It would take a book-length treatment to evaluate that sentence, but I don't think it's justified. We've been VERY active, around the whole world, since WWII. China's only started to look past their immediate neighbors recently.
I guess 'benign' can do a lot of work for you if you think we're the protagonists of history.
I don't think anyone would ever argue that the West isn't active or that they've never done anything wrong. Obviously there are huge wikipedia articles and hundreds of books on the subject.
But from what it seems of what little we know of that world, the US seems to have some kind of value system, and the CCP has almost none. Freedom of speech is a good example. If the US were to spy on a citizen, they wouldn't end up in a concentration camp. The US also encourages its allies, as much as it can, to promote "Western democratic values". For example, we were instrumental in turning South Korea into a democracy, from a dictatorship.
So it's not as simple as "US bad china good" or "China bad, US good" but I think it's pretty clear China is a totalitarian system which has few scruples, if any. So that's what we mean by "benign". Some rough understanding of "the right thing". It's not that the US does everything great, forever, because clearly...
We spent 4 years fighting, with 3 million casualties, in order to leave the border between north/south in the same place we found it, and install an allied dictatorship for the following 30 years. I guess it worked out eventually, but that's to the credit of the Koreans, not us. We were fine with a capitalist dictatorship as long as the Cold War was on.
Thousands of protestors killed, by US weapons, while our defense dept was kept in the loop. And I had never even heard of it until I went to fact-check myself about the length of the dictatorship there. Funny. I wonder why.
I mean, I'm not trying to say "china always good, USA always bad", either. I'm just trying to add some perspective.
If I were to take that on as some sort of debate challenge, I'd point out the mass incarceration and the fact that we still have a bigger chunk of people in jail despite being so much freer. Of course, that's a bit of a rhetorical gambit.
As far as the characterization of china, it depends. Han Chinese don't go to prison just for criticizing the government, they just lose opportunities. Party membership is a big part of getting ahead there. They go to prison if they start getting organized, holding meetings, being an alternative political party.
Less 'add perspective' than 'spinning' or 'trying to manage a situation'.
> that we still have a bigger chunk of people in jail
Provide a citation. I believe this figure is true for the US (you are saying you are in the US I take it?), so cite it. It's a strong and damning figure so bring it to the front.
> Han Chinese don't go to prison just for criticizing the government
Do other ethnicities? Why does ethnicity matter here? Does ethnicity make a difference in chinese law?
> They go to prison if they start getting organized, holding meetings, being an alternative political party
In this respect the US and the UK are better because you don't. Mind, I've no great trust in the government not to 'keep an eye on troublemakers' as they'd put it, in fact there's a long history of infiltrating groups in an immoral and downright illegal way sometimes, but they strongly tend not to end up in prison.
> Xinjiang...
I've not heard of this. Could you provide some pointers please? (genuinely curious)
Not patronising at all. Also did not provide any info viz.
1. I encouraged you to provide a citation to support your own point which I AGREED WITH. You have not.
2. I asked a question about whether different ethnicities are treated differently in chinese law. You avoided answering.
3. I gave an example of greater freedom under UK & US law. You have not acknowledged this presumably because it is inconveniently true.
4. I asked in good faith for some reading material on whatever was about Xinjiang. You have not provided this.
If I am "completely invested in strong opinions" then change my mind with facts. It was a worthless and pretty patronising reply. Provide relevant facts.
> Han Chinese don't go to prison just for criticizing the government, they just lose opportunities.
This is verifiably false. Han vine Chinese book store owners in Hong Kong were kidnapped to mainland China, incarcerated and forced to sign confessions. Their ‘crime’ was selling books critical of the CCP.
I was speaking more generally. WeChat is monitored and things get said there, the gulags aren't full. There was a lot of outrage over that doctor that died after blowing the whistle about C19, for example.
HK was more of a hot situation, you had protestors waving UK flags and talking about independence. I'm not justifying anything, but that's exactly the 'credible threat' vs 'talking shit' distinction I was talking anout.
In the cases you're referencing, are they still locked up? I'll check out a link if you've got one.
>>> Han Chinese don't go to prison just for criticizing the government, they just lose opportunities.
>> This is verifiably false.
> I was speaking more generally
That response is meaningless (the classic 'nebulous response' to an inconvenient question) and thus sidesteps addressing his point. Also please elaborate on what 'losing opportunities' means - I hope it doesn't extend to eg. the right to eat food does it?
> In the cases you're referencing, are they still locked up?
It's irrelevant if they are still locked up or released, they got locked up for political reasons. Right?
Different countries may have different values. Citizens of those countries are educated to value those different (quite abstract) ideals, such as "freedom of speach" in the US, or "economic development" in China. Like a religion, those systems of values are flexible and abstract enough that you can make them mean whatever you want. Then automatically we tend to think of our system of values as better than any other; indeed, that's what we use values for.
So what have we learn so far? Nothing, apparently.
I believe in cultural relativity, but that ends at, for example, mass concentration camps. Your argument is basically "let any country do whatever they want within their borders" and I don't think that makes sense. Or, there are limits to that. I would also argue that the acceptance of totalitarian values as "cultural norms" isn't entirely correct. Historical Chinese culture has little to do with the social credit system and the CCP is not Chinese culture.
I do not think cultural relativism, if you want to call it that way, means that one can never judge what others do, and I'm surprised my comment came across as this.
I'd like to help you realize that despite all your values of freedom of speech, free thinking and so on, this very set of strong emotional values makes you live in a fantasy world where countries/cultures are impersonated by good or bad characters, the actions of which are either justified or not despite they are all equally questionable.
Of course the USA have had concentration camps (China and France also), of course people were interned based on religion or skin color also in the USA (China and France too), of course the USA invaded countries while lying in the face of everybody about the reasons (like France and China also did). I don't know, whatch Powell's speech to the UN about the weapons of mass destruction in a loop until it clicks?
All countries (I included France just because I happen to write this from there) would likely do the same on the same circumstances regardless of their official values, because no country act because of values. Countries are not real characters, they do not act, and have no values. Individuals do and have, and it is important that individuals of the most powerful country in the world would adopt another set of guiding values than "when that's my gouvernement doing it it's Ok but when that's others it's evil". Because they have been subjugated by their ruling class[1] for a long time now, and the consequences have been dramatic.
It's interesting how biased you are, that you see the inherent good in the US and view China as totally evil. The Chinese version of you would probably see it the opposite way, and you'd call him brainwashed and deluded...
I remember reading a cynical blog post about how what occupies governments are how to have the most influence in the world. USA used to be good at that, but well, we know where that's gone. As for "Western democtratic values", one could cynically view that as trying to install a free market so American companies can exploit resources and the population. Just look up where the term "banana republic" came from.
It would take a book-length treatment to evaluate that sentence, but I don't think it's justified. We've been VERY active, around the whole world, since WWII. China's only started to look past their immediate neighbors recently.
I guess 'benign' can do a lot of work for you if you think we're the protagonists of history.