As far as she was concerned, Tibetans were Chinese, not a distinct group.
It was eye opening.
I have been living in the West long enough to not argue those stuffs. The Chinese government has its bad and its good, but so far it's doing OK, and I can't imagine any other government could do better, or even on par.
It is easy to see all the good things that happened in China in the last decades, and see the things that work. But I can very easily imagine a better government in China, much like I can do so for the US and in EU countries.
The CCP is running literal concentration camps, is suppressing free speech, using (possibly) questionable economic measures, strongarming other independent countries, censoring and even harvesting organs of prisoners for profit (probably for political elites). And most of those things on a scale previously unimaginable. Furthermore, one might argue (and I am not saying this is black and white) that the process of raising people out of poverty has as much to do with technical progress, foreign trade and China's geographical and demographic makeup, as it has to do with actual policy (and one could therefore imagine even better outcomes!)
I think it is indeed very easy to imagine things going better in China!
That's the entire point, I think. Citizens should be willing and able to be unhappy with their governments, and be able to express this without disappearing. That you can not imagine anyone doing better in China is what the OP was talking about.
Edit: Just to make this clear, I do not want a discussion on the merits of the CCPs policies - everyone can have their own opinion on that - much like for any other country. But the worry is the well rehearsed narrative that China is somehow unique and requires, basically, an iron fist rule. This I have seen many times in discussions with Chinese - saying that all these criticisms may be good and well for other countries, but not for China. And this in the end amounts to unwillingness to question the CCP in any way. And that, I think, is not good.
Like I said, it has its good and bad, but generally I think it's OK. I didn't say it's all good.
Now let's look at the list: 1) Concentration camps and organ harvesting: I'm not going to argue about these as I'll say you don't have true proofs and you will say I'm brainwashed, we will never agree to each other. Organ harvesting actually does happen, I can say for that, because I just read a report (in Chinese btw) a few days ago, but it was not large scale and definitely not in the ideology.
2) Suppressing free speech: Yes that's one of the bad, but TBH you can blame the government online as much as you want because so many other people are doing the same...people seldom got caught JUST because of that. For example. the protesters in HK was not even put into prison for some of their violent actions, and if that's not enough I really can't say more.
3) Questionable economic measures: Not a new thing, pretty much every government of the world is doing the same thing since like...beginning of civilization?
4) Strongarming other independent countries: Not a new thing, pretty much every government of the world is doing the same thing since like...beginning of civilization? Just the real world, more the reason that people should work hard instead of dreaming about vacations to fight off these strongarmings. TBH with the economic strength of China it is quite peaceful...
In short, citizens are indeed able to express their unhappy with the government, and a lot of people (in the mainland) protest, too. The weird thing about my western friends is that they seem to be pretty scared about China, and I honestly can't tell why...
But the concentration camps for Uyghers are well-documented, and they really can't be grouped with the organ donation claims. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinjiang_re-education_camps .
I'm neither educated nor motivated enough to argue with most of this. But preventing China from punishing HK people according to China's laws is the _entire point_ of the protests, is it not?
I would also argue that China has been strongarming other countries in excess to any other nation except for the USA in recent decades. China is the only country that uses face and "people's feelings" as distinct political instruments. But this is also not my main point and also not the point of the OP.
For the other things, let me make two points. First, your assertion that this also happens in other countries does not make it okay. This is a fallacy often used. What I am saying is that the rate and fashion to how these things are reporting on, protested against, and dealt with in other countries, is much different than in China. It is a fact that many bad things happen in Western countries right this moment. But the people arrested or disappearing for pointing these things out is pretty much zero. I was just on business in the US, and watching MSNBC and Fox News at the same time, it's clear that there is a huge range for opinions on literally all political and economic actions and actors - and they are strongly voiced. Indeed the US has a strong culture of government distrust and conspiracy theorists that simply would not exist in China. In (most of) the EU, measures done by the CCP could never even be implemented at all, as neither the political force. executive capabilities, nor the acceptance in the population exists in such a way. But even if these things would be implemented, you could always find a country that does things better, treats people better and is more humane. So I think this framing is really useless, whether we argue about China, the USA or Sweden.
Second, why are people afraid of China? We are afraid because we do not want the Chinese model to succeed. As much as it helped pull people from poverty, it has created and cemented an incredibly wealthy and powerful upper class, and we are rightfully worried that our own elites take some hints. We are not scared of Chinese soldiers marching into our country, but if China would develop similar cultural hegemony as the US has currently, our world would be be much worse (at least for me, as I am a minority). China violates very basic tenets of human rights that we believe enable us to live freely. China also implements the mechanisms necessary to push strongly the will of the majority on the minority - or to be more precise, the will of someone on anyone. Again, I only need to mention the very real plight of Muslims in China - "uniformize or perish" - for you to hopefully see this point. This very same thing could happen easily elsewhere, and indeed we have seen it happen in the past. You may, for example, want to google the term "Stasi" if you have the time.
Its a tiresome trope, but people valuing a free society will always be deadly afraid that living with a boot on their necks is an actual viable political and economic model, because if it is, what's keeping history from swinging exactly that way? Free and tolerant societies are the exception in history and we - especially minorities in any sense - would like that to change! Is it a pipe dream? Maybe - but that's exactly where this fear comes from. It is probably difficult to understand this point if you belong to both a local and (eventually) globally dominant grouping.
Finally, as to your first sentence: I think it is ALSO easy to propose many actionable and easy measures to make things better in China, for example, stop doing the things we agree are "bad". And many countries or governments are not doing these things. So I ask again, why can you not imagine anything better? And furthermore, where would we be if we can not imagine anything better?
It's easy to imagine something better.
