General News Discussion Thread

[brightobject]

I was primarily responding to one sentence within your post, which is why I quoted that specifically? The rest of the post is responding to the generality of talking points I've been hearing getting thrown around regarding the topic. Not sure why you are so confused.

I doubt it, considering I don't live in the US and neither do most of my family and friends. Seeing as said people are also diverse, I fail to see the need to bring this up. But maybe you can convince me otherwise. Maybe.

Really not my job tbh. I'm glad you have diverse family and friends though!

 

[lilyhollow]

I guess I'll take your word for considering I don't really keep up with police brutality in the US.

In my opinion you are uninformed to the point where it's really irresponsible to be giving your take on this stuff

 

[TexanSansei]

This would be fine if the actions weren't also aimed at people who aren't involved. Goes for both sides fwiw.

I said I had concerns that the small minority of "protesters" that riot would used as an excuse for further government intervention against actual protesters who were protesting peacefully...I'm kind of lost at the first two sentences.

And interesting for the rest of it, I didn't know that. Mind sourcing?


Then he would be insufficiently punished, not unpunished.

Thanks for the clarification, though!


I guess I'll take your word for considering I don't really keep up with police brutality in the US.


I agree,

This above paragraph is assuming quite a bit. For one, I never said this instilled more horror to me than violence against black americans. The point I made wasn't "this is worse than George Floyd's murder and other cases like his", it was "this will undermine the message that the protest as a whole is trying to send and will be used as an excuse for more government intervention" because attacking stores and the like that didn't have anything to do with this doesn't garner sympathy from those more moderate. It would make some sense if the burning was kept to police stations and police cars, but they aren't.

And if this wasn't aimed at me in particular...why are you bringing this up?

I doubt it, considering I don't live in the US and neither do most of my family and friends. Seeing as said people are also diverse, I fail to see the need to bring this up. But maybe you can convince me otherwise. Maybe.

As for the last sentence...a bunch of claims on topics I didn't bring up and aren't backed up by anything in the post. I don't know why you're going here, but sure?


I already kind of adressed it earlier, but how does lashing out against those who weren't involved garner sympathy?


I will admit I'm not particularly informed on the subject, which is why I'm genuinely asking for sources.

I didn't say it gathers sympathy for the protests, I simply quoted another guy saying that it increases the legitimacy of the protests and also gathers more attention to them. The guy also mentioned two protests that happened in two different countries so I think that you could look those up if you wanted sources.
(you spelled addressed wrong)

 

[tcr]

"Monks, even if bandits were to carve you up savagely, limb by limb, with a two-handled saw, he among you who let his heart get angered even at that would not be doing my bidding. Even then you should train yourselves: 'Our minds will be unaffected and we will say no evil words. We will remain sympathetic, with a mind of good will, and with no inner hate. We will keep pervading these people with an awareness imbued with good will and, beginning with them, we will keep pervading the all-encompassing world with an awareness imbued with good will — abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill will.' That's how you should train yourselves." - Buddhist Sutta

"...the best way to assure oneself that love is disinterested is to have love for the enemy-neighbor from whom you can expect no good in return, but only hostility and persecution." - King, An Experiment in Love, 1958

"Violence as a way of achieving racial justice is both impractical and immoral. I am not unmindful of the fact that violence often brings about momentary results. Nations have frequently won their independence in battle. But in spite of temporary victories, violence never brings permanent peace.” - King 1964

“Over the past few years I have consistently preached that nonviolence demands that the means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek. I have tried to make clear that it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends.” - A Letter from Birmingham Jail, King 1963

To all protesters I urge you to move, react, and stand in solidarity with those marching today. If you can take time out and can safely protest then do so. The world as of right now is watching. There are eyes on Minneapolis, D.C., Richmond, Seattle, New York City. There are sister protests in Perth, Sydney, Australia. There are sister protests in London, Copenhagen, Berlin. People are taking notice. This movement has genuine cause to change things, for the better. Regardless if you think that George Floyd, or Tamir Rice, or Trayvon Martin, or Philando Castille, or any of the other countless executed were guilty of their crimes, if you call yourself an American then you should be in support of this movement and of reform.

There is no reason that people should die in custody. There is no reason that people should die in jail. There is no reason that jail should be punitive and not rehabilitative. There is no reason that people need to senselessly die with no recourse. It defies our justice system that hinges on accountability, it defies our justice system which relies on preserving the autonomy of the individual, it defies our justice system which works to promote fairness and equality to all. There is injustice that must not go unanswered. There is injustice that has not been answered for decades, a systemic rot within the foundations of our country.

With that said please do not use this civil unrest as an opportunity to pillage or cause harm, whether direct or indirect. What justice imbalance is righted when an innocent person's car is torched? When he is now vehicle-less, in an area where the job opportunities are 20-30 minutes away? What justice is there in looting an Iranian immigrants attempt at the American Dream? What justice is there in looting a 120yo black-owned business. What message does it send, where does it resonate that it is OK to loot one of the only black-owned dentistry and pediatric care centers?

