Hong Kong

[Neko-koku]

Colonialism is a wide spectrum of shit. Settler colonialism is just one facet of a beautiful shit coloured rainbow.

Except there’s no settler colonialism by the Chinese

China doesn’t have colonies

It doesn’t have troops overseas

Except a port in Djibouti.

Sad.

[Heloin]

Colonialism is a wide spectrum of shit. Settler colonialism is just one facet of a beautiful shit coloured rainbow.

Except there’s no settler colonialism by the Chinese

China doesn’t have colonies

It doesn’t have troops overseas

Hence the wide spectrum of shit. I know you and Purgatio will say that China isn't currently an Imperial power because some shit about empires that died 60 years ago but China is at this moment a colonising imperial power.

And it does send soldiers overseas.

[Neko-koku]

Hence why the west, particularly the Anglosphere with its tradition of Parliamentary representation has been the most ardent pursuer of human rights.

As I've said, no government sincerely believes in human rights. Its nothing more than a rhetorical tool to criticise countries and other governments you don't like but no one really believes it themselves.

Then you should reject statism.

[Greater Loegria]

Hence why the west, particularly the Anglosphere with its tradition of Parliamentary representation has been the most ardent pursuer of human rights.

As I've said, no government sincerely believes in human rights. Its nothing more than a rhetorical tool to criticise countries and other governments you don't like but no one really believes it themselves.

Whilst I’m by no means an advocate for western liberalism, it’s source is mostly not from an evil place. Western societies impress upon their governments the dignity of human life and this is usually reflected in their policy. It is used as a stick to beat certain regimes with but not without a certain degree of sincerity at its source.

[Heloin]

Just because you haven't gotten over 1950 doesn't mean reality has kept up with you. The PRC is China and the RoC is just the RoC.

Besides I think the RoC should CTE and let Taiwan be an independent nation

It'd really be the best option for them.

[Thermodolia]

Except Southeast Asia doesn’t like China one bit. Neither does Brazil or the many African nations. You are assuming that if the West shrugged China off they’d still survive. If they could survive without the west why haven’t they done so? Why hasn’t the CPC put the breaks on the gravy train and sent the west into a tailspin? Because they can’t survive without the west. The developing nations that they’ve bought wouldn’t be able to support the Chinese economy. This is what you continue to miss, time and time again.


And the west can easily do that with SE Asia and India plus home. China can’t.


It would be China. Because we can move production. China doesn’t have that luxury

The argument works both ways. If China is so vulnerable on the West, why hasn't the West already cut off trade and crippled China's economy? The Thucydidean dynamic by Graham Allison suggests an established power will do everything in its power to cripple a rising power's rise, so if the West hasn't crippled China's economy yet it stands to reason that it lacks the capability to do so, that's the real reason.

Nope the real reason is because the west bought into that End of history crap and is full of well meaning idiots.

China and the US cannot cut off trade with each other without each suffering a severe economic toll, so that's why neither does it. Again, realpolitik suggests if a rival nation hasn't hurt or injured his rival, it's because he can't, not because he won't.

Realpolitik is stupid. It’s what got us into this mess in the first place.

And with that our threadjack is over.

[Neko-koku]

Just because you haven't gotten over 1950 doesn't mean reality has kept up with you. The PRC is China and the RoC is just the RoC.

Besides I think the RoC should CTE and let Taiwan be an independent nation

I'm actually in favor of 20+ nuclear Chinas.

[Purgatio]

As I've said, no government sincerely believes in human rights. Its nothing more than a rhetorical tool to criticise countries and other governments you don't like but no one really believes it themselves.

Whilst I’m by no means an advocate for western liberalism, it’s source is mostly not from an evil place. Western societies impress upon their governments the dignity of human life and this is usually reflected in their policy. It is used as a stick to beat certain regimes with but not without a certain degree of sincerity at its source.

Sure

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States

[Thermodolia]

Besides I think the RoC should CTE and let Taiwan be an independent nation

I'm actually in favor of 20+ nuclear Chinas.

I think you’re crazy. We should have less nuclear states not more

[Neko-koku]

I'm actually in favor of 20+ nuclear Chinas.

I think you’re crazy. We should have less nuclear states not more

Lol nope. That's actually what's required to build and preserve internal political diversity in the Sinosphere.

