
Human rights record of the United States in 2012 (Chinese viewpoint) - mmavnn
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2013-04/22/content_16430019.htm
======
adventured
"Americans are the most heavily armed people in the world per capita.
According to a CNN report on July 23, 2012, there were an estimated 270
million guns in the hands of civilians in the U.S. and more than 100,000
people were shot by guns each year. In 2010, there were more than 30,000
deaths caused by firearms."

There are roughly 11,000 gun based murders each year in the US. The US doesn't
first have a gun violence problem, it has a black poverty problem mixed with
horrible drug laws that drive it all.

The rate of gun homicide for blacks is 15/100k. For Asians it's 1/100k, for
whites it's 2/100k. It's almost a 700% greater likelihood that you're going to
be murdered by gun if you're black than white. If you fix the black poverty
problem, and fix the drug laws, the rate of gun homicides would plunge off a
cliff.

And besides, Switzerland is as heavily armed per capita as the US is, and they
do not have a rampant gun homicide problem. The reason the US does, is
explained by poverty and drug laws.

Also worth noting: the US homicide rate is roughly the lowest it has been in
50 to 60 years. If it continues to fall as it has been, it'll be back to
levels not seen since the 19th century. Not to beat a dead horse, but fix the
drug laws and America would be exceptionally low on the homicide per capita
scale.

[http://extranosalley.com/wp-
content/uploads/2013/03/1homicid...](http://extranosalley.com/wp-
content/uploads/2013/03/1homiciderate.png)

~~~
b6
I'm not disagreeing, but there's one thing I don't understand. China has more
poor people, and their poor are poorer, and their drug laws are as bad as the
US's, if not worse. If the problem is just poverty and drug laws, shouldn't we
see more violence in China?

~~~
adventured
It's poverty + drug laws + guns, that is the killer cocktail. You can't hardly
come up with a worse combination.

China has violence, but they don't have much gun violence because 1) guns are
often beyond the financial capabilities of their poor, and 2) there aren't
very many guns per capita.

In the US it isn't difficult to come up with $150 if you're poor and want a
black market gun. The US poverty line for a household of 1 starts at $11,500
(it goes without saying how much higher that is than most incomes in China, so
the availability of cash to buy a gun for even someone that's poor is
radically higher in the US).

A good example of this in action is Brazil. Their gun homicide rate is twice
that of the US. They have some intense poverty and guns, and thus have a very
high gun homicide rate (eg compared to China, that just has poverty but
limited guns).

Also it's fair to say, to top it off, that the US has a far more violent
culture in general than China, that amplifies the problem. I'm not speaking of
state sponsored violence mind you.

------
The_Sponge
It's interesting to see the availability of firearms to citizens presented as
a violation of human rights.

>Firearms-related crimes posed serious threat to the lives and personal
security of citizens in the U.S. Some shootings left astonishing casualties,
such as the school shooting in Oakland, the Century 16 theater shooting in
Colorado and the school shooting in Connecticut.

Also, please be aware that this is a translation, which explains for the
awkward and sometimes grammatically incorrect wording of this article.

~~~
RyanMcGreal
> It's interesting to see the availability of firearms to citizens presented
> as a violation of human rights.

The U.S. is an outlier among liberal democracies in its constitutional
insistence that access to firearms _is_ a human right. It's also,
significantly, an outlier in its rate of firearm-related deaths, with a rate
of over 10 per 100,000, similar to Panama and the Philippines and three times
higher than the next highest liberal democracy.

Canada, which has roughly the same culture and economy as the United States
and shares the same continent, has a firearm death rate only one-fifth of the
United States. Australia, which also has a similar culture, has a firearm
death rate one- _tenth_ of the United States. The United Kingdom's firearm
death rate is one- _fortieth_ that of the United States.

I get that many Americans believe their 2nd Amendment is what restrains the
government from tyranny, but the evidence across all the stable liberal
democracies manifestly discredits this hypothesis. What keeps a government
from tyranny is not the threat of armed revolt but ongoing broad civic
engagement in a dense, complex and mutually reinforcing fabric of democratic
institutions, traditions, practices and civic values exercised in open,
transparent and accountable ways at every level of resolution from the federal
government to municipal affairs.

I would go so far as to argue that America's cultural hostility to the idea of
government - the deep-seated belief that governments can never be trusted and
will only behave (barely) under the constant threat of armed rebellion - is
actually a major obstacle keeping the U.S. from becoming more functional and
more accountable to its citizens.

It's a failed 18th century idea that is holding America back from joining the
rest of the industrialized world's norms of civility, and it helps to explain
why the U.S. is an outlier in so many varied measures of life, health and
wellbeing.

