The idea of taking care of your own backyard seems pretty similar to the old Soviet Union deflection whenever they were met with criticism:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes

Many countries have issues, people should be able to criticise even if their own situations aren't perfect.

You talk about the majority position. But what about these minorities? Do they feel the same way?

I am specifically replying to the comment where the person wants to "help" China.

Many countries don't have the obsession over multiculturalism that America seems to have. Their priority isn't to have a diverse population, but rather is to raise the quality of life for as many people as possible as quickly as possible, hence the focus on the majority of the population. A homogeneous culture has many benefits during growth, like lower interpersonal conflict. Concepts like democracy and freedom mean very little if the quality of life is low.

edit: I do find it interesting that this comment was downvoted. For those of you downvoting me, could you please explain why? Was my critique on multiculturalism not the reason my post above was downvoted?

There's a video that went viral on Weibo a couple of months ago.

- A mainland Chinese girl is destroying HK independence posters at a HK university.

- A Honkinese girl admonishes her for destroying the posters, as they are free speech.

- The mainland Chinese girl says that free speech means that since the Honkinese girl can put up posters the mainland Chinese girl can destroy them

- The HK girl says that the mainland Chinese girl can put up her own posters if she wishes.

In mainland China, the view is: that the Chinese girl speaks better English than the HK girl and makes an excellent point about how she's allowed to tear down the posters if the other girl can put them up because that's what free speech means.

This isn't ironic, it's what people think and that's why the video was popular: because the mainland girl spoke great English, made what seems like a good point, and defended Chinese integrity.

Close friend mentions that re: democracy, the people don't have any will at all: they don't really engage with politics. It's someone else's job to lead. You'd want to engage with running the country as much as being a firefighter or running the sewers.

If more and more people are travelling abroad and absorbing this idea of free speech, the society would eventually transform and embrace the idea. However, critical thinking has to be there first, with majority of the people capable of making informed decisions, not like the reaction to the video you mentioned.

i suppose it's my western point of view that makes me view this sentiment as blisteringly immature, if that is indeed what most chinese actually think.

the stewardship of your country is always your job as a human being... even if you deny the responsibility, your country will act on your behalf, which means that you must control your leadership.

if nobody else is fit to lead, it's your job.

This summaries my points on the relationship between people and the government.

If the government is so trustworthy and so eager to please why do they need to take political prisoners at all?

Contrast with your statement on stewardship, duty, and responsibility. What is behind this besides sentiment?

We should equally welcome opinions from Chinese citizens. I would hope blind patriotism would not prevent us from considering viable solutions.

> Do you see people from UK offering to help solve gun problems in US?

Many people do because the way UK society handles guns is very different from the US. The UK has a lot less gun violence.

> Do you see people from US offering to help self-determination problem in Spain?

Lots! Many Americans love to share their opinions. Both struggle with balancing the rights of central and local governments.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/jun/...

People help people, while nationalists are off somewhere in their own heads.

> Try to talk to Chinese people and understand their perspective first.

And that is? They're happy to be unfree, and think everybody else in the world only cares about their own problems, divided by nationality?

You said a lot, but not one word about your own, personal perspective. If I asked other Chinese people, would they also only tell me about yet other Chinese people? Then why bother?

Also note how you're not asking any questions yourself, either. You just assume others assume moral high ground and tell them, representative for all other Chinese citizens.

Even just one political prisoner, in China or any other country, makes the opinion of anyone who is "happy" in that country of rather secondary rank.

> In Chinese, there is a saying that "Please take care of your own backyard, before thinking of cleaning up other people's backyard."

I'm not an uptight corrupt goon, so for example I can make fun of the Chinese Communist Party and plenty of other politicians in plenty countries. I did take care of my backyard. I'm not responsible for what anyone else of $arbitrary_group_you_think_matters is doing, I'm responsible for what I'm doing. Criticize "my" country and I'll probably add to it, because of course I am critical of the things going on right under my nose. But defensive pouting? What for? Why would I need that?

Just because you love healthy food doesn't mean you go around on the street shoving salad in people's mouths.

> You said a lot, but not one word about your own, personal perspective. If I asked other Chinese people

He said:

> Majority of people in China are happy with their lives, we certainly do not see the need for help from other countries in the way you wanted to.

Which I'm pretty sure you can interpret as being how he and his immediate peers feel.

> I did take care of my backyard.

Unless you country is void of any problems or internal conflict, you've missed the point. Your backyard is your own government not your own appreciation of yourself.

It's not a personal lifestyle choice or "culture". All human babies get born with a lot of curiosity and vitality. Some get broken and develop a pathological need for external validation to compensate something that never can compensate, instead of a grounding from which they can cooperate (and yes, that can mean following commands sometimes, but there's still an adult and a slave way of going about that, and if you were to say being a slave is a lifestyle choice then I'd just decide eating slaves is my lifestyle choice). That's not a matter of taste as far as I can tell, and if they defend their stunted development they by definition attack what I consider mental health, muddling it into some kind of thing nobody gets to have an opinion on until laws are broken. Not doing that. I see what I see, if you don't like what I have to say say something you think is better, but don't think I care about numbers of people. So far, I heard only "most people are happy". Not even "they are happy because", and not a PEEP how that outweighs those who are persecuted. It's literally just pointing to a blob. That's also something I see, and it's a sickness. Nothing to do with China, it's everywhere. But it's foolish in China, too.

There were people who got along fine in the GDR, too. I don't really blame them, I don't want to know how I would rate under such a regime. But really, when I want to know what the underbelly of the GDR was like, I don't ask them first, and certainly I wouldn't dream of only asking them.

Yeah, it's all subjective but that also gains us nothing because the subjective feelings of a billion Chinese don't outweigh my own subjective feelings. If they can't articulate why they feel that way, and can't interact with further responses to that, that doesn't surprise me at all.

You're basically saying -- maybe you don't want to say that, but that's what all this means, that's what matters in this -- it's good the people in the article and others are in jail or worse. Because to say otherwise would be "forcing my preferences on others"... how dare you, really. This isn't about whether someone likes the New Kids on the Block or Take That more. A million people who just go along to get along are not worth one person in jail for trying to be an individual. And you don't get to shove jail bars in their face because you can't stand words, even though you're so sloppy with those, too.

> Which I'm pretty sure you can interpret as

Yeah, I can, if I pretend "majority of people in China" means "me and my friends". But I can also read it as it's written, as opposed to sentences like "I think X because of Y".

> Unless you country is void of any problems or internal conflict, you've missed the point.

Not only did I not missed it, I addressed it. It's an invalid criticism in my books. A person isn't allowed to only speak up about anything in another country unless their country is "void of any problems" -- what would that even mean? That's like saying you can't write using any letters but square circles. That's not a point, it's just sophistry.

And as a bonus, it would also mean a person from $X doesn't get to criticize a person from $X for criticizing $X unless their country is perfect. Be HN US centric or international, it certainly is not within the great Firewall of China, right? So wouldn't a Chinese person make their country perfect and everybody in it immortal before ever criticizing a non-Chinese person? As I said, I find those demands completely arbitrary and void. But if some thinks they're valid, they should heed them themselves.