4 ms·

> Also, lots of people forget that Chinese who grew up in the 1990s tend to be fairly anti-American due to the Tiannamen Sanctions, the Taiwan Straits Crisis, a

by tivert 2y ago

> Also, lots of people forget that Chinese who grew up in the 1990s tend to be fairly anti-American due to the Tiannamen Sanctions, the Taiwan Straits Crisis, and the bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade... Don't forget the propaganda around those things, which is an important factor. I was talking to a Chinese person about the bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, and they were certain the US never apologized for it. However, they had to concede they had been mislead when I found a old C-SPAN clip of Clinton apologizing for it during a press conference. I bet Chinese media around that time deliberately cultivated outrage by selectively reporting on the bombing but ignoring the apology.

throw310822 2y ago
Given what the gp is talking about- colluding with many major suppliers to stop food and commodities exports to China, and even blocking sea passages to prevent shipments from reaching them (an act of war)- I don't see why Chinese people need any propaganda to hate the US. Reality is more than enough.
- qwytw 2y ago
  > colluding with many major suppliers to stop food and commodities exports to China > Reality is more than enough Except it's all hypothetical?
  - throw310822 2y ago
    True, but how would the US feel about a country throwing around the possibility of cutting them off of global supplies and even blocking their shipping routes? Do you think US citizens would feel good towards such a country? Not to mention that of course the US have been waging a commercial war with China already for several years.
    - qwytw 2y ago
      > but how would the US feel about a country You mean about anonymous individuals (who might or might not be citizens of that given country) throwing around that idea on an online forum? But I'll try not being facetious. I do of course understand your point, even if I do think you overdramatizing it. Yes US has been waging a commercial war with China, just like China was waging a war with the US. I don't really see how is the US the clear aggressor here (of course it mainly has itself to blame for entering into this unsustainable relationship with China to begin with; however I still strongly believe that in relative terms China benefited significantly more from US/rest of the developed outsourcing much of their industrial/etc. production to China than the other way around, though). And obviously China is a clear aggressor in certain aspects (e.g. how would as British citizen if Germany/France/etc. started threatening to invade your island over Brexit?). If that's not a good analogy we could use Ireland and Britain instead. > possibility of cutting them off of global supplies and even blocking their shipping routes Anyway, this is sounds extremely far fetched. Orthogonal to what the US was and is still doing; I don't think any country did more to keep global shipping routes open for the 50+ years or so. Blockading China would be the equivalent of purposefully shutting yourself in the gut (even if we ignore any potential military reaction)
  - protomolecule 2y ago
    China can see the West imposing sanctions on Russia and pressuring other countries to join with secondary sanctions.
    - qwytw 2y ago
      And they missed the West imposing sanctions on Iran, Iraq, Yugoslavia, South Africa and many other countries in the past? Russia's position in the global economy is radically different to that of China's. Especially from the perspective of the US, which lost almost nothing by imposing sanctions on Russia (the brunt of the costs was borne by Europe), arguably it actually benefited from them. In China's case it would be very different. Of course if US and its allies managed to somehow economically untangle themselves from China well. That would depend. In any case.. If China is really concerned with this they could just start by leaving Taiwan alone, that would significantly reduce any tension.