Europe is free because Europe is divided and that there is no such thing as European Empire that dominates all of Europe. Sinosphere also needs to become free....by having many nuclear Sinosphere countries.

The world also needs to be free by having multiple strong nations and races.

Freedom = Free competition = no unification aka monopoly (大一统) at any level, either regional, national, racial or (in the future, species, galactic, etc)

[Electic]

HK is entering the 11th week of the protests. They don't seem to be stopping, as the numbers of active attended remain in at least the hundreds of thousands. An interview of one of the many protesters re-iterated the center position, that they just want "Hong Kong, to stay Hong Kong". This sentiment hasn't seemed to be dampened due to weather, as crowds marched from Victoria Park to Central district in the pouring rain. It looks like peace activists have reclaimed the mantel of the protests, after the previous clash at the international airport earlier in the week.

You could actually rebut the claim rather than throwing up your hands and ending the debate unilaterally. That's not how a free exchange of ideas operates.

What is there to rebut? You’ve willingly dismissed that murder of innocents is happening. I’m not going to debate with someone who doesn’t even care if innocents are being murdered for being different

Sources to prove opinion claims are a good way to avoid an impasse.

[Kaltovar]

It absolutely is racial, history shows the West has been pretty hostile of any rising power that isn't majority-white, which is why it reacted so harshly against Japan in the early 1900s even before WWII, why the US imposed tariffs on Japan in the 80s, and why there's so much hostility to China now. International politics is also racial politics.

Fake news. Here in America, India is our BFF. We're hosting more and more joint exercises and beginning to share technology, and are close to signing a Joint Defense Agreement (we already signed a Joint Strategic Vision). You know who else we love? Korea, Japan, Thailand ... America fucking loves Vietnam now too, who has recently started allowing us to dock aircraft carriers as a direct result of China's Fascist posturing ... But wait, they're Asian ... How can this be possible in your world where complex geopolitical strategy is determined based on race as if we still live in 1926???

How telling you have to use an example from "The Early 1900s", which by the way can be explained by "Because Japan was threatening their colonial interests, and got treated exactly like Portugal would have been if they started scooping up shit in Asia on that scale." Racism probably played a part, but this is pre-ww2 Europe you're talking about.

[Kowani]

Most people don't hate India despite it usually not voting in UNGA according to how America votes. Realpolitik means Russia, PRC, IR of Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Nicragua, Syria and Zimbabwe are pariahs while pretty much the rest of the world don't like them. It's political, not racial or ethnic.

It absolutely is racial, history shows the West has been pretty hostile of any rising power that isn't majority-white, which is why it reacted so harshly against Japan in the early 1900s even before WWII, why the US imposed tariffs on Japan in the 80s, and why there's so much hostility to China now. International politics is also racial politics.

Boy, do I have news for you.

[Purgatio]

It absolutely is racial, history shows the West has been pretty hostile of any rising power that isn't majority-white, which is why it reacted so harshly against Japan in the early 1900s even before WWII, why the US imposed tariffs on Japan in the 80s, and why there's so much hostility to China now. International politics is also racial politics.

Fake news. Here in America, India is our BFF. We're hosting more and more joint exercises and beginning to share technology, and are close to signing a Joint Defense Agreement (we already signed a Joint Strategic Vision). You know who else we love? Korea, Japan, Thailand ... America fucking loves Vietnam now too, who has recently started allowing us to dock aircraft carriers as a direct result of China's Fascist posturing ... But wait, they're Asian ... How can this be possible in your world where complex geopolitical strategy is determined based on race as if we still live in 1926???

How telling you have to use an example from "The Early 1900s", which by the way can be explained by "Because Japan was threatening their colonial interests, and got treated exactly like Portugal would have been if they started scooping up shit in Asia on that scale." Racism probably played a part, but this is pre-ww2 Europe you're talking about.

You'll notice I said in my answer "rising power". Every nation needs allies, but a country with a growing economy and a GDP that has surpassed the US in PPP and might soon surpass the US GDP in nominal terms is a threat, unlike India or ROK or Vietnam. The historical pattern since WWII is the same, every time a major country that is not majority-white sees its economy grow large and fast enough that it might threaten to displace that of the US and other Western nations, there's a systematic attempt to suppress that growth. It happened with Japan in the 1980s and see the same thing happening with China today. It's racial tribalism in action, but on an international stage.