There are people who are attempting to co-opt the narrative, to justify property destruction, to pillage and cause violence and anarchy. These are not people that you want on your side. With the world's spotlight on you, millions looking in from countries all over the world and emulating, do you truly wish for anarchy to be the focus of the message? To haphazardly destroy any business or property, without any forethought to how that affects those people's livelihood and ability to provide for themselves, their families? In the middle of a pandemic, is it justified to ignore the ramifications of violent riots?

The vast, VAST majority of protesters have been nonviolent. Just in Richmond alone protests were entirely pacifist. Until 7:46 PM when RPD fired tear gas to disperse the crowd prior to curfew. and still they were nonviolent. This is the image that should be shown to the world. Do not let the media, let the police, or instigators goad you into violent antics, because that is what they want. The police and the media would love nothing more than for violence to escalate and will plant rioters in the crowds, will teargas and send rubber bullets at you, will arrest and terrorize.

When asked on his thoughts concerning the liberation of Tibet from China, the Dalai Lama stated thus: "Yes, I absolutely refuse the use of violence. For several years now I have been asked on several occasions what I would do if the despair of certain Tibetans drove them to violence, and I have always replied that if that were to happen I would give up and step back. I have reasons for thinking in this way; it is not merely a blind belief First of all, I believe that the basic nature of human beings is gentle and compassionate. It is therefore in our own interest to encourage that nature, to make it live within us, to leave room for it to develop. If on the contrary we use violence, it is as if we voluntarily obstruct the positive side of human nature and prevent its evolution. "

I urge all protesters to take action but to practice compassion in each step of the way, each chant, each act of property destruction. Know what and who is being affected and if you don't know imagine it is your own brother and let that affect your compassion. The world is watching, change is upon us and this time the revolution is indeed being televised.

 

[Dece1t]

"Monks, even if bandits were to carve you up savagely, limb by limb, with a two-handled saw, he among you who let his heart get angered even at that would not be doing my bidding. Even then you should train yourselves: 'Our minds will be unaffected and we will say no evil words. We will remain sympathetic, with a mind of good will, and with no inner hate. We will keep pervading these people with an awareness imbued with good will and, beginning with them, we will keep pervading the all-encompassing world with an awareness imbued with good will — abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill will.' That's how you should train yourselves." - Buddhist Sutta

"...the best way to assure oneself that love is disinterested is to have love for the enemy-neighbor from whom you can expect no good in return, but only hostility and persecution." - King, An Experiment in Love, 1958

"Violence as a way of achieving racial justice is both impractical and immoral. I am not unmindful of the fact that violence often brings about momentary results. Nations have frequently won their independence in battle. But in spite of temporary victories, violence never brings permanent peace.” - King 1964

“Over the past few years I have consistently preached that nonviolence demands that the means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek. I have tried to make clear that it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends.” - A Letter from Birmingham Jail, King 1963

To all protesters I urge you to move, react, and stand in solidarity with those marching today. If you can take time out and can safely protest then do so. The world as of right now is watching. There are eyes on Minneapolis, D.C., Richmond, Seattle, New York City. There are sister protests in Perth, Sydney, Australia. There are sister protests in London, Copenhagen, Berlin. People are taking notice. This movement has genuine cause to change things, for the better. Regardless if you think that George Floyd, or Tamir Rice, or Trayvon Martin, or Philando Castille, or any of the other countless executed were guilty of their crimes, if you call yourself an American then you should be in support of this movement and of reform.

There is no reason that people should die in custody. There is no reason that people should die in jail. There is no reason that jail should be punitive and not rehabilitative. There is no reason that people need to senselessly die with no recourse. It defies our justice system that hinges on accountability, it defies our justice system which relies on preserving the autonomy of the individual, it defies our justice system which works to promote fairness and equality to all. There is injustice that must not go unanswered. There is injustice that has not been answered for decades, a systemic rot within the foundations of our country.

With that said please do not use this civil unrest as an opportunity to pillage or cause harm, whether direct or indirect. What justice imbalance is righted when an innocent person's car is torched? When he is now vehicle-less, in an area where the job opportunities are 20-30 minutes away? What justice is there in looting an Iranian immigrants attempt at the American Dream? What justice is there in looting a 120yo black-owned business. What message does it send, where does it resonate that it is OK to loot one of the only black-owned dentistry and pediatric care centers?

There are people who are attempting to co-opt the narrative, to justify property destruction, to pillage and cause violence and anarchy. These are not people that you want on your side. With the world's spotlight on you, millions looking in from countries all over the world and emulating, do you truly wish for anarchy to be the focus of the message? To haphazardly destroy any business or property, without any forethought to how that affects those people's livelihood and ability to provide for themselves, their families? In the middle of a pandemic, is it justified to ignore the ramifications of violent riots?

The vast, VAST majority of protesters have been nonviolent. Just in Richmond alone protests were entirely pacifist. Until 7:46 PM when RPD fired tear gas to disperse the crowd prior to curfew. and still they were nonviolent. This is the image that should be shown to the world. Do not let the media, let the police, or instigators goad you into violent antics, because that is what they want. The police and the media would love nothing more than for violence to escalate and will plant rioters in the crowds, will teargas and send rubber bullets at you, will arrest and terrorize.

