Isn't it hypocritical to condemn China for human rights violations and still buy toys and medical supplies from them? I mention these two specifically because they have exported contaminated products in the recent past. If they don't care about human rights, it might also follow they probably don't care about safety.
It's practically impossible to buy children's toys that don't come from China from major American retailers.
How is it anti-American to suggest that if (for example) California decided to secede, the U.S. probably wouldn't allow it? Very few countries make a habit of dissolving themselves. Bad for prosperity and security.
Because you are accusing Americans of being hypocritical, when the underlying facts are entirely different. Hypocrisy is a negative trait - thus the anti-American sentiment. You didn't mention any other country, did you? You do realize that numerous other countries take issue with the situation in Tibet, don't you? Just take a look at the Olympic torch's visit to France.
We certainly don't have the history that many other countries have (although our history is far from perfect in this regard). Take a look at France and Algeria. That's a situation that is directly comparable with China and Tibet. It's odd that you didn't choose that example - since it actually works. I guess it's just easier to make a blanket accusation against America.
But that's not important, as the comment was simply noting that I found it odd (as an American) that many Americans are often keen for things to happen internationally that they would be less than keen with happening locally.
spiritfiend, your problem is you are looking at all of China as a single entity. China is over a billion people. Some people in China are shady business people who make dangerous toys. Some people in China treat Tibet like shit. That doesn't mean all parts of China are bad.
Imagine if you had a company selling cookies. Now imagine that your government decided to invade some other country, but you disagreed with it. Now imagine that some other cookie maker in your country made poison cookies. Now your business goes to shit, even though you are against the war, and you don't make poison cookies.
Isn't it hypocritical to condemn China for human rights violations and still buy toys and medical supplies from them?
99.99% of the positive changes that have happened in China recently are because America and other countries have broadened trade with China. It's commerce that has forced the communist party into loosening its grip over the populace. China has a long way to go, but cutting off trade will allow leaders to easily take steps backwards.
With Taiwan, imagine if the vast, vast majority of people in California did not consider themselves US citizens, never had, and had no intention of ever joining. Further, imagine that California's state government was completely independent of the US Federal Government, to the point that it even negotiated treaties and acted on its own behalf in international politics.
At that point, for the United States to actually claim that it somehow still controlled California, let alone to threaten war in the face of "secession," would be ludicrous and laughable, yet this is exactly what China is doing.
Might the Philippines-American war be a good example? Foreign country taken while it was involved in trying to free itself from Spain, wanted independence, didn't consider themselves Americans, insurrection was put down by the US (took a few more years afterwards to get rid of the guerillas), Philippines passed to US control.
The Philippines finally got independence in 1946, mostly due to the Tydings-McDuffie Act of 1934, which was a re-submission of the Hare-Hawes-Cuttings Act of 1933, which gained support primarily because the Depression was in full swing and the Philippines were undercutting Americans farmers, so many in the US wanted tariffs and import quotas put in place, and immigration restrictions to prevent "cheap foreign labor" when so many locals were out of work. Hoover vetoed the initial bill, Congress overrode him, but the Philippines rejected it, because of provisions allowing a permanent US military presence to remain on the islands. New bill with a 10 year draw out plan submitted and passed, US leaves 12 years later.
Isn't it hypocritical to condemn China for human rights violations and still buy toys and medical supplies from them?
99.99% of the positive changes that have happened in China recently are because America and other countries have broadened trade with China. It's commerce that has forced the communist party into loosening its grip over the populace. China has a long way to go, but cutting off trade will allow leaders to easily take steps backwards.
I agree completely, I think its been shown in recent history that opening economic boarders tends to lead a more rapid progress towards better living standards and more freedom in general then closing them. Id particularly point out Cuba to this regard. Where the economic sanctions seem to only hurt the economy, and intern the people. With the government remaining.
As for Tibet being set free, at this point I don’t see how that’s possible unless an army forcibly freed it. But that does not mean people shouldn’t protest the forceful occupation anyway. China should not be able to just walk into areas and occupy them as they see fit without any scrutiny by the world at large. I could imagine a much more aggressive policy towards Taiwan if that was the case.
Finally, I find myself at odds about how to feel about Tibet in general. To my understanding before Chinas occupation the majority of Tibetans was subject to a cast system of ruling class and serfs (essentially one step above slavery). Now there’s evidence of forced sterilization of Tibetan women, euthanasia of children, and abortions in excess to Chinas one child policy. On the other hand there is also a claim of increased GDP of the Tibetans on average and a modernization of the people. Something that I doubt would happen under the serf social structure. Or at least, would take an incredibly long time to occur. Im fairly cynical, and when I see the Dali Lama all I can think of is a person that was usurped from power from a country that functioned from essentially slavery. Willing slavery is still slavery, just the people don’t know any better and may not resist it if they were born into it. I don’t like the way things are being run now, but I don’t like the old system either.
Might the Philippines-American war be a good example?
