The various incarnations of the dictature that is the CCP have killed millions of its own people through labour camps and unchallenged economic policies that literally resulted in famines and poverty.
But that's not the point. Comparing the evils that each country has done is a distraction from the current topic. It's not the US giving lessons here, it's people like you and me saying that the very present behaviour of China in Hong Kong is unacceptable.
Unfortunately, while they've ditched the economic part of communism, they've retained the dictatorial part, while moving towards the vision in 1984--a vision that seemed absurdly impractical when I read the book back in the 60s. But AI is now making it possible for the Chinese overloads to implement.
Yeah, Xi double-plus good. And I'm sure Winnie will increase the chocolate ration next week.
Seeing all this happen, you have to ask - how much were the people lifted out of poverty, and how much did they climb out when Deng Xiaopeng took a little of the pressure off their necks
Are you saying the Chinese government could occupy a foreign country, commit war crimes against them, and kill over a million people without anyone knowing?
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/04/30/vietnamese-...
> STUDENTS LINKED ARMS BUT WERE MOWN DOWN INCLUDING SOLDIERS. APCS THEN RAN OVER BODIES TIME AND TIME AGAIN TO MAKE QUOTE PIE UNQUOTE AND REMAINS COLLECTED BY BULLDOZER. REMAINS INCINERATED AND THEN HOSED DOWN DRAINS.
Say what you will about the US, we still haven’t run citizens over with tanks and hosed them down drains.
Source: https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/UK_cable_on_Tiananmen_Squar...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_Man
The main wikipedia article on Tianenmen square discusses other estimates of the number of deaths (all others being much lower):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Tiananmen_Square_protests
There are a number of people involved in the protests who have left China and provided accounts. At least one person wrote a book, although there is no English translation as far as I know.
The British government has itself killed quite a lot of civilians and is hardly a reliable source considering their history with China.
I disagree, that photo could’ve easily been taken before the killing started. The fact that tank man’s identity or whereabouts are unknown provides evidence that he was probably killed in the demonstrations.
> The British government has itself killed quite a lot of civilians and is hardly a reliable source considering their history with China.
This is completely fallacious. The fact that Britain has killed civilians has no bearing on their truth-telling here. You’re essentially arguing that no country is capable of telling the truth because it’s not realistic to name a country that hasn’t killed civilians at some point, no?
I do not think in general governments are a good source of facts and even in the best circumstances most seem incapable of telling the truth. The British government reporting on China is nowhere near the best circumstances. The account you quoted now serves as propaganda for people who want to believe that China is uniquely monstrous. A number of people have quoted it on HN and it is at odds with eyewitness accounts.
Even the Chinese government admits it killed hundreds of people during the protest. Possibly the number is over 1k, but 10k deaths is not credible nor is the vivid account.
I personally see no difference between the two except they're both fighting to be the world superpower and China is really stepping in to take that role from a USA in distress.
Has China done that?
Yes, tell me more about what the US did in the Philippines.
That’s my point. Don’t try and deflect.
And those places have a quite positive views of America.
> In 2018, two-thirds (67%) see the U.S. positively, up 10 percentage points from 2017.
> But the Japanese public has less esteem for America than do Filipinos (83%) and South Koreans (80%).
I know Vietnam has one of the most pro-American viewpoints of any country. Last poll I saw had >90% holding a positive view of the US.
China has not typically gone beyond their own historical borders, and when they have, it is miniscule compared to how the U.S. has.
Want more examples?
Yes the US has done bad things. But there are degrees of bad things and I would argue China has done worst things and continues to do so.
Try being a minority religion in China too...
The Taliban killed approximately zero Iraqis (you may be confusing al-Qaeda with the Taliban, and the group that after the war temporarily adopted the name “al-Qaeda in Iraq”, before becoming the Islamic State—that erupted into a major force because of the American mismanagement of the post-invasion occupation, most notably the almost entirely unmanaged demobilization of the security services—with al-Qaeda itself. Americans killed a lot themselves, as well as launching an unprovoked war of aggression which produced the context in which many others were killed beyond those Americans killed directly. But all of those deaths are America's fault and responsibility, even those that are also someone else’s fault and responsibility.
Yes, the US has done plenty of things that are wrong. We talk about them frequently, including here on HN. But this conversation is about China oppressing the people of Hong Kong. Do you mind letting us discuss that, without distracting us with "But the US!!!!!" all over the place?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Park_(Berkeley)
Shooting workers that unionized was also common:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lattimer_massacre
But anyone with a gun can pull the trigger. It takes an enormous amount of coordination to uniformly run over people with tanks, burn their bodies, and flush them down drains.
The incidents you’ve linked are undoubtedly dark chapters, but they are not comparable to what we’ve seen in China.
