-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
The rise of china
- Thread starter RODAN
- Start date
Cresselia~~
Junichi Masuda likes this!!
Apple Sells Out Pro-Democracy Protesters in Hong Kong to Appease Chinese Government
https://gizmodo.com/apple-sells-out...58TT5wiHR0p3CP2edd1ZrTFs1jldf4turrpZGGTI8YJtU
If you think about it, Mao was similar to Old Major.
And I won't say the rest because ... you probably can figure it out.
https://gizmodo.com/apple-sells-out...58TT5wiHR0p3CP2edd1ZrTFs1jldf4turrpZGGTI8YJtU
It's nearly identical.
If you think about it, Mao was similar to Old Major.
And I won't say the rest because ... you probably can figure it out.
Last edited:
Cresselia~~
Junichi Masuda likes this!!
I think he's likely brainwashed instead of trolling.
A lot of older generation pro-China Hongkongers believe in what he posted.
They genuinely believe the protests are caused by USA because USA wants chaos in China, and that USA wants to split China into small pieces. (starting from Taiwan and Hong Kong)
while i'm not fully studied into hong kong right now so i wont make much of a comment on it, failing to recognize that the US genuinely has wanted chaos in china and attempted to force splits in the mainland is just denying reality.
but like the post before me says, propaganda is strong.
The older generations of Chinese remember the poverty that the CCP lifted the masses out of, while younger generations have been indoctrinated throughout their education. The majority of the population believe that the CCP are always right, while the propaganda machine reinforces this belief on a daily basis.
It is also illegal to publicly criticise the CCP, and the government actively disrupts/punishes/"re-educates" any organised groups that it deems to be a threat. There is undoubtedly a significant minority of Chinese who privately question the status quo, but their society ensures their continued silence.
It is also illegal to publicly criticise the CCP, and the government actively disrupts/punishes/"re-educates" any organised groups that it deems to be a threat. There is undoubtedly a significant minority of Chinese who privately question the status quo, but their society ensures their continued silence.
Cresselia~~
Junichi Masuda likes this!!
The people who fled to Hong KOng from China are ofcourse anti China.
But the majority of the older generation of Hong Kong are pro China.
They claim that the Brits treated them awfully prior to the 90's, and that the Brits suddenly became nice in order to make China look bad.
But then people from my generation only remember the days where the Brits were really nice to us, and that Hong Kong was crazily rich during the 90's before the Brits left.
That's why most of the protesters are from the younger generation.
Also, it is very difficult for young people to get housing, because:
1. Old people and Chinese investors kept buying houses, and caused housing price to increase.
2. Government housing is difficult to get because new immigrants have priority over the locals. Now it takes an average of 7 years for locals to get government housing.
3. It's difficult to get a high paying job because the baby boomers have not retired yet.
We could just sell them opium. It worked for the Brits for a good long while.
it's important for everyone to realise that there are no good guys or bad guys in the world, there are just people (or nation-states, in this case) looking out for their own self-interest, which is what one would expect. Did/is the CIA involved in the HK uprisings? Idk, maybe. It's not like it's unheard of (re: Cold War South America, Iran, etc). Regime change is one the many things they do. Is it also, equally likely, that after nearly a century of being not Chinese, and not identifying themselves as Chinese, but as Hong Kongers, that the Hong Kong people themselves are not in favour of being under Chinese rule, and all the things that come with it? Yeah of course.
What to *do* about China? Probably nothing. China is the most powerful country in the world. Sure, the US has a better military, but China controls the purse. It also has UNSC seat, which it won't ever lose because Russia would veto it with it's veto power. I don't want to sound like a China apologist, but China does most of the shitty things it does to it's own population (ignoring Tibet). The US does awful things to populations outside it's borders (minus the shitty things cops do and the border detentions, although they aren't US citizens, but still abhorrent). Should the US be the only hegemonic power in the world? Probably not, because that's too much power. America's influence is already on the decline, globally, because we have a manchild president who doesn't know how the world works, and as such, many countries turn to China or Russia for aid because it gets those developing nations the help they need and gives both Russia and China influence. China basically owns Africa at the moment. It is doing exactly what the US did in the Cold War with the IMF. Saddling them with loans for infrastructure, but instead of insisting on the installation of neoliberal or capitalist values, it is demanding resources and access to shipping ports to develop it's new Silk Road initiative. America has largely missed the boat on Africa because while we were busy in the geopolitical clusterfuck that is the 'War on Terror', China was busy making endroads with countries from Mauritania to Mozambique.
China, as all oppressive regimes have in the passed, will eventually face the reality that change is inevitable. Once people's standards of living start to slip or stagnate, there will be calls for change, and even if there is violence, eventually concessions will have to be made. It's happened 1000 times before and will happen 1000 times again. For now, though, most people are happy to go about their lives, as they are in the west because the standard of living is comfortable enough and if they don't make waves, they can hold onto that. We have the same problem in America of people being pacified by bread and circuses (although the two scenarios vary massively).