If you hate the one-party idea, just think one more layer -- there are factions inside the party, probably more than 2 actually.
They are all really nice countries to live in too
I think most westerners don't realize the magnitude of China and that managing/ruling/governing a country of 1.3B diverse citizens with thousands of a years of history is a larger challenge than managing a small country.
Ever heard of the phrase "better to die on your feet, than live on your knees?"
Not everyone shares the ethos that a full belly is happiness and goodness. There is more to life than mere material goods. What makes a life worth living even? I guess if you have a job all is good, at least as per your line of argumentation.
Sure I don't like the censorship and change narratives, but most governments do the same thing. Let me know if you find one government that is both competent and honest.
So did the Soviet Union. They lifted hundreds of millions of people from the ruinous World World 2 to a modern industrial society. It's what happened after _that_ that warrants concern.
Another argument is that, yes, CCP did lift most of the population out of subsistence poverty, but can another Party do better? Can the Taiwanese Republic of China government do better (probably not)? can another party modernize China in less time than CCP's 50 years (1949-2000)?
As for censorship and change narratives. I can swear at the leader of my country without fear. Can you do the same to Xi in China?
Assaulting someone by hitting them however is not a freedom, you're violating someone else's freedom of not being harmed. Which is not what the post you're responding to was mentioning.
It looks like you want to steer the discussion away from free speech, because you know the West has that and China doesn't, towards an argument that if you can't do anything you want in the West it's not really free. Which has nothing to do with China.
When you don't have either, what can you do about it?
I don't fully agree with censorship (they do serve some good I must say that), but it's not black and white. I'm also very pessimistic about "better-informed" people. Receiving news from different sources doesn't make you just. You can't receive A and B and just average them.
... you don't average them. You use critical thinking to evaluate the information with regards to its sources, their agendas and integrate those sources. When there are contradictions you try to understand why.
Not to mention that most of that was enabled by IP theft, abuse of workers, lack of safety and quality standards, and other dishonest means.
Are people really just ok with concentration camps in 2019?
I think everyone has different definitions of freedom, some might think it only means to be physically free but lack of free speech and lack of proper human rights are a-ok because they don't know any better.
If you don't like the leadership, there are plenty of other ways to improve that, but talking is the cheapest.
Gee, the authoritarian brainwashing really is strong with you.
Quoting you:
> Actually discussing the leaders doesn't do anyone any good.
So: No, I didn't.
> Changes cannot be achieved by simple talking.
Yes, they can. And are. Constantly.
> You have to complain and do things if it doesn't work.
No. For one, many things can be changed by talking, and talking only. But also, there is absolutely nothing wrong if someone only talks about things being bad where action besides talking is required to change things. It's neither morally wrong, nor is it useless, if your talking is what enables others to implement the changes.
What actually is completely useless is complaining about people only talking about a problem. Absolutely nothing useful can possibly come from that. But it's a common fallacy used by authoritarians and parroted by their followers, nothing particularly special to China. Which is the general impression I get from a lot of your arguments in this discussion: Tons of typical authoritarian fallacies the likes of which you would also hear from right-wing nationalists in "western countries".
The ROC's official policy is that Taiwan is just another province of China, which the ROC administers (along with part of Fujian province); the ROC, furthermore, is the legitimate government of all of China, including the island, current mainland, many of the PRC's disputed territorial claims, and even Mongolia. This is more or less identical to the PRC position. There are many Taiwanese who do see it as a totally separate country, but that's controversial even within Taiwan.
If you had asked her the more concrete question about whether Taiwan is currently administered by an entity calling itself the ROC, I guarantee there wouldn't have been such a manifest gap in understanding.
To be fair, part of the reason that is the official policy is because the PRC is perceived to be (because it's pretty openly said this) more willing to be tolerant of dispute over which one governs all of China (which the PRC can't reasonably lose barring some radical inversion of power) than Taiwan declaring independence, such that the latter would be more likely to lead to war to settle the dispute.
But the concrete disagreement mentioned in the comment I was responding to seemed to imply that the writer thought that his coworker might literally think that the ROC did not currently administer Taiwan, while she certainly does know that; it's a gap in understanding because the comment writer didn't realize that whether Taiwan a province of China is not how mainlanders conceptualize the dispute.
I would be curious to know if the average mainlander recognizes that most Taiwanese see themselves as having a separate identity and would ideally have a separate country, which is a real on-the-ground fact that I can imagine being glossed over in education and media.
This is waaay off thread-topic, but this is very very important to recognize and learn to internalize at deeper levels that you probably recognize. I just wanted you to know that I know that you just made a very important first step (and it never stops).
Unfortunately a lot of people fall through into some conspiracy black hole.
The proper way to look at this is of course the rationalist/epistemological framework of belief updates (which is better called model fitting).
Skepticism is not just doubting everything, it's trying to find the model of the world that consistently maximally fits the data/observations/experiences.
China doing brainwashing is consistent, but the moon landing was a hoax is not. (Because that model in which everything is a hoax and the deep state is controlling everything is too simple, so it's useless, kind of like Pascal's wager without the afterlife part.)
The only thing it "is", for sure, is complicated.
You are referring to effective situation.
The Chinese student is talking about his perceived mental recognition.
You need first get straight to the point that your notion of independent nation is such and such.
The Chinese student needs to say regardless the Taiwan situation, we believe it's part of China.
That's why I believe Taiwan likely will never be part of China formally: I.e. the separation is so long and so deep that remedy it would be economical and politically too costly.
On the other hand, when China finally become the an order of magnitude more powerful nation than, presumably the second in rank. I predict Taiwan will be effectively part of China's paper sphere, but never formally to integrate.
Really made an impression on me. I bet most of my beliefs are baloney too, but I have no idea which ones they are.