Official China Discussion Thread

Nevermind that if we take out the Nanjing Massacre, we "only" take out hundreds of thousands (100,000 to 300,000) out of the many millions (20 to 30 millions) that China lost.

Edited by KazuyaProta on Jun 9th 2020 at 9:23:46 AM

I'm not minimizing anything. I'm just saying that, in perspective, while it's true that the Japanese really layed waste on the Chinese, some other countries, like Korea, got it even worse, since it was colonized since the beginning of the 20th century, and the Koreans also suffered big time, adding the whole separation thing of the peninsula that still endures to this day.

To be completely fair, if Korea (whether North or South) had ended up on the security council instead of China, the situation would have been even worse, since in the case of South Korea, being a member of the SC would have prevented it from becoming democratic in the 80s and 90s, and I don't think it is necessary to say what would have happened in the case of North Korea...

Edited by luisedgarf on Jun 9th 2020 at 9:30:20 AM

The thing with the counsil is that it really isn't a misery contest (where is Belarus? What the heck is USA doing there then?) but rather a list of independant countries that fought against the Axis.

Edited by KazuyaProta on Jun 9th 2020 at 9:32:19 AM

Being a "model minority" does not mean that (East) Asian Americans do not face racism. It is arguable that they do not face the same racism or as bad racism as, say, African Americans or Hispanic Americans, but model minority status is nothing to be proud of.

The era of Japanese colonialism in Korea was horrific (<- this is truly an understatement). But I don't think it should be used in a way that downplays the crimes committed against the Chinese people during the Second Sino-Japanese War.

Also, I don't understand how South Korea being on the Security Council would have prevented democracy in 1988?

That's easy, at least that's what I've always perceived on the subject: If South Korea were a member of the UNSC, that would have prevented it from having an incentive to democratize, since having the privileges of veto power over any resolution that the United Nations drafts would have meant that the dictatorial governments that South Korea had since the end of World War II would have lasted longer, or even persisted to this day.

That's the big problem with the Security Council: It's just a club of countries that won World War II, and all of them have nuclear weapons, not to mention the privileges that the veto power gives them, and that at this moment the UN is almost useless because of that.

Edited by luisedgarf on Jun 9th 2020 at 10:50:57 AM

I've replied in the East Asia thread - tried to page you but I still haven't gotten the markup quite right.

The UN is reflective of the reality of how international politics works; in the absence of a higher authority with a monopoly on violence to enforce a code of conduct, human interaction boils down to “the strong take what they can and the weak suffer as they must“, to quote Thucydides.


So in terms of establishing enforceable international law, if the major world powers aren’t on board with something it’s just not going to work. That’s the reason for the UNSC and the associated veto, though the composition of the UNSC at this point is no longer fully reflective of modern global power distribution-looking at you in particular Britain. When it was formed though, the global powers were pretty much by default the victors of World War 2, and the choices were rather obvious.

Edited by CaptainCapsase on Jun 10th 2020 at 11:20:04 AM

Chinese international students have defended Australia as a "safe" destination for study, despite a travel warning issued by the Chinese Government urging students to reconsider. Limited sample size and all that, so do take with a pinch of Vegemite.

India and China are pulling back troops from key points along the Line of Actual Control after weeks to standoff; disengagement process to follow.

. . . What the fuck is point of having your troops get into stone-throwing battles besides deliberately trying to torpedo your stable relations with India?

Like, if you wanted to stoke nationalist sentiment, you could just stay focused on the South China Sea or Taiwan where your opponents don't have nuclear weapons?

Why are you assuming intent? Tensions can arise organically.

Which is supported by India and China's mutual decision to de-escalate, clearly the situation has escalated beyond whatever they wanted originally.

Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Jun 10th 2020 at 10:53:13 AM

China was not content with winning the Sino-Indian Border War the first time.

Right, hence the deescalation...

Wasn't it because they wanted to shut up India on the calls for investigation over the initial COVID-19 outbreak?

Edited by raziel365 on Jun 10th 2020 at 12:07:30 PM

That was part of it but my understanding is that tension with India is not a new thing. So at most it's just a component.

If the reason for blowing tensions is because you want to shut up your neightboor for wanting to understand the newest plague...you're the bad guy

Zoom closes account of US-based Chinese dissidents after Tiananmen event.

Did chinise media ever said something about the whole tianamen square or it just put their head in their sand and kept about how nothing happen ever?.

They actively censor mentions of it. Especially on June 4.

In mainland China June 4 is known as the day when nothing happened (so shut up).

Well, peeps in HK disobeyed ban orders to not commemorate it in public.

Macau's another story.

what exactly the relationship between macau and china?

Macau was not run very well by the Portuguese. It was very easy for the Chinese Communists to bribe the hell outta the Portuguese administration and infiltrate it. Macau is now very loyal to China.

The Chinese government never makes any mention of June 4th, obviously. Because it was an uprising against the government by their own citizenry.

In Hong Kong they commemorate June 4th yearly, and so many Tiananmen activists fled there. The government banned the annual vigil this year. Thousands went anyway, with very little consequence.

Edited by TheWildWestPyro on Jun 10th 2020 at 10:21:12 AM

In addition, the democratic movement is not that prominent. Most of the politicians in power are pro-Beijing.

The democrats are only in grassroots movements last I checked.

Macau just banned commemoration of July 4 too. Like HK, they did tolerate it for a time.

Edited by Ominae on Jun 10th 2020 at 10:23:43 AM

Zoom confirms Beijing asked it to suspend activists over Tiananmen Square meetings.

Pepsi is collaborating with People's Daily for special edition branding paying tribute to frontline workers. Kylie Jenner has yet to be reached for comment.