No. That's over 100 years old, and was during a policy manifest destiny. Times are completely different now. Just like Russia is no longer ruled by the Tsars, we've moved on.
maybe theJayuya Uprising, Puerto Rico's attempt at independence? That was 1950.
Nope. That was a small uprising involving essentially one town on a large island. Insomuch as their tactics were to murder innocent policemen, I'm glad the uprising was put down.
The simple truth is that the nationalistic movement in Puerto Rico has never had the support of the majority. The current independence party (PIP) can only garner a trivial percentage of the vote in an election. In the 2004 Gubernatorial election, they got 2.7%.
But of course your example shows how we are the opposite of China. We allow the political process to develop. It's just that Puerto Rico has not had the political desire to become independent.
The Popular Democratic Party of Puerto Rico (48.4% of that 2004 election) is also for Puerto Rican sovereignty , they're just more moderate than the PIP, willing to make certain concessions rather than risking another military intervention.
What if every business around you runs a sweat shop and the only way you can keep costs competitive is to run your business like a sweat shop, also? What if you could keep your company afloat by using anti-freeze to sweeten your cookies with anti-freeze because it's cheaper than sugar, and it isn't illegal? I will agree that cutting trade off isn't the best solution, but we as Americans can be more careful about the individual businesses that we are dealing with.
I think the main reason behind China's attitude towards Taiwan is the fact that majority of the "losing side" of the Chinese Revolution (i.e. the Nationalists party/the KMT, army and wealthy elite) fled to Taiwan and essentially set up shop again. Technically, the Communisty party did not actually invade Taiwan in the same way they invaded Tibet, more that the exiled KMT supporters invaded and formed their Republic of China government in Taiwan. Interestingly, the Republic of China in Taiwan was the internationally recognised government of China until the 1970's when the People's Republic of China was acknowledged.
The current Taiwanese president is a DPP member. At present Taiwan has two major political parties, the KMT (Nationalist) who actually favour reunification with China and the Democratic Progressive Party who want independence. I personally find it strange how they want to keep the name Republic of China.
Comments
It's practically impossible to buy children's toys that don't come from China from major American retailers.
We certainly don't have the history that many other countries have (although our history is far from perfect in this regard). Take a look at France and Algeria. That's a situation that is directly comparable with China and Tibet. It's odd that you didn't choose that example - since it actually works. I guess it's just easier to make a blanket accusation against America. Examples?
Imagine if you had a company selling cookies. Now imagine that your government decided to invade some other country, but you disagreed with it. Now imagine that some other cookie maker in your country made poison cookies. Now your business goes to shit, even though you are against the war, and you don't make poison cookies.
At that point, for the United States to actually claim that it somehow still controlled California, let alone to threaten war in the face of "secession," would be ludicrous and laughable, yet this is exactly what China is doing.
The Philippines finally got independence in 1946, mostly due to the Tydings-McDuffie Act of 1934, which was a re-submission of the Hare-Hawes-Cuttings Act of 1933, which gained support primarily because the Depression was in full swing and the Philippines were undercutting Americans farmers, so many in the US wanted tariffs and import quotas put in place, and immigration restrictions to prevent "cheap foreign labor" when so many locals were out of work. Hoover vetoed the initial bill, Congress overrode him, but the Philippines rejected it, because of provisions allowing a permanent US military presence to remain on the islands. New bill with a 10 year draw out plan submitted and passed, US leaves 12 years later.
As for Tibet being set free, at this point I don’t see how that’s possible unless an army forcibly freed it. But that does not mean people shouldn’t protest the forceful occupation anyway. China should not be able to just walk into areas and occupy them as they see fit without any scrutiny by the world at large. I could imagine a much more aggressive policy towards Taiwan if that was the case.
Finally, I find myself at odds about how to feel about Tibet in general. To my understanding before Chinas occupation the majority of Tibetans was subject to a cast system of ruling class and serfs (essentially one step above slavery). Now there’s evidence of forced sterilization of Tibetan women, euthanasia of children, and abortions in excess to Chinas one child policy. On the other hand there is also a claim of increased GDP of the Tibetans on average and a modernization of the people. Something that I doubt would happen under the serf social structure. Or at least, would take an incredibly long time to occur. Im fairly cynical, and when I see the Dali Lama all I can think of is a person that was usurped from power from a country that functioned from essentially slavery. Willing slavery is still slavery, just the people don’t know any better and may not resist it if they were born into it. I don’t like the way things are being run now, but I don’t like the old system either.
The simple truth is that the nationalistic movement in Puerto Rico has never had the support of the majority. The current independence party (PIP) can only garner a trivial percentage of the vote in an election. In the 2004 Gubernatorial election, they got 2.7%.
But of course your example shows how we are the opposite of China. We allow the political process to develop. It's just that Puerto Rico has not had the political desire to become independent.
The current Taiwanese president is a DPP member. At present Taiwan has two major political parties, the KMT (Nationalist) who actually favour reunification with China and the Democratic Progressive Party who want independence. I personally find it strange how they want to keep the name Republic of China.