Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

About 850 million people have lifted themselves out of poverty in China since the eighties. It's extraordinary. Just want to be clear the US is not exactly perfect when it comes to human rights. Sure, China had a lot they need to do better, but the improvements are incredible. In the US, look at Indian reservations, border detentions, hate groups, number of people in jail... We are not the human rights poster child.



“hate groups” exist in the USA because this is a free country. In places without our commitment to freedom and human rights those type of groups would have been suppressed by the government.

Edit: just to be clear some of your other points are fair although I find the “Indian reservations” a bit dated - they are treated as local sovereigns (e.g. casinos, being allowed to violate state level hunting regulations) and are even now being allowed to expand their territory in some places .


The US "commitment to freedom and human rights" rings a bit hollow, IMHO. If you look at western Europe, free speech is restricted a little more, so "hate groups" are illegal. Yet in pretty much all other aspects, these countries are better at ensuring human rights for their citizens.

I'm fairly sure that the US is lagging due to historical reasons. Without a war like Germany experienced, there is too much resistance towards a "clean cut" elimination of racism, so you get an exponentially slow decay instead.


So Germany, Japan (and other countries that experienced destructive wars) have eliminated racism?


Well, eliminated is a bit strong, as you can never eliminate an ideology.

The main point, however, is that Europe has shown over a span of several decades that restricting hate speech a) does not lead to any slippery slope where other forms of speech are restricted and b) that restrictions of hate speech are effective at reducing racism in society.


> The US "commitment to freedom and human rights" rings a bit hollow, IMHO.

Another example of this is how many governments we overthrew during the Cold War, and how many dictators we installed in their place.


> If you look at western Europe, free speech is restricted a little more

I wouldn't call that "free speech".


According to the Cato institute, the most free countries in the world are mostly in Western Europe:

> The jurisdictions that took the top 10 places, in order, were New Zealand, Switzerland, Hong Kong, Australia, Canada, the Netherlands and Denmark (tied in 6th place), Ireland and the United Kingdom (tied in 8th place), and Finland, Norway, and Taiwan (tied in 10th place). Selected countries rank as follows: Germany (13), the United States and Sweden (17), Republic of Korea (27), Japan (31), ...

So, yes, I would call what they have free speech, in any meaningful use of the word.

Source: https://www.cato.org/human-freedom-index-new


Hmph. Citing a libertarian organization founded by, of all people, Charles Koch and funded by the Koch brothers. [1]

1. https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Cato_Institute


I don't think the prevalence of hate groups is necessarily related to any countries' commitment to freedom and human rights.

Virtually everyone outside of the hate groups wishes they didn't exist, but it's precisely the commitment to freedom that makes it hard to shut them down.

Is this a human rights issue? Again, we agree that we don't want these groups to exist, but I don't think there's ever been a "right to not have people hate you". I don't see a direct line from human rights to lack of hate groups.


Germany implemented laws that forbid holocaust denial for example. The US has no such laws pertaining to its groups.


>“hate groups” exist in the USA because this is a free country. In places without our commitment to freedom and human rights those type of groups would have been suppressed by the government.

Looking at the history of the KKK, for instance, I find this assertion frankly laughable. The KKK flourished then withered as a pretty direct measure of its government support, not because of some worthy indifference to the organisation. And if you stand up against them, as the Panthers did, well even the NRA will suddenly support gun control.


>Looking at the history of the KKK, for instance, I find this assertion frankly laughable. The KKK flourished then withered as a pretty direct measure of its government support, not because of some worthy indifference to the organization.

Which level of government are you talking about? The KKK flourished when local and state government turned a blind eye. In both cases the Feds eventually stepped in.

> And if you stand up against them, as the Panthers did, well even the NRA will suddenly support gun control.

The NRA of the 1960s is not the NRA of today. You may as well compare the 1890 democratic party with the 1950 democratic party.


> The KKK flourished when local and state government turned a blind eye. In both cases the Feds eventually stepped in.

The KKK flourished when it was a major power in directing local, state and federal (including Presidential nomination) politics of one major party and generally had a blind eye turned to it by the other, at any level where that party had any influence. There wasn't just s “blind eye” from government as a whole, it was a major active player.


>The KKK flourished when local and state government turned a blind eye.

Local and state governments weren't turning a blind eye back then, they were turning a hooded one.

>The NRA of the 1960s is not the NRA of today.

I'd agree with you there, while they were just as politically insidious, it seems that back then they had some kind of remaining tether to reality.


Or the KKK of the 1960s with the KKK of today.


> And if you stand up against them, as the Panthers did, well even the NRA will suddenly support gun control.

