We have to make a distinction here. The book is about the French, the people, and how they are when you live with them in their own country.

Almost all news about China are not about the people of China, but instead treat China as a single entity defined by its government.

I think GP has a point is that we could get a better understanding of China by considering the people, their culture and how they live on a day-to-day basis rather than by focusing on Xi Jinping.

I'd like to see more reports of westerners actually living there, rather than government talk.

It would be more accurate to say that Xi and the CCP view democracy, the media, and human rights as the greatest threats to their power, and they’re right - when running a dictatorship these things are a problem.

Isn't the republican party dismantling democracy right at this moment? Also, America is a friend of human rights mostly as lip service, see Hague Invasion Act. And the calling American corporate media independent is a stretch. If these are the most fundamental values to Americans, they do a poor job defending them.

If you're looking at the dismantling of human rights I think the left and right are equally culpable.

We donate more to humanitarian causes than the next 10 countries combined. We openly admit we're not perfect and work to make things better. We do more good than anyone else - by a MASSIVE margin. We openly admit we've made mistakes.

Where does this reflexive anti-American bullshit come from?

The what you call "reflexive anti-american bullshit" comes because of post like yours, which without evidence spout claims such as "we do more good than anyone else - by a assive margin".

The US (as in government) like all large powers are doing a lot of self interested power politics. They have overthrown many democratically elected governments and supported (and sometimes even put in place) some of the worst dictatorships in the world, because it was in their geopolitical interest. They invaded a sovereign country and presented lies to justify the invasion. They jave introduced a massive worldwide surveillance system, that is essentially spying on everyone. Have used that aperatus to spy on allies, and used it for to gain every economic advantage they could get.

Is pointing this out "anti-american bullshit". Has someone who did these things done more good than anyone else by a massive margin?

Go look up humanitarian giving. These are quantifiable numbers. We do more than the next 10 countries rolled up.

We AGREE about the negative bullshit the US has done. We're actively trying to work on that shit, none of us like it. We've actually done a stellar job looking at our history and current practices and saying "That was fucked up" and "We should fix this going forward."

But we still do WAY more good than, like I said, the next 10 countries combined.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/275597/largers-donor-cou...

So it's not all roses, but... Yeah, I wouldn't dismiss us as a net benefit.

Your source says that, per capita, Germany pays more than the US.

Did your per Capita calculation roll up the populations of the next 9 countries it would take to equal the US?

So your point about why the US are great and morally ‘stellar ‘ (to use your word) is that it’s —- big? Wow, that’s anticlimactic.

Add up all those populations. We're exceedingly generous, although less so than the Germans.

You may want to run the numbers on Norway (5 mio people), Sweden, Netherlands, etc. and all the others that aren’t even on a list that only shows totals and not per capita ‘generosity’.

See, I don’t know if this is helping the case you are trying to make against cycomanic. You come here claiming you are more generous than the next 10 combined, when, in reality, you aren’t even in the top 5.

In terms of total dollars given, by far and away? If you add up the populations of the next 9 countries, it dwarfs the US population.

Norway would fit in 1/3 of the most prosperous part of Los Angeles. I assumed we were talking about geopolitical powers.

You provided the list, I can’t help that you now do not like it anymore.

I mean, believe what you want, just make sure I’m nowhere near when you explain to the waitress why your party of 20 tipping $11 is so much more generous than the one guy tipping $10.

You regularly tip $200 when you're out in a group?

I mean I guess if it's a wedding party, now that I think about it.

You know how you just got all defensive and insulted about a generalization made about America? That's how the Chinese, Iranians, Russians, Iraqis etc. feel when you make generalizations about them.

The recent US leadership hasn't done a very good job of representing "American Values". You can expect anti-American sentiment from this.

It may not be justified when referring to individuals, but neither is the xenophobic response to any of the countries listed above.

Fight the governments, not the people.

...the countries that repress their own citizens and don't have a free press? You go to China and point out abuses. See how it goes. Or Russia - just don't stand by any windows.

Those countries have legitimate issues we call out. We call ours out too. That's the difference.

Have you heard of Navalny?

Yeah he's legit - he was poisoned twice trying to speak the truth. That's not something that happens in the US. Surely that counts for something?

To reply in the style of the book, China learned lessons from its history just like we learn from ours. They cannot easily forget the century of humiliation that was brought upon them by the West.

hmm japan isn't very west nor is mongolia...

Each comment GP made corresponds to quote following the comment. i.e.:

>This one could apply to our relationship with China maybe?

>> Yes, we quarrel with the French. The members of a family argue pretty freely inside the home ; We quarrel with our allies, We don't quarrel with our enemies -- we fight them.

With that said, I wouldn't interpret the US relationship with China as one of alliance nor as one of enmity (yet).

Uh, the US military has declated China it's main adversary and the US just had a presidency that used "clash of civilizations" to describe the relationship with China, why do you think "enmity" is not an appropriate word?

Because the relationship with China is more complicated than that. You can see it in the NIH funding research at the Wuhan virology lab or all the made in China goods that the US consumes.

It makes sense for the military to recognize the other forces that pose the biggest threat. But regarding declarations by politicians, it appears to me that internal politics in both countries are driving politicians to make such statements. As in, both American and Chinese leadership see advantage in creating an external enemy. Naturally, as China's power rises, the relationship changes texture, but how much of our attitude change is recognition of the changed situation versus a change in attitude induced by the political class?

Isn't China our biggest trading partner. This sounds like xenophobia.

Mexico and then Canada.

Nope, China, then Canada, then Mexico (the EU treated as a unit beats China).

Canada and Mexico are bigger export targets from the US, but the US imports much kore from China, making it a bigger overall trade partner.

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

Huh, you may have been looking at curerent year-to-date goods-only figures, but aside from the problem of being goods only (services are traded to), there is seasonality to trade, so current year YTD figures aren’t a good measure.

https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/highlights/t...