Fun fact, during Thatcher's term, she did not want to give HK to China, but she didn't have much of a choice. China could have simply invaded and took it for itself if it wanted to, and she realised the reality of the situation and capitulated. The same is true today, although there is more international pressure, there really isn't anything anyone could do stop a full scale invasion from happening and I don't think any western country is keen to get into a war with China for anything, even HK.
it's important for everyone to realise that there are no good guys or bad guys in the world, there are just people (or nation-states, in this case) looking out for their own self-interest, which is what one would expect. Did/is the CIA involved in the HK uprisings? Idk, maybe. It's not like it's unheard of (re: Cold War South America, Iran, etc). Regime change is one the many things they do. Is it also, equally likely, that after nearly a century of being not Chinese, and not identifying themselves as Chinese, but as Hong Kongers, that the Hong Kong people themselves are not in favour of being under Chinese rule, and all the things that come with it? Yeah of course.
What to *do* about China? Probably nothing. China is the most powerful country in the world. Sure, the US has a better military, but China controls the purse. It also has UNSC seat, which it won't ever lose because Russia would veto it with it's veto power. I don't want to sound like a China apologist, but China does most of the shitty things it does to it's own population (ignoring Tibet). The US does awful things to populations outside it's borders (minus the shitty things cops do and the border detentions, although they aren't US citizens, but still abhorrent). Should the US be the only hegemonic power in the world? Probably not, because that's too much power. America's influence is already on the decline, globally, because we have a manchild president who doesn't know how the world works, and as such, many countries turn to China or Russia for aid because it gets those developing nations the help they need and gives both Russia and China influence. China basically owns Africa at the moment. It is doing exactly what the US did in the Cold War with the IMF. Saddling them with loans for infrastructure, but instead of insisting on the installation of neoliberal or capitalist values, it is demanding resources and access to shipping ports to develop it's new Silk Road initiative. America has largely missed the boat on Africa because while we were busy in the geopolitical clusterfuck that is the 'War on Terror', China was busy making endroads with countries from Mauritania to Mozambique.
China, as all oppressive regimes have in the passed, will eventually face the reality that change is inevitable. Once people's standards of living start to slip or stagnate, there will be calls for change, and even if there is violence, eventually concessions will have to be made. It's happened 1000 times before and will happen 1000 times again. For now, though, most people are happy to go about their lives, as they are in the west because the standard of living is comfortable enough and if they don't make waves, they can hold onto that. We have the same problem in America of people being pacified by bread and circuses (although the two scenarios vary massively).
Fun fact, during Thatcher's term, she did not want to give HK to China, but she didn't have much of a choice. China could have simply invaded and took it for itself if it wanted to, and she realised the reality of the situation and capitulated. The same is true today, although there is more international pressure, there really isn't anything anyone could do stop a full scale invasion from happening and I don't think any western country is keen to get into a war with China for anything, even HK.
"Anyone who attempts to split any region from China will perish, with their bodies smashed and bones ground to powder," Mr Xi said, according to a foreign ministry statement issued on Sunday.
this bloke banned winnie the pooh
this bloke banned winnie the pooh
Grind his bones to make my bread
Mentioned the HK protests to a mainlander Chinese friend a couple weeks back and they were handily dismissed as being based off of 'racism.' Does anyone know anything about this angle on the protests? Obviously a hugely reductive and propagandistic picture but I'm wondering where it comes from...too lazy to google it myself ofc
Cresselia~~
Junichi Masuda likes this!!
Never heard someone claim it's "racism".
I think he might mean 3 different things:
1. He perceives Hongkongers as a different nationality, and that a lot of Hongkongers discriminate Mainlanders. Many Mainlanders claim it's racism, even when Hongkongers are not a different race. They even tried to get UN to make laws in Hong Kong about discrimination against Mainlanders.
But then it was ruled that Mainlanders and Hongkongers were not 2 different races, so the laws were never made.
2. Many Mainlanders believe that Westerners who care about Hong Kong do so because they are white supremacists. (They believe that) Westerners want to protect the ego of white countries, so they make non-White countries look bad by generating a negative image of China.
And that Westerners are forcing their ideals towards the Chinese.