~~~
LekkoscPiwa
The US never had communism, nazism, tyrants governing the country. Try to pull
off concentration camps against your own people like Hitler or Stalin did when
they are heavily armed.

There is no way people wouldn't defend their families from going to
concentration camps if they were armed. History shows that this holds true.
The Government is afraid of armed people as it should be. That is a good
thing. Not bad.

~~~
lifeisstillgood
This is a foolish post - sorry to be so blunt.

Civilians standing alone do not stand a chance against the combined arms of a
standing army. Does not matter if they all have guns or not. What counts is
explosives, range, airpower - oh and the idea that one side has their families
to worry about.

There was armed resistance to the rounding up - look at the warsaw ghetto. [1]
This was armed civilians fighting an invading army, which took a huge German
effort to subdue. But they did subdue it - in a way horrifically reminiscent
of the US in Fallujah. (No I am not comparing US Army in Iraq to Nazis. But
watch the footage on both events and then try to not worry)

If you think that the right to bear arms is there to stop tyranny, you should
expand it to the right to bear Semtex, armoured vehicles and aircraft. That is
why Afghanistan and Iraq were / are such a mess - the other side is fighting
back with real weapons, not pop guns. Armies are frightened of other armies.
Not armed civilians.

Oh, and the rise of UAVs is going to make the next insurgency a very different
prospect.

Add in to this mix the basic human desire to think it is all going to go away,
and no-one is _that_ crazy. There is a story of a village running from the
massacres in Rwanda, and they reach a river, and only one teenager crosses,
the rest think they will be safe. The teenager is the only one left to tell
the story.

Look at it this way - Hitler _started_ small, targetting the criminals and the
undesirables. Have you taken up arms to overthrown the White House now that
Cuba is used for torture? What is your trigger point ? How do you find out
that there are death camps? Warsaw happened because they rounded up Jews into
one place _before_ shipping them out. The Nazis learnt from that. Evil has
analysts too.

What is the difference? It is _not_ the grunts in the army. It is the need to
have enlightened people in government. If we cant have that we will make do
with sane politicans. The insane ones are harder to spot. You know Nixon used
to end dinner chat at the white house with the line, "I could walk out of here
and 45 minutes later, 500 million people would be dead?"

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto>

~~~
LekkoscPiwa
Did Hitler or Stalin used "explosives, range and airpower" to move people to
concentration camps? How you imagine this? Let's say there are 200 houses in a
neighborhood. You know that in house #47 and in house #186 there are families
that are Jewish/suspected anti-communists, etc. You need to get them out to
the concentration camp. You do it by bombing the whole neighborhood? Let's say
in Berlin or Moscow? Please explain how having weapons would NOT help families
in these houses. Because what I'm telling you and what history tells us is
that Secret Police (NKVD/Gestapo) will be sent there with guns to get these
people at the gun point to their destination.

And number two: let's say you are a President of the USA. Let's say you do
something really evil against the will of the people. Like - theoretically -
sending all Mexicans to the camps. You say Mexicans are armed or not - no
difference. Interesting.

~~~
lifeisstillgood
This seems to be heading off HN ground but I will try and answer you. I guess
that yes, in a certain respect, you are right.

However these genocides seem to take two (possibly three) forms

1\. Hitler / Stalin Like a virus they replace the societal leadership function
and use the "normal" mechanisms of law and order for their own ends. People
are "arrested" and "tried" just like every day - but it is a farce.

Now at what point do you shoot a police officer? When is it socially
acceptable to kill a cop? There just does not seem to be a point. So for years
this can go on. Rounding up "criminals". I could put psychologists on stage to
say "treatment of the whole family" is the solution for criminal activity - we
are taking these families to family-re-start camps. You can make up anything
for a while. Its only when the media provide proof that this is going on, that
people are dying that _maybe_ killing the next cop to arrest someone will be
seen as righteous. But you could easily argue that 60 Minutes cannot be aired
because it will incite people to shoot cops.

After the cop has arrested you, that's it, you have no guns, game over.

2\. Serbia

This is very muddled but basically can be seen as just arrest / herd everyone
out of a defined geographic area - for example it would be everyone in the
street _apart from_ #47 and #186. Round them all up with an army / militia and
send everyone to a processing camp. Thus the removal of guns happens to a
whole neighbourhood, and can be done with artillery and tanks. Cant arrest
everyone cos they are all armed? Really it seems not to work like that. The
mass graves in Serbia / Croatia are filled with military age people.

3\. Rwanda. Half of your village attacks your family with knives. Imagine say
the white folks in NYC deciding to kill the black folks using pitchforks [1].
This is hardly a controlled genocide so is less crime against humanity than
WTF.

I was focusing on the first one - there seems to be no point where shooting a
cop (even one in a black shirt) is something acceptable, even for people who
would otherwise shoot back.

There is something built into us that perceives immediate danger as a threat,
but if danger is kept far enough apart from the "now" we rationalise it away -
even if it is bleedin' obvious. Its why i supported Blair/Bush invading Iraq -
I mean the guy had a track record, of _course_ he had WMD.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_draft_riots>

~~~
LekkoscPiwa
Thank you for your reply. After all the downvotes I certainly appreciate it.