When asked on his thoughts concerning the liberation of Tibet from China, the Dalai Lama stated thus: "Yes, I absolutely refuse the use of violence. For several years now I have been asked on several occasions what I would do if the despair of certain Tibetans drove them to violence, and I have always replied that if that were to happen I would give up and step back. I have reasons for thinking in this way; it is not merely a blind belief First of all, I believe that the basic nature of human beings is gentle and compassionate. It is therefore in our own interest to encourage that nature, to make it live within us, to leave room for it to develop. If on the contrary we use violence, it is as if we voluntarily obstruct the positive side of human nature and prevent its evolution. "

I urge all protesters to take action but to practice compassion in each step of the way, each chant, each act of property destruction. Know what and who is being affected and if you don't know imagine it is your own brother and let that affect your compassion. The world is watching, change is upon us and this time the revolution is indeed being televised.

Well said, we actually agree on something

 

[TheValkyries]

Love the intentional misconstruing of King’s letter from a Birmingham jail. Here’s the rest of that paragraph he wrote.

Over the past few years I have consistently preached that nonviolence demands that the means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek. I have tried to make clear that it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends. But now I must affirm that it is just as wrong, or perhaps even more so, to use moral means to preserve immoral ends. Perhaps Mr. Connor and his policemen have been rather nonviolent in public, as was Chief Pritchett in Albany, Georgia, but they have used the moral means of nonviolence to maintain the immoral end of racial injustice. As T. S. Eliot has said: "The last temptation is the greatest treason: To do the right deed for the wrong reason."

MLK was not as one note on non-violence as white supremacy would like you to believe, and he gradually became much more radical on his views towards riots and violent protests as he grew older and saw more.

Also: it always seems worth noting as people love to conveniently forget: King for all his nonviolence was ASSASSINATED. And the country rioted in response for near a month. And before the rioting ended the civil rights act was passed.

 

[Aizaik]

Love the intentional misconstruing of King’s letter from a Birmingham jail. Here’s the rest of that paragraph he wrote.

I obviously haven't read all of MLK's writings so it is always possible that we could be missing the full context, but your response to the handling of these quotes makes you seem overzealous, no offense. I'm assuming that you are responding to tcr quoting MLK as saying:

"Violence as a way of achieving racial justice is both impractical and immoral. I am not unmindful of the fact that violence often brings about momentary results. Nations have frequently won their independence in battle. But in spite of temporary victories, violence never brings permanent peace.” - King 1964

You add the following paragraph for context, claiming that it demonstrates King's updated understanding of the proper use of violence and nonviolence in pursuit of social reform:

Over the past few years I have consistently preached that nonviolence demands that the means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek. I have tried to make clear that it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends. But now I must affirm that it is just as wrong, or perhaps even more so, to use moral means to preserve immoral ends. Perhaps Mr. Connor and his policemen have been rather nonviolent in public, as was Chief Pritchett in Albany, Georgia, but they have used the moral means of nonviolence to maintain the immoral end of racial injustice. As T. S. Eliot has said: "The last temptation is the greatest treason: To do the right deed for the wrong reason.

These quotes, however, are entirely compatible; the later merely adds nuance to the former. In the first quote, King says that immoral means for a moral end is immoral. In the second quote, King points out that moral means for an immoral end is equally or more immoral. The only time when the second statement can be construed as overwriting the first is when a moral end can only be attained through immoral means, which is rarely the case and almost certainly not applicable today. The purpose of King's second statement is more important for acknowledging that the less violent party doesn't necessarily represent the greater moral good. Judging purely from the statements that you and tcr presented, it would appear that MLK was against violence but understood that violence or lack thereof could obscure important moral concepts, which is consistent with tcr's message.

I bring this up because I find your characterization of tcr's citation as being "intentional[ly] misconstruing" to be unsportsmanly. Because I see tcr's usage of the quotation as reasonable, I don't believe that it was fair to characterize tcr that way. I realize that this is a lot of effort to go through to address that, but unwarranted or premature accusations of bad faith are a pet peeve of mine. Neither am I saying that I believe that you acted in bad faith, merely that I currently believe that it was an overzealous thing to say.

 

[lilyhollow]

I don't really get tcr's post. It reads to me like "the protesters are almost completely nonviolent. It's very obvious to me that the police are committing and inciting violence and are the cause of all the problems here. I also think that there are actually people being planted at the protests specifically to fuck shit up and undermine the movement. Knowing all of this, I for some reason come to the conclusion that I must... caution the protesters against violence?" Like am I misconstruing something here?

 

[Bughouse]

MLK was not as one note on non-violence as white supremacy would like you to believe, and he gradually became much more radical on his views towards riots and violent protests as he grew older and saw more.

Also: it always seems worth noting as people love to conveniently forget: King for all his nonviolence was ASSASSINATED. And the country rioted in response for near a month. And before the rioting ended the civil rights act was passed.