.. lets not pretend that the Panthers were some mild group either. A group of people advocating along race lines for the end of capitalist exploitation of their race and releasing of all incarcerated people of their race walking around with fully automatic weapons 'for defense' is not exactly 'moderate'

which is not to say that i do not understand the rationale behind the group given the zeitgeist (and really, why do i need to put a parenthetical here)


>lets not pretend that the Panthers were some mild group either.

I wasn't. Gun control isn't usually brought in against mild groups.

>walking around with fully automatic weapons 'for defense'

To be fair, the opposition had previously bombed them from the air. Having automatic weapons is usually overdoing it for defense, but if your opponent can manage a ramshackle air force, then it may be warranted.


850 million people have been lifted out of poverty by going through an accelerated industrial revolution similar to what lifted the West out of poverty, largely funded by the West outsourcing the labor its citizens' expectations for quality of life would no longer allow.


And yet, for some reason, the same has not happened in India. Why is that?


Because India has not served as the primary manufacturing hub for first world countries to nearly the same degree. Also, China has an authoritarian but competent government that very effectively reinvested their newly acquired wealth into infrastructure/development.


Perhaps the government in India hasn't yet figured out how to print money like the Chinese Communist Party?


A lot of stuff missing on this list: death penalty, war crimes, mass surveillance of the whole world including industry espionage


I’m not sure I’d call China running over people with tanks and imprisoning millions of Muslims in concentration camps “improvements”.


From the East India company and the opium wars and the unbalanced treaties, to the Chinese civil war and the invasion of Japan, it's not easy for an outsider to understand just how strongly China considers anything that would bring about the instability that they experienced in the past. Most Chinese people support preventing instability, as in the 80s they had the largest famine in human history. Sometimes they are heavy handed and I think they acknowledge this, and would even tell you that it's not right what they did, but I think the average Westerner does not really get the perspective of the reasoning behind it. Think about how many people we have imprisoned in our so-called drug war. As a percent of our population, it's a lot more than in China.


I don't find those trying to explain away China's disdain for human rights by using historical arguments to be in any way credible. Taiwan alone proves that it's possible for China to be a democracy with respect for human rights. But I suppose you're right, it's not easy for me to really get into the mind of someone like you who is comfortable with explaining away organ harvesting by referring to the need for "stability". That which does not bend, will break.


How many Iraqi civilians did US government forces kill? The US nuclear bomb drops on Japanese ciivilians? Was that fine compared with organ harvesting? My point is not that any of this is okay, but so easy to point the finger and "they" are the bad people and we are good.


It is easy to point the finger, yes, because no Western country is nearly as bad as China when it comes to human rights, and to suggest otherwise is peak contrarianism. I'm not going to suggest the West is perfect, but it's without question that China is much worse. I'd also like to restate that your claim that historical events dictate that China must abuse human rights to lift people out of poverty is nonsense because Taiwan is Chinese, democratic, developed, and doesn't abuse human rights.


There is nothing unique about China's own human rights abuses that rationalises it. Every dictatorship ever has had similar rationalisations.


I don't feel your comment is rooted in a deep understanding of Chinese history, but I hear what you're saying. I personally believe that if the current leader started to exhibit behavior that was crazy, he would be removed. And you might go on to say that what happened in the Muslim territory in the Northwest is already crazy, but the economic track record and the number of people who have been lifted out of poverty is quite good for the current leader.


The big question is what happens when that economic track record hits a road bump or a giant pothole, how will the government react?


Currently in China: largest number of people freed from poverty in human history. Their neighbors in SE Asia are also coming out of poverty, maybe 20 years behind China. I think trade war could make it tough for all, hoping we can avoid it. A bump? Let's hope it's not like the great famine China experienced in the eighties. I doubt it.


The Nazis also pulled Germany out of poverty. This does not excuse their actions towards the Jews any more than your point excuses China's actions towards the Uyghurs.


Scant consolation for the Uyghurs, Tibetans or even HKers.


Minor correction but the Great Chinese Famine was from 1959 to 1961.


> Think about how many people we have imprisoned in our so-called drug war. As a percent of our population, it's a lot more than in China.

Be careful what you're seeking to compare; with 11M Uyghurs and 1M of them in re-education camps, China has far more of a percentage of the underclass imprisoned (9%) than in the U.S. (with 1.35% of the black population imprisoned). This isn't to defend the prison practices of the U.S., which are still generally indefensible, but some heart can be taken in that the number of U.S. imprisoned (of all races, but especially black prisoners) has fallen year-over-year for more than a decade, whereas China's re-education camps are still growing.