Ad.1. Hitler and Stalin wouldn't necessarily be interested in getting power in
a society armed through their teeth and Constitution stating that the people
have the power to act forcefully against tyrants using guns. Probably, Hitler
would become a painter and Stalin would become a pop, or priest. Exactly, like
a virus. It feeds and spreads on the weak body. Not on the one that's armed.

Not a Police Officer. A highly feared Gestapo/NKVD. This is not police. Both
Gestapo and NKVD were extremely feared and hated. No problem shooting their
"officers". There is a joke in Poland from Communistic Times: an anti-
communistic movement member goes to the Church because he want to confess.
During the confession the priest asks him what sins he committed. And the guy
says: Dear Priest, I killed a KGB agent. And the Priest replies: Son you came
here to confess or to pride yourself. These guys were truly hated in their
societies. General public in USSR would love to hear that someone is finally
shooting bastards killing them in millions in 1930s. Are you kidding me?

However, you make very interesting point with our tendency to rationalize away
even if it is "bleeding" obvious. That's extremely good point. And my answer
to this is: in 300 million people in the US, you will find at least thousands
(I think millions) who will see very well what is going on. As they existed in
Nazi Germany too. Even when more than 90% Germans chose to follow their
leader. What I'm saying is that this is precisely why you make a republican
(not possible to take away by popular vote) law allowing everyone to have a
gun. So maybe at least one among those thousands or millions will be able to
shoot our hipotetical tyrant before it's too late.

Ad.2. Serbia - come on, were they armed? Were they? Were the people armed
there? If I know they are taking me to the death camp, I'd prefer die fighting
with dignity than to be slaughtered in a death factory.

Ad.3. Yeah, you can't stop people from killing each other. We're talking about
the state going crazy because the "Dear Leader" went insane. So not really
applicable.

------
patrocles
Reading between the lines...

1] Military has too big a delta over civilians; how can I help reduce that
delta sanely?

2] Too much of our communications remains plaintext; how do I roll out crypto
today?

3] Our economy has non-productive members; how can I help those who want help?

4] People still don't like most other people; how can I detect/counter any
biases I might have?

5] People still sexually abuse and torture other humans; how can I help
victims, and help deter future violence?

6] Children don't have rights; how can I help children who want to accept
adult responsibilities?

7] The US military costs a lot and seems to only make enemies. What can I do
to make it act more like Switzerland's army, but without compulsory service?
Or to at least be adequately compensated as World Police.

------
Trezoid
It's always interesting reading reports on the US through a Chinese media
perspective. Stories go round relatively regularly using very carefully
selected snippets of news to paint a particularly negative portrait that isn't
factually wrong, but so narrowly focused that it misses the overall picture
(deliberately)

On the parts really stabbing into US communications monitoring, I suspect the
reasoning is so the Chinese government can say "Look, it's even worse in the
west!" to cover the extent of their own filters and monitoring (which most
Chinese people are only vaguely aware of. Most of them take what they're told
by the Chinese government as simple fact, and even when they can see the facts
from a less biased perspective still refuse to accept it)

~~~
crntaylor
It's always interesting reading reports on China through a US media
perspective. Stories go round relatively regularly using very carefully
selected snippets of news to paint a particularly negative portrait that isn't
factually wrong, but so narrowly focused that it misses the overall picture
(deliberately)

On the parts really stabbing into Chinese communications monitoring, I suspect
the reasoning is so the US government can say "Look, it's even worse in
China!" to cover the extent of their own filters and monitoring (which most
American people are only vaguely aware of. Most of them take what they're told
by the US government as simple fact, and even when they can see the facts from
a less biased perspective still refuse to accept it)

~~~
bmmayer1
Human rights are objectively better in the US than in China. Not perfect here
either by any means, but the indicators are clearly, objectively better. Which
is what every major human development index says worldwide, not just those
peddled by our country. The UN HDI ranked the US as #3 and China as #101. It's
not even a contest.

~~~
arethuza
Does HDI measure human rights? It seems to based on combining life expectancy
at birth, years of schooling and GNI per capita:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index>

------
gordaco
It's a good thing we have that new perspective.

Here in Spain there is no independent press at all. You have the "left" press
and the "right" press. Each one talks wonders about their preferred party and
throws shit at the others. So you have look into the "left" press to know
extensively about the shit from the right party, and vice versa. Similarly,
the best perspective about what's wrong with the US is found on non US-
friendly press, even if it sounds hypocritical to denounce human rights
violations from China.

However, press in the US is likely to be much more independent and self-
critical than in China (you WILL find self-critical press in the US but not in
China, after all).