First - I agree with you that MLK's views are far more complex and varied over time than just about anyone who attempts to use his quotes understands and there is practically a Godwin's Law for using MLK's quotes. Growing up in Atlanta, it was inescapable that people will argue about his intent and legacy given even his children and grandchildren fight over it constantly. If even his own family doesn't know what he would support or wouldn't support, then certainly random people on twitter have no idea. It also doesn't help that the american education system teaches only the non-violence and uses it as a contrast to Malcolm X, which is in its own way misinformation that conveniently benefits those in power who would want to suggest that violent protest is ineffective compared to nonviolence.

All that out of the way, let's also be honest about the timeline of "the civil rights act" you cite, of which there have been many. Generally speaking when people say "the civil rights act" without any additional context they are referring to the largest and most important one, which was enacted in 1964, 4 years before MLK's assassination. The Voting Rights Act (now substantially gutted thanks to SCOTUS) was also enacted in 1965.

Yes, an additional civil rights act was passed in 1968 shortly after MLK's assassination and I don't want to diminish its importance. It did add provisions related to a number of things like hate crimes, fair housing, and the rights of native americans. But it's not really "the civil rights act" and in addition this 1968 law that was enacted shortly after MLK's assassination had been already introduced in committee in 1967 and was still going through the legislative process, actively voting on amendments and such throughout February and March 1968 prior to MLK's assassination in April. It's almost certain that the assassination and riots sped up the enactment, but it's hard to say that it's what caused it.

 

[Lrr]

You're forgetting one of the most important differences with Europe: a widespread availability of guns. The knowledge that it is likely that a random person might carry a gun makes anyone more likely to pull the trigger themselves. In Europe this is only a real risk when dealing with organised crime.

A big factor is that one of the biggest police trainers in America for two decades has been Dave Grossman (not to be confused with David Grossman). When police are being made to believe that something as innocuous as a traffic stop could easily escalate to a life or death situation, it's no surprise this country has a problem where someone innocent is shot and the police's excuse is "the officer felt threatened." Of course he felt threatened, a fearmonger has been preaching terror to him!

 

[tcr]

Love the intentional misconstruing of King’s letter from a Birmingham jail. Here’s the rest of that paragraph he wrote.



MLK was not as one note on non-violence as white supremacy would like you to believe, and he gradually became much more radical on his views towards riots and violent protests as he grew older and saw more.

It is you who are not understanding King's message and ethos.

Since you seem to require a later source for King's message on nonviolence he wrote in Where do we go from here?: "Therefore I must oppose any attempt to gain our freedom by the methods of malice, hate, and violence that have characterized our oppressors. Hate is just as injurious to the hater as it is to the hated. Like an unchecked cancer, hate corrodes the personality and eats away its vital unity. Many of our inner conflicts are rooted in hate. This is why the psychiatrists say, "Love or perish." I have seen hate expressed in the countenances of too many Mississippi and Alabama sheriffs to advise the Negro to sink to this miserable level. Hate is too great a burden to bear.

Of course, you may say, this is not practical; life is a matter of getting even, of hitting back, of dog eat dog. Maybe in some distant Utopia, you say, that idea will work, but not in the hard, cold world in which we live. My only answer is that mankind has followed the so-called practical way for a long time now, and it has led inexorably to deeper confusion and chaos. Time is cluttered the with wreckage of individuals and communities that surrendered to hatred and violence. For the salvation of our nation and the salvation of mankind, we must follow another way. This does not mean that we abandon our militant efforts. With every ounce of our energy we must continue to rid our nation of the incubus of racial injustice. But we need not in the process relinquish our privilege and obligation to love." p. 66-67

No, King wasn't all "lovey dovey everybody kum-bah-yah" like the public school system is but to twist his message as anything but protest rooted in unwavering nonviolence is an equal offense.

Also: it always seems worth noting as people love to conveniently forget: King for all his nonviolence was ASSASSINATED. And the country rioted in response for near a month. And before the rioting ended the civil rights act was passed.

No one had forgotten this, King himself decried riots but recognized them as a symptom of oppression. His support for nonviolence does not mean he does not recognize the benefits of violence actions, his comments on riots do not conflict with his passion for nonviolent protest.

Let me say as I've always said, and I will always continue to say, that riots are socially destructive and self-defeating. I'm still convinced that nonviolence is the most potent weapon available to oppressed people in their struggle for freedom and justice. I feel that violence will only create more social problems than they will solve. That in a real sense it is impracticable for the Negro to even think of mounting a violent revolution in the United States. So I will continue to condemn riots, and continue to say to my brothers and sisters that this is not the way. And continue to affirm that there is another way.

But at the same time, it is as necessary for me to be as vigorous in condemning the conditions which cause persons to feel that they must engage in riotous activities as it is for me to condemn riots. I think America must see that riots do not develop out of thin air. Certain conditions continue to exist in our society which must be condemned as vigorously as we condemn riots. But in the final analysis, a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice, equality, and humanity. And so in a real sense our nation's summers of riots are caused by our nation's winters of delay. And as long as America postpones justice, we stand in the position of having these recurrences of violence and riots over and over again. Social justice and progress are the absolute guarantors of riot prevention.

