
Strategic Consequences of Chinese Racism: Strategic Asymmetry for the USA (2013) [pdf] - gwern
https://www.gwern.net/docs/2013-anonymous-strategicconsequencesofchineseracism.pdf
======
giardini
I'm not so certain what they're speaking of is racism as Americans know it. It
may be a form of "culturism" (where a group believes "My culture is the
best.")

I have a friend who was raised in Vietnam of pure mainland Chinese parents
(from the diaspora). Educated in Chinese schools (there was a huge Chinese
community in Saigon where the Chinese dominated business), he spoke primarily
Chinese until the age of 14. In his 14th year, Chinese schools were forced by
the Vietnamese government to use the Vietnamese language in all classes, so he
had to learn formal Vietnamese, and to read, write and speak Vietnamese in,
say, geography class.

In summary we have an individual who

\- culturally is classical Chinese,

\- was born in Vietnam,

\- is a naturalized US citizen,

\- whose Chinese cultural habits and language date from the time of his
parents' migration (circa 1920's) and are classical (non-Mandarin) Chinese,

\- whose Vietnamese language and cultural skills are weaker, dating from
middle school on,

\- who also took English as a foreign language beginning in middle school,

\- who also learned Mandarin so he could speak to his brother's new wife, a
mainland Chinese woman.

Anyway, he worked in an office in the USA with mainland Chinese, Hong Kong
Chinese, Vietnamese, Taiwanese, and the usual mishmash of other Americans.
Astonishingly, each of the Chinese groups, and the Vietnamese group, treated
him as an outsider. With the exception of the Vietnamese, these groups tended
to promote from within and to prefer their own group in inter-office politics.
He went so far as, at one point, to specifically inquire into people's beliefs
and was surprised to find that there was _no_ group that accepted him as a
member, except the Americans! This despite the fact that everyone liked him.

Recently, for reasons unknown to me, he has become a flaming pro-mainland
Chinese proponent vis-a-vis the USA, despite having no direct ties to the
current Chinese culture or government. Many times I've had to point out to him
that the only thing he truly is, and the only culture that truly accepts him,
is "American".

I really got his goat by pointing out that he has little in common with
mainland Chinese, certainly neither language nor culture, and that he is to
them, culturally the equivalent of their grandfather or even great-
grandfather.

------
vtange
I'm Chinese American. I won't claim to represent everyone and everything
Chinese, here are my two cents.

China is what happens when you enclose a really big population in a box. And
this box is really comfortable; you have little incentive to go outside of it.
You have the company of millions of other Chinese folk, and Chinese culture
and its derivatives (to this day many of us see Korea and Japan as copies of
Chinese culture) can entertain us indefinitely. The average Chinese has little
incentive to run off and seek interaction with other races, other bits of
culture. I suspect (but might be wrong) language barriers also play a role in
this.

Even today in places outside China, you can notice how Chinese will naturally
gravitate toward each other into little "bubble" communities. The fact that
there are just so many of us makes this very easy. I know other cultures do
this as well, but like I said, we have the population advantage.

Chinese are racist because we have very limited experience with other, non-
East Asian cultures. Oftentimes you will see Chinese follow straightforward
stereotypes regarding ethnicity. For example, Chinese attitudes toward blacks
easily stem from what they see in the news or media (Movies, crime reports,
etc.). Confirmation bias does play a bit in here: Chinese culture already has
a pretty simple ideal in which darker-skinned people are unfortunately shafted
and considered undesirable.