      - protomolecule 2y ago
        "And they missed the West imposing sanctions" The scale is unprecedented. "If China is really concerned with this they could just start by leaving Taiwan alone" Yeah, "if you are really concerned with the gun pointed at your head -- do as we say." China prefers doing something about the gun itself.
        qwytw 2y ago
        > The scale is unprecedented. Relative to the geopolitically important of the target country? Yes. Looking at the scale of the sanctions themselves? Hardly. I still think the other factors I listed are more important. > "if you are really concerned with the gun pointed at your head -- do as we say." No, it's if you randomly make unprovoked threats to neighboring expects consequences and general behave in an aggressive way (politically and economically) expect that other countries will react. China is the one pointing the gun for the most part.
        protomolecule 2y ago
jrflowers 2y ago
I’d venture a guess that there are some folks that are more mad about the bombing itself than the perceived lack of apology for the bombing.
- bdjsiqoocwk 2y ago
  Moving goalposts. The claim was they never apologized, and they did.
  - jrflowers 2y ago
    They moved the goalposts from “mad about not apologizing for the bombing” to “mad about the bombing itself”? How does that work in linear time considering the bombing itself happened before a window for apology?
    - tivert 2y ago
      > They moved the goalposts from “mad about not apologizing for the bombing” to “mad about the bombing itself”? I think the GP was saying you moved the goalposts. And the perceived lack of apology was an important factor in this person's (long past) anger. I mean, think of it this way: if someone hurt you by mistake, would you feel the same if 1) they apologized for their mistake or 2) didn't apologize (showing a lack of care towards you). For me, at least, I'd only get mad at the latter, and I wouldn't be so mad about the harm itself, but rather the disrespect of not apologizing.
      - jrflowers 2y ago
        > I mean, think of it this way: if someone hurt you by mistake, would you feel the same if 1) they apologized for their mistake or 2) didn't apologize (showing a lack of care towards you). For me, at least, I'd only get mad at the latter… If somebody bombed my embassy I would be mad at them. If they didn’t apologize, I would probably be more mad at them. If they did apologize, I could reasonably be less mad at them for bombing my embassy but I could be reasonably forgiven for still being somewhat mad. Because my embassy got bombed.
alephnerd 2y ago
> I bet Chinese media around that time deliberately cultivated outrage by selectively reporting on the bombing but ignoring the apology Yep! The government even turned a blind eye to anti-American protests at the time - barely a couple years after Tiannamen.
maxglute 2y ago
>ignoring the apology US apology was plastered all over local news. They did delay broadcast for a a few days, by which time protests against US embassy already began. Delay got protestors to get rage out of system. I was in BJ at the time, very few locals believed apology - this was few years after clinton sent 2 CVGs through TW strait. Also important to note, PRC gov also unlikely to have believed in apology if background that PRC using belgrade embassy to move downed F117 material. In which case US apology insincere, attack was purposeful (reports mission coordinated by CIA not NATO), but PRC weak at the time, not much can be done, same with 95 TW strait drama. Saying US gov apologized to Belgrade is like saying JP gov apologized for WWII, but kept going to Yasukuni shrine. Flip side of PRC weaponizing propaganda to ferment anti-US sentiment is US propaganda / selective reporting / decontextualizing pretending PRC didn't have good reason to. Everyone uses media to direct influence propaganda on foreign policy. Ultimately, Belgrade just another US intervention effort against PRC interest, queue Hainan EP3 drama a year later.