All my post is saying is for protesters to think before acting. Herd mentality is real and while currently things are peaceful that could very well change with the right incitement. If engaging in property misuse know who you're affecting, if you truly want to practice compassionate protest. I'm not sure why you think I'm intentionally misconstruing anything.

 

[Myzozoa]

It is you who are not understanding King's message and ethos.

Since you seem to require a later source for King's message on nonviolence he wrote in Where do we go from here?: "Therefore I must oppose any attempt to gain our freedom by the methods of malice, hate, and violence that have characterized our oppressors. Hate is just as injurious to the hater as it is to the hated. Like an unchecked cancer, hate corrodes the personality and eats away its vital unity. Many of our inner conflicts are rooted in hate. This is why the psychiatrists say, "Love or perish." I have seen hate expressed in the countenances of too many Mississippi and Alabama sheriffs to advise the Negro to sink to this miserable level. Hate is too great a burden to bear.

For the salvation of our nation and the salvation of mankind, we must follow another way. This does not mean that we abandon our militant efforts. With every ounce of our energy we must continue to rid our nation of the incubus of racial injustice. But we need not in the process relinquish our privilege and obligation to love." p. 66-67

seems p obvious ppl who are protesting are doing so out of love not hate. ive bolded the part of your own quotation that you seem to simply not understand. he's saying don't hate white ppl like white ppl hate black ppl, don't just recreate hierarchies through inversion, but actually level them. Despite his nonviolent messaging King was still assassinated, and plenty of 'violent' type of direct actions are begun under the flag of nonviolence because the rhetorical bait and switch tricks some fledglings into joining the cause.

"
On March 15 and 16, SNCC led several hundred demonstrators, including Alabama students, Northern students, and local adults, in protests near the capitol complex. The Montgomery County sheriff's posse met them on horseback and drove them back, whipping them. Against the objections of James Bevel, some protesters threw bricks and bottles at police. At a mass meeting on the night of the 16th, Forman "whipped the crowd into a frenzy" demanding that the President act to protect demonstrators, and warned, "If we can't sit at the table of democracy, we'll knock the fucking legs off."[81][82]

The New York Times featured the Montgomery confrontations on the front page the next day.[83] Although Dr. King was concerned by Forman's violent rhetoric, he joined him in leading a march of 2000 people in Montgomery to the Montgomery County courthouse."

the good nonviolent protestor vs bad rioter dichotomy is just disingenuous, effective protests are labelled riots after police get tired and want to go home and the label is just a convenient excuse to crackdown. in a system that values property over human life, the message is clear and effective as can be seen from the leveling and escalation of charges against the officers that murdered floyd. if you think this plays into the hands of authoritarians, they've been planning it for a while and it seems like we should focus on the violent authoritarians and not make excuses for them.

 

[Shrug]

after examining the texts of martin luther king jr and consulting with the board of Shrug corporation and its subsidiaries (shrug industries, shrugco canada, paragon apex prism pinnacle solutions (mercenary group), da shrug company) i have decided that i will be retracting my longstanding demands for police and prison abolition and instead adopting deray's eight can't wait infographic plan. as i see a politically organized group of militant and military-armed agents of state brutalizing protesters motivated by a elaborate mental fantasy world where they are besieged on all sides by ISIS, antifa, al-q, libs, etc all of which groups are (in their dreamscape) armed, organized, violent, numerous in america, supported by all major political and media figures such that they (the police) are the only line of defense for "ordinary citizens" against this massive and everywhere menace, knowing that this is a creation of the contradiction where police need to lie to the public and themselves about their actual job of protecting capital and attendant to that whiteness and that this internal creation has only gotten more brutal (as in, the threats more dangerous and the thus-permitted responses more extreme) as the contradiction has gotten wider over time and that all possible forecasts for american life means yet more extreme contradictions to come creating social problems that can only be solved ("solved" for a certain set) with greater police violence, I think to myself "Better Implicit Bias Training Will Resolve This". when i see police officers crying at the idea of antifa terrorists being bussed in from different cities in a sort of soros musical chairs scheme, i think "This Is An Organization That, If Held To The Burden Of 'Comprehensive Reporting', Would Interact With 'Frontline Communities' In A Just Way". when i see videos of officers covering their badge numbers, nameplates, obscuring their faces, wearing riot gear, i think "Accountability In Policing Is A Thing We Can Achieve Through Reform". when i see protesters being maimed and killed to cavalier responses by the force that murdered them, i think "If Only A Warning Had Been Required Before Shooting This All Could Have Been Avoided".

 

[brightobject]

https://newbloommag.net/2020/06/22/qiao-collective-nationalism/

interesting article on western chinese disapora coalescing into statist nationalism, focusing on a specific twitter account called Qiao Collective.

 

[GatoDelFuego]

https://newbloommag.net/2020/06/22/qiao-collective-nationalism/

interesting article on western chinese disapora coalescing into statist nationalism, focusing on a specific twitter account called Qiao Collective.