When it comes to history, Chinese people again suffer from the box-syndrome -
many are proud and fervently study Chinese history, and thus barely scrape the
surface of world history. My immigrant father could recite many Chinese
emperors by name, but knows nothing about American, European, even Japanese
history (except WW2, of course). One thing I found interesting was that my dad
is totally fine describing the brutality of ancient and medieval Chinese
rulers, but as we get closer to the present, the spotlight turns to Japan and
then things get quieter. Even today he watches media pretty much exclusively
on Chinese apps - no Youtube, etc. I can tell there's so much there for him,
he has no incentive to look elsewhere.

~~~
ngcc_hk
You are so wrong. I am a hong king "chinese". I would say your way of thinking
is what causing a lot of trouble.

You says chinese is one race. You mean Hans. If not we are not of one race.
You cannot have your culture hans and fighting Mongolian, tibetian, manuchuain
... all your thousand of years literally. Then suddenly they are chinese
because in the last 100 years someone decided to occupy these people's land
then they are chinese.

What is china? Heard of Great Wall. Why is there a Great Wall. Has the Qing
emperor thought the Hans are not enemy to be killed and contained.

We may say you are European. But let us not kid ourselves when thing boiled
down you are english, French, ...

We may say we are Soviet Union. Brotherhood ...

And these we are chinese under communism is shameful.

There are more than politics. But killing culture, suppressing people, ... I
am ashame to be associated with this gang.

I know more than you, I love my poems from tong down to mao. I share my many
dreams that one day we will kick this communist ass out and we will ....

But who are we. That is a question.

As to chinese minge with their own. Do you know all chinese education now has
a foregein language and also most top guys descendent run. They do not feel
comfortable with each other over there. Or here.

Btw, Korea and japan may get a bit from us. But like china people copy apple
to make little rice does not mean they are American. A lot of our vocabulary
is coming from japan. Chinese do not have the word for society.

We are all human. At least for now (well we are in the hacker group). We do
not deny our heritage. But not recognise who you are ... you love nazi because
you are germany, do you?

Let us be human first. And do not look at a black face and then say he is
africn American. He is human first. He may come from a part of Africa you do
not know. But do not think first he is an African.

I am not chinese. You are not as well.

~~~
sandworm101
Agreed. China is imho very diverse. Not as diverse as India, but certainly
more than neighbouring nations. The government just don't like to admit it,
instead promoting an image of unity in all things.

~~~
anyphoton
Yes, it is not environment stimulating free mind and its products.. Confusing,
is not it?

------
_yosefk
I know very little about China, but the report mentions in passing that racism
is pervasive in Russia where I was born, whereas Western societies have done a
remarkable job addressing racism.

It is not obvious to me that the American approach of racial quotas in high
education (which incidentally penalizes Asians very heavily today, perhaps
more than any other group) is particularly different from the Soviet approach
of racial quotas in high education (which to some degree penalized ethnic
Russians by reserving spots for people from the other "republics", and heavily
penalized students from "overrepresented" minorities, quite similarly to
penalizing whites somewhat and Asians more heavily in today's US.) It doesn't
seem different from Israel's affirmative action where Arabs get preferential
treatment at the expense of Jews, either. Perhaps it seems reasonable to some
to blame Chinese for _not_ having racial quotas which supposedly "address"
racism, but especially since Asian Americans get heavily penalized in the
scheme, it's hard to respond to an argument from a Chinese person that the
scheme doesn't address racism but institutionalizes it.

Nor is it obvious to me whether the average Westerner of any particular group
is more or less racist than a citizen of Russia, including both ethnic
Russians and those who are not. It's fairly obvious that the Westerner might
be more reserved in expressing racist views, fearing repercussions, although
at other times the Westerner will actually be very loudly racist if it is
currently in vogue to be racist against this particular race (right now anti-
white sentiment is celebrated, which, whatever its reasons, will surely
produce terrible results; the broader point is that it's not obvious that
being racist against one race at one time is fundamentally different than
being racist against another at another time, and even if we agree that it's
done for very different reasons, it does not follow that it will produce very
different results.)

I'm not saying that Russian attitudes toward race are the same as Western
attitudes, just that the report's claims about the Russian society and the
Western societies which I kinda sorta know things about (though it's hard to
summarize millions of people very precisely or to inform oneself about them
fully in the first place) make me suspicious with respect to its main topics,
Chinese attitudes to race. It would be interesting (though not necessarily
representative of the entire Chinese population) to hear Chinese people weigh
in on this.

~~~
throwaway729
_> I know very little about China, but the report mentions in passing that
racism is pervasive in Russia where I was born, whereas Western societies have
done a remarkable job addressing racism._

I don't think that the report is saying "China is racist and we aren't." It's
saying that the difference between the US and China is that the US struggles
with its racism whereas China doesn't. Or, at the very least, that this is a
defensible enough narrative that it could form the basis for US messaging on
the issue of racism in international diplomacy.

 _> It is not obvious to me that the American approach of racial quotas in
high education..._

I think you may've missed the author's main point wrt Affirmative Action.

The only reason that Affirmative Action is even discussed in this report is
because this is one of China's lines of offense. The party will point to
affirmative action and immigration quotas on Chinese as examples that prove
the US is a racist society.

But the author's thesis is that the party's _actual_ interest is in turning
Chinese citizens against the US, not in proving their moral superiority to the
US, and especially not in beating out the US on the racial equality front
(witness: fucking eugenics...).

In other words, they have no qualms with racism -- only with racism against
Han Chinese. And their focus on affirmative action (as opposed to Jim Crow or
the highly racialized impacts of the WoD) betray this fact.

There are still people alive who fucking lived through Jim Crow.

The implementation of the War on Drugs is multi-decade all-but-overtly racist
monstrosity.

So the US is far from guiltless, especially today. But Affirmative Action is
somewhere near the mid-bottom, not the top, of a long list of very serious
problems deeply rooted in racism. Focusing on it to the exclusion of these
other issues -- while at the same time embracing _fucking eugenics_ \-- belies
a disinterest in actual anti-racism.

That is the author's point.

 _> It doesn't seem different from Israel's affirmative action where Arabs get
preferential treatment at the expense of Jews, either._

On a similar note... Yes, clearly the exemplar of racism in Israeli politicsis
preferential treatment afforded to Arabs at the expense of jews in college
admissions processes! /s

I get that you're just discussing affirmative action. But if China wanted to
truly critique western racism via Israel, affirmative action for Arabs would
be a truly mind-boggling place from which to mount that critique.

Unless they didn't actually give a shit about racism and just wanted to
demonize the US on the basis of a policy that happens to harm Han Chinese,
that is...

 _> Perhaps it seems reasonable to some to blame Chinese for not having racial
quotas which supposedly "address" racism_

Again, the Affirmative Action stuff is really about how China frames its
critique of the US to appeal to contemporary Han Chinese. Not an actual
discussion of the prevelance of racism in either society.

By contrast, it seems entirely reasonable for the author to point out stuff
like _ongoing 50 's style racially-driven eugenics programs_ that were
_started in the mid-90 's_ as evidence of ongoing racism in Chinese policy-
making.

 _> Nor is it obvious to me whether the average Westerner of any particular
group is more or less racist than a citizen of Russia, including both ethnic
Russians and those who are not._

Indeed. Which is why the author identifies legal protections and cultural
norms, and devotes an entire section to rejecting any hypotheses about
differences in underlying psychology.

~~~
_yosefk
> They have no qualms with racism -- only with racism against Han Chinese.

> Affirmative Action is somewhere near the mid-bottom, not the top, of a long
> list of very serious problems deeply rooted in racism.

To you the fact that there are still black people who lived through Jim Crow
matters more than the fact that there are Asians today who are turned down by
high education institutions because of their race. Why can't a Chinese person
tell you that you have no qualms with racism - only with racism against black
people?

It seems to be a common viewpoint in the West that the response to racism is a
hierarchy of grievances, and that for example a white person who supports
preferential treatment of black people at the expense of Asians is not a
racist, either because "racism" is defined to mean "disagreeing with the
hierarchy of grievances", or simply because it's only "racism" when you're
trying to get preferential treatment for your own race, but it's not "racism"
if it's for another race. This is not however the only possible definition of
racism, nor the original definition, nor the definition used in the report.

BTW I'm not sure whether a 100% color blind policy is always the best thing or
not, and perhaps it depends on context. I'm just saying that I think it's a
much thornier subject than people with (many different) strong positions seem
to believe.

~~~
throwaway729
_> To you the fact that there are still black people who lived through Jim
Crow matters more than the fact that there are Asians today who are turned
down by high education institutions because of their race._

Yes. Absolutely.

The structural effects of 200 years of overtly racialized legal frameworks did
not magically disappear with Brown v. Board. To claim that Jim Crow doesn't
reverberate today in very concrete ways for millions of minorities in the US
is ignorant beyond reason. And I even mentioned one concrete way that they
reverberate today that is unimaginably worse than Affirmative Action (WoD).

 _> Why can't a Chinese person tell you that you have no qualms with racism -
only with racism against black people?_

Well first they'd have to determine if I support Affirmative Action...

 _> ...hierarchy of grievances... This is not however the only possible
definition of racism, nor the original definition, nor the definition used in
the report._

This discussion is about _what the Chinese government chooses to emphasize_.
So context and degree both matter, because if China were truly critiquing
racism then they'd choose the strongest argument available.

------
Redditshill
Very long read. TBH I only read the beginning and end carefully, and skimmed
through the middle...200? pages.

What really stuck out to me was this line that explains how racism benefits
the Chinese government: "First, the Han Chinese possess a strong in group
identity with a polarized and tightly defined out group. This allows the
Chinese government to expect sacrifice and as well as support from the
considerable majority of the Chinese people."

Perhaps a lot of these attitudes come from how in many Chinese people's eyes,
their golden years were when they had very little outside influence and were
able to invent some of the most useful inventions in human history (compass,
paper, gunpowder). From the time that they have mixed with the West, they have
had some very negative experiences, (as the report brings up, the Opium wars,
burning of the palace). Perhaps their attitudes will change slowly now. In my
experiences, racism is something that is slowly taught/instilled, and so I
don't expect any easy reversal.

~~~
idra
These attitudes are a direct consequence of government propaganda, and what
you've described as "golden years" and "negative experiences" are pretty much
the de facto spin on history spread by the Chinese state media and education
system.

The ironic thing is that the exact opposite situation happened as recently as
in the last 50 years. China closed itself again to have "little outside
influences" and started the Cultural Revolution, which destroyed millions of
lives, irreparably damaged Chinese society, and set the country back in
cognitive and cultural development for several centuries. And it was foreign
investment that lifted China out of severe chaos and poverty after Deng
Xiaoping's Reform and Opening Up.

~~~
Redditshill
Those are valid points, and I admit that having close Chinese friends have
probably biased my thinking on this a bit. I still believe in my main point of
the Chinese needing some time/exposure to the West in order to truly change
their mindset towards the West.

------
padde
As a person who has lived in China for nearly a decade, I have experienced
racism first hand there. But actually it was, 99% of the time, racism that
favored my white skin. Wherever I (or any other white foreigner I know) went,
I had instant respect and was admired, without having to do anything to earn
that respect. Why does the article, which seems well-researched, not mention
this phenomenon at all?

(Or maybe I've missed it, I've only read the summary and a few paragraphs that
contained the term "white")

~~~
blusterXY
spotted the english lackey!

try starting a real business and see how it goes.

~~~
dang
That reads like a personal attack. We ban accounts that do that, so please
don't post like this.

------
brisance
There is a Chinese diaspora that fled famines and wars to many parts of the
world, and the current generations no longer identify with the mainland
Chinese. In fact there is a strong resentment for mainland Chinese in many
parts of the world where there are significant overseas Chinese precisely
because of the qualities laid out in the paper (i.e. racist attitudes,
overbearing smugness from the nouveau rich etc)

------
LiweiZ
I don't think group conflict is a very well solved problem. I don't think we
are able to achieve that, either. What I can see is when there is a group
conflict, after the extra energy is vented, and the groups involved are still
there, they look for mutual interests and fall back to that base and go from
there. Race issue is one big example of this. We do have some system works
better than others. But putting it into a bottle with absolute right mark on
it may not be the best way to go under current situation.

I'm probably biased since I'm Chinese. I agree with most part of this report.
The author did a lot of good homework. But I think his thoughts to work out
those strategies need some update to better fit in the world today and
tomorrow. There are similar parts and there are different parts.

------
Untit1ed
Interesting how often the perceived racial equality of the USA comes up as an
advantage over China in terms of their perception in the developing world - I
wonder if the policies of the Trump administration are in the process of
tipping that balance the other way.

~~~
faitswulff
Agreed. Trump and America in recent years are doing major damage to USA's
soft-power advantages over China with respects to racism and racial equality:

> Fourth, the message of the United States should be: We are better than the
> Chinese for Africa. We will assist you with economic aid to offset what you
> receive from China. In sum, culturally, socially, and politically, the
> United States is better, citizens are equal, racial equality, and civil
> rights are recognized.

~~~
Animats
The message of the Chinese government to third world governments is "we're not
going to try to change your government". They get along with the Islamic world
and various oppressive regimes in Africa that way. The US is always nagging
about human rights and corruption.

Meanwhile, China is building railroads from China to Europe.[1]

[1]
[http://www.xinhuanet.com/world/newsilkway/index.htm](http://www.xinhuanet.com/world/newsilkway/index.htm)

------
chvid
I find it odd to that this document is on the frontpage of HN.

200+ pages, no clear summary, unclear what it is it? Other than appearantly it
is confidential who has written it, seemingly academic and it is about Chinese
and/or China being racists.

Where is this document from? And why was it written?