Contrast that with Kent State, Jackson State, and other places where troops were deployed and the situation escalated.
The ultimate difference here is that it’s perfectly legal and acceptable for us to talk about what happened at Kent state. The events are not in dispute.
China, on the other hand, jails people for talking about Tiananmen Square. To acknowledge the existence of such heinous acts is itself a crime in that country.
The fact that we can sit here and argue about this without fear of going to prison is itself proof that these situations, and countries, are incomparable.
uhh... what? Have you checked the "legal action" section?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings#Legal_act...
or did you expect that the guards' heads be put on a pike?
Oh, and don't forget that we can talk about what happened freely. Try doing that in China.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_blocked_in_...
Talking about Snowden, I have always wondered why there's never been a Chinese whistleblower. Nobody working in Chinese intelligence has the courage or conscience, or they have no way to let the world know?
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisone...
[1] - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-security-snowden-guar...
Contrast this with Tiananmen Square: Beijing does everything it can to prevent its citizens knowing about it, and is all to happy to cultivate a reputation that they would gladly do it again today.
Really good example. Thank you.
It's not just the Uighurs in Xinjiang, either. It's the Christians. It's Hong Kong. It's trying to shut down anybody, planet wide, who speaks anything negative about China or Xi.
That reason is that to understand how to solve problems elsewhere, you first need to understand how to solve the same type of problems in your neck of the woods. The U.S. spent the latter half of the 20th century and has continued since then exporting its way of doing things through military action. For example, I recently learned of Salvador Allende. He was a president of Chile that won a democratic election based upon his socialist campaign. He said what he was going to do and was elected by the people. The U.S. tried for years to thwart his election, and when he won, the U.S. directly supported, if not organized and enacted, a coup that ended in success, for the coup, and Allende taking his own life upon being surrounded. This is sickening. How can the U.S. and its people in good conscience decry other countries' actions when we do the same thing to other countries beyond our own borders? The U.S. still holds prisons that imprisons foreigners without charge and without cause. How can the U.S. decry China for imprisoning its own citizens? I am not supporting anything here. I am merely trying to explain that things matter and are connected, and you cannot view things with tunnel vision.
The other reason is one of perception. If the U.S. wants change in China and elsewhere, one needs to understand the political and social repercussions of one's own actions. This is called if you want to talk the talk, you must walk the walk. The U.S. primarily talks the talk while the rest of the world sees how the U.S. does not walk the walk. The U.S. does the very things it decries in another countries. This is very harmful.
No, not really. It is perfectly possible to discuss many different issues without having to think of an answer for numerous X, Y, or Z issues that someone else brings up in order to distract you from the point.
The issue is that whenever people do this, they almost always aren't interested in solving the issue. Instead they are looking to dismiss the problem that you brought up, by using whataboutism.
This is the most common way for someone to try and get you to stop caring about an issue. There will always be an excuse that someone can throw at you, so that they can dismiss the problem that you brought up.
> This is very harmful.
The harmful thing is instead the people who are trying to prevent the problems from being solved, by distracting people from the things that they bring up.
> How can the U.S. and its people in good conscience decry other countries' actions
If bad things are happening, I want those bad thing to stop. And I am never going to accept someone pointing to a different bad thing, in order to defend against some other bad thing from happening.
Less bad things should be the goal. And this strategy of whataboutism just distracts from that.
You cannot simply dismiss hypocrisy as whataboutism. Apparently you and everyone else throwing around this term would dismiss the common phrase of "look inward first" as whataboutism.
Thats fine. But if you are going to do that, what you should do is say "Yes, the issue you brought up is definitely bad, and I agree with you that it should be solved, and you are 100% right about it. Also, here is another problem that should also be solved".
If you are going to 100% agree with me, and say that I am right for bringing up a certain problem, and also point to a related problem, thats fine.
But if you don't say "Yes you are right. The thing you brought up is very bad, and it should stop", then it comes off as an attempt to dismiss or delegitimize the very important problem that someone previously brought up.
So great. Fine. Maybe the other thing you brought should also be solved. But that does not at all dismiss the original issue and the original issue should still be solved, and the original points that were made are correct.
I am still 100% completely justified, in every way, to bring up the original problem, and if someone is saying that the original problem that was brought up should not be solved, then that person is still completely wrong, regardless of the fact that you brought up a different problem that maybe should be solved.
75 years ago the United States was part of the allied powers that helped put an end to a genocidal dictator with world domination plans. 200 years ago the United States was a major participator in the global slave trade and actively waging war and committing genocide against the ingenious people of North America.
No ethnic or national group of people have been virtuous throughout history. No ethnic or national group of people have been evil throughout history. Trying to cut history into a small slice in order to draw a moral contrast is misleading and ignorant at best.