Scroll right to the comments to find the eerie Chinese defenders at work again. The same talking points as stalin. Americans are racist, Americans imcarcerate everybody, americans colonize the world. Well, which nation instituted an ethnic cleansing program in ukraine? It's easy to not incarcerate people when you can just execute them instead (china consisted an estimated 65% of executions in 2010). African colonization etc etc

I grew up in a neighbourhood of extreme asian representation (white collar suburbs at least). I now live in a fairly asian represented part of the world (seattle) in a tech job with very high asian representation. In 2001 america de facto declared war on muslims and brown-skinned people, resulting in hate crimes on "terrorists" attacks on mosques, the lot. For the past three years trump has declared china an enemy of the United states, and from a political/economic standpont this is true, outside of people suddenly becoming afraid to breathe near Asians in the pandemic I am not seeing "real life" examples of racism against chinese, nor do I hear any asian people personally (though the list is not extensive) mention this.

I am an extremely sinophobic person and am paranoid of the chinese takeover. To contrast that, when I talk politics with my white, 40 year old tech worker colleagues, they are bewildered that I have anything bad to say about China. Brief ventures to r/sino would have me believe there is a racial war going on against chinese, yet (until a couple months ago) I have seen zero "regular people" on the internet (e-celebrities, artists, non-politics bloggers) speak ill of china or "the chinese". Outside of gamersriseup-type communities that china has "declared war on" (hearthstone?) I do not see anybody criticizing China. I see the opposite (bernie "china lifted x out of poverty", lebron going anti-hk, trump "xi is my best friend", Chinese companies investing in usa business). Where is the xenophobia? Accusing huawei of spying? Chinese hackers have been blamed for every cyber attack in the last 20 years any nobody seems to care.

The preemptive cries of "racism" for the past few years whenever so-called "anti chinese americans" rev up winnie the pooh memes (?) are starting to weird me out. Am I blind? Were are the hate crimes* getting tossed towards the chinese community? Am I ignoring them because of my anti china bias? I hope that these people are paid by the chinese government because it would be way weirder if they weren't.

*until february of 2020 when covid panic starts mixing with fear of asians, which I haven't even heard about since march


E: after rereading this several times, it's obvious this is a terribly formatted post that simultaneously over and undershares necessary info about my feelings here. If u are curious you can talk to me

 

[brightobject]

yeah talking with your white coworkers and hearing lebron say screw hk on the news does not mean you get to decide whether or not "real life" racism against asians exists. Check yourself man, seriously.

to be clear i don't take issue with your critique of bad-faith pro-CCP arguments--but jumping from that to denying the existence of racism against asian-americans is seriously fucked up. Your immediate defensive reaction (China's the REAL racist...the REAL colonizer) also misses the entire point of the article--which is to remain critical of both the US and China and avoid getting sucked into the us-them cold war mentality--proving how much both sides mirror each other, in that regard anyway :I

 

[Dece1t]

yeah talking with your white coworkers and hearing lebron say screw hk on the news does not mean you get to decide whether or not "real life" racism against asians exists. Check yourself man, seriously.

to be clear i don't take issue with your critique of bad-faith pro-CCP arguments--but jumping from that to denying the existence of racism against asian-americans is seriously fucked up. Your immediate defensive reaction (China's the REAL racist...the REAL colonizer) also misses the entire point of the article--which is to remain critical of both the US and China and avoid getting sucked into the us-them cold war mentality--proving how much both sides mirror each other, in that regard anyway :I

That isn't what he said. His point was America was not the only place in the world that has committed evils, and that it's backwards that the Chinese aren't criticized or rebuked when America has been chucked in the garbage as of late by the culture. I'd add on and argue by a long shot that China is much worse. They're commiting genocide as we speak, they're placing entire subraces (i.e. Muslims) in entire internment camps, they've consistently broken international law in regards to their actions in the South China sea and revoking Hong Kong's freedoms. At least America has taken strides to live up to the values in the declaration of independence and the constitution. By no means am I saying we're perfect, but at least there's been a clear attempt to clean up our act especially in the past 50-75 years.

 

[Dece1t]

termi I don't find internment camps and steamrolling of freedoms as a whole very funny.

 

[termi]

termi I don't find internment camps and steamrolling of freedoms as a whole very funny.

i am not laughing at that, i am laughing at the fact that you think america is not like that and is attempting to "clean up their act" despite the facts of mass police brutality, ICE concentration camps, the prison-industrial complex, the habitual bombing of the middle east, i could go on. i cannot explain why you give america the benefit of the doubt for matters for which you would have condemned china 10 times over, except by coming to the conclusion that you are a simplistic xenophobe. and yes, i think thats laughable

 

[BP]

i cannot explain why you give america the benefit of the doubt for matters for which you would have condemned china 10 times over

My interpretation of his argument is that he's giving America the benefit of the doubt because the things China is doing now is what America has done in the past. We, as a nation, have grown from those mistakes while China is just now committing them. I will admit America is dealing with some pretty disgusting things right now but I'd argue that we are in a much better position progressively than China is now and has ever been in the past. We are highlighting these issues in our society and trying to fix them by speaking out against them. China, from what I can tell, is not. This does not make him a xenophobe and I think it's laughable that it is the first place you turn.