~~~
zalew
> Here in Spain

spain/poland/russia/uk/germany/france/italy/everywhere...

it's easier to be aware that journalism just works that way - ideologies are
commercialized.

~~~
peteretep
> spain/poland/russia/uk/germany/france/italy/everywhere...

Television news in the UK is legally required to be independent, fair, and
balanced.

------
w_t_payne
There can be no improvement without awareness. Criticism can be uncomfortable,
but, if properly analysed and acted upon, it is healthy. Although I do not
think that this criticism was intended to be constructive, we can easily treat
it as such, and gain advantage from it. A fusillade of brickbats can, if
caught deftly, be quickly built into strong foundations.

------
frozenport
This isn't a real Chinese viewpoint, this is propaganda issued by state. I
know many Chinese who are throughly disgusted by the official media.

~~~
mmavnn
True. Unfortunately there is a length limit on submission titles, and it was
the best I managed within the constraints. I don't believe it makes it a less
interesting read from a Western viewpoint, though.

~~~
frozenport
Reads like The Onion.

------
est
This is strictly r/worldnews material.

~~~
ankitml
Yeah, right. Anything about americans is always about the world. I never want
to say thing, but this is so stereotypical US behavior.

~~~
adventured
China talking about the US is world news related, yes.

The two largest economies in world history spatting over human rights is
absolutely world news. If that doesn't qualify, nothing does.

------
angersock
There's an unfortunate mix there of some interesting/troubling facts, and
seemingly cherry-picked local news stories. It's decent yellow journalism
though.

------
APB
Chinese viewpoint === everybody else but the US viewpoint

------
dferlemann
So many comments basically saying Chinese media has no right to comment on
human right issue as China does it so poorly. The whole point of this linked
article is that the other side is thinking exactly the same. Talking about
nationalism... there is just no objectivity on both sides. Both sides should
just mind their own business - hell, like that gonna happen.

~~~
adventured
I don't see anybody saying they don't have a right to comment.

I see a lot of excellent points that it's a sad joke for China to comment on
the US, while ignoring the brutality in their own backyard.

------
bwang8
The Chinese government post one of these every year to "counter" the one that
US-based human rights watch do every year. They definitely know that they are
in no position to criticize. However there needs to be some context as to why
they are publishing this.

------
dcc1
pot.kettle.black

~~~
jayfuerstenberg
True, but the best way to hear about what happens in country X is not always
through X's MSM.

The same holds true for China and North Korea.

------
spitx
This is utter balderdash.

A nation that executes thousands of its citizens yearly, while also arranging
sham trials and allowing affluent perpetrators to have body doubles serve
lengthy prison sentences, should be the last to point fingers at any
judiciary, elsewhere.

At least, Middle Eastern states follow Shariah, a religious code (however
harsh or barbaric) that dictates the severity of the punishment.

These Chinese wastrels have no such consistency nor do they have the moral
rectitude to hold every one, high-born or low-born, to the same rigor of
enforcement.

Muslim theocracies often get a bad rap for their macabre laws and punishments.

The Chinese are the true compassion-less brutes. No country comes close to the
way in which China "cleanses" its lower classes using a medieval
"correctional" apparatus.

So take that state rag and shove it up Wen Jiabao's rear.

Source:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment#Global_distr...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment#Global_distribution)

<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19357107>

<http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00pqhxk>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_China>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution_van>

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEd17taOrmA>

~~~
ankitml
If Chinese do human rights violations, this doesnt mean USA is not doing it.
If we are talking about violations dome by americans, lets stick to that. I am
sure much positive can come from that discussion than finding faults with the
messenger.

~~~
adventured
The US deserves criticism. Hefty doses of it. Particularly because our
government is betraying the very principles the country is supposed to
represent.

But faults? Mao killed tens of millions through forced famine alone, and he's
practically worshiped as a god in China. There are no countries without bad
marks on their records, but on the scale of recent bad marks, it's pretty
twisted for China to criticize anybody.

~~~
b6
Mostly agree, but, nitpick: I've only lived in China for about two years, but
I don't think it's exactly right to say Mao is practically worshipped. I think
it's better to say most Chinese people are thankful to him for various things
he did, while accepting he also made terrible mistakes.

------
x4e31
LOOOOOOOOOOOOL, united states talks about human rights hehehehe

