Comments by "F Liu" (@F_Liu) on "A look inside China: Is this the most sovereign country on Earth?" video.
-
1000
-
341
-
244
-
29
-
24
-
@rsuriyop Because most of them are idiots (I am talking about the illegal ones), yes, I know you are not going to take this explanation seriously, but that is the truth. Most of them have no idea about life in the West and they blame the Chinese government/system for their own misfortune in China, many regret after they arrive in the West, many actually come back after the bad decision. About the legal ones, I don't actually think there are that MANY these days, btw, they are free to go and live wherever they want, doesn't mean they will have a better life than in China, often many don't.
13
-
@jackvue722 ''Let me ask you, are Uyghurs ethnic Chinese? By saying Chinese is a singular ethnicity, you suggest there is only one group, the Han.'' Go read my previous reply, I already answered you, you seem insistent wanting to put words in my mouth. As you've been too lazy to read, here, ''So ''Chinese'' (中华民族) is a cultural identity composed of multiple ethnicities within the same nation state, but it IS still an ethnicity (collectively), just not in the same context as how the word is used in the West.'' In fact you've actually confirmed my comment by stating ''The Communist Party of China not only strengthened the identity and publicity of [a] “Chinese nation,” but also recognized that “China is a multi-ethnic country and Chinese nation is a joint name of all ethnic groups within Chinese Territory”...''
I think 民族 translated as nationality is inaccurate in the context for China, 民族 usually means ethnicity, i.e 少数民族 (ethnic minority). Again, to say the PRC is a multi-national (instead of multi-ethnic) state created jointly by the people of all its ''nationalities'' give people a false impression that there are several independent nations within China, which is not the case.
A rebellion or revolution partly fueled by ''Han chauvinism'' due to the increasing dissatisfaction of the Manchu rule is not representative enough to suggest this sentiment has been running in the mainstream throughout Chinese history. Explain how ROC was a Han chauvinist state?? Where the founding father of the ROC Sun Zhongshan was the one who came up with the idea of including all (major) ethnic groups into the big Chinese collective identity. ''The recognition of Manchus, Mongolians, Hui, and Tibetans was done to maintain territorial integrity.'' Incorrect. The recognition of these groups is just to stress their equal importance in the national identity and promote unity among all groups. ''unlike the Kuomintang and Chiang Kai-shek that hold that there is only one ethnic group in China (the Han).'' Again, this contradicts with Sun Zhongshan's ethnic policy.
''it is necessary to combat big-nation chauvinism, mainly Han chauvinism, and to combat local national chauvinism.'' This is clearly meant for all ethnic groups in China, but of course, Han being the majority ethnic group, it would be more likely to have a Han chauvinist movement... But in reality, as I said, the so called Han chauvinism has never become the mainstream sentiment in any form both historically and since the founding of the New China.
I repeat, ''Chinese'' is a collective cultural and ethnic identity made up by all its 56 ethnic groups, I don't know why you have a problem with that.
10
-
@jackvue722 Absolutely NOT Jack. When I say Chinese is an ethnicity it absolutely does NOT mean ''Han (people)''. That is what you wrongly interpret, and which probably comes from the projection of the Western idea of ''Han'' supremacy (as equivalent to White/Anglo supremacy), which doesn't exist in China. If you go read my comment again, you will find I said, I quote here again, ''the Chinese culture is built on multiple (ethnic) cultural identities/influences over its thousands of years of history. China is a true multicultural/multi-ethnic society.'' So ''Chinese'' (中华民族) is a cultural identity composed of multiple ethnicities within the same nation state, but it IS still an ethnicity (collectively), just not in the same context as how the word is used in the West.
Your "the Chinese people of all nationalities", is not accurate, there are ethnic minority autonomous regions, but no independent nations within China. And these ethnic minority population are obviously Chinese citizens possessing the Chinese nationality.
And fyi, there has never been ''Han chauvinism'' at any point in the Chinese history, so it is ridiculous to suggest that this idea has been included in the Chinese constitution. In fact, multiple lengthy Chinese dynasties have been ruled by ethnic minorities, where has there been that so called Han chauvinism?? And I am sure you don't think there is still some kind of Han purity after 5000 years...