 

[Shrug]

feels like it is an inefficient use of limited political resources to debate circularly which of two empires (aspirant empires or hopeful hegemonic global powers if you’d like) with a massive detention apparatus and expanding militaries is “worse”, given that there is no real criteria for judgement, o way of obtaining accurate information even if such a judgement was possible, etc. might be better to redirect those energies to imagining more just societies in their place and importantly how we can work towards those in practice. Although of course this doesn’t mean you cannot call out the way reductive ccp-usa “debates” have practical day to day consequences, as in I agree w brightobject

 

[Dece1t]

i am not laughing at that, i am laughing at the fact that you think america is not like that and is attempting to "clean up their act" despite the facts of mass police brutality, ICE concentration camps, the prison-industrial complex, the habitual bombing of the middle east, i could go on. i cannot explain why you give america the benefit of the doubt for matters for which you would have condemned china 10 times over, except by coming to the conclusion that you are a simplistic xenophobe. and yes, i think thats laughable

I am not a xenophobe, and how dare you call me that. My argument was against the running of China, not the fucking people and citizens within China. Lets get that out of the way first off since you clearly didn't read my argument.

Secondly, BP is pretty much right on the point when it came to understanding what my argument was. Props to you mate.

Finally, yes, the United States has made tremendous progress to undo many wrongs. Never once did I say let alone insinuate we were done yet, but I'd think the freaking Civil Rights Act is a great place to start, alongside firing and charging cops responsible for wrongful brutality and killings (George Floyd's murderer Derek Chauvin included). If America is such a good for nothing horrible place with no progress once so ever, why have George Floyd and Breonna Taylor's deaths been universally condemned, by state officials and average citizens alike? Personally, I think an acknowledgement of that is much better than blatantly ignoring the fact the atrocities China has been responsible for, one of them being internment camps intended for the genocide of Muslims within China. That's what I am condemning, and if you're gonna blow over that to pivot the argument and rag on how much worse the US is, you're fucking spineless.

 

[GatoDelFuego]

Your immediate defensive reaction (China's the REAL racist...the REAL colonizer) also misses the entire point of the article--which is to remain critical of both the US and China and avoid getting sucked into the us-them cold war mentality--proving how much both sides mirror each other, in that regard anyway :I

No, I agree. Both regimes should be criticized for their practices. Nationalists are an extremely dangerous people no matter which country. I was spurred into making this comment when I saw this critique of the article in the comment section. It's straight out of the tankie playbook (echoing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes). I am extremely critical of the USA's authoritarian actions and in the limited online communities that I belong to, I see similar anti-american leftist sentiment, especially rising in the past 6-12 months. What I do not see in these leftist communities is a single person defending china. Unless I specifically seek out pro-china stans (which are fairly "complete" in the defense of china's actions, for example we had some guy write paragraphs on china a year ago or so in one of these politics threads and that was the only one) I do not find people in online communities "defending" china.

to be clear i don't take issue with your critique of bad-faith pro-CCP arguments--but jumping from that to denying the existence of racism against asian-americans is seriously fucked up.

I don't want to deny that anti-asian racism exists at all. While not to "quantify" racism...over the past several years, the racism that I have been exposed to against asian americans (through twitter media, news, blogging, etc) has been focused on harmful stereotypes, anti-asian comedy, asian inclusion in media, the like. In a work group chat consisting of ~60% asian americans, which has become extremely political lately, my friends have not been sharing media stories of police discrimination, assault, 'go back to china' that has occured to them or other asian americans in the country. They HAVE shared these stories against brown (code: muslim) and black americans. Brief searches (prior to 2020, where anti asian hate crime has ABSOLUTELY spiked since covid) seem to suggest that asian hate crime has fallen dramatically since 2000 (50%! https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...declining-years-will-coronavirus-change-that/), even AFTER trump was elected to user in a new era of racism in the country.

Everything I just said was regards to asian american racism. But my original post was about anti CHINESE xenophobia. Taking a trip to pro-china communities, commenters say that americans are extremely biased against china, anti-chinese hate crimes are prominent, western media is propaganda for talking about uyghurs, there is no censorship in china, communities are racist to spam the tianamen square copypasta. To these people who say americans (at large) are anti-china (keep in mind anti CHINA is what I'm saying here), what's the evidence? People will spam "fuck china" in r/hearthstone and r/epicgames, but is this translating into anti-china hate crimes? When asian people I know on the internet and in real life are not sharing examples of anti-CHINA hate crimes, I question the message that the qiao collectives are talking about. I would love to see stories of the anti-china racial war that is brewing.

yeah talking with your white coworkers and hearing lebron say screw hk on the news does not mean you get to decide whether or not "real life" racism against asians exists. Check yourself man, seriously.