3. He just wants you to avoid the topic.
uh, im no expert but that sounds like maybe he's repeating the party line, cause thats what you do when youre a citizen of an authoritarian police state
Clearly, lol. But yeah I was asking more in terms of curiosity about the exact rationalizations used to frame that idea. Eg cresselias suggestion about white supremacy / media conspiracu
yeah it sure is weird how russia has made itself relevant again, no idea how that happened... not like russia and china are allies or anything like that what with both being illiberal surveillance states that share a massive border.
w.e 'tactic' im 'using' is still not as dumb as any post asserting only one of these totalitarian regimes is a threat to democracies
w.e 'tactic' im 'using' is still not as dumb as any post asserting only one of these totalitarian regimes is a threat to democracies
Last edited:
I mean, I'm not going to defend Russia or pretend that they aren't a threat to democracy or whatever, but I think it's pretty undeniably that China is more entangled in our economy than Russia (referring both to the U.S. and most European countries), and thus has a lot more leverage over us.
Last edited:
Cresselia~~
Junichi Masuda likes this!!
Russia and China are not that friendly towards each other.
There's a lot of anti-Chinese hate among nationalists, and I'm talking about a hell lot of nationalists, like 58%- 62% of the Russian population. Nationalists are not a minority in Russia.
(Don't expect English sources for these though)
Vladimir Putin just chose to gift some honey to Xi when they attended a certain exhibition together. This made Xi really unhappy because China is having problems with many crops and products (to pests) including honey. This piece of news is censored in China and the majority of China do not know this.
Last edited:
Russia isn't relevant. Their economy is smaller than New York and propped up by the Germans. They're only relevant to people who fall for the hysterical DNC propaganda.
im not sure I get it, entanglement goes both ways and so the same wrt having leverage, usa has it over china, china has some over usa. russia being a bigger loser in the US backed global economic order should only incentivize them more to work outside that system, where as china is incentivized to support it (for now).
usual cresselia bs itt no offense but this is easily disproven:
"Since 1995, Russians have consistently held positive views of China. As of September 2018, 75% of Russians view China favorably, with only 13% expressing a negative opinion.[141] According to a 2019 survey by the Pew Research Center, 71% of Russians have a favorable view of China, with 18% expressing an unfavorable view.[142] Similarly, a YouGov survey found that 71% of the Chinese think Russia has a positive effect on world affairs, while 15% view it negatively.[143]
According to a 2017 BBC World Service poll, 74% of the Chinese view Russia's influence positively, with 18% expressing a negative view, while 44% of Russians view China's influence positively and 23% negatively.[144]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-...ual_perceptions_by_the_countries'_populations
youll not even hardly find an incident of disagreement between these countries in the last 25 or w.e odd years so yeah i stand by my labelling of this relationship between china and russia as 'allies' (lol)
and
follow the money:
Gazprom, Soyuzneftegaz, and the Chinese Embassy in Moscow all expressed interest in Yuganskneftegaz, a main arm of Yukos.[41] The subsidiary was ultimately acquired by Russia's state-owned oil company Rosneft for roughly $9.3 billion. In February 2005, Russian Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin revealed that Chinese banks provided $6 billion in financing the Rosneft acquisition.
i rest my case
maybe true but historically China and Russia have had quite the icy relationship. Ever since the 1950s Russia has viewed China as a cautious partner. Or read that both countries are irritated they don't have full control of the other. Vietnam, korea, pakistan, Afghanistan, India, all have pretty different opinions by both China and Russia, especially military hardware sales.
But why exactly did Russia come up as relevant?
no, i dont talk like that cress, thats what all evidence points to. looking at sino-ussr relations and parsing it onto the last 25-30 yrs of russia-china relations just seems like poor analysis to me. feel free to accuse me of english language bias or w.e, instead of finding any evidence to support your view of china-russia geopolitical relations.
russia has a strong position in the 20th century imo, all they need is time for climate change to destabilize the west while delivering them 300m acres of arable land. the us will recede into canada and china will become for russia what it was for the us, a labor market, if it isnt devastated itself by climate change.
https://nationalinterest.org/feature/kremlins-key-world-dominance-climate-change-43942
terrible source, but fine geopolitical analysis (i.e referencing economic and migration trends/ possible shifts)
"Politicians and the experts that advise them are often focused on security in the short-term. What is threatening now? What do I need to look tough on now? How can I prove that I have more tact than my opponent before the next election? But as a college-student I’m focused on how long-term dynamics will affect me, my kids and my country fifty years down the road. These issues are my issues; in 2050 (when many of the decision makers of today are six feet under and my kids are graduating high school) 150 million people—almost 10 percent of the world's population—are estimated to be displaced by climate change. The experts in the Moscow Marriott would have been better off talking about the weather and my sweaty forehead.