[Purgatio]

It absolutely is racial, history shows the West has been pretty hostile of any rising power that isn't majority-white, which is why it reacted so harshly against Japan in the early 1900s even before WWII, why the US imposed tariffs on Japan in the 80s, and why there's so much hostility to China now. International politics is also racial politics.

Boy, do I have news for you.

Huh?

[Kowani]

Boy, do I have news for you.

Huh?

The reason the US imposed tariffs on Japan wasn’t because of latent racism, it was because Reagan was a protectionist “America-first, trickledown” buffoon. Heck, even the reactions against the Japanese in the 1900s was because it was busy invading all of its neighbors. And note that not only has the West gone after white countries for imperialism via bad methods (look at what happened to Belgium), Japan was considered to be the “civilized Asian” at the time. Beyond that, the existence of nonwhite powers had been a common thing for a while. The Ottoman Empire is a bad example, since it’s first experience with Europe was invading it.

As for China, that’s not the reason for the opposition and you know that.

[Kaltovar]

You'll notice I said in my answer "rising power". Every nation needs allies, but a country with a growing economy and a GDP that has surpassed the US in PPP and might soon surpass the US GDP in nominal terms is a threat, unlike India or ROK or Vietnam. The historical pattern since WWII is the same, every time a major country that is not majority-white sees its economy grow large and fast enough that it might threaten to displace that of the US and other Western nations, there's a systematic attempt to suppress that growth. It happened with Japan in the 1980s and see the same thing happening with China today. It's racial tribalism in action, but on an international stage.

Yes I did notice that, which is why I said India. It's clear by your response you don't take them seriously, but I do and so should anyone with a brain in their skull. India is in the position now that China was in the early 90s, about to explode onto the world stage in a big way. If you can't see that, you can't see.

[Purgatio]

You'll notice I said in my answer "rising power". Every nation needs allies, but a country with a growing economy and a GDP that has surpassed the US in PPP and might soon surpass the US GDP in nominal terms is a threat, unlike India or ROK or Vietnam. The historical pattern since WWII is the same, every time a major country that is not majority-white sees its economy grow large and fast enough that it might threaten to displace that of the US and other Western nations, there's a systematic attempt to suppress that growth. It happened with Japan in the 1980s and see the same thing happening with China today. It's racial tribalism in action, but on an international stage.

Yes I did notice that, which is why I said India. It's clear by your response you don't take them seriously, but I do and so should anyone with a brain in their skull. India is in the position now that China was in the early 90s, about to explode onto the world stage in a big way. If you can't see that, you can't see.

Then clearly you didn't read my answer carefully enough, if that's what you gathered. I specifically mentioned how China's GDP (PPP) had surpassed the US and GDP nominal will overtake the US in a few years. India isn't in that position yet, but it is rising fast, and when they are close they will begin to threaten the US and its economic dominance, and the US will treat India as terribly and as awfully as they treated Japan in the 80s and like they are treating China now.

International politics is racial tribalism projected onto a global stage. Everything nations and States do can be explained as racialism and division.

[Purgatio]

Huh?

The reason the US imposed tariffs on Japan wasn’t because of latent racism, it was because Reagan was a protectionist “America-first, trickledown” buffoon. Heck, even the reactions against the Japanese in the 1900s was because it was busy invading all of its neighbors. And note that not only has the West gone after white countries for imperialism via bad methods (look at what happened to Belgium), Japan was considered to be the “civilized Asian” at the time. Beyond that, the existence of nonwhite powers had been a common thing for a while. The Ottoman Empire is a bad example, since it’s first experience with Europe was invading it.

As for China, that’s not the reason for the opposition and you know that.

Of course its the reason for China, everything China gets accused of by the West, be it human rights abuses or espionage or military aggression, has been committed by the United States at one point or another, the only difference is its being committed now by a non-white rising power. Just like how the opposition to Japan in the 1920s and 1930s by the US was disguised as being anti-imperialistic or in opposition to Japan's actions in Manchuria, even though Japan's actions were really no different from the US in the Philippines and Hawaii. Because it isn't really about that, that was just rhetoric, the real concern is competition for global power, made worse by the fact that the competitor is non-white and non-Western.

