3 ms·

The consequences have lasting effects of course, but to assume that current governments maintain those same policies from hundreds of years ago is ridiculous. C

The consequences have lasting effects of course, but to assume that current governments maintain those same policies from hundreds of years ago is ridiculous. China should take an example from the US, our former enemies are now some of our strongest allies (Japan and Germany), or at the minimum have strongly endorsed our culture (Vietnam). It happens by not holding grudges, as China is fond to do.

somenameforme 4y ago
If you believe much has changed, I would encourage you to look to the Mideast. Millions of dead bodies and countless destroyed governments are testament to the fact that opposing Western interests is like to be met with the bombs wrapped in slogans of freedom, human rights, and democracy. Of course the Mideast is largely unable to speak for itself because their culture, religion, and language leave them culturally isolated from the West. In many ways our treatment of the Mideast today, and their situation, is directly analogous to how we treated China in the past and the situation they were in. So I would argue what has changed has not been our behavior, but China's ability to defend itself.
- mlindner 4y ago
  And now we take the standard Chinese propaganist route of re-directing the argument away from Asia and to the middle east whenever a complicated issue of Asian geopolitics with regards to the US happens. It's become a good benchmark for when someone is arguing in bad faith when they start reciting CCP talking points with near identical wording every time certain subjects come up. Also, China will repeat the same missteps of the US in the middle east as soon as their first major interruption of fossil fuels happens. China is not immune.
  - somenameforme 4y ago
    Your argument was that the West has changed, and China claiming we haven't is wrong. The Mideast rather strongly supports the Chinese view, and so far as I can tell - there's not really much to oppose it. As for propaganda, during the Cold War we engaged in extensive propaganda. That included things like imagery of stocked grocery store shelves. That those things were used as propaganda did not mean that they did not exist, or were somehow inherently false.

somenameforme 4y ago

If you believe much has changed, I would encourage you to look to the Mideast. Millions of dead bodies and countless destroyed governments are testament to the fact that opposing Western interests is like to be met with the bombs wrapped in slogans of freedom, human rights, and democracy. Of course the Mideast is largely unable to speak for itself because their culture, religion, and language leave them culturally isolated from the West. In many ways our treatment of the Mideast today, and their situation, is directly analogous to how we treated China in the past and the situation they were in. So I would argue what has changed has not been our behavior, but China's ability to defend itself.

mlindner 4y ago
And now we take the standard Chinese propaganist route of re-directing the argument away from Asia and to the middle east whenever a complicated issue of Asian geopolitics with regards to the US happens. It's become a good benchmark for when someone is arguing in bad faith when they start reciting CCP talking points with near identical wording every time certain subjects come up. Also, China will repeat the same missteps of the US in the middle east as soon as their first major interruption of fossil fuels happens. China is not immune.
- somenameforme 4y ago
  Your argument was that the West has changed, and China claiming we haven't is wrong. The Mideast rather strongly supports the Chinese view, and so far as I can tell - there's not really much to oppose it. As for propaganda, during the Cold War we engaged in extensive propaganda. That included things like imagery of stocked grocery store shelves. That those things were used as propaganda did not mean that they did not exist, or were somehow inherently false.