by tivert 2y ago

throw310822 2y ago

Given what the gp is talking about- colluding with many major suppliers to stop food and commodities exports to China, and even blocking sea passages to prevent shipments from reaching them (an act of war)- I don't see why Chinese people need any propaganda to hate the US. Reality is more than enough.

qwytw 2y ago
> colluding with many major suppliers to stop food and commodities exports to China > Reality is more than enough Except it's all hypothetical?
- throw310822 2y ago
  True, but how would the US feel about a country throwing around the possibility of cutting them off of global supplies and even blocking their shipping routes? Do you think US citizens would feel good towards such a country? Not to mention that of course the US have been waging a commercial war with China already for several years.
  - qwytw 2y ago
    > but how would the US feel about a country You mean about anonymous individuals (who might or might not be citizens of that given country) throwing around that idea on an online forum? But I'll try not being facetious. I do of course understand your point, even if I do think you overdramatizing it. Yes US has been waging a commercial war with China, just like China was waging a war with the US. I don't really see how is the US the clear aggressor here (of course it mainly has itself to blame for entering into this unsustainable relationship with China to begin with; however I still strongly believe that in relative terms China benefited significantly more from US/rest of the developed outsourcing much of their industrial/etc. production to China than the other way around, though). And obviously China is a clear aggressor in certain aspects (e.g. how would as British citizen if Germany/France/etc. started threatening to invade your island over Brexit?). If that's not a good analogy we could use Ireland and Britain instead. > possibility of cutting them off of global supplies and even blocking their shipping routes Anyway, this is sounds extremely far fetched. Orthogonal to what the US was and is still doing; I don't think any country did more to keep global shipping routes open for the 50+ years or so. Blockading China would be the equivalent of purposefully shutting yourself in the gut (even if we ignore any potential military reaction)
- protomolecule 2y ago
  China can see the West imposing sanctions on Russia and pressuring other countries to join with secondary sanctions.
  - qwytw 2y ago
    And they missed the West imposing sanctions on Iran, Iraq, Yugoslavia, South Africa and many other countries in the past? Russia's position in the global economy is radically different to that of China's. Especially from the perspective of the US, which lost almost nothing by imposing sanctions on Russia (the brunt of the costs was borne by Europe), arguably it actually benefited from them. In China's case it would be very different. Of course if US and its allies managed to somehow economically untangle themselves from China well. That would depend. In any case.. If China is really concerned with this they could just start by leaving Taiwan alone, that would significantly reduce any tension.
    - protomolecule 2y ago
      "And they missed the West imposing sanctions" The scale is unprecedented. "If China is really concerned with this they could just start by leaving Taiwan alone" Yeah, "if you are really concerned with the gun pointed at your head -- do as we say." China prefers doing something about the gun itself.
      - qwytw 2y ago
        > The scale is unprecedented. Relative to the geopolitically important of the target country? Yes. Looking at the scale of the sanctions themselves? Hardly. I still think the other factors I listed are more important. > "if you are really concerned with the gun pointed at your head -- do as we say." No, it's if you randomly make unprovoked threats to neighboring expects consequences and general behave in an aggressive way (politically and economically) expect that other countries will react. China is the one pointing the gun for the most part.
        protomolecule 2y ago

jrflowers 2y ago

I’d venture a guess that there are some folks that are more mad about the bombing itself than the perceived lack of apology for the bombing.

bdjsiqoocwk 2y ago
Moving goalposts. The claim was they never apologized, and they did.
- jrflowers 2y ago
  They moved the goalposts from “mad about not apologizing for the bombing” to “mad about the bombing itself”? How does that work in linear time considering the bombing itself happened before a window for apology?
  - tivert 2y ago
    > They moved the goalposts from “mad about not apologizing for the bombing” to “mad about the bombing itself”? I think the GP was saying you moved the goalposts. And the perceived lack of apology was an important factor in this person's (long past) anger. I mean, think of it this way: if someone hurt you by mistake, would you feel the same if 1) they apologized for their mistake or 2) didn't apologize (showing a lack of care towards you). For me, at least, I'd only get mad at the latter, and I wouldn't be so mad about the harm itself, but rather the disrespect of not apologizing.
    - jrflowers 2y ago
      > I mean, think of it this way: if someone hurt you by mistake, would you feel the same if 1) they apologized for their mistake or 2) didn't apologize (showing a lack of care towards you). For me, at least, I'd only get mad at the latter… If somebody bombed my embassy I would be mad at them. If they didn’t apologize, I would probably be more mad at them. If they did apologize, I could reasonably be less mad at them for bombing my embassy but I could be reasonably forgiven for still being somewhat mad. Because my embassy got bombed.

alephnerd 2y ago

> I bet Chinese media around that time deliberately cultivated outrage by selectively reporting on the bombing but ignoring the apology Yep! The government even turned a blind eye to anti-American protests at the time - barely a couple years after Tiannamen.

maxglute 2y ago

>ignoring the apology US apology was plastered all over local news. They did delay broadcast for a a few days, by which time protests against US embassy already began. Delay got protestors to get rage out of system. I was in BJ at the time, very few locals believed apology - this was few years after clinton sent 2 CVGs through TW strait. Also important to note, PRC gov also unlikely to have believed in apology if background that PRC using belgrade embassy to move downed F117 material. In which case US apology insincere, attack was purposeful (reports mission coordinated by CIA not NATO), but PRC weak at the time, not much can be done, same with 95 TW strait drama. Saying US gov apologized to Belgrade is like saying JP gov apologized for WWII, but kept going to Yasukuni shrine. Flip side of PRC weaponizing propaganda to ferment anti-US sentiment is US propaganda / selective reporting / decontextualizing pretending PRC didn't have good reason to. Everyone uses media to direct influence propaganda on foreign policy. Ultimately, Belgrade just another US intervention effort against PRC interest, queue Hainan EP3 drama a year later.