"Racist" is probably the most damning word that one can use in politics (here
international politics) and can be used justify a great deal of wrong doing.

~~~
SudoNhim
It's from the Department of Defense litigation release a few months back. Have
a look here:

[http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/Reading_Room/Other/](http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/Reading_Room/Other/)

Most of these are anthropology reports commissioned by the DoD. A lot of them
are super interesting. Examples:

2st Century Cultures of War
[http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/Reading_Room/Other/Litigation%20...](http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/Reading_Room/Other/Litigation%20Release%20-%2021st%20Century%20Cultures%20of%20War.pdf)

Axis of Troubles: Male Youth and Factional Politics
[http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/Reading_Room/Other/Litigation%20...](http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/Reading_Room/Other/Litigation%20Release%20-%20Axis%20of%20Troubles%20Male%20Youth%20Factional%20Politics%20and%20Religion%20%20200509.pdf)

The Future of Europe
[http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/Reading_Room/Other/Litigation%20...](http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/Reading_Room/Other/Litigation%20Release%20-%20The%20Future%20of%20Europe-
Final%20Report%20%20201304.pdf)

The Future of Africa and the Future of China in Africa
[http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/Reading_Room/Other/Litigation%20...](http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/Reading_Room/Other/Litigation%20Release%20-%20The%20Future%20of%20Africa%20The%20Future%20of%20China%20in%20Africa%202035%20201406.pdf)

~~~
quotemstr
Thanks. These are fascinating.

------
andreyf
Also surprising to many westerners is the extent to which Chine encourages and
provides the opportunity for folks to volunteer for a eugenics programs:
[https://www.edge.org/response-detail/23838](https://www.edge.org/response-
detail/23838)

~~~
gwern
Miller overstates his case. Aside from the total failure of the mentioned BGI
project and it being beaten to the punch by the first IQ GWAS hits being
released by the Western SSGAC consortium that very year (Rietveld et al 2013),
Westerners practice a good deal of that 'Chinese eugenics' (look at Down
rates, assortative mating, fertility rates by education level, and the
practices of sperm & egg banks), and his (and Lynn's) estimate of the benefits
of embryo selection of being 5-15 IQ points is considerably off because the
upper bound set by heritability & average number of embryos in IVF is ~9
points and then half of them are lost to various steps, so even universal use
of IVF would not deliver more than maybe 4.5 IQ points (see
[https://www.gwern.net/Embryo%20selection](https://www.gwern.net/Embryo%20selection)
for my more detailed analysis of limits). I don't expect Chinese women to use
IVF much more than Western women - there are limits to the tiger mother thing.
(CRISPR, likewise, is greatly overrated.) The real discontinuous changes would
come from technologies further down the pipeline: induced pluripotency to
allow creation of hundreds of embryos to select from, iterated embryo
selection, and genome synthesis.

~~~
defen
> even universal use of IVF would not deliver more than maybe 4.5 IQ points

That still doubles the number of people in your population with a 130+ IQ.
Assuming baseline 100 mean and 15 std dev.

~~~
gwern
Sure (I include a table of the consequences on the tail for various
scenarios), but consider that the Chinese population is already more than
twice the size of the US population and available measurements suggest it may
have a higher starting mean as well, but that has not had a huge impact. Why
would another doubling be expected to? (The US could probably easily double
its 130+ numbers if it wanted to just by changing immigration policies.) At
the very least, it can't be expected to have the impact of anything like an
IES/synthesis scenario where the gains would be anywhere upwards of +100
points.

~~~
defen
Oh yeah, a gain of +100 points is just insane and it would be difficult to
predict what that society would even be like. I was just trying to suggest
that +4.5 to the mean might also have potentially big effects.

As for why China isn't farther ahead - IQ isn't everything. They modernized
pretty late in the game, and operated under a profoundly stupid economic
system for a good part of the 20th century. I believe that their current
government is pretty corrupt, but I'm far from an expert.

------
danbruc
If one substitutes United States for China and fixes geographical references,
there still seems to be some truth in those statements, at least as far as I
can tell from my outside perspective. One could probably also substitute still
other countries or sometimes the West in general and still get some true
statements.

 _In Chinese history and contemporary culture, the Chinese are seen to be
unique and superior to the rest of the world. Other peoples and groups are
seen to be inferior, with a sliding scale of inferiority._

 _The Chinese commonly believe that they are cleverer than others, and so may
shape events in an oblique manner or through shi [势], the strategic
manipulation of events. This conceit among the Chinese that they can
manipulate others is supremely dangerous for Asian stability._

 _An overconfident China will continue to make the mistakes it is presently in
the South China or East China Sea disputes. That is, making threats, issuing
demands, heavy-handed shows of force, are generated by China’s
overconfidence._

 _Analysts do have insight into how China will behave in the future based on
its behavior in the past, when it was the hegemon of Asia, the known world as
far as China was concerned. China sees itself as the center of the universe,
all others are inferior, with varying degrees of inferiority. That is not an
attractive model of winning allies and influence._