To piggyback onto this......no, this is not what I said at all. When I speak ill of CHINA's practices (net censorship, HK protests, industrial espionage) to my white boomer colleagues, they are mostly ignorant to what is going on and are by large fairly pro-china--they have not really gotten any anti-china sentiment over the past several years. Granted they are upper-class, wealthy white people...but the point being, they are white americans, aren't they supposed to be the anti-chinese people that are gobbling down the authoritarian usa anti-china propaganda? Lebron saying screw hk on the news doesn't say anything about anti-ASIAN racism, but it does say something about anti-CHINA sentiment in america. No, I do not get to decide if racism exists against asians. I don't deny that it does. But I ask: from what prominent figures is the anti-china statements coming from? Even trump doesn't mention uyghurs. That's the point I was trying to make.

 

[lilyhollow]

I don't know why "does anti-China sentiment turn into hate crimes?" is a question you're even asking. The real question you want to ask is "will anti-China sentiment have any kind of net negative outcome period." And the calculus of 'tankies' is that the answer to that question is, yes, obviously it's playing right into the hands of the US for there to be western leftists who believe that China is 'equivalently bad' to the US. And they are right in that analysis.

My mind can be changed on this but I thought the article was sorta corny? A lot of it could be summarized as "qiao collective is pro-china propaganda instead of nuanced discussion of China's complexities," to which I'm like, yeah brah, like most of what's out there is propaganda, you're worried about the like 2% that's actually pro-China? The article harps on how tankies see no alternatives to China as a challenge to US hegemony, but I don't think it mentions anywhere any actual alternatives? Like at what point am I supposed to be convinced by this article that it will have positive impacts on the world to be focused on what China does wrong (often with dubious sourcing) and to spread that around, which serves US interests, when I'm literally living in the US.

 

[brightobject]

I respect and appreciate your clarification gato but that does not change the fact that you framed your post entirely around your reasoning behind doubting the existence of racism and xenophobia, against the Chinese or otherwise. The proximity of your life and the Asian-American people you know to hate crimes should not be the baseline for which you determine hate to exist or not--the fallacy of this is alarming and I hope you can see it. It's a simple enough nuance to fit into any kind of post (the mainstream celebs and ranking establishment politicians have stopped vehemently criticizing China =/ = crimes against chinese people due to their ethnicity do not exist???) so I see no excuse for why you decided to be so hyperbolic about it

I don't know why "does anti-China sentiment turn into hate crimes?" is a question you're even asking. The real question you want to ask is "will anti-China sentiment have any kind of net negative outcome period." And the calculus of 'tankies' is that the answer to that question is, yes, obviously it's playing right into the hands of the US for there to be western leftists who believe that China is 'equivalently bad' to the US. And they are right in that analysis.

My mind can be changed on this but I thought the article was sorta corny? A lot of it could be summarized as "qiao collective is pro-china propaganda instead of nuanced discussion of China's complexities," to which I'm like, yeah brah, like most of what's out there is propaganda, you're worried about the like 2% that's actually pro-China? The article harps on how tankies see no alternatives to China as a challenge to US hegemony, but I don't think it mentions anywhere any actual alternatives? Like at what point am I supposed to be convinced by this article that it will have positive impacts on the world to be focused on what China does wrong (often with dubious sourcing) and to spread that around, which serves US interests, when I'm literally living in the US.

Totally valid read. Personally I find it interesting as a sociopolitical analysis of the new forms chinese nationalism has taken in contemporary America. It's highlighting how and why a specific cultural diaspora has been manipulated (and is manipulating) the discourse. It feels reductive to say it's just "Chinese propaganda waa" when they went pretty far into dissecting the specific ways in which the movement stems from anxieties regarding the HK and the exposure of Chinese authoritarianism (itself a hit job by Western powers, and so on and so on). Examining the social pressures that form these kind of movements organically is important--stuff like the I Want to be Chinese essay is just such a bizarre confluence of diasporic feelings and the battle between two world superpowers. It's a cocktail of idpol and ethnostatism that is so mirrored by the American far-right (but at the same time so stunningly different) that I have to laugh.

I've never gotten the "produce an alternative" argument whenever these false binaries are pointed out. I'm not a policy-maker or a diplomat who can pull the solutions to these problems out of a hat. Neither is the author of the article--perhaps it's exceedingly academic in that sense (if this is what you meant by corny then I take your point) since it doesn't necessarily contain much of a call to action beyond "be media literate," but yeah that's very much not the sum total of what I chose to take away from this.

I don't mean this to say believe every shitty thing you hear about China either (as I said media literacy)--Ajit singh's tear down of stuff like the Uighur exposes (Adrian Zenz being an insane bible maniac is fucking wild but just about what you'd expect at this point) proves the vested interests at play in creating this quagmire, but seems a little less pointed now that the CCP has admitted to the existence of the camps. I'd like to believe it's possible to be critical of American imperialism abroad as well as its injustices at home, while not pointing to the PRC as some bastion of freedom and justice. It quite frankly just shouldn't be a part of the equation--it's a false binary that is being fed by both sides for their own agendas.

e: fwiw the ajit singh piece linked in the comments https://thegrayzone.com/2019/12/21/...ns-uyghurs-problems-claims-us-ngo-researcher/

e: And yes i understand that gato was pointing out the hysteria of "tankies" should not be taken at face value, which is true. I'm critical of the rhetoric and logical leaps present in that post not that point specifically