8
-
6
-
3
-
3
-
@jackvue722 It is pretty obvious you are the one between us who seem to be trying to incite some kind of tensions between different ethnic groups (typical Western divide and conquer tactic, and plenty projection I have seen from you: you suggested that the recognition of Manchus, Mongolians, Hui, and Tibetans was done to maintain territorial integrity (implying these have not been historical Chinese territories), which is a typical Western talking point to stir up separatism). You do know the reason why the New China recognised/identified the 55 ethnic minority groups is for the purpose of promoting UNITY, but you are doing just the opposite of trying to incite tension based on historical baggage of your particular ethnic group. You also do realise that a large part of, if not the entire Chinese history has been about different (ethnic) groups fighting each other and of course influencing each other's cultures, minority groups being assimilated/absorbed into the ''mainstream'' culture at each particular historical period of time. With your logic, I can equally claim that ''my people'' the Han have suffered repeatedly chauvinism from various of ethnic (minority) groups throughout history. That will make you realise your argument is entirely pointless. And yes, your group, Miao must have been assimilated, naturally or forcefully, together with most other ethnic groups in China, that was just the way it was. So did the Han, their culture and customs have been oppressed under Manchu for 300 years for example, hence the rebellion. Nevertheless the Manchu ruled China contributed greatly of the formation of the collective Chinese identity/culture, as a Han, I don't hold a grudge at all.
I am going to be honest, it seems to me you have a Miao superiority complex, hence the projection. I've made my point very clear, I have never said ''Chinese'' is a single ethnicity, let alone denying the other 55 groups as you claim. I think we should save our time and energy to focus on something way more important: the Western hegemonic racist oppression of the Chinese people/Chinese nation.
Good bye.
2
-
2
-
@ArchesBro Do you know Chinese from several large geographical regions of China (includes where I come from) eat wheat as their main carbohydrates? As well as rice of course these days, but rice was originally mainly cultivated in the Southern regions/costal areas, due to climate.
CPC IS the official English abbreviation of ''The Communist Part of China''. CPC has nothing do to with CCCP of Soviet Union, but Western anti China forces want you to think that, all part of the anti Communism propaganda which you have seem to have fallen victim. I won't go into length debunk all of your anti China nonsensical claims you learned from your lying media, but according to a 13 year long Harvard University survey of some 32,000 participants, the CPC led Chinese government enjoys a overwhelming 90% approval rating. YES, the Chinese love their government, they also have the same love and respect towards all their previous leadership.
And South Korea being ''rich'' but still a US/Western occupied country, maybe you should ask them if they are truly happy or enjoy real freedom and democracy, last time I checked, a militarily occupied country doesn't. Taiwan currently is also a Western semi occupied region of China that is considered merely a chess piece for the US for ''containing'' China, do you think that is an ideal situation for them to be in? This is not a question btw.
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@robertcox14 ''Nixon met Mao in 1971/72 and a deal was made and Western companies were encouraged to move manufacturing to China.'' I bet they (your government and media) have never told you the most important incentive for the visit was getting China on the US side in helping the US to win the cold war against Soviet Union. And why was the US/West encouraging its capitalists to move manufacturing to China? Because of your government's Neoliberal economic policies, an ultra liberal capitalistic policy where profit making became your capitalists main driving goal, or in other words, the greed of your capitalists hollowed out your own manufacturing industry (you can't blame China). Your capitalists went to China to take advantages of the competitive and well trained Chinese labour for their own material and monetary gains. Btw, China DOES have labour laws and regulations, factories with sub par working conditions and pay would be fined and punished, don't buy into the anti China propaganda that China doesn't care about its workers, plus, first and foremost the Western companies that subcontracted the facilities should take care of its workers, if they failed to then that reflects badly on them, not the Chinese government.
Meng Wanzhou is not one of the ''Chinese oligarchs'', again Western projection. The truth is Capitalists in China can be extremely wealthy (they are perfectly allowed to by per governmental policy) but they have zero say in policy making and politics of China, unlike in the US/West.
I agree to a large extend, foreign investments contributed greatly to the Chinese economy as they provided jobs for hundreds of millions of people, but it can in no way claim all the credit for the Chinese economical transformation, in fact, what happened is both the result of Chinese government's pragmatic economic policy and the US' need to cooperate with China in order to win the cold war. It was a win-win.
And finally, China is NOT the next ''globalists'' project. What it basically did was beaten the US/West in its own game, that's why the US is so upset, the Chinese socialist model is helping ordinary people prosper whereas the Western capitalists greed is making the people poorer.
1
-
@robertcox14 China is NOT an imperialist power, if it is then, you've just altered the definition of ''imperialism''. At least I have not heard imperialists building schools, hospitals, railways and other essential infrastructure in developing countries NOT for the sole purpose of exploiting its resources as the US/West has done. And with ONE military base, it would be hard for China to run an empire. China is only interested in mutual beneficial trade and business cooperation, it has no intention to run the world as a world police.
China's pollution (partly due to being the world's factory) is getting better, thanks to China's commitment to alternative energy consumption. The hypocritical West has a way worse historical record on pollution, and per capita, yet not doing half as much as China to combat climate crisis.
As a Chinese, I am happy to inform you of the reality of China, or you could learn from Ben, all you need to do is keeping an open mind...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1