 _In contrast, China portrays itself as an apolitical rising superpower that
does business in your country, pays a fair price for your commodities, and
builds your infrastructure with no string attached._

 _There often is considerable resentment toward the Chinese due to their
ruthless business practices, which undercut and destroy African businesses._

~~~
ucaetano
My controversial 2 cents, which might be very wrong:

There is a major difference between the two countries: China sees itself as a
single "people", in the sense that there is a clear dominating national
identity linked to a certain culture and ethnicity, similar to other old world
countries in the past century (some of which are still like that).

The US in this sense is closer to other "new world" countries, with a national
identity not clearly tied to an ethnicity. Sure, there are groups who try to
make the US a more homogeneous country (and not by intermixing to oblivion),
but the US identity is largely multi-cultural and multi-ethnic.

So the Chinese who move to the US eventually become Americans, but Americans
who move to China will never become Chinese. For China there's no cultural
assimilation, no integration, no coexistence. There's not even "separate but
equal", because there's no "equal".

~~~
danbruc
I was not so much aiming at the racism point, there I would - if the paper
correctly characterizes China - side with the author and say that the West is
on a much better path to deal with the issue.

But you still have American exceptionalism, the desire to spread western
values like democracy, individual freedom and capitalism, being the world
police, interference with other countries and so.

I mean it is somewhat understandable, if you believe in something, then you
have to almost by definition assume that it is true and better than the
alternatives. On the other hand you can also be more restrained r modest, you
can believe in something but still avoid trying to force it onto everyone
else.

------
squozzer
Not sure I would call it racism. Ethnocentrism, as others have said, born of
centuries of relative isolation and periods of significant cultural and
technological advances.

Not sure if USA can exploit negative perceptions of China, given our history
and the histories of other white-dominated nations (e.g. GB and France) in
Africa and Latin America.

For all we know, the Third World might not mind at all seeing the West taken
down a peg, especially if they see no change in their status. But even if
things go worse for the TW because of China, what can they do about it?

------
idra
Although I mostly agree with your comment, I find the subtext of it (and
especially the fact that you had to put "racism" in quotes, as if Chinese
prejudice towards other races isn't actually racism) quite distasteful. Racism
is racism, and "limited experience with other cultures" isn't an excuse for
it.

Update: I see you've reworded your post and removed the quotation marks, I
appreciate it.

~~~
dang
We detached this subthread from
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13751036](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13751036)
and marked it off-topic.

------
partycoder
Empires need a reason for expanding. If the inside is the same as the outside,
there is absolutely no reason at all for the empire to expand or to exist at
all. Most imperialistic nations also come with a nationalistic sense of
exceptionalism.

While the Chinese might have a sense of exceptionalism, Americans also do, as
well as many other countries. The Chinese have objectively received many
humiliations historically and it is understandable if they do not feel good
about it:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Century_of_humiliation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Century_of_humiliation)

------
hneans
Chinese people have been discriminated against for so many years since 1840s,
yes, we Chinese people are racists, please keep a distance with China. Do not
let China be infected by political correctness and "holy war". When extremists
attack your noble Westerners, they are terrorists, but when they attack the
Chinese people they become "freedom fighters". interesting, lol

~~~
Redditshill
From my comments earlier in the thread it's pretty clear that I understand why
many Chinese have the viewpoint that outside influence is bad. However, I
think your viewpoint is way too extreme. China isn't some passive country now
that is just sitting around being attacked by extremists/freedom fighters, but
China is actively making aggressive moves towards many other countries. For
example, China has threatened Taiwan many times, which is completely
unacceptable in my eyes.

~~~
hneans
yes, my viewpoint is way too extreme, I just comment about Westerners'
hypocrisy as the way some of Westerners did to China people. Threantened
Taiwan? lol, Please find out the economic data of China-Taiwan trade, China
maintains trade deficit with Taiwan, but maintains trade surplus for most
countries, including the United States, Japan, and EU. And I hope you can
figure out how the Taiwanese are treated in mainland(China). By the way,
Taiwan is the part of China(ROC), Taiwan is part of China, which is recognized
by the UN. It's a matter of internal affairs.

~~~
idra
Taiwan (The Republic of China) is an independent country with its own
government, currency and international relations. Any deals between Mainland
China and Taiwan are international affairs.

~~~
echaozh
Let's wait and see.

~~~
b6
Please elaborate.