> than in the U.S. (with 1.35% of the black population imprisoned)

Interesting. My first thought was that your number was too low, but searching a little it seems you are right, with a couple caveats. The first caveat is that the number for black males is about twice that of the black population as a whole (ie, black females are rarely imprisoned).

The second caveat, which is not one I've seen widely reported, is that the percentage of black males currently imprisoned has dropped sharply over recent years, from 3.5% in 2000 to 2.6% now. This article (with the charts from which I got the numbers) goes into possible reasons: https://www.themarshallproject.org/2017/12/15/a-mass-incarce...


Right, running people over with tanks and forcing Muslims into re-education camps is fine because “they don’t want instability” and the US has strict drug sentencing. The mental gymnastics for that reasoning are astounding.

Here’s the deal: it doesn’t matter if the US started killing every dissident outright. US behavior is not an excuse for unethical behavior in China. The government and citizens of China are not dumb children that can’t behave ethically if there are other unethical things going on in the world.


Nobody said those were improvements, so what is your point?


Source to running over people with tanks?


The British ambassador to China at the time, Sir Alan Donald, claimed that citizens were mowed down repeatedly by Chinese army tanks, turned to mush, and their remains were scooped, burned, and washed away.[1] There also exist individuals who claim to have narrowly survived the tanks in Tiananmen Square but had limbs crushed and amputated. They have been pressured by the Chinese government to change their story.[2]

[1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/tiananmen-squa...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fang_Zheng


Even the people claiming Iraq had WMDs provided better evidence than that.



Tiananmen, And there is photographic evidence


There were no pictures that actually captured people being run over with tanks. The man in the famous photo was the only incident caught on film, he was not run over that day but his whereabouts are unknown.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_Man


An interesting fact I learned the other day is that the man in that picture is from after the protests, when the tanks were leaving the square, not when they were entering it.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5aad3e1a7e3c3aab4ab40...


It may not have been a tank but I have a photo of someone who was clearly crushed by something that definitely wasn't a students bicycle let's say


Not available in China, though...


[flagged]


The actions of a government should come with higher scrutiny than the actions of its citizens.

cat199 37 days ago [flagged]

and where do chinese living in cages 'because crowding' or having organs harvested for political dissent fit into these figures?


>Americans shoot fellow citizens in the dozens

>happens maybe ONCE A MONTH

Not to be a dick but...

Cite. A. Source.

A shooting with 12+ people getting shot is the kind of event that makes the national news even if nobody of dies. That's not the kind of thing that happens about monthly. I am very skeptical you will be able to back up your assertion assuming any reasonable definition of "shoot" and "dozen".

Edit: My skepticism has survived one citation and counting.



I'm in several pages now and don't see a single number of double digit injuries let alone a dozen or multiple dozens.

Several of the ones I've clicked through to the source on seem to be counting people injured in things other than the shooting (e.g. brawl injures X, dude draws gun, shoots one person = 1 dead, X injuries).

The fact that they call the page "Mass Shootings in 2019" when even they say in their about-us[0] that they attempt to catalog each and every shooting seems to indicate a bias (to put it mildly). Edit: actually I'm wrong, I was only looking at the "Mass shootings" portion of their data. Their definition of "mass" seems to be "4+ people injured and/or killed including people not injured/killed" which seems slimy considering how they seem to be counting injuries. That said, they seem to be a pretty damn good source for raw information and generally unbiased with their numbers.

Edit: got through all the 2019 results (couldn't get CSV export to work with my browser) and found exactly two results for a dozen.

One event[1] has 6 dead, 6 injured but the source doesn't mention any of the people injured other than the 5 victims and one gunman who died, maybe an error in the data?

The other event is the Virginia Beach shooting.

In any case I think it's safe to conclude that events where a dozen people get shot happen less than monthly.

[0]https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/about

[1]https://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/aurora-beacon-news/ct...


According to the source, the shootings on the following days have 9 or more injuries or deaths in 2019: Jan 15 (12), May 7 (9), May 18 (9), May 25 (9 and 10), May 31 (13).

So obviously I was wrong that people were killing DOZENS every month. It is more like mass shootings involving 9 or more people are happening ONCE PER MONTH on average.

Thank god things are better than I thought!


[flagged]


Don’t move the goalposts. Your original claim was proveably false, and needlessly flame bait.

Better to admit that was wrong if you’re interested in having a discussion, and maybe even influencing some people’s opinions.