To be clear, I'm a realist and I don't have a problem with the game being played, nations and races compete and fight for power and resources all the time, it's the way of the world, but you have to understand that things like human rights are never sincerely believed by its propenents but are used as bargaining chips or political rhetoric against your opponents on the world stage, and that's whats happening now. Just like in the 1980s with Japan, we are seeing a Thucydidean dynamic play out between a rising power and established power, amplified because of inherent racial tribalism between the two. Everything else is window dressing to legitimise and cover the underlying reality.

[Kaltovar]

Then clearly you didn't read my answer carefully enough, if that's what you gathered. I specifically mentioned how China's GDP (PPP) had surpassed the US and GDP nominal will overtake the US in a few years. India isn't in that position yet, but it is rising fast, and when they are close they will begin to threaten the US and its economic dominance, and the US will treat India as terribly and as awfully as they treated Japan in the 80s and like they are treating China now.

If that's the case India should be getting shit on now, not helped to grow. I refuse to believe DoD intelligence analysts are unable to see what both of us apparently can.

International politics is racial tribalism projected onto a global stage. Everything nations and States do can be explained as racialism and division.

That's a real hot take there. I look forward to your analysis of NAFTA as a tool of racial tribalism, and not as a trade deal designed to siphon as much money OUT of America and into the hands of international corporations as possible.

The Non-Aligned movement during the cold war? Clearly racial tribalism.

The US sending in airborne divisions to force schools to desegregate in an attempt to smash racial tribalism? Obvious sign of the US defending it's majority white race.

The invasion of Panama? Yeah, definitely it was because they're brown and not for reasons of global trade.

You're projecting your own mindset onto the rest of the entire planet. The majority of us haven't thought like you since 1862.

[Purgatio]

Then clearly you didn't read my answer carefully enough, if that's what you gathered. I specifically mentioned how China's GDP (PPP) had surpassed the US and GDP nominal will overtake the US in a few years. India isn't in that position yet, but it is rising fast, and when they are close they will begin to threaten the US and its economic dominance, and the US will treat India as terribly and as awfully as they treated Japan in the 80s and like they are treating China now.

If that's the case India should be getting shit on now, not helped to grow. I refuse to believe DoD intelligence analysts are unable to see what both of us apparently can.

International politics is racial tribalism projected onto a global stage. Everything nations and States do can be explained as racialism and division.

That's a real hot take there. I look forward to your analysis of NAFTA as a tool of racial tribalism, and not as a trade deal designed to siphon as much money OUT of America and into the hands of international corporations as possible.

The Non-Aligned movement during the cold war? Clearly racial tribalism.

The US sending in airborne divisions to force schools to desegregate in an attempt to smash racial tribalism? Obvious sign of the US defending it's majority white race.

The invasion of Panama? Yeah, definitely it was because they're brown and not for reasons of global trade.

You're projecting your own mindset onto the rest of the entire planet. The majority of us haven't thought like you since 1862.

First of all, I never said international politics was ONLY racial tribalism, just that racial tribalism plays a role in how States and nations interact, the alliances built and the rivalries sparked. I don't see how that's controversial, unless you're denying racial tribalism or in-group, out-group thinking doesn't pervade our societies and how communities deal with each other, in which case what makes you think the same instincts and mentality won't be carried over onto the international stage in some form? Why would racial tribalism magically disappear when people enter a UNGA building or a WTO tribunal? The people in these institutions are still human beings and susceptible to the same human instincts.

[Kaltovar]

First of all, I never said international politics was ONLY racial tribalism, just that racial tribalism plays a role in how States and nations interact, the alliances built and the rivalries sparked. I don't see how that's controversial, unless you're denying racial tribalism or in-group, out-group thinking doesn't pervade our societies and how communities deal with each other, in which case what makes you think the same instincts and mentality won't be carried over onto the international stage in some form? Why would racial tribalism magically disappear when people enter a UNGA building or a WTO tribunal? The people in these institutions are still human beings and susceptible to the same human instincts.

I DO agree that racial tribalism plays a role in international politics. I even agree that it plays a role (not nearly as much of a role as you think, in my view) in why much of the West dislikes China. You literally said, however:

Everything nations and States do can be explained as racialism and division.

That strikes me as a hyper-ideological view of politics that gives racialism a much larger role than it actually plays. I refuse to believe that every single thing a nation does, especially a multicultural nation like the United States, is because of racialism.

[Purgatio]

First of all, I never said international politics was ONLY racial tribalism, just that racial tribalism plays a role in how States and nations interact, the alliances built and the rivalries sparked. I don't see how that's controversial, unless you're denying racial tribalism or in-group, out-group thinking doesn't pervade our societies and how communities deal with each other, in which case what makes you think the same instincts and mentality won't be carried over onto the international stage in some form? Why would racial tribalism magically disappear when people enter a UNGA building or a WTO tribunal? The people in these institutions are still human beings and susceptible to the same human instincts.

I DO agree that racial tribalism plays a role in international politics. You literally said, however:

Everything nations and States do can be explained as racialism and division.

That strikes me as a hyper-ideological view of politics that gives racialism a much larger role than it actually plays. I refuse to believe that every single thing a nation does, especially a multicultural nation like the United States, is because of racialism.

Okay I admit the phrasing is a bit strong, I'll revise that to "racialism and division plays at least some role in everything nations and States do", but its not the only factor. However, the actions of the US to Japan in the 1980s, and to China now, are at least partly the result of racial tribalistic thinking and the normal global competition between ruling and rising economic powers, but with a racially-rivalrous twist added to it.

[Kaltovar]

Okay I admit the phrasing is a bit strong, I'll revise that to "racialism and division plays at least some role in everything nations and States do", but its not the only factor. However, the actions of the US to Japan in the 1980s, and to China now, are at least partly the result of racial tribalistic thinking and the normal global competition between ruling and rising economic powers, but with a racially-rivalrous twist added to it.

I can agree with that.

However, it's not why I have issues with China. I have issues with China because they harvest organs, game the international currency market, annex independent countries like Tibet, and want to reshape the world in their image. Yes also because they pose a threat to my NATION and CULTURE, which is tribalistic for sure, but I differentiate between my culture and my race.

I think that's why most serious strategic thinkers in the Defense Department take issue with them ... Yes some of them may just be racist, but also some of them might be racist AND able to see the legitimate strategic threat to this country they pose in the long term. The majority I think are not motivated by race ... Many people in the DOD are Asian (surprisingly very many) and even Chinese-American, black, Spanish, you name it.

[Purgatio]

Okay I admit the phrasing is a bit strong, I'll revise that to "racialism and division plays at least some role in everything nations and States do", but its not the only factor. However, the actions of the US to Japan in the 1980s, and to China now, are at least partly the result of racial tribalistic thinking and the normal global competition between ruling and rising economic powers, but with a racially-rivalrous twist added to it.

I can agree with that.

However, it's not why I have issues with China. I have issues with China because they harvest organs, game the international currency market, annex independent countries like Tibet, and want to reshape the world in their image. Yes also because they pose a threat to my NATION and CULTURE, which is tribalistic for sure, but I differentiate between my culture and my race.

I think that's why most serious strategic thinkers in the Defense Department take issue with them ... Yes some of them may just be racist, but also some of them might be racist AND able to see the legitimate strategic threat to this country they pose in the long term. The majority I think are not motivated by race ... Many people in the DOD are Asian (surprisingly very many) and even Chinese-American, black, Spanish, you name it.

Race and culture are linked, in theory of course its possible to separate the two but in practice most people who talk about one really mean the other. When people in China talk about the threat posed to them by "Western culture", they mean white culture, and when people in the West talk about the threat posed by "Chinese culture", they mean Chinese people. No ifs or buts about it, it's just a layer of subtlety because you can't openly say you despise a race of people anymore in this day and age.

Most of the criticisms of China arise out of racial and tribalistic fears, the notion of a non-white country rising in economic power. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, racial tribalism is a normal human instinct, in fact I believe its human nature and centuries of global, international racial conflict have bred a comeptitive spirit in all of us, encourages us to improve the species and our societies and not grow slack or complacent, so don't get me wrong I'm not using 'racial tribalism' as a slur to dismiss accusations against China as racist. Quite the opposite, I'm trying to reflect the reality of international politics. Lots of the accusations against China like human rights or military aggression tend to be hypocritical because the real fear about China stems from fears about a competitor on the global stage, a rival, because its human nature for tribes to compete for scarce resources and that triggers a fearful instinct when another tribe is growing in power or influence in any field. The fact that you claim China's very existence poses a threat to "your culture" is proof of my point because you believe the very existence of Chinese culture is in and of itself a threat, which is at its core a racially-tribalistic instinct of yours, no different from when a Chinese blogger rants online about "Western culture" invading China. It's the same racial instinct there too.