, but definitely worth pondering on with so many lives at stake.

chaostheory 5y ago
What you’re suggesting isn’t feasible because it would mean that the CCP “loses face”. Not happening.
yunohn 5y ago
> A utilitarian perspective is probably more productive than worrying about who has the moral high ground in any case. While I agree with this, the OP was commenting about how their friends turn away when the issue is brought up, and comparing how OP reacts to similar crimes about their own country. So, that’s a point I felt warranted to discuss. More generally, historically, colonization has always been about “taming the savages” and “teaching them (Western) morality”. Slavery and exploitation went hand in hand with this mindset.