Gun violence is a absolutely a big problem in the US. The interesting twist is it’s a Constitutional right to bear arms in the US, so this is a case of a limitation of government power leading to an adverse outcome. It’s a difficult and widely debated issue in American politics, and in fact the American people will ultimately decide how the rules around gun ownership will evolve over time in the hopes of reducing that number in pursuit of a safe and free society.


Calm discussion is good. I was wrong that people were killing dozens every month. It is more like mass shootings involving 9 or more people are happening once per month on average.

I would still maintain my point that personal safety-wise, China is pretty good by today's standard.


Yes we are.


Love to note that while I receive a few minus, no effective points for the above are found.

I think I'm playing for par but happy to hear something more engaging than "the us isn't the poster child blablabla" get the real stuff out if you're going to make such a large claim with no meat/fauxmeat to it..

kortilla 37 days ago [flagged]

China doesn’t have Indian reservations because it just forces integration or kills ethnic groups not approved by the government. The government itself functions as a massive hate group against Muslims. It just has a monopoly on which hate groups get a voice.


To clarify, China doesn't "hate muslims" in the way some westerners do. Their current policy towards the Uyghurs in Xinjiang is a variation of a long-standing policy of sino-fication (also known as the "one china" policy). A policy that has existed in one form or another for over a thousand years. And it's why China is China today.

Other, more benign aspects of this policy are things like calling the various languages in china "dialects", even if they are mutually incomprehensible. Even "autonomous ethnic regions" are part of this policy... giving time for some minorities to slowly adapt chinese culture. You have to understand that recent western ideals of cultural pluralism is not widespread in there. Those in power in China view it as good and moral to move uyghur culture into something more closely resembling the broader chinese culture.

I get that most westerners would view this ethos as reprehensible, but if you have goals beyond simply being shocked and angry, then an understanding of their perspective is important.


> To clarify, China doesn't "hate muslims" in the way some westerners do.

Yes, they do.

> Their current policy towards the Uyghurs in Xinjiang is a variation of a long-standing policy of sino-fication

Yes, an attitude of compulsory conformity to common tribal identity and the norms, rituals, and behaviors associated therewith is a particularly common thing in human societies, and it's exactly the main reason Muslims are targeted in the West, as well as in China.

> I get that most westerners would view this ethos as reprehensible

A sizable and politically powerful subset of westerners actively support the same kind of ethos and keeping pushing it into government in much of the West, and object to sinofication not because of a drive against such conformity but only because not doing so for any other culture undermines the propaganda supporting their own cultural conformity efforts.


>> To clarify, China doesn't "hate muslims" in the way some westerners do.

> Yes, they do.

I'd like to read more about this - what reason would they have to hate Muslims?

My understanding is that the CCP's current goal, however ill conceived, is to revert elements of Salafi/Wahhabi Islam imported from Saudi Arabia to Turkey, and subsequently to Xinjiang (by mostly ethnic Uyghurs) post-1985, back to the pre-1985 Sufi Islam. The primary goal is to contain the spread of jihadist doctrine [1] to prevent incidents such as the 2009 Urumqi riots [2] (where hundreds of ethnic Han and Sufi muslims were slaughtered in the streets) as well as other extremist-Islam inspired terrorist incidents [3][4]. By contrast, the Hui Muslims living in the region are extremely well integrated both economically and socially [5] and the Kazak, Dongxiang, Khalka, Sala, Tajik, Uzbeks, Bao’an and Tatar Muslims seem to be doing just fine.

> Yes, an attitude of compulsory conformity to common tribal identity and the norms, rituals, and behaviors associated therewith is a particularly common thing in human societies, and it's exactly the main reason Muslims are targeted in the West, as well as in China.

During the pre-1985 Sufi-majority period, ethnic Uyghurs were allowed to express their traditional culture just like any of the other dozens of ethnic minorities in China do in the present day (for example by wearing brightly coloured clothing, traditional dresses, performing traditional music and dance, eating traditional food). That was the mostly peaceful, secular version of Islam that has been tolerated by the CCP. My understanding is that constructs of the more extreme Wahhabi/Salafi Islam such as burkas, suppression of women's rights, (non-Islamic) education, music, consumption of alcohol, pork, etc., are the kinds of things the CCP is trying to eradicate owing to their belief that these practices lead to extremism which undermines their holy grail of societal stability.

[1] https://www.iris-france.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Asia-...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_2009_%C3%9Cr%C3%BCmqi_rio...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_China#Chronology_...

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_Mansour

[5] https://www.ft.com/content/08b19a76-f389-11e8-ae55-df4bf40f9...




Registration is open for Startup School 2019. Classes start July 22nd.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: