There's a huge difference. China needs the west to keep buying their stuff. China had a huge economic development thanks to the money from the west. They don't even have to care about their internal economy as long as billions and billions flow in from the west.

Now, if we change that by let's say moving factories back home or to Africa, they'll be in trouble.

If you're a Chinese citizen, first of all you don't have a voice. The CCP owns the country, they make the rules, and economically they don't have the upper hand. That's why the only thing they do is threaten any foreign official who won't submit to them.

> China needs the west to keep buying their stuff. China had a huge economic development thanks to the money from the west. They don't even have to care about their internal economy as long as billions and billions flow in from the west.

This seems... economically confused. Billions flowing in from the West reflect the fact that China's internal economy is strong. If it fell apart, no money would flow in.

It means that the productivity of the Chinese economy, and thus the ability of the CCP to siphon off some of that for things like building mass detention facilities, is dependent upon foreign demand. It is doubtful that China has enough domestic consumption demand to keep everyone gainfully employed if foreign demand dried up. But it’s hard to say what would actually happen.

> and thus the ability of the CCP to siphon off some of that for things like building mass detention facilities, is dependent upon foreign demand

Way off the mark. You could have an economy on par with North Korea and build those facilities. China's economy is 100+ times larger than it needs to be to build the facilities they're building in Xinjiang. If you rolled their economy back to 1990 on a GDP per capita basis, they could still get it done with zero problems. Concrete, barbed wire, guards, guns and slave labor are most of the necessary ingredients. The most primitive of nations have what's necessary to do it.

> That's why the only thing they do is threaten any foreign official who won't submit to them.

... and if that fails, take citizens of countries they're at cold war with as hostages: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/19/china-charges-two-detained-c...

It depends on a lot of factors such as who and how many see your posts, how much you consume and how much you boycott etc. If you’re alone the impact is small but if others are starting to follow suit the number goes up fast and the voice becomes stronger.

It is easy to think the impact is nill and that’s exactly how the opressor wants you to think, no wonder the divide and conquer is a strategy that works. But every movement starts off with a few who believe they make a difference and eventually it picks up a critical mass

Let me contrast that with something: opening a dialogue outside of an echo chamber.

For example, a woman of Han descent who had her purse snatched by a Uighur kid talked about feeling nervous and clutching her bag when she passed someone on the street. Instead of lecturing her about systemic problems as a first resort, I started by finding common ground: her experiences as a Chinese woman studying abroad in Japan, and the systemic racism she experienced.

The ally training skills I learned in the US were helpful. The more typical high-minded condescension, in contrast, tends to be counterproductive in my experience.

Yeah... I hear you and I think there’s a valid point here, but let’s not draw false equivalencies. Mass forced detention of entire ethnic groups is not comparable to systemic racism. One can argue that the US is systemically racist but we did elect a black president.

To avoid confusion it might be useful to define what systemic racism means today. The words have changed meaning slightly over the last 60 years.

https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-systemic-racis...

I'm not drawing an equivalence. I'm talking about opening up a dialogue by finding common ground first.

Trump is the wrath we get for electing a black president