The changing climate will wreak havoc on the international system and while the United States and its allies face tremendous potential economic and political damage, Russia is likely to be insulated from these dire effects and, in fact, it may benefit as the world warms. Propelling the Kremlin’s comeback won’t be a “Cold War” mentality. Instead, heat, specifically climate change, may drive a Russian resurgence."
and
"Chinese exports to Europe would likely travel through Russia, giving Moscow currently unimaginable economic leverage over NATO adversaries in Eastern and Western Europe. "
no discussion of one future threat can be complete without accounting for other factors/actors affecting that future. we cant talk about china's course in the 21st century w/o mentioning other actors.
in b4 "but 1 billion hackers".
now as for china, imo, and ive stated this in my other post itt: the big threat for westerners from them is that the dystopian tech they derived from western corporations will "somehow" come into use back in the west to discipline those populations. imo.
recommended reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics
russia is relevant because this is a thread about our geopolitical fears as stated in the op.
russia has a strong position in the 20th century imo, all they need is time for climate change to destabilize the west while delivering them 300m acres of arable land. the us will recede into canada and china will become for russia what it was for the us, a labor market, if it isnt devastated itself by climate change.
https://nationalinterest.org/feature/kremlins-key-world-dominance-climate-change-43942
terrible source, but fine geopolitical analysis (i.e referencing economic and migration trends/ possible shifts)
"Politicians and the experts that advise them are often focused on security in the short-term. What is threatening now? What do I need to look tough on now? How can I prove that I have more tact than my opponent before the next election? But as a college-student I’m focused on how long-term dynamics will affect me, my kids and my country fifty years down the road. These issues are my issues; in 2050 (when many of the decision makers of today are six feet under and my kids are graduating high school) 150 million people—almost 10 percent of the world's population—are estimated to be displaced by climate change. The experts in the Moscow Marriott would have been better off talking about the weather and my sweaty forehead.
The changing climate will wreak havoc on the international system and while the United States and its allies face tremendous potential economic and political damage, Russia is likely to be insulated from these dire effects and, in fact, it may benefit as the world warms. Propelling the Kremlin’s comeback won’t be a “Cold War” mentality. Instead, heat, specifically climate change, may drive a Russian resurgence."
and
"Chinese exports to Europe would likely travel through Russia, giving Moscow currently unimaginable economic leverage over NATO adversaries in Eastern and Western Europe. "
no discussion of one future threat can be complete without accounting for other factors/actors affecting that future. we cant talk about china's course in the 21st century w/o mentioning other actors.
in b4 "but 1 billion hackers".
now as for china, imo, and ive stated this in my other post itt: the big threat for westerners from them is that the dystopian tech they derived from western corporations will "somehow" come into use back in the west to discipline those populations. imo.
recommended reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics
Last edited:
so i ran that through google translate and it confirms what I said over and over again, which is that the 2 countries are moving closer geopolitically. if your point is that russian ppl are becoming more racist/xenophobic (for lack of better term) overall and thus more anti-chinese sentiment than thats fine, but again has little do with the countries moving closer geopolitically which procedes regardless of the sentiments of the ppl. and further the article says that overall xenophobia is lower than it was a decade ago in russia, which I actually doubt: "
Many local media believe that the rise of Russian xenophobia is related to the long-term economic downturn, because the actual income level of Russian residents has been declining in recent years. The xenophobia in Russian society was very high more than a decade ago. The ultra-nationalist forces skinheads were active at the time. Many Africans and Asians, including Chinese and Central Asian immigrants, had been violently attacked by the skinheads and some were even killed. The xenophobia in Russian society has since weakened into a trough. Many analysts believe that after the annexation of Crimea in Russia, as the excitement of the people gradually disappeared, coupled with economic difficulties, the expatriate sentiment rose again."
i dont endorse any claims made in the article you linked, so if this is about to become a discussion where i am supposed to defend the positions in an article you just posted please miss me w that, as you may be able to tell from how much im pushing the 'russia is scary narrative' I do not doubt that the citizens of a authoritarian fascist regime such as russia are extremely xenophobic, but my argument is about geopolitics not sentiments.
Many local media believe that the rise of Russian xenophobia is related to the long-term economic downturn, because the actual income level of Russian residents has been declining in recent years. The xenophobia in Russian society was very high more than a decade ago. The ultra-nationalist forces skinheads were active at the time. Many Africans and Asians, including Chinese and Central Asian immigrants, had been violently attacked by the skinheads and some were even killed. The xenophobia in Russian society has since weakened into a trough. Many analysts believe that after the annexation of Crimea in Russia, as the excitement of the people gradually disappeared, coupled with economic difficulties, the expatriate sentiment rose again."
i dont endorse any claims made in the article you linked, so if this is about to become a discussion where i am supposed to defend the positions in an article you just posted please miss me w that, as you may be able to tell from how much im pushing the 'russia is scary narrative' I do not doubt that the citizens of a authoritarian fascist regime such as russia are extremely xenophobic, but my argument is about geopolitics not sentiments.
Do go ahead to enlighten us where the error in the translation is